Assessing the efficacy of a low-cost air pollution monitoring device for environmental and occupational exposure assessments.

Samuel Stowe, Riyanshi Bohra, M J Ruzmyn Vilcassim

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samuel StoweDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, 1665 University Boulevard, RPHB 530, Birmingham, AL, 35233, USA.

Riyanshi BohraThe University of Arizona Zuckerman College of Public Health, Tucson, AZ, USA.

M J Ruzmyn VilcassimDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, 1665 University Boulevard, RPHB 530, Birmingham, AL, 35233, USA. ruzmyn@uab.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3695-815X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low-cost particulate matter (PM) sensors are increasingly used for personal and environmental air quality monitoring due to their affordability and accessibility. Recent advancements make these sensors suitable for occupational settings, but their accuracy in such settings remains uncertain. This study calibrated the AirBeam 2 and AirBeam 3 against the Thermo Scientific Personal DataRAM PDR-1500 to assess their efficacy at measuring high PM concentrations, such as those in occupational exposure settings, using engine exhaust and biomass smoke as PM sources. Laboratory calibrations were conducted using a sealed chamber. Linear and polynomial regressions assessed agreement with the PDR-1500, while breakpoint analyses identified thresholds where sensor performance shifted. Field calibrations using the AirBeam 2s evaluated real-world performance and user preferences. The AirBeam 2 exhibited a novel issue where PM₁ readings exceeded PM₂.₅ at concentrations > 50 µg/m

Indexed as

Air PollutantsAir PollutionEnvironmental MonitoringOccupational ExposureHumansParticulate MatterVehicle EmissionsAir PollutantsParticulate MatterVehicle EmissionsExposure assessmentOccupational healthParticulate matterSensors

Identifiers

PMID41379328

DOI10.1007/s10661-025-14870-1

PMCPMC12698801

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.