205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34762676)
1. Assessing the value of complex refractive index and particle density for calibration of low-cost particle matter sensor for size-resolved particle count and PM2.5 measurements.
Huang CH; He J; Austin E; Seto E; Novosselov I
PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0259745. PubMed ID: 34762676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Development of a calibration chamber to evaluate the performance of low-cost particulate matter sensors.
Sayahi T; Kaufman D; Becnel T; Kaur K; Butterfield AE; Collingwood S; Zhang Y; Gaillardon PE; Kelly KE
Environ Pollut; 2019 Dec; 255(Pt 1):113131. PubMed ID: 31521992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Laboratory Evaluation of Low-Cost Optical Particle Counters for Environmental and Occupational Exposures.
Sousan S; Regmi S; Park YM
Sensors (Basel); 2021 Jun; 21(12):. PubMed ID: 34204182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Field evaluation of nanofilm detectors for measuring acidic particles in indoor and outdoor air.
Cohen BS; Heikkinen MS; Hazi Y; Gao H; Peters P; Lippmann M
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2004 Sep; (121):1-35; discussion 37-46. PubMed ID: 15553489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Calibration of low-cost particulate matter sensors: Model development for a multi-city epidemiological study.
Zusman M; Schumacher CS; Gassett AJ; Spalt EW; Austin E; Larson TV; Carvlin G; Seto E; Kaufman JD; Sheppard L
Environ Int; 2020 Jan; 134():105329. PubMed ID: 31783241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of aerosol particle size on the measurement of airborne PM
Oluwadairo T; Whitehead L; Symanski E; Bauer C; Carson A; Han I
Environ Monit Assess; 2022 Jan; 194(2):56. PubMed ID: 34989887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Field and Laboratory Evaluations of the Low-Cost Plantower Particulate Matter Sensor.
Levy Zamora M; Xiong F; Gentner D; Kerkez B; Kohrman-Glaser J; Koehler K
Environ Sci Technol; 2019 Jan; 53(2):838-849. PubMed ID: 30563344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Development and application of an aerosol screening model for size-resolved urban aerosols.
Stanier CO; Lee SR;
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2014 Jun; (179):3-79. PubMed ID: 25145039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Long-term field evaluation of the Plantower PMS low-cost particulate matter sensors.
Sayahi T; Butterfield A; Kelly KE
Environ Pollut; 2019 Feb; 245():932-940. PubMed ID: 30682749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On-field test and data calibration of a low-cost sensor for fine particles exposure assessment.
Jiang Y; Zhu X; Chen C; Ge Y; Wang W; Zhao Z; Cai J; Kan H
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 2021 Mar; 211():111958. PubMed ID: 33503545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Ambient and laboratory evaluation of a low-cost particulate matter sensor.
Kelly KE; Whitaker J; Petty A; Widmer C; Dybwad A; Sleeth D; Martin R; Butterfield A
Environ Pollut; 2017 Feb; 221():491-500. PubMed ID: 28012666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown.
Kaliszewski M; Włodarski M; Młyńczak J; Kopczyński K
Sensors (Basel); 2020 Dec; 20(24):. PubMed ID: 33353048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment and statistical modeling of the relationship between remotely sensed aerosol optical depth and PM2.5 in the eastern United States.
Paciorek CJ; Liu Y;
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2012 May; (167):5-83; discussion 85-91. PubMed ID: 22838153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Sources of error and variability in particulate matter sensor network measurements.
Zuidema C; Stebounova LV; Sousan S; Thomas G; Koehler K; Peters TM
J Occup Environ Hyg; 2019 Aug; 16(8):564-574. PubMed ID: 31251121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Feasibility of using low-cost portable particle monitors for measurement of fine and coarse particulate matter in urban ambient air.
Han I; Symanski E; Stock TH
J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2017 Mar; 67(3):330-340. PubMed ID: 27690287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A feasible experimental framework for field calibration of portable light-scattering aerosol monitors: Case of TSI DustTrak.
Li Z; Che W; Lau AKH; Fung JCH; Lin C; Lu X
Environ Pollut; 2019 Dec; 255(Pt 1):113136. PubMed ID: 31522000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Monthly analysis of PM ratio characteristics and its relation to AOD.
Sorek-Hamer M; Broday DM; Chatfield R; Esswein R; Stafoggia M; Lepeule J; Lyapustin A; Kloog I
J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2017 Jan; 67(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 27589199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Physiochemical characteristics of aerosol particles collected from the Jokhang Temple indoors and the implication to human exposure.
Cui L; Duo B; Zhang F; Li C; Fu H; Chen J
Environ Pollut; 2018 May; 236():992-1003. PubMed ID: 29452713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Relationships of Indoor, Outdoor, and Personal Air (RIOPA): part II. Analyses of concentrations of particulate matter species.
Turpin BJ; Weisel CP; Morandi M; Colome S; Stock T; Eisenreich S; Buckley B
Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2007 Aug; (130 Pt 2):1-77; discussion 79-92. PubMed ID: 18064946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Calibration methodology of low-cost sensors for high-quality monitoring of fine particulate matter.
Aix ML; Schmitz S; Bicout DJ
Sci Total Environ; 2023 Sep; 889():164063. PubMed ID: 37201842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
