Articles | Volume 15, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4091-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4091-2022
Research article
 | 
13 Jul 2022
Research article |  | 13 Jul 2022

Air pollution measurement errors: is your data fit for purpose?

Sebastian Diez, Stuart E. Lacy, Thomas J. Bannan, Michael Flynn, Tom Gardiner, David Harrison, Nicholas Marsden, Nicholas A. Martin, Katie Read, and Pete M. Edwards

Viewed

Total article views: 5,715 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
4,005 1,592 118 5,715 336 123 170
  • HTML: 4,005
  • PDF: 1,592
  • XML: 118
  • Total: 5,715
  • Supplement: 336
  • BibTeX: 123
  • EndNote: 170
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Feb 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Feb 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 5,715 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 5,627 with geography defined and 88 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Latest update: 11 May 2026
Download
Short summary
Regardless of the cost of the measuring instrument, there are no perfect measurements. For this reason, we compare the quality of the information provided by cheap devices when they are used to measure air pollutants and we try to emphasise that before judging the potential usefulness of the devices, the user must specify his own needs. Since commonly used performance indices/metrics can be misleading in qualifying this, we propose complementary visual analysis to the more commonly used metrics.
Share