These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35876898)

  • 1. Bias in PM
    Kushwaha M; Sreekanth V; Upadhya AR; Agrawal P; Apte JS; Marshall JD
    Environ Monit Assess; 2022 Jul; 194(9):610. PubMed ID: 35876898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and near real-time PM
    Mehadi A; Moosmüller H; Campbell DE; Ham W; Schweizer D; Tarnay L; Hunter J
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2020 Feb; 70(2):158-179. PubMed ID: 31403397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance of Four Consumer-grade Air Pollution Measurement Devices in Different Residences.
    Manibusan S; Mainelis G
    Aerosol Air Qual Res; 2020 Feb; 20(2):217-230. PubMed ID: 33184562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Laboratory and field evaluation of measurement methods for one-hour exposures to O3, PM2.5, and CO.
    Chang LT; Suh HH; Wolfson JM; Misra K; Allen GA; Catalano PJ; Koutrakis P
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2001 Oct; 51(10):1414-22. PubMed ID: 11686245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building.
    Wang Z; Calderón L; Patton AP; Sorensen Allacci M; Senick J; Wener R; Andrews CJ; Mainelis G
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2016 Nov; 66(11):1109-1120. PubMed ID: 27333205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Measurement Methods for One-Hour Exposures to O
    Chang LT; Suh HH; Wolfson JM; Misra K; Allen GA; Catalano PJ; Koutrakis P
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2001 Oct; 51(10):1414-1422. PubMed ID: 28086693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Identification of technical problems affecting performance of DustTrak DRX aerosol monitors.
    Rivas I; Mazaheri M; Viana M; Moreno T; Clifford S; He C; Bischof OF; Martins V; Reche C; Alastuey A; Alvarez-Pedrerol M; Sunyer J; Morawska L; Querol X
    Sci Total Environ; 2017 Apr; 584-585():849-855. PubMed ID: 28148457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of fine particle measurements from a direct-reading instrument and a gravimetric sampling method.
    Kim JY; Magari SR; Herrick RF; Smith TJ; Christiani DC
    J Occup Environ Hyg; 2004 Nov; 1(11):707-15. PubMed ID: 15673091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of two collocated federal equivalent method PM
    Hagler G; Hanley T; Hassett-Sipple B; Vanderpool R; Smith M; Wilbur J; Wilbur T; Oliver T; Shand D; Vidacek V; Johnson C; Allen R; D'Angelo C
    Atmos Pollut Res; 2022 Apr; 13(4):1-9. PubMed ID: 36777262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter.
    Chung A; Chang DP; Kleeman MJ; Perry KD; Cahill TA; Dutcher D; McDougall EM; Stroud K
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2001 Jan; 51(1):109-20. PubMed ID: 11218418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Correction factor for continuous monitoring of wood smoke fine particulate matter.
    McNamara ML; Noonan CW; Ward TJ
    Aerosol Air Qual Res; 2011 Jun; 11(3):315-322. PubMed ID: 25364330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Development and Application of a United States wide correction for PM
    Barkjohn KK; Gantt B; Clements AL
    Atmos Meas Tech; 2021 Jun; 4(6):. PubMed ID: 34504625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Validation of a light-scattering PM2.5 sensor monitor based on the long-term gravimetric measurements in field tests.
    Shi J; Chen F; Cai Y; Fan S; Cai J; Chen R; Kan H; Lu Y; Zhao Z
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0185700. PubMed ID: 29121101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Statistical field calibration of a low-cost PM
    Datta A; Saha A; Zamora ML; Buehler C; Hao L; Xiong F; Gentner DR; Koehler K
    Atmos Environ (1994); 2020 Dec; 242():. PubMed ID: 32922146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Field Evaluation of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Measuring Wildfire Smoke.
    Holder AL; Mebust AK; Maghran LA; McGown MR; Stewart KE; Vallano DM; Elleman RA; Baker KR
    Sensors (Basel); 2020 Aug; 20(17):. PubMed ID: 32854443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the TSI Model 8520 and Grimm Series 1.108 portable aerosol instruments used to monitor particulate matter in an iron foundry.
    Cheng YH
    J Occup Environ Hyg; 2008 Mar; 5(3):157-68. PubMed ID: 18188737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Characterization of PM
    Li Z; Che W; Frey HC; Lau AKH; Lin C
    Environ Pollut; 2017 Sep; 228():433-442. PubMed ID: 28558284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development and field validation of a community-engaged particulate matter air quality monitoring network in Imperial, California, USA.
    Carvlin GN; Lugo H; Olmedo L; Bejarano E; Wilkie A; Meltzer D; Wong M; King G; Northcross A; Jerrett M; English PB; Hammond D; Seto E
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2017 Dec; 67(12):1342-1352. PubMed ID: 28829718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.