313 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Measurement report: A complex street-level air quality observation campaign in a heavy-traffic area utilizing the multivariate adaptive regression splines method for field calibration of low-cost sensors P. Bauerová et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4477-2025
2. 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083585
3. Air quality mapping and visualisation: An affordable solution based on a vehicle-mounted sensor network P. Santana et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128194
4. Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors: Biases, Corrections and Challenges in Their Comparability I. Hayward et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15121523
5. Dual-purpose smoke alarms: Integrating low-cost PM 2.5 sensors for combined fire detection and indoor air quality monitoring S. Lekamge et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2025.2457327
6. A multilevel window state model based on outdoor environmental conditions that captures behavioural variation at room and apartment levels Y. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112562
7. Real-Time Measurements of Indoor–Outdoor Exchange of Gaseous and Particulate Atmospheric Pollutants in an Urban Area E. Alonso-Blanco et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20196823
8. Traffic pollution: A search for solutions for a city like Nairobi F. Rajé et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.05.008
9. An Investigation on the Possible Application Areas of Low-Cost PM Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring D. Suriano & M. Prato https://doi.org/10.3390/s23083976
10. Evaluating the Performance of Low-Cost PM2.5Sensors in Mobile Settings P. deSouza et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04843
11. Low-Cost Particulate Matter Mass Sensors: Review of the Status, Challenges, and Opportunities for Single-Instrument and Network Calibration J. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.4c03293
12. Qualification of the Alphasense optical particle counter for inline air quality monitoring S. Bezantakos et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2020.1864276
13. Diagnosing domestic and transboundary sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in UK cities using GEOS-Chem J. Kelly et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100100
14. Calibrating low-cost sensors for ambient air monitoring: Techniques, trends, and challenges L. Liang https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111163
15. Theoretical Design of the Scattering-Based Sensor for Analysis of the Vehicle Tailpipe Emission S. Molaie & P. Lino https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11121085
16. Tutorial: Guidelines for implementing low-cost sensor networks for aerosol monitoring N. Zimmerman https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105872
17. Modelling calibration uncertainty in networks of environmental sensors M. Smith et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssc/qlad075
18. 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
19. Evaluation of PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations from Online Light Scattering Dust Monitors Using Gravimetric and Beta-ray Absorption Methods B. Lee & S. Park https://doi.org/10.5572/kosae.2019.35.3.357
20. A machine learning field calibration method for improving the performance of low-cost particle sensors S. Patra et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107457
21. Image correlation method to simulate physical characteristic of particulate matter D. Gaur et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-00868-9
22. Controls on surface aerosol particle number concentrations and aerosol-limited cloud regimes over the central Greenland Ice Sheet H. Guy et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15351-2021
23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118825
24. 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
25. A Review of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors from the Developers’ Perspectives B. Alfano et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236819
26. Laboratory Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors to Measure Transient Events of Pollution—Part B—Particle Number Concentrations F. Bulot et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177657
27. 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
28. Identifying and recording environmental pollutants in the Attica basin: the archaeological site of Kerameikos I. Kotsifakos & V. Lampropoulos https://doi.org/10.14568/cp39273
29. Comprehensive comparison of correction techniques for low-cost air quality sensors: the impact of device type and deployment environment I. Hayward et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-01231-5
30. Seasonal Changes in Urban PM2.5 Hotspots and Sources from Low-Cost Sensors L. Harr et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13050694
31. Ten questions concerning low-cost indoor air quality sensors: Perspectives from research and practice T. Parkinson et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2026.114737
32. Laboratory evaluation of the Alphasense OPC-N3, and the Plantower PMS5003 and PMS6003 sensors K. Kaur & K. Kelly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2023.106181
33. Towards comprehensive air quality management using low-cost sensors for pollution source apportionment D. Bousiotis et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-023-00424-0
34. Calibration of Integrated Low-Cost Environmental Sensors for Urban Air Temperature Based on Machine Learning F. Nan et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25113398
35. Measurements of PM2.5 with PurpleAir under atmospheric conditions K. Ardon-Dryer et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5441-2020
36. Analytical performance and calibration strategies of low-cost particulate matter sensors for indoor and workplace monitoring—a review Z. Feng et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5AY01554E
37. Performance of low-cost indoor air quality monitors for PM2.5 and PM10 from residential sources Z. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106654
38. 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. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4139-2021
39. Performance assessment of NOVA SDS011 low-cost PM sensor in various microenvironments A. Božilov et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10290-7
40. Environmental Impact by Particulate Material and Meteorological Parameters on the Incidence of Positive Cases of COVID-19 During the First Year of the Pandemic in a High Andean City I. Miranda Hankgo et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-024-00477-y
41. Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers J. Tryner et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117067
42. A Smoke Chamber Study on Some Low-Cost Sensors for Monitoring Size-Segregated Aerosol and Microclimatic Parameters L. Bencs & A. Nagy https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15030304
43. Providing Fine Temporal and Spatial Resolution Analyses of Airborne Particulate Matter Utilizing Complimentary In Situ IoT Sensor Network and Remote Sensing Approaches P. Dewage et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16132454
44. Calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors: Model development for a multi-city epidemiological study M. Zusman et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105329
45. Measuring Spatial and Temporal PM2.5 Variations in Sacramento, California, Communities Using a Network of Low-Cost Sensors A. Mukherjee et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19214701
46. Deriving the hygroscopicity of ambient particles using low-cost optical particle counters W. Huang et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6073-2024
47. Development and Performance Evaluation of a Mixed-Sensor System for Fine Particles and Road Traffic Noise C. Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4020749
48. Estimating PM2.5 in Fort Collins, Colorado using a robust drive-by correction of low-cost air quality monitors deployed on school buses P. deSouza et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180990
49. Estimation of aerosol liquid water from optical scattering instruments using ambient and dried sample streams J. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117787
50. Improving PM10 sensor accuracy in urban areas through calibration in Timișoara R. Blaga & S. Gautam https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-024-00812-0
51. Particulate matter concentrations in social housing A. Mendell et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103503
52. 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
53. Impact on airborne virus behavior by an electric heat pump (EHP) operation in a restaurant during winter season J. Yu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107951
54. Impacts of daily household activities on indoor particulate and NO2 concentrations; a case study from oxford UK A. Singh et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34210
55. Indoor and outdoor air quality impacts of cooking and cleaning emissions from a commercial kitchen J. Ditto et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EM00484D
56. Challenges and opportunities of low-cost sensors in capturing the impacts of construction activities on neighborhood air quality W. Jaafar et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111363
57. 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
58. 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
59. Determination of Hygroscopic Aerosol Growth Based on the OPC-N3 Counter K. Nurowska & K. Markowicz https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15010061
60. Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring M. Badura et al. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5096540
61. Performance evaluation of ozone and particulate matter sensors H. DeWitt et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2020.1713921
62. Assessment of particulate matter (PM10, PM5, PM2.5, and PM1) concentrations at significant intersections in Douala-Cameroon city using low-cost sensors Y. Ngangmo & C. Adiang https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-025-12239-9
63. Managing and monitoring indoor air quality and surface decontamination in healthcare environments G. Cappelli et al. https://doi.org/10.2478/aiht-2025-76-4013
64. Investigation of Vertical Profiles of Particulate Matter and Meteorological Variables up to 2.5 km in Altitude Using a Drone-Based Monitoring System W. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16010093
65. Low Cost Sensor Networks: How Do We Know the Data Are Reliable? D. Williams https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.9b01455
66. Towards European automatic bioaerosol monitoring: Comparison of 9 automatic pollen observational instruments with classic Hirst-type traps J. Maya-Manzano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161220
67. 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
68. Enhancing the reliability of particulate matter sensing by multivariate Tobit model using weather and air quality data W. Won et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40468-z
69. Exploration of a practical approach to providing RH corrections to low cost sensor networks S. Lekamge & H. Oswin https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-01115-8
70. Air Quality Monitoring in Coal-Centric Cities: A Hybrid Approach S. Mora et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612624
71. Effect of Atmospheric Humidity on Fine Dust Measurement Using the Light Scattering Method C. Lee & S. Oh https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2020.20.1.391
72. Predicting airborne pollutant concentrations and events in a commercial building using low-cost pollutant sensors and machine learning: A case study A. Mohammadshirazi et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108833
73. Chemical Characterization of Aerosol Particles Using On-Chip Photonic Cavity Enhanced Spectroscopy R. Singh et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.8b00587
74. 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
75. Long-Term Evaluation and Calibration of Low-Cost Particulate Matter (PM) Sensor H. Lee et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20133617
76. Air quality monitoring using mobile low-cost sensors mounted on trash-trucks: Methods development and lessons learned P. deSouza et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102239
77. Evaluation of optical particulate matter sensors under realistic conditions of strong and mild urban pollution A. Masic et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6427-2020
78. Dissecting PM sensor capabilities: A combined experimental and theoretical study on particle sizing and physicochemical properties X. Qin et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124354
79. A study on a low-cost real time MEMS based modular Indoor Environmental Quality monitor sensor N. Nanos et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202563403002
80. A 10-year Analysis on the Reduction of Particulate Matter at the Green Buffer of the Sihwa Industrial Complex S. Yoo et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105538
81. Estimation of real-time PM exposure and associated health risk of HEMM operators using low-cost sensors in a highly mechanised opencast coal mine D. Pradhan et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-025-01769-6
