241 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Examining the functional range of commercially available low‐cost airborne particle sensors and consequences for monitoring of indoor air quality in residences Y. Zou et al. 10.1111/ina.12621
2. Improving accuracy of air pollution exposure measurements: Statistical correction of a municipal low-cost airborne particulate matter sensor network E. Considine et al. 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115833
3. Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring - the Current State of the Technology and a Use Overview P. Buček et al. 10.2478/cdem-2021-0003
4. Using a low-cost monitor to assess the impact of leaf blowers on particle pollution during street cleaning I. Costa-Gómez et al. 10.1007/s11869-019-00768-8
5. Phase-wise analysis of the COVID-19 lockdown impact on aerosol, radiation and trace gases and associated chemistry in a tropical rural environment C. Jain et al. 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110665
6. Significance of Meteorological Feature Selection and Seasonal Variation on Performance and Calibration of a Low-Cost Particle Sensor V. Kumar et al. 10.3390/atmos13040587
7. A temporally-calibrated method for crowdsourcing based mapping of intra-urban PM2.5 concentrations Z. Zheng et al. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122347
8. Gaussian process regression model for dynamically calibrating and surveilling a wireless low-cost particulate matter sensor network in Delhi T. Zheng et al. 10.5194/amt-12-5161-2019
9. In-car and Near-road Exposure to PM2.5 and BC C. Ma & G. Kang 10.5572/ajae.2020.14.2.146
10. Concurrent assessment of personal, indoor, and outdoor PM 2.5 and PM 1 levels and source contributions using novel low‐cost sensing devices S. Lung et al. 10.1111/ina.12763
11. Characterisation and calibration of low-cost PM sensors at high temporal resolution to reference-grade performance F. Bulot et al. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15943
12. Response of eight low-cost particle sensors and consumer devices to typical indoor emission events in a real home (ASHRAE 1756-RP) Y. Zou et al. 10.1080/23744731.2019.1676094
13. Innovative Air-Preconditioning Method for Accurate Particulate Matter Sensing in Humid Environments Z. Kunić et al. 10.3390/s24175477
14. Intra–Community Scale Variability of Air Quality in the Center of a Megacity in South Korea: A High-Density Cost-Effective Sensor Network Y. Park et al. 10.3390/app11199105
15. Association Between Bedroom Particulate Matter Filtration and Changes in Airway Pathophysiology in Children With Asthma X. Cui et al. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0140
16. Sensors and Analytical Technologies for Air Quality: Particulate Matters and Bioaerosols X. Su et al. 10.1002/asia.202001051
17. Validation of Low-Cost Sensors in Measuring Real-Time PM10 Concentrations at Two Sites in Delhi National Capital Region R. Sahu et al. 10.3390/s20051347
18. Oral cavity response to air pollutant exposure and association with pulmonary inflammation and symptoms in asthmatic children L. He et al. 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112275
19. Low-cost sensors for measuring airborne particulate matter: Field evaluation and calibration at a South-Eastern European site G. Kosmopoulos et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141396
20. Incorporating Low-Cost Sensor Measurements into High-Resolution PM2.5 Modeling at a Large Spatial Scale J. Bi et al. 10.1021/acs.est.9b06046
21. Identifying Patterns and Sources of Fine and Ultrafine Particulate Matter in London Using Mobile Measurements of Lung-Deposited Surface Area R. Shah et al. 10.1021/acs.est.2c08096
22. Development and evaluation of correction models for a low-cost fine particulate matter monitor B. Nilson et al. 10.5194/amt-15-3315-2022
23. Efficient calibration of cost-efficient particulate matter sensors using machine learning and time-series alignment S. Koziel et al. 10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111879
24. Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors: One-Year Field Comparative Measurement of Different Gas Sensors and Particle Counters with Reference Monitors at Tušimice Observatory P. Bauerová et al. 10.3390/atmos11050492
25. Field performance of a low-cost sensor in the monitoring of particulate matter in Santiago, Chile M. Tagle et al. 10.1007/s10661-020-8118-4
26. Response of low-cost sensors to high PM 2.5 concentrations during bushfire and haze events X. Liu et al. 10.1080/02786826.2024.2368733
27. Insights about the Sources of PM2.5 in an Urban Area from Measurements of a Low-Cost Sensor Network G. Kosmopoulos et al. 10.3390/atmos13030440
28. The dependence of PurpleAir sensors on particle size distribution and meteorology and their relationship to integrating nephelometers W. Malm et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120757
29. From low-cost sensors to high-quality data: A summary of challenges and best practices for effectively calibrating low-cost particulate matter mass sensors M. Giordano et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105833
