214 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. A Parts Per Billion (ppb) Sensor for NO2 with Microwatt (μW) Power Requirements Based on Micro Light Plates O. Casals et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.9b00150
2. Low-Cost Air Quality Sensing towards Smart Homes H. Omidvarborna et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12040453
3. Understanding the ability of low-cost MOx sensors to quantify ambient VOCs A. Collier-Oxandale et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-1441-2019
4. Establishing A Sustainable Low-Cost Air Quality Monitoring Setup: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art M. Narayana et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010394
5. Using A Low-Cost Sensor Array and Machine Learning Techniques to Detect Complex Pollutant Mixtures and Identify Likely Sources J. Thorson et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173723
6. Breathing chemicals: a review of air pollution over the years A. TOTOLICI et al. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbbiol.2022.1.10
7. Multivariate Regression in Conjunction with GA-BP for Optimization of Data Processing of Trace NO Gas Flow in Active Pumping Electronic Nose P. Sun et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031524
8. Characterising low-cost sensors in highly portable platforms to quantify personal exposure in diverse environments L. Chatzidiakou et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4643-2019
9. Calibrating low-cost sensors to measure vertical and horizontal gradients of NO2 and O3 pollution in three street canyons in Berlin S. Schmitz et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119830
10. Laboratory Performance Evaluation of a Low-Cost Electrochemical Formaldehyde Sensor Z. Pei et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177444
11. Preparation of low-concentration H2 test gas mixtures in ambient air for calibration of H2 sensors N. Karbach et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024
12. Functionalized carbon nanoparticles for smartphone-based sensing of formaldehyde A. Cavallaro et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5NA00865D
13. Low-Cost Nitric Oxide Sensors: Assessment of Temperature and Humidity Effects S. Owen et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22229013
14. Performance of Aether Low-Cost Sensor Device for Air Pollution Measurements in Urban Environments. Accuracy Evaluation Applying the Air Quality Index (AQI) G. Spyropoulos et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101246
15. Minimized Training of Machine Learning-Based Calibration Methods for Low-Cost O3 Sensors S. Tondini et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2023.3339202
16. Urban Air Quality Management at Low Cost Using Micro Air Sensors: A Case Study from Accra, Ghana C. Hodoli et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00172
17. Air Pollution Monitoring via Wireless Sensor Networks: The Investigation and Correction of the Aging Behavior of Electrochemical Gaseous Pollutant Sensors I. Christakis et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12081842
18. Connecting Air Quality with Emotional Well-Being and Neighborhood Infrastructure in a US City R. Lal et al. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178630220915488
19. Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality Monitoring and Sensor Calibration F. Concas et al. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446005
20. Long-term behavior and stability of calibration models for NO and NO2 low-cost sensors H. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-2979-2022
21. In-situ baseline calibration approach for enhanced data quality of large-scale air sensor monitoring networks H. Mei et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-01184-9
22. Investigating NOx Concentrations on an Urban University Campus Using Passive Air Samplers and UV–Vis Spectroscopy C. Crosby et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00175
23. Field and Laboratory Evaluations of the Low-Cost Plantower Particulate Matter Sensor M. Levy Zamora et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05174
24. Framework for the Simulation of Sensor Networks Aimed at Evaluating In Situ Calibration Algorithms F. Delaine et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20164577
25. Study on the Mechanism of Temperature Effect on SO2 Electrochemical Gas Sensor W. Chen et al. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ad8f67
26. Performance validation and calibration conditions for novel dynamic baseline tracking air sensors in long-term field monitoring H. Mei et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1771-2025
27. Low-Cost CO Sensor Calibration Using One Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network S. Ali et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23020854
28. Development of multi-channel whole-air sampling equipment onboard an unmanned aerial vehicle for investigating volatile organic compounds' vertical distribution in the planetary boundary layer S. Yang et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-501-2023
29. Ground-based investigation of HOx and ozone chemistry in biomass burning plumes in rural Idaho A. Lindsay et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4909-2022
30. Solution to the Problem of Calibration of Low-Cost Air Quality Measurement Sensors in Networks G. Miskell et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.8b00074
31. Sustained Performance of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors in Long-Term Deployments A. Winter et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.5c00566