82. Opportunities for Low‐Cost Particulate Matter Sensors in Filter Emission Measurements A. Schwarz et al. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800209
83. Improving Aerosol Characterization Using an Optical Particle Counter Coupled with a Quartz Crystal Microbalance with an Integrated Microheater E. Zampetti et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24082500
84. Atmospheric Chemistry Analysis: A Review P. Forbes https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04623
85. Quantification of within-vehicle exposure to NOx and particles: Variation with outside air quality, route choice and ventilation options V. Matthaios et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117810
86. Performance of a low-cost optical particle counter (Alphasense OPC-N3) in estimating size-resolved dust emission flux using eddy covariance S. Dupont et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2183-2025
87. Investigation of Low-Cost and Optical Particulate Matter Sensors for Ambient Monitoring M. Rogulski & A. Badyda https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11101040
88. 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
89. Direct measurement techniques for atmospheric aerosol: Physical properties review Y. Zhang & Y. Han https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2025.121034
90. Long-term field comparison of multiple low-cost particulate matter sensors in an outdoor urban environment F. Bulot et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43716-3
91. Short-sea shipping contributions to particle concentration in coastal areas: Impact and mitigation F. Di Natale et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103342
92. Utilizing a Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor: Assessing Air Pollutant Concentrations and Risks Using Low-Cost Sensors in Selangor, Malaysia Z. Khaslan et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-024-07012-9
93. Effect of micropillars with varying geometry and density on the efficiency of impaction-based quartz crystal microbalance aerosol sensors M. Hajizadehmotlagh & I. Paprotny https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5125895
94. Particulate air pollution in the Copenhagen metro part 1: Mass concentrations and ventilation N. Kappelt et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107621
95. Source specific exposure and risk assessment for indoor aerosols A. Koivisto et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.398
96. Development and testing a low-cost device for airborne PM monitoring in highly anthropized areas: The international maritime hub of Civitavecchia (Rome, Italy) F. Lucci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geogeo.2022.100120
97. Pinpointing sources of pollution using citizen science and hyperlocal low-cost mobile source apportionment D. Bousiotis et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.109069
98. 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors7020026
99. Innovative Air-Preconditioning Method for Accurate Particulate Matter Sensing in Humid Environments Z. Kunić et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175477
100. Data collected by a drone backpack for air quality and atmospheric state measurements during Pallas Cloud Experiment 2022 (PaCE2022) D. Brus et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-5209-2025
101. 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
102. Foliar surfaces as dust and aerosol pollution monitors: An assessment by a mining site K. Zeider et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148164
103. Drive-by Air Pollution Sensing Systems: Challenges and Future Directions H. Zarrar & V. Dyo https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2023.3305779
104. Investigating the evolution of gaseous air pollutants with prevailing meteorology across selected sites within a pollution hotspot in Ile-Ife, Southwestern Nigeria O. Omokungbe et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-023-00006-0
105. 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
106. Towards a hygroscopic growth calibration for low-cost PM2.5 sensors M. Patel et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1051-2024
107. Determination of PM1, PM2.5, PM5, CO and CO2 Emission Rates and Emission Factors of Mosquito Coils by a Chamber Experiment D. Majumdar et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-021-00474-w
108. Optical measurement method of non-spherical particle size and concentration based on high-temperature melting technique L. Lu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111375
109. Analysis of PM 2.5 , black carbon, and trace metals measurements from the Kansas City Transportation and Local-Scale Air Quality Study (KC-TRAQS) R. Duvall et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2024.2365708
110. 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
111. Characterisation and calibration of low-cost PM sensors at high temporal resolution to reference-grade performance F. Bulot et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15943
112. Gaussian process regression model for dynamically calibrating and surveilling a wireless low-cost particulate matter sensor network in Delhi T. Zheng et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5161-2019
113. Insights into the utility of small form air quality monitoring in health care environments: lessons learned from the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust N. Cowell et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1634075
114. Fine particle mass monitoring with low-cost sensors: Corrections and long-term performance evaluation C. Malings et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.1623863
115. Mapping pollution exposure and chemistry during an extreme air quality event (the 2018 Kīlauea eruption) using a low-cost sensor network B. Crawford et al. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025540118
116. Incorporating Low-Cost Sensor Measurements into High-Resolution PM2.5 Modeling at a Large Spatial Scale J. Bi et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06046
117. Laboratory Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors to Measure Transient Events of Pollution F. Bulot et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082219
118. Measuring Particulate Matter: An Investigation on Sensor Technology, Particle Size, Monitoring Site F. Gandino et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3319092
119. Reactivity of B12N12 nanocage toward nitrosyl halides: Adsorption of NOF, NOCl, and NOBr using DFT framework P. Parkar et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ica.2025.122772
120. Improving Low-Cost Optical PM Sensor Accuracy in Humid Conditions via Aerosol Liquid Water Estimation Using U.S. EPA CSN Data Y. Guo et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.5c00225
