106 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Real‐time measurements of PM2.5and ozone to assess the effectiveness of residential indoor air filtration in Shanghai homes K. Barkjohn et al. 10.1111/ina.12716
2. Spatiotemporal Analysis of Complex Emission Dynamics in Port Areas Using High-Density Air Sensor Network J. Pan et al. 10.3390/toxics12100760
3. Spatial Modeling of Daily PM2.5, NO2, and CO Concentrations Measured by a Low-Cost Sensor Network: Comparison of Linear, Machine Learning, and Hybrid Land Use Models S. Jain et al. 10.1021/acs.est.1c02653
4. The role of surface stoichiometry in NO2gas sensing using single and multiple nanobelts of tin oxide M. Masteghin et al. 10.1039/D1CP00662B
5. 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
6. The Application of Mobile Sensing to Detect CO and NO2 Emission Spikes in Polluted Cities S. Sara et al. 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3297874
7. The Relocation Problem of Field Calibrated Low-Cost Sensor Systems in Air Quality Monitoring: A Sampling Bias G. Tancev & C. Pascale 10.3390/s20216198
8. An overview of outdoor low-cost gas-phase air quality sensor deployments: current efforts, trends, and limitations K. Okorn & L. Iraci 10.5194/amt-17-6425-2024
9. Robust statistical calibration and characterization of portable low-cost air quality monitoring sensors to quantify real-time O<sub>3</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub> concentrations in diverse environments R. Sahu et al. 10.5194/amt-14-37-2021
10. Evaluation of Low-cost Air Quality Sensor Calibration Models K. Aula et al. 10.1145/3512889
11. Calibrating low-cost sensors for ambient air monitoring: Techniques, trends, and challenges L. Liang 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111163
12. Application of Gaussian Mixture Regression for the Correction of Low Cost PM2.5 Monitoring Data in Accra, Ghana C. McFarlane et al. 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00217
13. Low-Cost CO Sensor Calibration Using One Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network S. Ali et al. 10.3390/s23020854
14. Performance characterization of low-cost air quality sensors for off-grid deployment in rural Malawi A. Bittner et al. 10.5194/amt-15-3353-2022
15. The comparison between in-situ monitored data and modelled results of nitrogen dioxide (NO2): case-study, road networks of Kigali city, Rwanda E. Irankunda et al. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12390
16. Performance of a Low-Cost Sensor Community Air Monitoring Network in Imperial County, CA P. English et al. 10.3390/s20113031
17. Evaluation of Enterprise Learning Performance in the Process of Cooperation Innovation Using Heronian Mean Operator S. Yin et al. 10.1155/2019/8653164
18. 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
19. Urban Air Quality Management at Low Cost Using Micro Air Sensors: A Case Study from Accra, Ghana C. Hodoli et al. 10.1021/acsestair.4c00172
20. Long-term behavior and stability of calibration models for NO and NO<sub>2</sub> low-cost sensors H. Kim et al. 10.5194/amt-15-2979-2022
21. Air Quality Sensor Experts Convene: Current Quality Assurance Considerations for Credible Data K. Barkjohn et al. 10.1021/acsestair.4c00125
22. Reducing the Influence of Environmental Factors on Performance of a Diffusion-Based Personal Exposure Kit H. Zong et al. 10.3390/s21144637
23. A Global Multiunit Calibration as a Method for Large-Scale IoT Particulate Matter Monitoring Systems Deployments S. De Vito et al. 10.1109/TIM.2023.3331428
24. Revisiting Atmospheric Oxidation Kinetics of Nitrogen Oxides: The Use of Low-Cost Electrochemical Sensors to Measure Reaction Kinetics S. Owen et al. 10.3390/reactions5040040
25. Design and testing of a low-cost sensor and sampling platform for indoor air quality J. Tryner et al. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108398
26. A Low-Temperature Micro Hotplate Gas Sensor Based on AlN Ceramic for Effective Detection of Low Concentration NO2 W. Zhao et al. 10.3390/s19173719
27. Impacts of Modifiable Factors on Ambient Air Pollution: A Case Study of COVID-19 Shutdowns R. Tanzer-Gruener et al. 10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00365
28. Design and Evaluation of a Reliable Low-Cost Atmospheric Pollution Station in Urban Environment G. Astudillo et al. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2980736
29. In situ drift correction for a low-cost NO2 sensor network J. Miech et al. 10.1039/D2EA00145D
30. Low-cost system application for policy assessment: a case study from Berlin A. Caseiro et al. 10.1088/2752-5309/ad56bb
31. A Statistical Calibration Framework for Improving Non-Reference Method Particulate Matter Reporting: A Focus on Community Air Monitoring Settings S. Commodore et al. 10.3390/atmos11080807
32. Sub‐City Scale Hourly Air Quality Forecasting by Combining Models, Satellite Observations, and Ground Measurements C. Malings et al. 10.1029/2021EA001743
33. Calibration of SO2 and NO2 Electrochemical Sensors via a Training and Testing Method in an Industrial Coastal Environment S. Ahumada et al. 10.3390/s22197281
34. 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
35. AI-IoT Low-Cost Pollution-Monitoring Sensor Network to Assist Citizens with Respiratory Problems S. Felici-Castell et al. 10.3390/s23239585