32. Exploration of intra-city and inter-city PM2.5 regional calibration models to improve low-cost sensor performance S. Jain & N. Zimmerman https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2024.106335
33. Evaluating the Performance of Using Low-Cost Sensors to Calibrate for Cross-Sensitivities in a Multipollutant Network M. Levy Zamora et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00367
34. Spatial and temporal mapping of transport emissions and application of air quality models using low cost sensor data P. Pérez-Martínez et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101622
35. Spatial variability and pollutant-specific mitigation effects of an urban vegetated park observed with a high-density air quality sensor network J. Ryu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2026.128696
36. Temporal and spatial variations in NO2 fluxes by tall tower eddy covariance measurements over a dense urban center in Sakai, Japan S. Okamura et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120870
37. First-Principles Algorithm for Air Quality Electrochemical Gas Sensors B. Ouyang https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.0c01129
38. River winds and pollutant recirculation near the Manaus city in the central Amazon T. Zhao et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00277-6
39. Performance characterization of low-cost air quality sensors for off-grid deployment in rural Malawi A. Bittner et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3353-2022
40. Development of Air Quality Boxes Based on Low-Cost Sensor Technology for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring P. Gäbel et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22103830
41. Fire Influence on Regional to Global Environments and Air Quality (FIREX‐AQ) C. Warneke et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037758
42. An overview of outdoor low-cost gas-phase air quality sensor deployments: current efforts, trends, and limitations K. Okorn & L. Iraci https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6425-2024
43. A Survey on Sensor Calibration in Air Pollution Monitoring Deployments B. Maag et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2853660
44. Review of the Performance of Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring F. Karagulian et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090506
45. Study of the Suitability of a Personal Exposure Monitor to Assess Air Quality H. Aljofi et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15030315
46. Validity, reliability and acceptability of wearable sensor devices to monitor personal exposure to air pollution and pollen: A systematic review of mobility based exposure studies W. Wako et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112931
47. A Variational Bayesian Blind Calibration Approach for Air Quality Sensor Deployments G. Li et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2022.3212009
48. Monitoring of Indoor Air Quality in a Classroom Combining a Low-Cost Sensor System and Machine Learning I. Apostolopoulos et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13040148
49. Calibration-Free Analysis with Chronoamperometry at Microelectrodes V. Conceição et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c01645
50. Networked Low-Cost Sensor Systems for Urban Air Quality Monitoring: A Long-Term Use-Case in Bari (Italy) M. Penza et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13110380
51. Field comparison of electrochemical gas sensor data correction algorithms for ambient air measurements Y. Liang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2020.128897
52. Electrochemical sensors for environmental gas analysis D. Williams https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2020.06.006
53. Understanding the effect of temperature and relative humidity on sensor sensitivities in field environments and improving the calibration models of multiple electrochemical carbon monoxide (CO) sensors in a tropical environment R. Ariyaratne et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2023.133935
54. Long-term evaluation of air sensor technology under ambient conditions in Denver, Colorado S. Feinberg et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4605-2018
55. The U.S. EPA wildland fire sensor challenge: Performance and evaluation of solver submitted multi-pollutant sensor systems M. Landis et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165
56. Low-Cost Air Quality Measurement System Based on Electrochemical and PM Sensors with Cloud Connection P. Arroyo et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186228
57. Hybrid Nanomaterials: A Brief Overview of Versatile Solutions for Sensor Technology in Healthcare and Environmental Applications N. Godja & F. Munteanu https://doi.org/10.3390/bios14020067
58. Improving usability of sensor-based measurements for community monitoring: Long-term performance and classification of data quality Y. Luo & A. Stuart https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2026.121993
59. The BErkeley Atmospheric CO2 Observation Network: field calibration and evaluation of low-cost air quality sensors J. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1937-2018
60. Reactive Uptake of Gas-Phase NO2 by Urban Road Dust in the Dark Z. Golay et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00221
61. A New Black Carbon Sensor for Dense Air Quality Monitoring Networks J. Caubel et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18030738
62. Mesoporous Boron Subphosphide: Intrinsic Electron Deficiency Enabling Selective Low-ppm of Chemiresistive CO Detection in Harsh Environments P. Rudra et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.4c20776
63. Identification of the Safe Variation Limits for the Optimization of the Measurements in Low-Cost Electrochemical Air Quality Sensors I. Christakis et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/electrochem5010001
