Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site

Feenstra, Brandon, Papapostolou, Vasileios, Hasheminassab, Sina, Zhang, Hang, Boghossian, Berj Der, Cocker, David, Polidori, Andrea·2019·Atmospheric Environment

Abstract

Abstract A variety of low-cost sensors are now available on the consumer market for measuring air pollutants. The use of these low-cost sensors for ambient air monitoring applications is increasing and includes fence-line or near-source monitoring, community monitoring, emergency response, hot-spot identification, mobile monitoring, epidemiological studies, and supplemental monitoring to improve the spatial-temporal resolution of current monitoring networks. Evaluating and understanding the performance of these devices is necessary to properly interpret the results and reduce confusion when low-cost sensor measurements are not in agreement with measurements from regulatory-grade instrumentation. Systematic and comprehensive field and laboratory studies comparing low-cost sensors with regulatory-grade instrumentation are necessary to characterize sensor performance. This paper presents the results of 12 particulate matter (PM) sensors measurement of PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 μm) tested under ambient conditions against a federally equivalent method (FEM) instrument at an ambient air monitoring station in Riverside, CA spanning over a 3-year period from 02/05/15 to 03/27/18. Sensors were evaluated in triplicate with a typical time duration of 8-week. Performance evaluation results found 6 of the 12 sensor triplicates with average R2 values ≥ 0.70 for PM2.5 concentrations less than 50 μg/m3. Within this subset, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) ranged from 4.4 to 7.0 μg/m3 indicating the need for caution when interpreting data from these sensors. Additional analysis revealed that the impact of relative humidity on sensor performance varied between models with several models exhibiting increased bias error with increasing humidity. Results indicate that a number of these sensors have potential as useful tools for characterizing PM2.5 levels in ambient environments when data is interpreted and understood correctly with regard to existing ambient air quality networks. The performance evaluation results are specific for Riverside, CA under non-repeatable ambient weather conditions and particle properties with the expectation that performance evaluation testing at other locations with different particle properties and weather conditions would yield similar but non-identical results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116946

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Feenstra, B., Papapostolou, V., Hasheminassab, S., Zhang, H., Boghossian, B. D., Cocker, D., & Polidori, A.
Venue
Atmospheric Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
216
Pages
116946
ISSN
1352-2310 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2972071926
Cited by
265
References
27
FWCI
13.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116946
The paper
Feenstra, B., Papapostolou, V., Hasheminassab, S., Zhang, H., Boghossian, B. D., Cocker, D., & Polidori, A. (2019). Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site. Atmospheric Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116946

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.