30. Particle number size distribution evaluation of Plantower PMS5003 low-cost PM sensors – a field experiment A. Caseiro et al. 10.1039/D4EA00086B
31. Influence of seasonal variation on spatial distribution of PM2.5 concentration using low-cost sensors S. Chaudhry et al. 10.1007/s10661-024-13377-5
32. Fine particle mass monitoring with low-cost sensors: Corrections and long-term performance evaluation C. Malings et al. 10.1080/02786826.2019.1623863
33. Field Evaluation of Low-Cost PM Sensors (Purple Air PA-II) Under Variable Urban Air Quality Conditions, in Greece I. Stavroulas et al. 10.3390/atmos11090926
34. Letter to the editor regarding estimates in “Indoor air quality impacts of residential mechanical ventilation system retrofits in existing homes in Chicago, IL” (2022) Sci Tot Environ 804:150129 I. Kang et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178289
35. Low-Cost Sensor Node for Air Quality Monitoring: Field Tests and Validation of Particulate Matter Measurements U. Schilt et al. 10.3390/s23020794
36. A low-cost monitor for simultaneous measurement of fine particulate matter and aerosol optical depth – Part 3: Automation and design improvements E. Wendt et al. 10.5194/amt-14-6023-2021
37. A Comparative Analysis on Indoor and Outdoor PM2.5 and Their Hourly Associations with Acute Respiratory Inflammation Among College Students in Lhasa R. Qiao et al. 10.1021/acs.est.4c04304
38. Field Calibration and Evaluation of an Internet-of-Things-Based Particulate Matter Sensor N. Cowell et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.798485
39. Development of Particle Condensation System (PCS) Sampler for Semi-continuous Measurements of Water Soluble Aerosol Chemical Composition J. Ban et al. 10.5572/KOSAE.2019.35.6.802
40. Evaluation of two collocated federal equivalent method PM2.5 instruments over a wide range of concentrations in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina G. Hagler et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2022.101374
41. Laboratory evaluation of particle-size selectivity of optical low-cost particulate matter sensors J. Kuula et al. 10.5194/amt-13-2413-2020
42. Leveraging Unsupervised Data and Domain Adaptation for Deep Regression in Low-Cost Sensor Calibration S. Dey et al. 10.1109/TNNLS.2024.3409364
43. The Relocation Problem of Field Calibrated Low-Cost Sensor Systems in Air Quality Monitoring: A Sampling Bias G. Tancev & C. Pascale 10.3390/s20216198
44. The evaluation and optimization of calibration methods for low-cost particulate matter sensors: Inter-comparison between fixed and mobile methods X. Qin et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136791
45. Long-Term Evaluation and Calibration of Low-Cost Particulate Matter (PM) Sensor H. Lee et al. 10.3390/s20133617
46. Academically Produced Air Pollution Sensors for Personal Exposure Assessment: The Canarin Project B. Dessimond et al. 10.3390/s21051876
47. Evaluating the PurpleAir monitor as an aerosol light scattering instrument J. Ouimette et al. 10.5194/amt-15-655-2022
48. Nonlinear Regression Approach as a Correction Factor of Measurements of Low-Cost Electrochemical Air Quality Sensors I. Christakis et al. 10.3390/app14083282
49. Data-Driven Approaches for Predicting and Forecasting Air Quality in Urban Areas C. Rosca et al. 10.3390/app15084390
50. Field calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors using artificial neural networks and affine response correction S. Koziel et al. 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114529
51. Monitoring Excess Exposure to Air Pollution for Professional Drivers in London Using Low-Cost Sensors L. Frederickson et al. 10.3390/atmos11070749
52. A systematic investigation on the effects of temperature and relative humidity on the performance of eight low-cost particle sensors and devices Y. Zou et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105715
53. Improved PM2.5 concentration estimates from low-cost sensors using calibration models categorized by relative humidity J. Hua et al. 10.1080/02786826.2021.1873911
54. Intra- and inter-city variability of PM2.5 concentrations in Greece as determined with a low-cost sensor network K. Dimitriou et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119713
55. Low-cost monitoring of atmospheric PM—development and testing C. Báthory et al. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114158
56. In-situ validation of embedded physics-based calibration in low-cost particulate matter sensor for urban air quality monitoring Z. Feng et al. 10.1016/j.uclim.2025.102289
57. Calibrating low-cost sensors for ambient air monitoring: Techniques, trends, and challenges L. Liang 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111163
58. Environmental Particulate Matter (PM) Exposure Assessment of Construction Activities Using Low-Cost PM Sensor and Latin Hypercubic Technique M. Khan et al. 10.3390/su13147797
59. Exploration of intra-city and inter-city PM2.5 regional calibration models to improve low-cost sensor performance S. Jain & N. Zimmerman 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2024.106335