64. IoT climate resilience in Central Asia: understanding perceived risks through a user survey analysis applied to Kazakhstan D. Zhunissova et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2025.1433488
65. Design, fabrication, and calibration of the Building EnVironment and Occupancy (BEVO) Beacon: A rapidly-deployable and affordable indoor environmental quality monitor H. Fritz et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109432
66. Evaluation of low-cost gas sensors to quantify intra-urban variability of atmospheric pollutants A. Baruah et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00165A
67. On the robustness of field calibration for smart air quality monitors S. De Vito et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2020.127869
68. Assessment of the Equivalence of Low-Cost Sensors with the Reference Method in Measuring PM10 Concentration Using Selected Correction Functions T. Owczarek et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135368
69. Reliability of Lower-Cost Sensors in the Analysis of Indoor Air Quality on Board Ships O. Schalm et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13101579
70. UAV-Based Hybrid Fuzzy Inference Framework for Symmetry and Asymmetry in Real-Time Air Quality Monitoring S. Beryozkina & I. Zicmane https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17122048
71. Development of integrated machine learning model for estimation of spatial distribution of particulate matter pollutant in air A. Kimuya et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/adfb46
72. Assessing a low-cost methane sensor quantification system for use in complex rural and urban environments A. Collier-Oxandale et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3569-2018
73. Examining spatiotemporal variability of urban particulate matter and application of high-time resolution data from a network of low-cost air pollution sensors S. Feinberg et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.06.026
74. A hardware–software co-design calibration framework for two-electrode gas sensors under low-temperature conditions: accuracy, latency, and energy trade-offs Y. Chen et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2026.120656
75. Unexpected Performance Improvements of Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone Sensors by Including Carbon Monoxide Sensor Signal M. Hasan et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07734
76. Review of low-cost sensors for indoor air quality: Features and applications M. Ródenas García et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/05704928.2022.2085734
77. Evaluating and improving the reliability of gas-phase sensor system calibrations across new locations for ambient measurements and personal exposure monitoring S. Vikram et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4211-2019
78. Machine Learning Calibration Transfer for Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors: Distance-Based Uncertainty Quantification in a Hybrid Urban Monitoring Network P. Zhivkov & S. Fidanova https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos17040335
79. Analysis of wintertime O3 variability using a random forest model and high-frequency observations in Zhangjiakou—an area with background pollution level of the North China Plain H. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114191
80. Augmenting the Standard Operating Procedures of Health and Air Quality Stakeholders With NASA Resources B. Duncan et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000451
81. Are Ammonia Sensors Ready for Outdoor Use? P. Espina-Martin et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.5c07873
82. Metal–Organic Coordination Polymers: A Review of Electrochemical Sensing of Environmental Pollutants K. Debsharma et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.4c00421
83. MAIC: Metalearning-Based Adaptive In-Field Calibration for IoT Air Quality Monitoring System N. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3150849
84. In search of an optimal in-field calibration method of low-cost gas sensors for ambient air pollutants: Comparison of linear, multilinear and artificial neural network approaches D. Topalović et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.06.028
85. Development of a low-cost sensing platform for air quality monitoring: application in the city of Rome L. Shindler https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2019.1640290
86. Air Pollution Monitoring Using Cost-Effective Devices Enhanced by Machine Learning Y. Colléaux et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25051423
87. Barometric Pressure as a correction factor for low-cost particulate matter sensors I. Christakis et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012068
88. Calibration and Inter-Unit Consistency Assessment of an Electrochemical Sensor System Using Machine Learning I. Apostolopoulos et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24134110
89. Demonstration of a Low-Cost Multi-Pollutant Network to Quantify Intra-Urban Spatial Variations in Air Pollutant Source Impacts and to Evaluate Environmental Justice R. Tanzer et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142523
90. Electrochemical sensors on board a Zeppelin NT: in-flight evaluation of low-cost trace gas measurements T. Schuldt et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-373-2023
91. An advanced, multifunctional, and extreme-condition test chamber for performance evaluation of air quality sensors D. Herman et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2026.122401
92. Multi-Sensor Device for Traceable Monitoring of Indoor Environmental Quality V. Fissore et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24092893