121. An Optical Sampling System for Distributed Atmospheric Particulate Matter L. Lombardo et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2019.2890885
122. A novel spatiotemporal prediction approach to fill air pollution data gaps using mobile sensors, machine learning and citizen science techniques A. Baruah et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-024-00859-z
123. The impact of urban mobility on air pollution in Kampala, an exemplar sub-Saharan African city O. Ghaffarpasand et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2024.102057
124. Field-based calibration and operation of low-cost sensors for particulate matter by linear and nonlinear methods C. Mai et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2025.102676
125. Assessment of detected in situ and modeled PM10/2.5 concentration levels during the urban transformation process in Novi Sad, Serbia M. Sunjevic et al. https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI220215108S
126. Design and Evaluation of a Calibration Chamber for Low-Cost PM Sensors–Part 1: Number Concentration-Based Assessment V. Malyan et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.5c00262
127. A parent-school initiative to assess and predict air quality around a heavily trafficked school P. Kumar et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160587
128. A GPS-enabled portable air pollution sensor and web-mapping technologies for field-based learning in health geography Y. Park https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1900083
129. Developing a Relative Humidity Correction for Low-Cost Sensors Measuring Ambient Particulate Matter A. Di Antonio et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092790
130. Assessment of seasonal variation in PM2.5 concentration using low-cost sensors: A case study of Jaipur city, India S. Chaudhry et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2025.121067
131. Urban Air Pollutant Monitoring through a Low-Cost Mobile Device Connected to a Smart Road S. Chiesa et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11020132
132. The Unmanned Systems Research Laboratory (USRL): A New Facility for UAV-Based Atmospheric Observations M. Kezoudi et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12081042
133. Distant calibration of low-cost PM and NO2 sensors; evidence from multiple sensor testbeds J. Hofman et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2021.101246
134. Methodology for Addressing Infectious Aerosol Persistence in Real-Time Using Sensor Network S. Makhsous et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21113928
135. Particulate air pollution in the Copenhagen metro part 2: Low-cost sensors and micro-environment classification H. Russell et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107645
136. 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
137. Development of a physics-based method for calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors and comparison with machine learning models B. Prajapati et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2023.106284
138. Gas- and Particle-Phase Amide Emissions from Cooking: Mechanisms and Air Quality Impacts J. Ditto et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01409
139. Field performance of a low-cost sensor in the monitoring of particulate matter in Santiago, Chile M. Tagle et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8118-4
140. A review on ambient and indoor air pollution status in Africa K. Agbo et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.11.006
141. A case study evaluating the performance of a cost-effective optical particle counter coupled with a humidity compensation approach for ambient air monitoring of particulate matter T. Dinh et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44273-023-00017-6
142. Evaluation of Two Low-Cost Optical Particle Counters for the Measurement of Ambient Aerosol Scattering Coefficient and Ångström Exponent K. Markowicz & M. Chiliński https://doi.org/10.3390/s20092617
143. 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
144. Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site B. Feenstra et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116946
145. Molecular Characterization of Composition and Volatility of Ambient Organic Aerosol Sampled by an UAV-Mounted Portable Aethalometer Q. Xie et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c03027
146. Risk of Airborne COVID-19 Transmission While Performing Humphrey Visual Field Testing N. Jain et al. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001771
147. Long-term evaluation and calibration of three types of low-cost PM2.5 sensors at different air quality monitoring stations G. Hong et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105829
148. Calibration of Portable Particulate Matter–Monitoring Device using Web Query and Machine Learning B. Loh & G. Choi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.08.002
149. Design and Implementation of a Crowdsensing-Based Air Quality Monitoring Open and FAIR Data Infrastructure P. Diviacco et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11071881
150. Multi-Sensor Instrument for Aerosol In Situ Measurements I. Bruchkouski et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16010042
151. 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
152. Light painting photography makes particulate matter air pollution visible F. Pope et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01409-4
153. Applicability of the low-cost OPC-N3 optical particle counter for microphysical measurements of fog K. Nurowska et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2415-2023
154. Comparison of Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring with Reference Methods in Zagreb, Croatia S. Davila et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16040472
155. Leveraging machine learning algorithms to advance low-cost air sensor calibration in stationary and mobile settings A. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119692
156. Calibrating networks of low-cost air quality sensors P. deSouza et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6309-2022
157. A MISR-Based Method for the Estimation of Particle Size Distribution: Comparison with AERONET over China Y. Shao et al. https://doi.org/10.34133/remotesensing.0032
158. Indoor air quality assessment using low-cost sensors, and impact of outdoors Y. Dahima & A. Vaishya https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-025-01843-z
159. Effect of relative humidity on the performance of five cost-effective PM sensors P. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2021.1910136
160. Minaturised condensation particle counters: Radial sheathing S. Balendra et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2026.2641630
161. Evaluation of a low-cost dryer for a low-cost optical particle counter M. Chacón-Mateos et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-7395-2022
