User-Centred Design of a Final Results Report for Participants in Multi-Sensor Personal Air Pollution Exposure Monitoring Campaigns
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Setting, the ICARUS Campaign
2.1.1. Participants
2.1.2. Research Team
2.2. User-Centred Design
- Step
- (1) Defining the context of use and recognising the need for UCD, taking into account the complexity of individual exposure data;
- Step
- (2) Identifying and understanding user needs and preferences by obtaining feedback early on in the process through a pre-campaign survey (see Supplementary Materials File S1);
- Step
- (3) Discussing visualisation ideas and creating a prototype report (Supplementary Materials File S2);
- Step
- (4) Creating a focus group (n = 5 individuals), testing the preliminary design and facilitating fine-tuning according to group feedback (Supplementary Materials File S2–S4);
- Step
- (5) Adapting visualisations according to the focus group results while taking into account technical requirements (Supplementary Materials File S5);
- Step
- (6) Validating and assessing whether user requirements were met with an online post-campaign survey. (Supplementary Materials File S1)
2.2.1. Plan: Recognizing the Need
2.2.2. Research: Pre-Campaign Survey and User Needs
2.2.3. Design: Preliminary Report
2.2.4. Evaluation: Focus Group
2.2.5. Adapt: Final Results Report
2.2.6. Validate: Post-Campaign Survey
3. Results
3.1. Research: Pre-Campaign Survey and User Needs
3.2. Design: Preliminary Report
3.3. Evaluation: Focus Group
3.4. Adapt: Final Results Report
3.5. Validate: Post-Campaign Survey
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fanti, G.; Borghi, F.; Spinazzè, A.; Rovelli, S.; Campagnolo, D.; Keller, M.; Cattaneo, A.; Cauda, E.; Cavallo, D.M. Features and Practicability of the Next-Generation Sensors and Monitors for Exposure Assessment to Airborne Pollutants: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2021, 21, 4513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Languille, B.; Gros, V.; Bonnaire, N.; Pommier, C.; Honoré, C.; Debert, C.; Gauvin, L.; Srairi, S.; Annesi-Maesano, I.; Chaix, B.; et al. A methodology for the characterization of portable sensors for air quality measure with the goal of deployment in citizen science. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 134698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dias, D.; Tchepel, O. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Air Pollution Exposure Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Adams, C.; Riggs, P.; Volckens, J. Development of a method for personal, spatiotemporal exposure assessment. J. Environ. Monit. 2009, 11, 1331–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Nazelle, A.; Seto, E.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Mendez, M.; Matamala, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Jerrett, M. Improving estimates of air pollution exposure through ubiquitous sensing technologies. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 176, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brunekreef, B.; Strak, M.; Chen, J.; Andersen, Z.J.; Atkinson, R.; Bauwelinck, M.; Bellander, T.; Boutron-Ruault, M.-C.; Brandt, J.; Carey, I.; et al. Mortality and Morbidity Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Low-Level PM2.5, BC, NO2, and O3: An Analysis of European Cohorts in the ELAPSE Project; Health Effects Institute: Boston, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Huttunen, K.; Siponen, T.; Salonen, I.; Yli-Tuomi, T.; Aurela, M.; Dufva, H.; Hillamo, R.; Linkola, E.; Pekkanen, J.; Pennanen, A.; et al. Low-level exposure to ambient particulate matter is associated with systemic inflammation in ischemic heart disease patients. Environ. Res. 2012, 116, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepeule, J.; Laden, F.; Dockery, D.; Schwartz, J. Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 965–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dennis, B.K. Understanding Participant Experiences: Reflections of a Novice Research Participant. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2014, 13, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannini, C.M.; Herrick, R.L.; Buckholz, J.M.; Daniels, A.R.; Biro, F.M.; Pinney, S.M. Comprehension and perceptions of study participants upon receiving perfluoroalkyl substance exposure biomarker results. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2018, 221, 1040–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Exley, K.; Cano, N.; Aerts, D.; Biot, P.; Casteleyn, L.; Kolossa-Gehring, M.; Schwedler, G.; Castaño, A.; Angerer, J.; Koch, H.M.; et al. Communication in a Human biomonitoring study: Focus group work, public engagement and lessons learnt in 17 European countries. Environ. Res. 2015, 141, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knoppers, B.M. From the Right to Know to the Right Not to Know. J. Law Med. Ethics 2014, 42, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ragas, A.M.J.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; van Kaathoven, E.H.; Wolsink, J.H.; Wemmenhove, J. Development and Implementation of a Right-to-Know Web Site That Presents Estimated Cancer Risks for Air Emissions of Large Industrial Facilities. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2006, 2, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UNECE. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; UNECE: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Castell, N.; Dauge, F.R.; Schneider, P.; Vogt, M.; Lerner, U.; Fishbain, B.; Broday, D.; Bartonova, A. Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates? Environ. Int. 2017, 99, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, A.; Edwards, P. Validate personal air-pollution sensors. Nature 2016, 535, 29–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brody, J.G.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Brown, P.; Rudel, R.A.; Altman, R.G.; Frye, M.; Osimo, C.A.; Pérez, C.; Seryak, L.M. Improving Disclosure and Consent: “Is It Safe?”: New Ethics for Reporting Personal Exposures to Environmental Chemicals. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 1547–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christine, D.I.; Thinyane, M. Citizen science as a data-based practice: A consideration of data justice. Gene Expr. Patterns 2021, 2, 100224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMakin, A.H.; Lundgren, R.E. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-1-119-45615-5. [Google Scholar]