93. Reliability Testing of a Low-Cost, Multi-Purpose Arduino-Based Data Logger Deployed in Several Applications Such as Outdoor Air Quality, Human Activity, Motion, and Exhaust Gas Monitoring E. Hernández-Rodríguez et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177412
94. Investigating the Sources of Urban Air Pollution Using Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors at an Urban Atlanta Site L. Yang et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07005
95. Gas-Phase Interaction of CO, CO2, H2S, NH3, NO, NO2, and SO2 with Zn12O12 and Zn24 Atomic Clusters M. Doust Mohammadi et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c01177
96. Air Quality Sensors and Data Adjustment Algorithms: When Is It No Longer a Measurement? G. Hagler et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01826
97. A Smart Rig for Calibration of Gas Sensor Nodes M. Benammar et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082341
98. Factors affecting variability in infiltration of ambient particle and gaseous pollutants into home at urban environment M. Hossain et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108351
99. Contributions of ambient air, indoor activity, and an air purifier to classroom PM2.5 levels in three elementary schools S. Han et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112674
100. A Novel Method for Removing Baseline Drifts in Multivariate Chemical Sensor A. Grover & B. Lall https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020.2976224
101. DENSE: DiElectric Novel Soil Evaluation System to Electrochemically Profile Soil Matrices V. Dhamu et al. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ac7a64
102. Atmospheric particulate matter characterization by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy: a review of statistical calibration strategies for carbonaceous aerosol quantification in US measurement networks S. Takahama et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-525-2019
103. The Spatial and Temporal Variability of the Indoor Environmental Quality during Three Simulated Office Studies at a Living Lab N. Clements et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9030062
104. Low-cost sensors for atmospheric NO2 measurement: A review C. Ayvaz et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126418
105. Robust statistical calibration and characterization of portable low-cost air quality monitoring sensors to quantify real-time O3 and NO2 concentrations in diverse environments R. Sahu et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-37-2021
106. Short-Term Field Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors Operated by the “AirSensEUR” Platform A. Pichlhöfer & A. Korjenic https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155688
107. Calibrating low-cost sensors for ambient air monitoring: Techniques, trends, and challenges L. Liang https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111163
108. Field calibration of electrochemical NO2 sensors in a citizen science context B. Mijling et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1297-2018
109. Air Quality Sensor Networks for Evidence-Based Policy Making: Best Practices for Actionable Insights J. Hofman et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13060944
110. Environment-Adaptive Calibration System for Outdoor Low-Cost Electrochemical Gas Sensors B. Tian et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2916826
111. Physically interpretable partitioned temperature-dependent calibration for wide-range electrochemical gas sensors Y. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2026.139734
112. A Distributed Network of 100 Black Carbon Sensors for 100 Days of Air Quality Monitoring in West Oakland, California J. Caubel et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00282
113. Development of Low-Cost Air Quality Stations for Next Generation Monitoring Networks: Calibration and Validation of PM2.5 and PM10 Sensors A. Cavaliere et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092843
114. Performance evaluation of low-cost air quality sensors: A review Y. Kang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151769
115. Spatial-Temporal Analysis of PM2.5 and NO2 Concentrations Collected Using Low-Cost Sensors in Peñuelas, Puerto Rico S. Reece et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18124314
116. Evaluation of the Performance of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors at a High Mountain Station with Complex Meteorological Conditions H. Li et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11020212
117. Multivariate diagnostics of electrochemical sensor drift by in situ impedance spectroscopy and voltammetry: A benzenediol-based framework A. Krishnamurthy & K. Žagar Soderžnik https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsr.2025.100871
118. Developing a Modular Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Platform for Air Pollution Profiling Q. Gu et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18124363
119. High Resolution On-Road Air Pollution Using a Large Taxi-Based Mobile Sensor Network Y. Sun et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166005
120. Real‐time measurements of PM2.5and ozone to assess the effectiveness of residential indoor air filtration in Shanghai homes K. Barkjohn et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12716
121. Schools’ air quality monitoring for health and education: Methods and protocols of the SAMHE initiative and project L. Chatzidiakou et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100266
122. Varying Performance of Low-Cost Sensors During Seasonal Smog Events in Moravian-Silesian Region V. Nevrlý et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15111326