162. Assessment of Integrated Aerosol Sampling Techniques in Indoor, Confined and Outdoor Environments Characterized by Specific Emission Sources L. Borgese et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104360
163. Development and evolution of an anomalous Asian dust event across Europe in March 2020 L. Tositti et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4047-2022
164. 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
165. Performance evaluation of MOMA (MOment MAtching) – a remote network calibration technique for PM2.5 and PM10 sensors L. Weissert et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4709-2023
166. A critical evaluation of the dynamic nature of indoor-outdoor air quality ratios S. Stamp et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.118955
167. Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter (PM) sensor instruments in indoor and outdoor environments: A university lecture hall and urban southeastern United States S. Westgate et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2025.2484244
168. Traceable PM2.5 and PM10 Calibration of Low-Cost Sensors with Ambient-like Aerosols Generated in the Laboratory S. Horender et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199014
169. An integrated electrical condensation particle counter for compact and low-cost ultrafine particle measurement system J. Jeon et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2022.105996
170. Study on calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors for hydrophilic and hydrophobic particles under varying relative humidity D. Agrawal et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-025-01852-y
171. Preliminary research for low-cost particulate matter sensor network C. Báthory et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201910000004
172. Use of networks of low cost air quality sensors to quantify air quality in urban settings O. Popoola et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.09.030
173. Development of a real-time total suspended particle mass concentration measurement system based on light scattering for monitoring fugitive dust in construction sites W. Sung et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2021.113017
174. Unveiling the Limits of Existing Correction Factors for a Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensor in Cold Environments and Development of a Tailored Solution J. Leenose et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.5c00018
175. Constructing a pollen proxy from low-cost Optical Particle Counter (OPC) data processed with Neural Networks and Random Forests S. Mills et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161969
176. 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
177. City Scale Particulate Matter Monitoring Using LoRaWAN Based Air Quality IoT Devices S. Johnston et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19010209
178. 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
179. MoreAir: A Low-Cost Urban Air Pollution Monitoring System I. Gryech et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20040998
180. Sensitivity Analysis of the Surface Acoustic Wave Sensor towards Size-Distributed Particulate Matter J. Yang et al. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6665508
181. Estimating fugitive particle emission from coal storage yard of thermal power plant using the flux-gradient method S. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117860
182. Field Testing of Low-Cost PM Sensors in Animal Production Facilities S. Uğuz et al. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1555650
183. Airborne particulate matter monitoring in Kenya using calibrated low-cost sensors F. Pope et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15403-2018
184. Microfluidic condensation nanoparticle counter using water as the condensing liquid for assessing individual exposure to airborne nanoparticles H. Kwon et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9LC01003C
185. Performance evaluation of the Alphasense OPC-N3 and Plantower PMS5003 sensor in measuring dust events in the Salt Lake Valley, Utah K. Kaur & K. Kelly https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-2455-2023
186. Detection of a biological aerosol using optical particle counters P. Ørby et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120819
187. Quantifying the dynamic characteristics of indoor air pollution using real-time sensors: Current status and future implication J. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107934
188. Hyperlocal environmental data with a mobile platform in urban environments A. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02425-3
189. Comparison of methods for resolving the contributions of local emissions to measured concentrations T. Edwards et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2201-2025
190. In-kitchen aerosol exposure in twelve cities across the globe P. Kumar et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107155
191. Evaluation of low-cost aerosol and gas sensors for real-time measurements of electronic cigarette exposure S. Sousan et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2022.2154192
192. Efficacy of Low-Cost Sensor Networks at Detecting Fine-Scale Variations in Particulate Matter in Urban Environments A. Heintzelman et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031934
193. Local spatiotemporal dynamics of particulate matter and oak pollen measured by machine learning aided optical particle counters S. Mills et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173450
194. Academically Produced Air Pollution Sensors for Personal Exposure Assessment: The Canarin Project B. Dessimond et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21051876
195. Particulate matter in a lockdown home: evaluation, calibration, results and health risk from an IoT enabled low-cost sensor network for residential air quality monitoring N. Cowell et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00124A
196. Aerosol hygroscopicity: Hygroscopic growth proxy based on visibility for low-cost PM monitoring A. Molnár et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104815
197. Assessment of aerosol persistence in ICUs via low-cost sensor network and zonal models K. Glenn et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30778-7
198. Can low-cost sensors (LCS) enhance air quality monitoring for personal pollution exposure assessment? A. Ilenič et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae02ef
199. Evaluation of PM2.5 measured in an urban setting using a low-cost optical particle counter and a Federal Equivalent Method Beta Attenuation Monitor B. Magi et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.1619915