60. Calibration of PurpleAir low-cost particulate matter sensors: model development for air quality under high relative humidity conditions M. Mathieu-Campbell et al. 10.5194/amt-17-6735-2024
61. Low Cost Sensor Networks: How Do We Know the Data Are Reliable? D. Williams 10.1021/acssensors.9b01455
62. Observationally constrained mass balance box model analysis of aerosol mitigation potential using fan powered filters S. Wang et al. 10.1088/2515-7620/ad1422
63. Application of low-cost particulate matter sensors for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment in underground mines: A review N. Amoah et al. 10.1007/s12613-021-2378-z
64. Extended fumigation effect on surface and boundary layer aerosol concentrations observed during solar eclipse M. Ratnam et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2020.10.003
65. Bioaerosol sampling optimization for community exposure assessment in cities with poor sanitation: A one health cross-sectional study L. Rocha-Melogno et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139495
66. Wildfire smoke impacts on indoor air quality assessed using crowdsourced data in California Y. Liang et al. 10.1073/pnas.2106478118
67. Malondialdehyde in Nasal Fluid: A Biomarker for Monitoring Asthma Control in Relation to Air Pollution Exposure L. He et al. 10.1021/acs.est.0c02558
68. Evaluation of the Performance of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors at a High Mountain Station with Complex Meteorological Conditions H. Li et al. 10.3390/atmos11020212
69. Ambient characterisation of PurpleAir particulate matter monitors for measurements to be considered as indicative A. Caseiro et al. 10.1039/D2EA00085G
70. Evaluation and calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors for respirable coal mine dust monitoring Z. Feng et al. 10.1080/02786826.2023.2288609
71. Assessment of PM2.5 Concentration at University Transit Bus Stops Using Low-Cost Aerosol Monitors by Student Commuters W. Murray et al. 10.3390/s24144520
72. Performance of a Low-Cost Sensor Community Air Monitoring Network in Imperial County, CA P. English et al. 10.3390/s20113031
73. Assessing the accuracy of low-cost optical particle sensors using a physics-based approach D. Hagan & J. Kroll 10.5194/amt-13-6343-2020
74. Performance Assessment of a Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensor for a near Four-Month Period in Oslo, Norway H. Liu et al. 10.3390/atmos10020041
75. Strategies of method selection for fine-scale PM2.5 mapping in an intra-urban area using crowdsourced monitoring S. Xu et al. 10.5194/amt-12-2933-2019
76. Assessment of a clean cooking fuel distribution scheme in rural households of India – “Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY)” V. Sahu et al. 10.1016/j.esd.2024.101492
77. Low-cost solar PV soiling sensor validation and size resolved soiling impacts: A comprehensive field study in Western India M. Valerino et al. 10.1016/j.solener.2020.03.118
78. Predicting Photovoltaic Soiling From Air Quality Measurements S. Toth et al. 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2020.2983990
79. Band-Sensitive Calibration of Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensors by LSTM Model with Dynamically Weighted Loss Function J. Ryu & H. Park 10.3390/su14106120
80. Field Calibration of Low-Cost Mos Voc Sensors and Application for Source Characterization G. Hong et al. 10.2139/ssrn.4198986
81. Air Quality Sensor Experts Convene: Current Quality Assurance Considerations for Credible Data K. Barkjohn et al. 10.1021/acsestair.4c00125
82. Intercomparison of PurpleAir Sensor Performance over Three Years Indoors and Outdoors at a Home: Bias, Precision, and Limit of Detection Using an Improved Algorithm for Calculating PM2.5 L. Wallace 10.3390/s22072755
83. 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. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109432
84. Development and application of a United States-wide correction for PM2.5 data collected with the PurpleAir sensor K. Barkjohn et al. 10.5194/amt-14-4617-2021
85. Investigating the Sensitivity of Low-Cost Sensors in Measuring Particle Number Concentrations across Diverse Atmospheric Conditions in Greece and Spain G. Kosmopoulos et al. 10.3390/s23146541
86. Using low-cost particle sensors in HVAC ducts V. Gentile et al. 10.1080/02786826.2025.2475085
87. Unexpected Performance Improvements of Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone Sensors by Including Carbon Monoxide Sensor Signal M. Hasan et al. 10.1021/acsomega.2c07734
88. SENSORES DE MATERIAL PARTICULADO EN SUSPENSIÓN DE BAJO COSTO: INTEGRACIÓN AL MONITOREO DE LA CALIDAD DEL AIRE D. Gomez & J. Vassallo 10.22201/iingen.0718378xe.2023.16.3.86568
89. Long-term field calibration of low-cost metal oxide VOC sensor: Meteorological and interference gas effects G. Hong et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119955
90. Assessing Inequitable Urban Heat Islands and Air Pollution Disparities with Low-Cost Sensors in Richmond, Virginia A. Eanes et al. 10.3390/su122310089