123. Calibration of Electrochemical Sensors for Nitrogen Dioxide Gas Detection Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles R. Mawrence et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247332
124. Long-term evaluation of commercial air quality sensors: an overview from the QUANT (Quantification of Utility of Atmospheric Network Technologies) study S. Diez et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3809-2024
125. Mapping trends and analyzing key themes in low-cost sensors for air quality monitoring K. Alhasa et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-025-01927-5
126. Design and development of an open-source framework for citizen-centric environmental monitoring and data analysis S. Mahajan https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18700-z
127. In Situ Calibration Algorithms for Environmental Sensor Networks: A Review F. Delaine et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2910317
128. An On-Device Edge AI Agent for Reference-Free Self-Diagnosis of Low-Cost Multi-Pollutant Sensors Y. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26144526
129. Humidity, density, and inlet aspiration efficiency correction improve accuracy of a low-cost sensor during field calibration at a suburban site in the North-Western Indo-Gangetic plain (NW-IGP) H. Pawar & B. Sinha https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2020.1719971
130. Mid-term Performance and Calibration of Multi-sensor Low-Cost Systems for Air Quality Monitoring in Urban Environments S. Fellini et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44408-026-00150-1
131. Machine learning techniques to improve the field performance of low-cost air quality sensors T. Bush et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3261-2022
132. Chemical Emissions from Cured and Uncured 3D-Printed Ventilator Patient Circuit Medical Parts J. Krechmer et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c04695
133. Low-cost system application for policy assessment: a case study from Berlin A. Caseiro et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5309/ad56bb
134. Outlier detection and gap filling methodologies for low-cost air quality measurements T. Ottosen & P. Kumar https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EM00593A
135. Silver Nanomaterial-Doped Layered Double Hydroxides for Advanced Electrochemical Sensing: A Critical Review M. Gopika et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408347.2025.2586052
136. An optimized multicopter UAV sounding technique (MUST) for probing comprehensive atmospheric variables C. Chang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126867
137. Development of a general calibration model and long-term performance evaluation of low-cost sensors for air pollutant gas monitoring C. Malings et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-903-2019
138. Environmental pollution detection from susceptibility and conductivity measurement under microwave field: pollution detection under microwave field A. Rayon & S. Sahoo https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05566-z
139. Surface distributions and vertical profiles of trace gases (CO, O3, NO, NO2) in the Arctic wintertime boundary layer using low-cost sensors during ALPACA-2022 B. Barret et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1163-2025
140. Assessment of air quality sensor system performance after relocation S. Zauli-Sajani et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.11.010
141. Testing the performance of field calibration techniques for low-cost gas sensors in new deployment locations: across a county line and across Colorado J. Casey & M. Hannigan https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-6351-2018
142. Characterising a mobile reference station (MoRS) to quantify personal exposure to air quality M. Hedges et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.120160
143. Assessing the accuracy of commercially available gas sensors for the measurement of ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide K. Isiugo et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2018.1513135
144. Design and testing of a low-cost sensor and sampling platform for indoor air quality J. Tryner et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108398
145. A machine learning calibration model using random forests to improve sensor performance for lower-cost air quality monitoring N. Zimmerman et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-291-2018
146. Revisiting Atmospheric Oxidation Kinetics of Nitrogen Oxides: The Use of Low-Cost Electrochemical Sensors to Measure Reaction Kinetics S. Owen et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/reactions5040040
147. Protocol development for real-time ship fuel sulfur content determination using drone based plume sniffing microsensor system A. Anand et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140885
148. Research of low-cost air quality monitoring models with different machine learning algorithms G. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-181-2024
149. Comparing Building and Neighborhood-Scale Variability of CO2 and O3 to Inform Deployment Considerations for Low-Cost Sensor System Use A. Collier-Oxandale et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18051349
150. Addressing data gaps and disparities in access to air quality networks: a case study of Maricopa County, Arizona A. Molla et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-025-00497-4
151. An open‐source tool for evaluating calibration techniques used in low‐cost air pollutant monitors D. Tatsch et al. https://doi.org/10.1049/ell2.12816
152. Low-cost electrochemical gas sensing of vertical differences in wintertime air composition (CO, NO, NO2, O3) in Fairbanks, Alaska T. Roberts et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4FD00177J