200. Field Evaluation of Low-Cost PM Sensors (Purple Air PA-II) Under Variable Urban Air Quality Conditions, in Greece I. Stavroulas et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11090926
201. 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11050492
202. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-020-0255-x
203. Air Quality Sensor Networks for Evidence-Based Policy Making: Best Practices for Actionable Insights J. Hofman et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13060944
204. Significance of sources and size distribution on calibration of low-cost particle sensors: Evidence from a field sampling campaign V. Malyan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2022.106114
205. MitH: A framework for Mitigating Hygroscopicity in low-cost PM sensors M. Casari & L. Po https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2024.105955
206. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure assessment among active daily commuters to induce behaviour change to reduce air pollution A. Ilenič et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169117
207. Studies on the concentrations of particulate matter and ammonia gas from three laying hen rearing systems during the summer season E. Hong et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2021.1944836
208. Development and performance evaluation of a mixed-sensor system for fine particles and road traffic noise C. Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102902
209. Design and Evaluation of a Calibration Chamber for Low-Cost PM Sensors–Part 2: Mass Concentration-Based Assessment V. Malyan et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.6c00161
210. A Network of Field-Calibrated Low-Cost Sensor Measurements of PM2.5 in Lomé, Togo, Over One to Two Years G. Raheja et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00391
211. Observationally constrained mass balance box model analysis of aerosol mitigation potential using fan powered filters S. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad1422
212. Improving Data Quality of Low-Cost Light-Scattering PM Sensors: Toward Automatic Air Quality Monitoring in Urban Environments G. Ramirez-Espinosa et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2024.3405623
213. 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
214. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12621
215. Assessment of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensor Systems against Optical and Gravimetric Methods in a Field Co-Location in Norway M. Vogt et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12080961
216. Field Calibration and Evaluation of an Internet-of-Things-Based Particulate Matter Sensor N. Cowell et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.798485
217. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105833
218. Effects of Gas and Steam Humidity on Particulate Matter Measurements Obtained Using Light-Scattering Sensors H. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23136199
219. Evaluation of two low-cost PM monitors under different laboratory and indoor conditions R. He et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2020.1851649
220. Monitoring and apportioning sources of indoor air quality using low-cost particulate matter sensors D. Bousiotis et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107907
221. Hybrid particulate matter generated by lava-ignited wildfires at the Litli-Hrútur 2023 eruption, Iceland L. Wainman et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2026.181622
222. Spatial and Temporal Variations in SO2 and PM2.5 Levels Around Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai'i During 2007–2018 R. Whitty et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00036
223. Application of micro-morphology in the physical characterization of urban road dust J. Jose & B. Srimuruganandam https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2020.05.002
224. Hyperlocal air pollution in an urban environment - measured with low-cost sensors L. Frederickson et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101684
225. Design and Evaluation of a Dryer System for IoT Hyperlocal Particulate Matter Monitoring Device E. Illueca Fernández et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3364537
226. Laboratory and field evaluation of a low-cost optical particle sizer M. Tang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2023.06.031
227. Application of PM 2.5 low-cost sensors for indoor air quality compliance monitoring L. Morawska et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2025.2457326
228. Applicability of factory calibrated optical particle counters for high-density air quality monitoring networks in Ghana C. Gameli Hodoli et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04206
229. Quantifying the contribution of different microenvironments to real-time PM2.5 exposure of rural and urban residents in southwest China P. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113620
230. Significance of Meteorological Feature Selection and Seasonal Variation on Performance and Calibration of a Low-Cost Particle Sensor V. Kumar et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13040587
231. Relevance of Drift Components and Unit-to-Unit Variability in the Predictive Maintenance of Low-Cost Electrochemical Sensor Systems in Air Quality Monitoring G. Tancev https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093298
232. Evaluation and source apportionment of persistent decadal air pollution disparities in Kansas City, Missouri S. Ojha et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2025.2572810
233. Improved Fine Particles Monitoring in Smart Cities by Means of Advanced Data Concentrator P. Castello et al. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020.3031987
234. Low-cost sensor system for monitoring the oil mist concentration in a workshop H. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11709-9
235. Air quality dataset of particulate matter PM2.5 & PM10 from the monitoring network in Asuncion metropolitan area, Paraguay C. Recalde et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112752
236. Development and evaluation of correction models for a low-cost fine particulate matter monitor B. Nilson et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-3315-2022
237. Quality of Air Module for Environmental Learning Engineering and Observation Network (QameleON-Dijon) : un réseau dense de mesures de la qualité de l’air à Dijon N. Martiny et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/climat/202320004
238. Exploring the applicability and limitations of selected optical scattering instruments for PM mass measurement J. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-2995-2018
239. Application of the Correction Function to Improve the Quality of PM Measurements with Low-Cost Devices M. Rogulski et al. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185702009