- Falk, J.H.; Storksdieck, M.; Dierking, L.D. Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Underst. Sci. 2007, 16, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, J.A.; Kocman, D.; Speyer, O.; Gerasopoulos, E. Meeting volunteer expectations—A review of volunteer motivations in citizen science and best practices for their retention through implementation of functional features in CS tools. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 2089–2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolff, K.; Larsen, S.; Øgaard, T. How to define and measure risk perceptions. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 79, 102759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Asselt, M.B.A.; Renn, O. Risk governance. J. Risk Res. 2011, 14, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, M.J. Human–Information Interaction with Complex Information for Decision-Making. Informatics 2015, 2, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allen, W.L. Visual brokerage: Communicating data and research through visualisation. Public Underst. Sci. 2018, 27, 906–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbell, B.J.; Kaufman, A.; Rivers, L.; Schulte, K.; Hagler, G.; Clougherty, J.; Cascio, W.; Costa, D. Understanding social and behavioral drivers and impacts of air quality sensor use. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keune, H.; Hazel, P.V.D.; Bouder, F. Unmasking Environmental Health Zorros: The Need for Involvement of Real Risk Communication Experts for Two-Way and Problem-Solving Communication Approaches. In Environmental Determinants of Human Health; Molecular and Integrative Toxicology; Pacyna, J.M., Pacyna, E.G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 203–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO. ISO Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 210: Human-Centred Design Process for Interactive Systems; ISO: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Sanders, E.B.-N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008, 4, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kain, D.J.; de Jong, M.; Smith, C.F. Information Usability Testing as Audience and Context Analysis for Risk Communication. In Usability of Complex Information Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-429-15178-1. [Google Scholar]
- Crall, A.W.; Jordan, R.; Holfelder, K.; Newman, G.J.; Graham, J.; Waller, D.M. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst. Sci. Bristol Engl. 2013, 22, 745–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoover, A.G. Defining Environmental Health Literacy. In Environmental Health Literacy; Finn, S., O’Fallon, L.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3–18. ISBN 978-3-319-94108-0. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, M.H.; Bol, N.; Lustria, M.L.A. Perceived Active Control over Online Health Information: Underlying Mechanisms of Mode Tailoring Effects on Website Attitude and Information Recall. J. Health Commun. 2020, 25, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rimer, B.K.; Kreuter, M.W. Advancing Tailored Health Communication: A Persuasion and Message Effects Perspective. J. Commun. 2006, 56, S184–S201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonney, R.; Phillips, T.B.; Ballard, H.L.; Enck, J.W. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madrigal, D.; Claustro, M.; Wong, M.; Bejarano, E.; Olmedo, L.; English, P. Developing Youth Environmental Health Literacy and Civic Leadership through Community Air Monitoring in Imperial County, California. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nolan, J.E.S.; Coker, E.S.; Ward, B.R.; Williamson, Y.A.; Harley, K.G. “Freedom to Breathe”: Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) to Investigate Air Pollution Inequities in Richmond, CA. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter, M.; Diekötter, T.; Kremer, K.; Höffler, T. Citizen science project characteristics: Connection to participants’ gains in knowledge and skills. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapizanis, D.; Karakitsios, S.; Gotti, A.; Sarigiannis, D.A. Assessing personal exposure using Agent Based Modelling informed by sensors technology. Environ. Res. 2021, 192, 110141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferro, A.R.; Kopperud, R.J.; Hildemann, L.M. Elevated personal exposure to particulate matter from human activities in a residence. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2004, 14, S34–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lerner, U.; Yacobi, T.; Levy, I.; Moltchanov, S.A.; Cole-Hunter, T.; Fishbain, B. The effect of ego-motion on environmental monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 533, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocman, D.; Kanduč, T.; Novak, R.; Robinson, J.A.; Mikeš, O.; Degrendele, C.; Sáňka, O.; Vinkler, J.; Prokeš, R.; Vienneau, D.; et al. Multi-Sensor Data Collection for Personal Exposure Monitoring: ICARUS Experience. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2021, 1–6, (accepted for publication). [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, J.A.; Novak, R.; Kanduč, T.; Sarigiannis, D.; Kocman, D. Articulating User Experience of a Multi-Sensor Personal Air Quality Exposure Study; Department of Environmental Sciences, Jožef Stefan Institute: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2021; in press. [Google Scholar]
- Soleri, D.; Long, J.; Ramirez-Andreotta, M.; Eitemiller, R.; Pandya, R. Finding Pathways to More Equitable and Meaningful Public-Scientist Partnerships. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pr. 2016, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Novak, R.; Petridis, I.; Kocman, D.; Robinson, J.A.; Kanduč, T.; Chapizanis, D.; Karakitsios, S.; Flückiger, B.; Vienneau, D.; Mikeš, O.; et al. Harmonization and Visualization of Data from a Transnational Multi-Sensor Personal Exposure Campaign. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nielsen Norman Group Design Thinking 101. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking/ (accessed on 2 August 2021).