36. Air Quality Sensor Networks for Evidence-Based Policy Making: Best Practices for Actionable Insights J. Hofman et al. 10.3390/atmos13060944
37. Conception and deployment of the APOLLINE sensor network for IAQ monitoring B. Hanoune et al. 10.1088/1757-899X/609/4/042026
38. Spatial variations in urban air pollution: impacts of diesel bus traffic and restaurant cooking at small scales R. Song et al. 10.1007/s11869-021-01078-8
39. Air pollution measurement errors: is your data fit for purpose? S. Diez et al. 10.5194/amt-15-4091-2022
40. Preparation of low-concentration H2 test gas mixtures in ambient air for calibration of H2 sensors N. Karbach et al. 10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024
41. 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
42. Assessment of Urban air pollution by PM10 and NO2 and associated impacts and risks through computational analysis in Kigali, Rwanda E. Irankunda & A. Ozunu 10.1007/s40974-024-00333-9
43. 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 10.3390/s21093298
44. Distributed Multi-Scale Calibration of Low-Cost Ozone Sensors in Wireless Sensor Networks J. Barcelo-Ordinas et al. 10.3390/s19112503
45. Emissions and exposure to NOx, CO, CO2 and PM2.5 from a gas stove using reference and low-cost sensors D. Jaffe & A. Creekmore 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120564
46. Field and laboratory performance evaluations of 28 gas-phase air quality sensors by the AQ-SPEC program A. Collier-Oxandale et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117092
47. 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
48. Evaluation of Cairpol and Aeroqual Air Sensors in Biomass Burning Plumes A. Whitehill et al. 10.3390/atmos13060877
49. EEATC: A Novel Calibration Approach for Low-Cost Sensors M. Narayana et al. 10.1109/JSEN.2023.3304366
50. Performance evaluation of low-cost air quality sensors: A review Y. Kang et al. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151769
51. Characterizing the Aging of Alphasense NO2 Sensors in Long-Term Field Deployments J. Li et al. 10.1021/acssensors.1c00729
52. Estimating ground-level PM2.5 using micro-satellite images by a convolutional neural network and random forest approach T. Zheng et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117451
53. Influence of Concept Drift on Metrological Performance of Low-Cost NO2 Sensors G. D'Elia et al. 10.1109/TIM.2022.3188028
54. UNI-CAL: A Universal AI-Driven Model for Air Pollutant Sensor Calibration With Domain-Specific Knowledge Inputs Y. Han et al. 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3410171
55. 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
56. Characterization of inexpensive metal oxide sensor performance for trace methane detection D. Furuta et al. 10.5194/amt-15-5117-2022
57. Within-City Variation in Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations: Leveraging Low-Cost Monitors in a Spatiotemporal Modeling Framework J. Bi et al. 10.1289/EHP10889
58. 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
59. Applying machine learning for large scale field calibration of low‐cost PM2.5and PM10air pollution sensors P. Adong et al. 10.1002/ail2.76
60. Deployment and Evaluation of a Network of Open Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Systems P. Schneider et al. 10.3390/atmos14030540
61. Leveraging low-cost sensors to predict nitrogen dioxide for epidemiologic exposure assessment C. Zuidema et al. 10.1038/s41370-024-00667-w
62. 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. 10.1002/met.2220
63. Investigating Use of Low-Cost Sensors to Increase Accuracy and Equity of Real-Time Air Quality Information E. Considine et al. 10.1021/acs.est.2c06626
64. 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
65. Machine learning calibration of low-cost NO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> sensors: non-linear algorithms and their impact on site transferability P. Nowack et al. 10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021
66. Assessment of air quality sensor system performance after relocation S. Zauli-Sajani et al. 10.1016/j.apr.2020.11.010
67. Probabilistic Machine Learning with Low-Cost Sensor Networks for Occupational Exposure Assessment and Industrial Hygiene Decision Making A. Patton et al. 10.1093/annweh/wxab105
68. From air quality sensors to sensor networks: Things we need to learn Y. Li et al. 10.1016/j.snb.2021.130958
69. Unravelling a black box: an open-source methodology for the field calibration of small air quality sensors S. Schmitz et al. 10.5194/amt-14-7221-2021
70. Seasonal Field Calibration of Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensors in Different Locations with Different Sources in Thailand R. Dejchanchaiwong et al. 10.3390/atmos14030496
71. Review of low-cost sensors for indoor air quality: Features and applications M. Ródenas García et al. 10.1080/05704928.2022.2085734
72. Future Low-Cost Urban Air Quality Monitoring Networks: Insights from the EU’s AirHeritage Project S. De Vito et al. 10.3390/atmos15111351
73. Calibration of CO, NO2, and O3 Using Airify: A Low-Cost Sensor Cluster for Air Quality Monitoring M. Ionascu et al. 10.3390/s21237977