153. Performance evaluation of light weight gas sensor system suitable for airborne applications against co-location gas analysers over Delhi A. Ahlawat et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134016
154. Monitoring Gas Emissions in Agricultural Productions through Low-Cost Technologies: The POREM (Poultry-Manure-Based Bio-Activator for Better Soil Management through Bioremediation) Project Experience D. Suriano & F. Abulude https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5040029
155. Improving the Quality of Measurements Made by Alphasense NO2 Non-Reference Sensors Using the Mathematical Methods M. Rogulski et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22103619
156. Reliability Assessment of Low-Cost PM Sensors Under High Humidity and High PM Level Outdoor Conditions G. Kumar et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2025.3592796
157. Development of a Portable and Low-Cost Sensor System for Air Pollution Measurement Z. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41810-025-00284-6
158. Clustering-Based Segmented Regression for Particulate Matter Sensor Calibration S. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412934
159. A Network Calibration Approach Improves the Accuracy and Long-Term Stability of a Low-Cost Air Quality Mesonet in New York City E. Hojeily et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.5c00205
160. A Kalman Filter Scheme for the Optimization of Low-Cost Gas Sensor Measurements I. Christakis et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13010025
161. Using spatiotemporal prediction models to quantify PM2.5 exposure due to daily movement S. Jain et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EA00051F
162. Carbon monoxide as an indicator of indoor air quality T. Salthammer https://doi.org/10.1039/D4EA00006D
163. Adaptive machine learning strategies for network calibration of IoT smart air quality monitoring devices S. De Vito et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2020.04.032
164. An efficient spatiotemporal data calibration approach for the low-cost PM2.5 sensing network: A case study in Taiwan C. Lee et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.032
165. Deployment, Calibration, and Cross-Validation of Low-Cost Electrochemical Sensors for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Ozone for an Epidemiological Study C. Zuidema et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21124214
166. Efficient Unsupervised Domain Adaptation Regression for Spatial–Temporal Sensor Fusion K. Faghih Niresi et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2025.3597150
167. Identifying optimal co-location calibration periods for low-cost sensors M. Levy Zamora et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-169-2023
168. The Use of Low-Cost Gas Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring with Smartphone Technology: A Preliminary Study D. Suriano et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors13050189
169. Performance extrapolation of an ultraviolet-based photocatalytic air purifier against near-ambient-level formaldehyde S. Ha et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2024.06.011
170. Evaluation of low-cost sensors for quantitative personal exposure monitoring S. Mahajan & P. Kumar https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102076
171. Development of a Unified IoT Platform for Assessing Meteorological and Air Quality Data in a Tropical Environment D. Kairuz-Cabrera et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24092729
172. Performance of NO, NO2 low cost sensors and three calibration approaches within a real world application A. Bigi et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3717-2018
173. Performance evaluation of ozone and particulate matter sensors H. DeWitt et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2020.1713921
174. Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter sensors in high- and low-concentration environments T. Zheng et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4823-2018
175. Low-cost sensors and microscale land use regression: Data fusion to resolve air quality variations with high spatial and temporal resolution L. Weissert et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.06.019
176. Calibration and assessment of electrochemical air quality sensors by co-location with regulatory-grade instruments D. Hagan et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-315-2018
177. A Scalable Calibration Method for Enhanced Accuracy in Dense Air Quality Monitoring Networks A. Winter et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c08855
178. Recalibration of low-cost O3 and PM2.5 sensors: linking practices to recent air sensor test protocols P. Gäbel & E. Hertig https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-1293-2026
179. Impacts of Modifiable Factors on Ambient Air Pollution: A Case Study of COVID-19 Shutdowns R. Tanzer-Gruener et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00365
180. Application of low-cost fine particulate mass monitors to convert satellite aerosol optical depth to surface concentrations in North America and Africa C. Malings et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-3873-2020
181. Spatially dense air pollutant sampling: Implications of spatial variability on the representativeness of stationary air pollutant monitors H. Li et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2019.100012
182. Design and Development of a Flexible, Plug-and-Play, Cost-Effective Tool for on-Field Evaluation of Gas Sensors D. Suriano et al. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8812025