91. Seasonally optimized calibrations improve low-cost sensor performance: long-term field evaluation of PurpleAir sensors in urban and rural India M. Campmier et al. 10.5194/amt-16-4357-2023
92. AirMLP: A Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network for Temporal Correction of PM2.5 Values in Turin M. Casari et al. 10.3390/s23239446
93. Calibrating low-cost sensors using MERRA-2 reconstructed PM2.5 mass concentration as a proxy V. Malyan et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2023.102027
94. 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. 10.3390/ijerph16142523
95. Dust Under the Radar: Rethinking How to Evaluate the Impacts of Dust Events on Air Quality in the United States K. Ardon‐Dryer et al. 10.1029/2023GH000953
96. The effects of ventilation and filtration on indoor PM2.5 in office buildings in four countries E. Jones et al. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107975
97. Associations of personal exposure to air pollutants with airway mechanics in children with asthma L. He et al. 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105647
98. Fusion of Environmental Sensing on PM2.5 and Deep Learning on Vehicle Detecting for Acquiring Roadside PM2.5 Concentration Increments W. Wang et al. 10.3390/s20174679
99. A Bayesian-Optimized Surrogate Model Integrating Deep Learning Algorithms for Correcting PurpleAir Sensor Measurements M. Ahmed et al. 10.3390/atmos15121535
100. Laboratory Evaluations of Correction Equations with Multiple Choices for Seed Low-Cost Particle Sensing Devices in Sensor Networks W. Wang et al. 10.3390/s20133661
101. Improvement of Surface PM2.5 Diurnal Variation Simulations in East Africa for the MAIA Satellite Mission C. Li et al. 10.1021/acsestair.3c00008
102. Personal Exposure to PM2.5 Oxidative Potential in Association with Pulmonary Pathophysiologic Outcomes in Children with Asthma L. He et al. 10.1021/acs.est.0c06114
103. Application of the low-cost sensing technology for indoor air quality monitoring: A review J. Sá et al. 10.1016/j.eti.2022.102551
104. A Review of Literature on the Usage of Low-Cost Sensors to Measure Particulate Matter A. Raysoni et al. 10.3390/earth4010009
105. Evaluation of PM2.5 spatio-temporal variability and hotspot formation using low-cost sensors across urban-rural landscape in lucknow, India S. Madhwal et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.120302
106. Review of the Performance of Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring F. Karagulian et al. 10.3390/atmos10090506
107. Evaluation of calibration performance of a low-cost particulate matter sensor using collocated and distant NO2 K. Ko et al. 10.5194/amt-17-3303-2024
108. Ultra-Light Airborne Measurement System for Investigation of Urban Boundary Layer Dynamics P. Sekula et al. 10.3390/s21092920
109. Variations of PM2.5-bound elements and their associated effects during long-distance transport of dust storms: Insights from multi-sites observations Q. Meng et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164062
110. Detection and identification of shape, size, and concentration of particulate matter in ambient air using bright field microscopy-based system A. Kumar et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2023.101913
111. Traceable PM2.5 and PM10 Calibration of Low-Cost Sensors with Ambient-like Aerosols Generated in the Laboratory S. Horender et al. 10.3390/app11199014
112. Comparison of PM10 emission flux of two fugitive area sources based on the real-time flux monitoring results S. Kim et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168666
113. Measurement of Air Pollution Parameters in Montenegro Using the Ecomar System N. Zaric et al. 10.3390/ijerph18126565
114. SenDaL: An Effective and Efficient Calibration Framework of Low-Cost Sensors for Daily Life S. Ahn et al. 10.1109/JIOT.2024.3371150
115. Aerosol Measurement Degradation in Low-Cost Particle Sensors Using Laboratory Calibration and Field Validation A. Peck et al. 10.3390/toxics11010056
116. Summary of PM2.5 measurement artifacts associated with the Teledyne T640 PM Mass Monitor under controlled chamber experimental conditions using polydisperse ammonium sulfate aerosols and biomass smoke R. Long et al. 10.1080/10962247.2023.2171156
117. Calibration Methods for Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors Considering Seasonal Variability J. Kang & K. Choi 10.3390/s24103023
118. Calibration of PurpleAir PA-I and PA-II Monitors Using Daily Mean PM2.5 Concentrations Measured in California, Washington, and Oregon from 2017 to 2021 L. Wallace et al. 10.3390/s22134741
119. The Kansas City Transportation and Local-Scale Air Quality Study (KC-TRAQS): Integration of Low-Cost Sensors and Reference Grade Monitoring in a Complex Metropolitan Area. Part 1: Overview of the Project S. Kimbrough et al. 10.3390/chemosensors7020026
120. Air quality during and after the Commonwealth Games 2018 in Australia: Multiple benefits of monitoring T. Kuhn et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105707
121. Creating Clean Air Spaces During Wildland Fire Smoke Episodes: Web Summit Summary G. Davison et al. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.508971
