The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone?
Open accessAbstract
Over the past decade, a range of sensor technologies became available on the market, enabling a revolutionary shift in air pollution monitoring and assessment. With their cost of up to three orders of magnitude lower than standard/reference instruments, many avenues for applications have opened up. In particular, broader participation in air quality discussion and utilisation of information on air pollution by communities has become possible. However, many questions have been also asked about the actual benefits of these technologies. To address this issue, we conducted a comprehensive literature search including both the scientific and grey literature. We focused upon two questions: (1) Are these technologies fit for the various purposes envisaged? and (2) How far have these technologies and their applications progressed to provide answers and solutions? Regarding the former, we concluded that there is no clear answer to the question, due to a lack of: sensor/monitor manufacturers' quantitative specifications of performance, consensus regarding recommended end-use and associated minimal performance targets of these technologies, and the ability of the prospective users to formulate the requirements for their applications, or conditions of the intended use. Numerous studies have assessed and reported sensor/monitor performance under a range of specific conditions, and in many cases the performance was concluded to be satisfactory. The specific use cases for sensors/monitors included outdoor in a stationary mode, outdoor in a mobile mode, indoor environments and personal monitoring. Under certain conditions of application, project goals, and monitoring environments, some sensors/monitors were fit for a specific purpose. Based on analysis of 17 large projects, which reached applied outcome stage, and typically conducted by consortia of organizations, we observed that a sizable fraction of them (~ 30%) were commercial and/or crowd-funded. This fact by itself signals a paradigm change in air quality monitoring, which previously had been primarily implemented by government organizations. An additional paradigm-shift indicator is the growing use of machine learning or other advanced data processing approaches to improve sensor/monitor agreement with reference monitors. There is still some way to go in enhancing application of the technologies for source apportionment, which is of particular necessity and urgency in developing countries. Also, there has been somewhat less progress in wide-scale monitoring of personal exposures. However, it can be argued that with a significant future expansion of monitoring networks, including indoor environments, there may be less need for wearable or portable sensors/monitors to assess personal exposure. Traditional personal monitoring would still be valuable where spatial variability of pollutants of interest is at a finer resolution than the monitoring network can resolve.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
Cited by
Hao, L.-N., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Ali, W. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853 · Cited by 785
Giordano, M. R., Malings, C., Pandis, S. N., Presto, A. A., McNeill, V. F., Westervelt, D. M., Beekmann, M., & Subramanian, R. (2021) · Journal of Aerosol Science · doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105833 · Cited by 426
Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site
Feenstra, B., Papapostolou, V., Hasheminassab, S., Zhang, H., Boghossian, B. D., Cocker, D., & Polidori, A. (2019) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116946 · Cited by 265
Wearable Devices for Environmental Monitoring in the Built Environment: A Systematic Review
Salamone, F., Masullo, M., & Sibilio, S. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21144727 · Cited by 89
Assessment of air quality sensor system performance after relocation
Zauli-Sajani, S., Marchesi, S., Pironi, C., Barbieri, C., Poluzzi, V., & Colacci, A. (2021) · Atmospheric Pollution Research · doi:10.1016/j.apr.2020.11.010 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Morawska, L., Thai, P. K., Liu, X., Asumadu-Sakyi, A., Ayoko, G., Bartonova, A., Bedini, A., Chai, F., Christensen, B., Dunbabin, M., Gao, J., Hagler, G. S. W., Jayaratne, R., Kumar, P., Lau, A. K. H., Louie, P. K. K., Mazaheri, M., Ning, Z., Motta, N., Mullins, B., Rahman, M. M., Ristovski, Z., Shafiei, M., Tjondronegoro, D., Westerdahl, D., & Williams, R.
- Venue
- Environment International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 116
- Pages
- 286-299
- ISSN
- 0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2797612288
- Cited by
- 864
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.018
- The paper
- Morawska, L., Thai, P. K., Liu, X., Asumadu-Sakyi, A., Ayoko, G., Bartonova, A., Bedini, A., Chai, F., Christensen, B., Dunbabin, M., Gao, J., Hagler, G. S. W., Jayaratne, R., Kumar, P., Lau, A. K. H., Louie, P. K. K., Mazaheri, M., Ning, Z., Motta, N., . . . Williams, R. (2018). Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone? Environment International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.018
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.