183. Low- and Medium-Cost Sensors for Tropospheric Ozone Monitoring—Results of an Evaluation Study in Wrocław, Poland M. Badura et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13040542
184. Detecting Inaccurate Sensors on a Large-Scale Sensor Network Using Centralized and Localized Graph Neural Networks D. Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2023.3287270
185. Stationary and portable multipollutant monitors for high-spatiotemporal-resolution air quality studies including online calibration C. Buehler et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-995-2021
186. A Regularization-Based Big Data Framework for Winter Precipitation Forecasting on Streaming Data A. Kanavos et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10161872
187. Using low-cost sensors to monitor indoor, outdoor, and personal ozone concentrations in Beijing, China M. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00377K
188. Spatiotemporal distribution prediction for PM2.5 based on STXGBoost model and high-density monitoring sensors in Zhengzhou High Tech Zone, China S. Zhao et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123682
189. Merging citizen science with epidemiology: design of a prospective feasibility study of health events and air pollution in Cologne, Germany S. Soja et al. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-023-01250-0
190. Machine learning calibration of low-cost NO2 and PM10 sensors: non-linear algorithms and their impact on site transferability P. Nowack et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021
191. Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring - the Current State of the Technology and a Use Overview P. Buček et al. https://doi.org/10.2478/cdem-2021-0003
192. VOLCANO3 – a Miniaturized Chemiluminescence Ozone Monitor for Drone-Based Measurements in Volcanic Plumes M. Rüth et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-19-2047-2026
193. Data fusion for low-cost sensors: A systematic literature review G. Oduori et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2026.104124
194. Annual NO2 as a Predictor of Hourly NO2 Variability: Do Defra UK’s Heuristics Make Sense? A. Mills & S. Peckham https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12030385
195. Enhancing the electrochemical detection of chloride using a machine learning approach A. Schubert et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2025.138193
196. Real-time measurements of formaldehyde emissions in a gross anatomy laboratory A. Baldelli et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2569-7
197. Are dense networks of low-cost nodes really useful for monitoring air pollution? A case study in Staffordshire L. Frederickson et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13949-2022
198. Inferring Aerosol Sources from Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Measurements: A Case Study in Delhi, India D. Hagan et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00393
199. Intra-workday fluctuations of airborne contaminant concentration and the time-weighted average P. Smith https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2022.2132258
200. Formaldehyde sensing by fluorescent organic sensors R. Santonocito et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5OB00858A
201. A sampler for atmospheric volatile organic compounds by copter unmanned aerial vehicles K. McKinney et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3123-2019
202. Enhancing PM2.5 Measurement Accuracy: Insights from Environmental Factors and BAM‐Light Scattering Device Correlation M. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2930582
203. Monitoring Excess Exposure to Air Pollution for Professional Drivers in London Using Low-Cost Sensors L. Frederickson et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070749
204. Variational Bayesian calibration of low-cost gas sensor systems in air quality monitoring G. Tancev & F. Toro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2021.100365
205. Field and laboratory performance evaluations of 28 gas-phase air quality sensors by the AQ-SPEC program A. Collier-Oxandale et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117092
206. Added Value of Vaisala AQT530 Sensors as a Part of a Sensor Network for Comprehensive Air Quality Monitoring T. Petäjä et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.719567
207. Characterizing the Aging of Alphasense NO2 Sensors in Long-Term Field Deployments J. Li et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.1c00729
208. Estimating the spatial variability of fine particles at the neighborhood scale using a distributed network of particle sensors R. Shafran-Nathan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117011
209. Low-Cost Investigation into Sources of PM2.5 in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo D. Westervelt et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.3c00024
210. Design, construction, and testing of a real-time ammonia measurement system using an electrochemical sensor: A Do-It-Yourself framework M. Lee et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2026.103801
211. Evaluation of field calibration methods and performance of AQMesh, a low-cost air quality monitor D. Wahlborg et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09033-x
212. Assessing neuropsychological disorders affecting pottery workers occupationally exposed to air pollutants G. Abo-el-Ata et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2023.01.011
213. Garbage in, gospel out? – Air quality assessment in the UK planning system A. Mills & S. Peckham https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.010
214. Seasonal Influence on the Performance of Low-Cost NO2 Sensor Calibrations S. Ratingen et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21237919