Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Gas Chromatography: Types of Detectors-II01:19

Gas Chromatography: Types of Detectors-II

302
In gas chromatography, different detectors are employed to meet specific analytical needs. These detectors are often categorized based on their detection mechanisms and the types of compounds they are best suited to analyze. Thermal Conductivity Detectors (TCD), Flame Ionization Detectors (FID), and Electron Capture Detectors (ECD) represent common categories, each with unique operating principles and applications. However, beyond these, several other detectors are designed for more specialized...
302

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reaping the Fruits of LLM Pruning: Towards Small Language Models for Efficient Non-Coding Variant Effect Prediction.

Genes·2025
Same author

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on computational biology early career researchers: A global retrospective study.

PLoS computational biology·2025
Same author

An educator framework for organizing Wikipedia editathons for computational biology.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2025
Same author

Closing the computational biology 'knowledge gap': Spanish Wikipedia as a case study.

Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)·2024
Same author

ISCB Student Council Symposium 2021, a virtual global venue: challenges and lessons learned.

F1000Research·2023
Same author

Highlights from the 16th International Society for Computational Biology Student Council Symposium 2020.

F1000Research·2021
Same journal

RETRACTED: Zhang et al. A Novel Framework for Reconstruction and Imaging of Target Scattering Centers via Wide-Angle Incidence in Radar Networks. <i>Sensors</i> 2025, <i>25</i>, 6802.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Enhancing Unsupervised Multi-Source Domain Adaptation for Person Re-Identification via Mixture of Experts and Graph-Based Relation.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Development of an Instrumented Glove for Palmar Pressure Assessment in Kayakers.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Development and Experimental Validation of an Autonomous IoT-Based Monitoring System for Real-Time Water Quality Assessment in the Amazon River.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Semi-Supervised Adversarial Learning Framework for Controller Area Network Bus Intrusion Detection.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same journal

Smart Optimization Method for Safety Signs in Innovative Manufacturing Environments Integrating Industrial Field IoT Sensors and Knowledge Graphs.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 21, 2025

Additive Manufacturing-Enabled Low-Cost Particle Detector
06:05

Additive Manufacturing-Enabled Low-Cost Particle Detector

Published on: March 24, 2023

1.1K

Air Pollution Monitoring Using Cost-Effective Devices Enhanced by Machine Learning.

Yanis Colléaux1, Cédric Willaume2, Bijan Mohandes3

  • 1National School for Statistics and Data Analysis (ENSAI), Blaise Pascal BP37203, 35172 Bruz, France.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
|March 17, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Low-cost air quality sensors can be improved using machine learning. Tailored models boost accuracy by 10%, but sensor inconsistencies limit universal correction for air pollution monitoring.

Keywords:
air pollution monitoringdata-driven correctionelectrochemical sensorslow-cost sensorsmachine learningmeasurement correctionmultiple linear regression modelsnon-dispersive infrared sensorssensor calibrationsensor performance variability

More Related Videos

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
09:33

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India

Published on: December 23, 2022

2.1K
Flying Insect Detection and Classification with Inexpensive Sensors
05:16

Flying Insect Detection and Classification with Inexpensive Sensors

Published on: October 15, 2014

25.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 21, 2025

Additive Manufacturing-Enabled Low-Cost Particle Detector
06:05

Additive Manufacturing-Enabled Low-Cost Particle Detector

Published on: March 24, 2023

1.1K
Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
09:33

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India

Published on: December 23, 2022

2.1K
Flying Insect Detection and Classification with Inexpensive Sensors
05:16

Flying Insect Detection and Classification with Inexpensive Sensors

Published on: October 15, 2014

25.1K

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Science
  • Data Science
  • Sensor Technology

Background:

  • Air pollution poses significant global health risks, necessitating comprehensive air quality monitoring.
  • Current monitoring networks are often inadequate due to the high cost of reference-grade stations.
  • Low-cost sensors offer a potential solution for widespread air quality assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the effectiveness of machine learning in enhancing the accuracy of low-cost air quality sensors.
  • To address challenges related to sensor cross-sensitivity, environmental factors, and manufacturing variations.
  • To determine if individual sensor calibration models outperform generalized correction approaches.

Main Methods:

  • Deployed cost-effective air pollution monitoring devices alongside a reference-grade air quality station.
  • Collected sensor response data under various conditions.
  • Trained and evaluated machine learning models, including individually tailored algorithms, to correct sensor readings.

Main Results:

  • Machine learning models significantly improved the accuracy of low-cost sensor measurements.
  • Individually tailored models enhanced the correlation with reference instruments by up to 10%.
  • Performance inconsistencies between similar sensor units were observed, hindering the development of a single correction model for a sensor type.

Conclusions:

  • Machine learning, particularly with individualized sensor models, is a viable strategy to improve low-cost air quality monitoring accuracy.
  • Addressing sensor-specific variations is critical for reliable and widespread deployment of affordable air quality monitoring solutions.
  • Further research is needed to overcome inter-sensor variability for robust, unified correction models in air quality networks.