122. Plugging the ambient air monitoring gaps in India's national clean air programme (NCAP) airsheds S. Guttikunda et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119712
123. The U.S. EPA wildland fire sensor challenge: Performance and evaluation of solver submitted multi-pollutant sensor systems M. Landis et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118165
124. Correction and Accuracy of PurpleAir PM2.5 Measurements for Extreme Wildfire Smoke K. Barkjohn et al. 10.3390/s22249669
125. Long-term evaluation and calibration of three types of low-cost PM2.5 sensors at different air quality monitoring stations G. Hong et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105829
126. Field calibration protocol for optical-based air quality sensors in Indian conditions S. Dhawan et al. 10.1016/j.matpr.2024.03.020
127. Insights into low-cost pm sensors using size-resolved scattering intensity of cooking aerosols in a test house A. Thakur et al. 10.1080/02786826.2024.2342722
128. Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring M. Badura et al. 10.1155/2018/5096540
129. Field Evaluation of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors in Beijing H. Mei et al. 10.3390/s20164381
130. Monitoring of PM2.5 Using Well-Calibrated Low-Cost Sensors over One Year in Burkina Faso B. Nana et al. 10.1021/acsestair.4c00126
131. Estimating individual vehicle emission factors from near-road measurements in India N. Raparthi et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119869
132. Assessment of Indoor Particulate Matter and Teacher’s Perceived Indoor Climate in Government Schools of Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh, India: A Cross-Sectional Study S. Pritwani & N. Devasenapathy 10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_104_23
133. Improving PM10 sensor accuracy in urban areas through calibration in Timișoara R. Blaga & S. Gautam 10.1038/s41612-024-00812-0
134. Assessing the spatial transferability of calibration models across a low-cost sensors network V. Malyan et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2024.106437
135. Concept Development and Field Testing of Wireless Outdoor Indicator System for Use in Monitoring Exposures at Work among Malaysian Traffic Police P. Mohamad Jamil et al. 10.3390/toxics11040385
136. Investigation of indoor air quality in university residences using low-cost sensors R. Afroz et al. 10.1039/D2EA00149G
137. Evaluation and calibration of a low-cost particle sensor in ambient conditions using machine-learning methods M. Si et al. 10.5194/amt-13-1693-2020
138. Quantitative Analysis for Application Specific Calibration Approaches for Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring M. Narayana et al. 10.1541/ieejeiss.142.1166
139. Evaluation of a new low-cost particle sensor as an internet-of-things device for outdoor air quality monitoring F. Roberts et al. 10.1080/10962247.2022.2093293
140. Use of low-cost PM monitors and a multi-wavelength aethalometer to characterize PM2.5 in the Yakama Nation reservation O. Stampfer et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117292
141. Measurement and Monitoring of Particulate Matter in Construction Sites: Guidelines for Gravimetric Approach I. Araújo & D. Costa 10.3390/su14010558
142. Estimation of aerosol liquid water from optical scattering instruments using ambient and dried sample streams J. Zhang et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117787
143. Assessment and Improvement of Two Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensor Systems by Using Spatial Interpolation Data from Air Quality Monitoring Stations C. Liang & P. Yu 10.3390/atmos12030300
144. Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality Monitoring and Sensor Calibration F. Concas et al. 10.1145/3446005
145. Performance-based protocol for selection of economical portable sensor for air quality measurement N. Shukla et al. 10.1007/s10661-023-11438-9
146. Inter- versus Intracity Variations in the Performance and Calibration of Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensors: A Multicity Assessment in India S. V et al. 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00257
147. Deep Learning in Airborne Particulate Matter Sensing and Surface Plasmon Resonance for Environmental Monitoring B. Chauhan et al. 10.3390/atmos16040359
148. From air quality sensors to sensor networks: Things we need to learn Y. Li et al. 10.1016/j.snb.2021.130958
149. How to Get the Best from Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors: Guidelines and Practical Recommendations E. Brattich et al. 10.3390/s20113073
150. Performance and Deployment of Low-Cost Particle Sensor Units to Monitor Biomass Burning Events and Their Application in an Educational Initiative F. Reisen et al. 10.3390/s21217206
151. Dissecting PM sensor capabilities: A combined experimental and theoretical study on particle sizing and physicochemical properties X. Qin et al. 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124354
152. Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of Six PM2.5 Sensor Types K. Barkjohn et al. 10.3390/s25041265
153. Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and near real-time PM 2.5 smoke monitors A. Mehadi et al. 10.1080/10962247.2019.1654036
154. Advancing air quality monitoring: A low-cost sensor network in motion – Part I C. Correia et al. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121179
155. Applicability of factory calibrated optical particle counters for high-density air quality monitoring networks in Ghana C. Gameli Hodoli et al. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04206
156. Spatial and Temporal Variations in SO2 and PM2.5 Levels Around Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai'i During 2007–2018 R. Whitty et al. 10.3389/feart.2020.00036
157. Children’s microenvironmental exposure to PM2.5 and ozone and the impact of indoor air filtration K. Barkjohn et al. 10.1038/s41370-020-00266-5
158. Examination of monitoring approaches for ambient air pollution: A case study for India M. Brauer et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116940
159. EEATC: A Novel Calibration Approach for Low-Cost Sensors M. Narayana et al. 10.1109/JSEN.2023.3304366
160. Long-term field comparison of multiple low-cost particulate matter sensors in an outdoor urban environment F. Bulot et al. 10.1038/s41598-019-43716-3
161. Evaluation methods for low-cost particulate matter sensors J. Bean 10.5194/amt-14-7369-2021
162. An insight into recent PM1 aerosol light scattering properties and particle number concentration variabilities at the suburban site ATOLL in Northern France L. Suchánková et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178190
163. Calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors: Model development for a multi-city epidemiological study M. Zusman et al. 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105329
164. Calibration of low-cost PurpleAir outdoor monitors using an improved method of calculating PM L. Wallace et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118432
165. High-resolution urban air pollution mapping J. Apte & C. Manchanda 10.1126/science.adq3678
166. Is hydrophobic coating on glass equally efficient in reducing % soiling loss of solar PVs in clean and polluted environments? A. Ratnaparkhi et al. 10.1016/j.solener.2023.112120
167. Tutorial: Guidelines for implementing low-cost sensor networks for aerosol monitoring N. Zimmerman 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105872
168. Evaluation of optical particulate matter sensors under realistic conditions of strong and mild urban pollution A. Masic et al. 10.5194/amt-13-6427-2020
169. Calibration of NO, SO2, and PM using Airify: A low-cost sensor cluster for air quality monitoring M. Ionascu et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120841
170. Patterns of distributive environmental inequity under different PM2.5 air pollution scenarios for Salt Lake County public schools C. Mullen et al. 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109543
171. Global Ozone (GO3) Project and AQTreks: Use of evolving technologies by students and citizen scientists to monitor air pollutants J. Ellenburg et al. 10.1016/j.aeaoa.2019.100048
172. Seasonal Field Calibration of Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensors in Different Locations with Different Sources in Thailand R. Dejchanchaiwong et al. 10.3390/atmos14030496
173. Publicly available low-cost sensor measurements for PM2.5 exposure modeling: Guidance for monitor deployment and data selection J. Bi et al. 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106897
174. A data-driven approach for characterizing community scale air pollution exposure disparities in inland Southern California K. Do et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105704
175. Review of urban computing in air quality management as smart city service: An integrated IoT, AI, and cloud technology perspective A. Kaginalkar et al. 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100972
176. Establishing A Sustainable Low-Cost Air Quality Monitoring Setup: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art M. Narayana et al. 10.3390/s22010394
177. Evaluation of nine machine learning regression algorithms for calibration of low-cost PM2.5 sensor V. Kumar & M. Sahu 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105809
178. Estimating Mass Concentration Using a Low-cost Portable Particle Counter Based on Full-year Observations: Issues to Obtain Reliable Atmospheric PM2.5 Data S. Ueda et al. 10.5572/ajae.2020.14.2.155
179. Performance evaluation of MOMA (MOment MAtching) – a remote network calibration technique for PM2.5 and PM10 sensors L. Weissert et al. 10.5194/amt-16-4709-2023
180. A hybrid approach for integrating micro-satellite images and sensors network-based ground measurements using deep learning for high-resolution prediction of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) over an indian city, lucknow V. Jain et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120798
181. Measurements of PM2.5 with PurpleAir under atmospheric conditions K. Ardon-Dryer et al. 10.5194/amt-13-5441-2020