74. Fine particle mass monitoring with low-cost sensors: Corrections and long-term performance evaluation C. Malings et al. 10.1080/02786826.2019.1623863
75. Fleet-based vehicle emission factors using low-cost sensors: Case study in parking garages B. Liu & N. Zimmerman 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102635
76. A Comparative Study of Calibration Methods for Low-Cost Ozone Sensors in IoT Platforms P. Ferrer-Cid et al. 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2929594
77. Short-term probabilistic forecasting of meso-scale near-surface urban temperature fields B. Choi et al. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105189
78. Evaluation of low-cost gas sensors to quantify intra-urban variability of atmospheric pollutants A. Baruah et al. 10.1039/D2EA00165A
79. Patterns and drivers of maternal personal exposure to PM2.5 in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya M. Johnson et al. 10.1039/D3EA00074E
80. Nonlinear relationship between urban form and street-level PM2.5 and CO based on mobile measurements and gradient boosting decision tree models M. Liu et al. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108265
81. Augmenting the Standard Operating Procedures of Health and Air Quality Stakeholders With NASA Resources B. Duncan et al. 10.1029/2021GH000451
82. Sens-BERT: A BERT-Based Approach for Enabling Transferability and Re-Calibration of Calibration Models for Low-Cost Sensors Under Reference Measurements Scarcity M. Narayana et al. 10.1109/JSEN.2024.3362962
83. Low-Cost Nitric Oxide Sensors: Assessment of Temperature and Humidity Effects S. Owen et al. 10.3390/s22229013
84. Development of low-cost air quality stations for next-generation monitoring networks: calibration and validation of NO2 and O3 sensors A. Cavaliere et al. 10.5194/amt-16-4723-2023
85. Multisensor Data Fusion Calibration in IoT Air Pollution Platforms P. Ferrer-Cid et al. 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2965283
86. Towards the Development of a Sensor Educational Toolkit to Support Community and Citizen Science A. Collier-Oxandale et al. 10.3390/s22072543
87. 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
88. Embedded machine learning of IoT streams to promote early detection of unsafe environments E. Fernández et al. 10.1016/j.iot.2024.101128
89. Assessing the degree of personal exposure to PM2.5 in growing cities of Rwanda based on time-activity patterns and microenvironments A. Safari Kagabo et al. 10.1016/j.cacint.2024.100174
90. Understanding the ability of low-cost MOx sensors to quantify ambient VOCs A. Collier-Oxandale et al. 10.5194/amt-12-1441-2019
91. Concept Drift Mitigation in Low-Cost Air Quality Monitoring Networks G. D’Elia et al. 10.3390/s24092786
92. Field comparison of electrochemical gas sensor data correction algorithms for ambient air measurements Y. Liang et al. 10.1016/j.snb.2020.128897
93. Calibrating low-cost sensors to measure vertical and horizontal gradients of NO2 and O3 pollution in three street canyons in Berlin S. Schmitz et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.119830
94. Evaluating and improving the reliability of gas-phase sensor system calibrations across new locations for ambient measurements and personal exposure monitoring S. Vikram et al. 10.5194/amt-12-4211-2019
95. Transferability of machine-learning-based global calibration models for NO2 and NO low-cost sensors A. Abu-Hani et al. 10.5194/amt-17-3917-2024
96. Leveraging Temporal Information to Improve Machine Learning-Based Calibration Techniques for Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors S. Ali et al. 10.3390/s24092930
97. Air Pollution Monitoring via Wireless Sensor Networks: The Investigation and Correction of the Aging Behavior of Electrochemical Gaseous Pollutant Sensors I. Christakis et al. 10.3390/electronics12081842
98. Deployment, Calibration, and Cross-Validation of Low-Cost Electrochemical Sensors for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Ozone for an Epidemiological Study C. Zuidema et al. 10.3390/s21124214
99. Reconstruction of high-frequency methane atmospheric concentration peaks from measurements using metal oxide low-cost sensors R. Rivera Martinez et al. 10.5194/amt-16-2209-2023
100. 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
101. Assessment of the impact of sensor error on the representativeness of population exposure to urban air pollutants T. Leo Hohenberger et al. 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107329
102. Low-Cost Formaldehyde Sensor Evaluation and Calibration in a Controlled Environment A. Chattopadhyay et al. 10.1109/JSEN.2022.3172864
103. Understanding the effect of temperature and relative humidity on sensor sensitivities in field environments and improving the calibration models of multiple electrochemical carbon monoxide (CO) sensors in a tropical environment R. Ariyaratne et al. 10.1016/j.snb.2023.133935
104. 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
105. Low-Cost Air Quality Measurement System Based on Electrochemical and PM Sensors with Cloud Connection P. Arroyo et al. 10.3390/s21186228
106. Spatially dense air pollutant sampling: Implications of spatial variability on the representativeness of stationary air pollutant monitors H. Li et al. 10.1016/j.aeaoa.2019.100012