240. Deployment and Evaluation of a Network of Open Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Systems P. Schneider et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14030540
241. The influence of humidity on the performance of a low-cost air particle mass sensor and the effect of atmospheric fog R. Jayaratne et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4883-2018
242. Visibility as a proxy for air quality in East Africa A. Singh et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8b12
243. What can we learn from nested IoT low‐cost sensor networks for air quality? A case study of PM2.5 in Birmingham, UK N. Cowell et al. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2220
244. Field calibration and performance evaluation of low-cost sensors for monitoring airborne PM in the occupational mining environment A. Penchala et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2024.106519
245. Source identification with high-temporal resolution data from low-cost sensors using bivariate polar plots in urban areas of Ghana C. Hodoli et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120448
246. 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
247. Field Evaluation and Calibration of Low-Cost Air Pollution Sensors for Environmental Exposure Research J. Huang et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22062381
248. Evaluating Indoor Low-Cost Particle Sensors: Algorithmic Insights and Calibration Approaches N. Ma et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-025-00372-8
249. Facility for production of ambient-like model aerosols (PALMA) in the laboratory: application in the intercomparison of automated PM monitors with the reference gravimetric method S. Horender et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1225-2021
250. SensEURCity: A multi-city air quality dataset collected for 2020/2021 using open low-cost sensor systems M. Van Poppel et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02135-w
251. A Low-Cost Sensor System Installed in Buses to Monitor Air Quality in Cities C. Correia et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054073
252. Comparison of Real‐Time PM2.5 Between Rural and Urban Homes in Southwest China Based on Field Measurement: Insight Into the Cooking Activity Contribution W. Du et al. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8874231
253. Response of low-cost sensors to high PM 2.5 concentrations during bushfire and haze events X. Liu et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2024.2368733
254. 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
255. Low-Cost Sensor Performance Intercomparison, Correction Factor Development, and 2+ Years of Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring in Accra, Ghana G. Raheja et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c09264
256. Seasonal Variability in the Particulate Matter Removal Efficiency of Different Urban Plant Communities: A Case Study Y. Gui & L. Lin https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos17040334
257. Effects of aerosol type and simulated aging on performance of low-cost PM sensors J. Tryner et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105654
258. Calibration Methods for Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors Considering Seasonal Variability J. Kang & K. Choi https://doi.org/10.3390/s24103023
259. Use of portable air purifiers in homes: Operating behaviour, effect on indoor PM2.5 and perceived indoor air quality E. Cooper et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107621
260. Short-Sea Shipping Contributions to Particles Concentration in Coastal Areas: Impact and Mitigation F. Di Natale et al. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4010333
261. How to Get the Best from Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors: Guidelines and Practical Recommendations E. Brattich et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113073
262. From a Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Network to Decision Support Services: Steps towards Data Calibration and Service Development T. Veiga et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093190
263. Seasonal multisite low-cost sensor measurements to estimate spatial and temporal variability of particulate matter pollution in Nairobi, Kenya E. Nyaga et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2025.102630
264. Effect of aerosol composition on the performance of low-cost optical particle counter correction factors L. Crilley et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-1181-2020
265. On the importance of the flow field in inexpensive optical aerosol particle counting and sizing C. Loizidis et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11785-2
266. Influence of seasonal variation on spatial distribution of PM2.5 concentration using low-cost sensors S. Chaudhry et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-13377-5
267. A surrogate-assisted measurement correction method for accurate and low-cost monitoring of particulate matter pollutants M. Wojcikowski et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111601
268. A case study on the effect of contaminated inlet tubes on the accuracy of mid-cost optical particle counters for the ambient air monitoring of fine particles T. Dinh et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44273-024-00045-w
269. The Influence of Marine Traffic on Particulate Matter (PM) Levels in the Region of Danish Straits, North and Baltic Seas S. Firląg et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114231
270. Low-Cost Sensor Node for Air Quality Monitoring: Field Tests and Validation of Particulate Matter Measurements U. Schilt et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23020794
271. Moving from monitoring to real-time interventions for air quality: are low-cost sensor networks ready to support urban digital twins? N. Cowell et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2024.1500516
272. Fine-scale fluctuations of PM1, PM2.5, PM10 and SO2 concentrations caused by a prolonged volcanic eruption (Fagradalsfjall 2021, Iceland) R. Whitty et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-313-2026
273. Aerosol Measurement Degradation in Low-Cost Particle Sensors Using Laboratory Calibration and Field Validation A. Peck et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11010056
274. City-scale calibration of a low-cost PM2.5 network for regulatory-compliant air-quality assessment R. Blaga et al. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000780
275. Particulate Matter and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Generated from a Domestic Air Fryer X. Wang & A. Chan https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04639
276. Advancing air quality monitoring: A low-cost sensor network in motion – Part I C. Correia et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121179