182. The MAPM (Mapping Air Pollution eMissions) method for inferring particulate matter emissions maps at city scale from in situ concentration measurements: description and demonstration of capability B. Nathan et al. 10.5194/acp-21-14089-2021
183. Role of endogenous melatonin in pathophysiologic and oxidative stress responses to personal air pollutant exposures in asthmatic children L. He et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145709
184. Intelligent Air Pollution Sensors Calibration for Extreme Events and Drifts Monitoring M. Zaidan et al. 10.1109/TII.2022.3151782
185. Leveraging machine learning algorithms to advance low-cost air sensor calibration in stationary and mobile settings A. Wang et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119692
186. Physicochemical Characteristics and Formation of PM2.5 in Yongin, Korea—A Suburban Metropolitan Area I. Park et al. 10.1007/s13143-024-00371-7
187. Effects of individual ozone exposure on lung function in the elderly: a cross-sectional study in China J. Zhang et al. 10.1007/s11356-019-04324-w
188. Estimating long‐term time‐resolved indoor PM 2.5 of outdoor and indoor origin using easily obtainable inputs T. Xia et al. 10.1111/ina.12905
189. Differentiating local and regional drivers of exceedances of WHO PM2.5 standards with a low-cost sensor network in the greater male’ region (GMR) N. Khaleel et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2024.102341
190. Spectral analysis approach for assessing the accuracy of low-cost air quality sensor network data V. Kumar et al. 10.5194/amt-16-5415-2023
191. Assessing the sources of particles at an urban background site using both regulatory instruments and low-cost sensors – a comparative study D. Bousiotis et al. 10.5194/amt-14-4139-2021
192. Application of Machine Learning for the in-Field Correction of a PM2.5 Low-Cost Sensor Network W. Wang et al. 10.3390/s20175002
193. Suitability of Low-Cost Sensors for Submicron Aerosol Particle Measurement D. Stoll et al. 10.3390/asi6040069
194. Enhancing the reliability of particulate matter sensing by multivariate Tobit model using weather and air quality data W. Won et al. 10.1038/s41598-023-40468-z
195. Characterizing outdoor infiltration and indoor contribution of PM2.5 with citizen-based low-cost monitoring data J. Bi et al. 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116763
196. Design and Evaluation of a Dryer System for IoT Hyperlocal Particulate Matter Monitoring Device E. Illueca Fernández et al. 10.1109/JSEN.2024.3364537
197. A national crowdsourced network of low-cost fine particulate matter and aerosol optical depth monitors: results from the 2021 wildfire season in the United States E. Wendt et al. 10.1039/D3EA00086A
198. Qualification of the Alphasense optical particle counter for inline air quality monitoring S. Bezantakos et al. 10.1080/02786826.2020.1864276
199. Investigation of Changes in Atmospheric Pollutants due to the Cessation of Anthropogenic Activities: Spatial Heterogeneity and Complex Atmospheric Chemistry S. Tripathi et al. 10.1007/s41810-023-00175-8
200. Domain Adaptation-Based Deep Calibration of Low-Cost PM₂.₅ Sensors S. Jha et al. 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3118454
201. A comparative evaluation of different PV soiling estimation models using experimental investigations S. Sharma et al. 10.1016/j.esd.2023.02.008
202. Visualization of Dust Generation in Outdoor Workplaces Using A Wearable Particle Monitor and Global Navigation Satellite System S. SEKOGUCHI et al. 10.7888/juoeh.44.1
203. Performance of low-cost indoor air quality monitors for PM2.5 and PM10 from residential sources Z. Wang et al. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106654
204. 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 10.1080/02786826.2020.1719971
205. A Multipollutant Smoke Emissions Sensing and Sampling Instrument Package for Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Development and Testing K. Nelson et al. 10.3390/fire2020032
206. Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site B. Feenstra et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116946
207. Estimating the spatial variability of fine particles at the neighborhood scale using a distributed network of particle sensors R. Shafran-Nathan et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117011
208. Using a network of lower-cost monitors to identify the influence of modifiable factors driving spatial patterns in fine particulate matter concentrations in an urban environment S. Rose Eilenberg et al. 10.1038/s41370-020-0255-x
209. Estimating vehicular emission factors and vehicle-induced turbulence: Application of an air quality sensor array for continuous multipoint monitoring in a tunnel H. Song et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2023.101799
210. Significance of sources and size distribution on calibration of low-cost particle sensors: Evidence from a field sampling campaign V. Malyan et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2022.106114
211. Evaluation of Two Low-Cost Optical Particle Counters for the Measurement of Ambient Aerosol Scattering Coefficient and Ångström Exponent K. Markowicz & M. Chiliński 10.3390/s20092617
212. Development of a physics-based method for calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors and comparison with machine learning models B. Prajapati et al. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2023.106284
213. Carbon based sensors for air quality monitoring networks; middle east perspective I. Shahid et al. 10.3389/fchem.2024.1391409
214. Testing a New “Decrypted” Algorithm for Plantower Sensors Measuring PM2.5: Comparison with an Alternative Algorithm L. Wallace 10.3390/a16080392
215. Economical portable sensor based hybrid monitoring for high-resolution air pollution mapping at an urban hotspot S. Gulia et al. 10.1007/s11869-024-01589-0
216. A new evaluation method of three different low-cost dust sensors using exponentially decaying particle concentrations K. Kang et al. 10.4491/eer.2020.501
217. Community-Based Measurements Reveal Unseen Differences during Air Pollution Episodes K. Kelly et al. 10.1021/acs.est.0c02341
218. Deep learning calibration model for PurpleAir PM2.5 measurements: Comprehensive Investigation of the PurpleAir network M. Ghahremanloo et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2025.121118
219. Determination of Air Quality Life Index (Aqli) in Medinipur City of West Bengal(India) During 2019 To 2020 : A contextual Study S. Rana 10.12944/CWE.17.1.12
220. Evaluation and Application of a Novel Low-Cost Wearable Sensing Device in Assessing Real-Time PM2.5 Exposure in Major Asian Transportation Modes W. Wang et al. 10.3390/atmos12020270
221. Effects of Road Traffic on the Accuracy and Bias of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensor Measurements in Houston, Texas T. Oluwadairo et al. 10.3390/ijerph19031086
222. Evaluation of a low-cost multi-channel monitor for indoor air quality through a novel, low-cost, and reproducible platform A. Baldelli 10.1016/j.measen.2021.100059
223. A novel spatiotemporal prediction approach to fill air pollution data gaps using mobile sensors, machine learning and citizen science techniques A. Baruah et al. 10.1038/s41612-024-00859-z
224. Calibration of CO, NO2, and O3 Using Airify: A Low-Cost Sensor Cluster for Air Quality Monitoring M. Ionascu et al. 10.3390/s21237977
225. In chamber calibration and performance evaluation of air quality low-cost sensors D. Agrawal et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2024.102299
226. Detection of PM2.5 plume movement from IoT ground level monitoring data T. Kanabkaew et al. 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.082
227. In-situ tailpipe soot emission monitoring for diesel engine exhaust using a quartz-enhanced photoacoustic spectroscopy sensor J. Hong et al. 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.116555
228. Embedded machine learning of IoT streams to promote early detection of unsafe environments E. Fernández et al. 10.1016/j.iot.2024.101128
229. Connecting Air Quality with Emotional Well-Being and Neighborhood Infrastructure in a US City R. Lal et al. 10.1177/1178630220915488
230. Application of Modern Low-Cost Sensors for Monitoring of Particle Matter in Temperate Latitudes: An Example from the Southern Baikal Region M. Shikhovtsev et al. 10.3390/su17083585
231. Toxic volatile organic compounds in 20 homes in Shanghai: Concentrations, inhalation health risks, and the impacts of household air cleaning L. Fang et al. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.04.047
232. Forecasting the Exceedances of PM2.5 in an Urban Area S. Logothetis et al. 10.3390/atmos15050594
233. Elemental: An Open-Source Wireless Hardware and Software Platform for Building Energy and Indoor Environmental Monitoring and Control A. Ali et al. 10.3390/s19184017
234. Influence of particle properties and environmental factors on the performance of typical particle monitors and low-cost particle sensors in the market of China D. Wu et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118825
235. 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. 10.5194/amt-13-3873-2020
236. The Impacts of Prescribed Fire on PM2.5 Air Quality and Human Health: Application to Asthma-Related Emergency Room Visits in Georgia, USA R. Huang et al. 10.3390/ijerph16132312
237. Advantages and challenges of the implementation of a low-cost particulate matter monitoring system as a decision-making tool V. Caquilpán P. et al. 10.1007/s10661-019-7875-4
238. A Review of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors from the Developers’ Perspectives B. Alfano et al. 10.3390/s20236819
239. An experimental application of laser-scattering sensor to estimate the traffic-induced PM2.5 in Beijing X. Liu et al. 10.1007/s10661-020-08398-9
240. Application and evaluation of a low-cost PM sensor and data fusion with CMAQ simulations to quantify the impacts of prescribed burning on air quality in Southwestern Georgia, USA R. Huang et al. 10.1080/10962247.2021.1924311
241. AirKit: A Citizen-Sensing Toolkit for Monitoring Air Quality S. Mahajan et al. 10.3390/s21124044