277. Laboratory Evaluation of ARMIE, a Portable SPS30-Based Low-Cost Sensor Node for PM2.5 Monitoring A. Kloppenborg et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26010280
278. A study on the performance of low-cost sensors for source apportionment at an urban background site D. Bousiotis et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4047-2022
279. Assessing the accuracy of low-cost optical particle sensors using a physics-based approach D. Hagan & J. Kroll https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6343-2020
280. 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
281. Analysis of the variability of airborne particulate matter with prevailing meteorological conditions across a semi-urban environment using a network of low-cost air quality sensors O. Omokungbe et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04207
282. Development and evaluation of an online monitoring single-particle optical particle counter with polarization detection W. Yao et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2023.04.010
283. Mitigating the impact of air pollution on dementia and brain health: Setting the policy agenda B. Castellani et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114362
284. SENSORES DE MATERIAL PARTICULADO EN SUSPENSIÓN DE BAJO COSTO: INTEGRACIÓN AL MONITOREO DE LA CALIDAD DEL AIRE D. Gomez & J. Vassallo https://doi.org/10.22201/iingen.0718378xe.2023.16.3.86568
285. Review of the Performance of Low-Cost Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring F. Karagulian et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10090506
286. Prediction of fluid-particle dynamics and performance in fibrous filters obtained from X-ray CT using convolutional neural network and discrete phase model K. Hada et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2025.163243
287. QUANT: a long-term multi-city commercial air sensor dataset for performance evaluation S. Diez et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03767-2
288. Mass concentration measurements of autumn bioaerosol using low-cost sensors in a mature temperate woodland free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiment: investigating the role of meteorology and carbon dioxide levels A. Baird et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-2653-2022
289. The Aerosol Research Observation Station (AEROS) K. Ardon-Dryer et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-2345-2022
290. Comparison of PM10 emission flux of two fugitive area sources based on the real-time flux monitoring results S. Kim et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168666
291. PM2.5 exposure differences between children and adults L. Harr et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101198
292. Field Calibration and Performance of Low-Cost Sensors in Kathmandu Valley for Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring H. Shrestha et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-025-00924-2
293. Deep Learning in Airborne Particulate Matter Sensing and Surface Plasmon Resonance for Environmental Monitoring B. Chauhan et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16040359
294. Sustaining low-cost PM2.5 monitoring networks in South-Asian Countries: technical challenges and solutions T. Saeed et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2026.110275
295. Analysis of spatiotemporal PM2.5 concentration patterns in Changwon, Korea, using low-cost PM2.5 sensors B. Song et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101292
296. Calibrating low-cost sensors using MERRA-2 reconstructed PM2.5 mass concentration as a proxy V. Malyan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2023.102027
297. Air quality assessment in three East African cities using calibrated low-cost sensors with a focus on road-based hotspots A. Singh et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac0e0a
298. Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensor Performance Characteristics against Meteorological Influence in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from the Air Sensor Evaluation and Training Facility for the West Africa Project J. Nimo et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c09752
299. Impact of Wildfire Smoke PM2.5 on Indoor Air Quality of Public Buildings on a University Campus R. Afroz et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00342
300. Air Quality Impacts at an E‐Waste Site in Ghana Using Flexible, Moderate‐Cost and Quality‐Assured Measurements L. Kwarteng et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GH000247
301. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2020.105715
302. Seasonally optimized calibrations improve low-cost sensor performance: long-term field evaluation of PurpleAir sensors in urban and rural India M. Campmier et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4357-2023
303. Evaluation of calibration performance of a low-cost particulate matter sensor using collocated and distant NO2 K. Ko et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3303-2024
304. A comprehensive review on advancements in sensors for air pollution applications T. Seesaard et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175696
305. A Comprehensive Review of Industrial Workshop Oil Mist Control Technology Based on Electrostatic Collection L. Liang et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16030242
306. Review of the Newly Developed, Mobile Optical Sensors for Real-Time Measurement of the Atmospheric Particulate Matter Concentration S. Molaie & P. Lino https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12040416
307. Evaluating the Meteorological Effects on the Urban Form–Air Quality Relationship Using Mobile Monitoring Y. Tian et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04854
308. Field and laboratory evaluation of PurpleAir low-cost aerosol sensors in monitoring indoor airborne particles S. Park et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110127
309. Particulate matter monitoring and source apportionment inside and outside schools in a Global South metropolis V. Nwokorie et al. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5EA00096C
310. Use of Low-Cost Air Quality Monitoring Devices for Assessment of Road Transport Related Emissions N. Celikkaya et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.09.125
311. Comparative Study on the Use of Some Low-Cost Optical Particulate Sensors for Rapid Assessment of Local Air Quality Changes L. Bencs et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081218
312. Using low-cost particle sensors in HVAC ducts V. Gentile et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2025.2475085
313. AirMLP: A Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network for Temporal Correction of PM2.5 Values in Turin M. Casari et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239446