- Golumbic, Y.N.; Fishbain, B.; Baram-Tsabari, A. User centered design of a citizen science air-quality monitoring project. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 2019, 9, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, R.S. Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries. Coll. Res. Libr. 1968, 29, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, P.; Bartonova, A.; Castell, N.; Dauge, F.R.; Gerboles, M.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Hüglin, C.; Jones, R.L.; Khan, S.; Lewis, A.C.; et al. Toward a Unified Terminology of Processing Levels for Low-Cost Air-Quality Sensors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 8485–8487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kamišalić, A.; Fister, I.; Turkanović, M.; Karakatič, S. Sensors and Functionalities of Non-Invasive Wrist-Wearable Devices: A Review. Sensors 2018, 18, 1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baram-Tsabari, A.; Wolfson, O.; Yosef, R.; Chapnik, N.; Brill, A.; Segev, E. Jargon use in Public Understanding of Science papers over three decades. Public Underst. Sci. 2020, 29, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirk, A. Data Visualisation: A Handbook for Data Driven Design; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4739-6631-4. [Google Scholar]
- Wong-Parodi, G.; Dias, M.B.; Taylor, M. Effect of Using an Indoor Air Quality Sensor on Perceptions of and Behaviors Toward Air Pollution (Pittsburgh Empowerment Library Study): Online Survey and Interviews. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2018, 6, e48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, J.A.; Kocman, D.; Horvat, M.; Bartonova, A. End-User Feedback on a Low-Cost Portable Air Quality Sensor System-Are We There Yet? Sensors 2018, 18, 3768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zappi, P.; Bales, E.; Park, J.H.; Griswold, W.; Šimuni, T. The CitiSense Air Quality Monitoring Mobile Sensor Node. In Proceedings of the IPSN 2012 Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, Beijing, China, 16–19 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (accessed on 9 September 2021).
- Curto, A.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Barrera-Gómez, J.; Marshall, J.D.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Wellenius, G.A.; Tonne, C. Performance of low-cost monitors to assess household air pollution. Environ. Res. 2018, 163, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gustafson, A.; Rice, R.E. A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Underst. Sci. 2020, 29, 614–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, R.A.; Casey, M.A. Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews. In Social Development Papers: Social Analysis Selected Tools and Techniques; Social Development Department The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 4–24. [Google Scholar]
- Virzi, R.A. Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough? Hum. Factors 1992, 34, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, R.; Kocman, D.; Robinson, J.A.; Kanduč, T.; Sarigiannis, D.; Horvat, M. Comparing Airborne Particulate Matter Intake Dose Assessment Models Using Low-Cost Portable Sensor Data. Sensors 2020, 20, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hirvonen, N.; Enwald, H.; Bath, P.A.; Pyky, R.; Korpelainen, R.; Huotari, M.-L. Individual Factors Affecting Preferences for Feedback Message Tactics in the Contexts of Physical Activity. J. Health Commun. 2015, 20, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.; Besley, J.C.; Dudo, A. A comparison between scientists’ and communication scholars’ views about scientists’ public engagement activities. Public Underst. Sci. 2019, 28, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Silk, K.J.; Totzkay, D. Communication Research in the Environmental Health Sciences. In Environmental Health Literacy; Finn, S., O’Fallon, L.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 45–64. ISBN 978-3-319-94108-0. [Google Scholar]
- Eppler, M.J. 11. Information Quality and Information Overload: The Promises and Perils of the Information Age. In Communication and Technology; De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 215–232. ISBN 978-3-11-027135-5. [Google Scholar]
- Druschke, C.G.; Seltzer, C.E. Failures of Engagement: Lessons Learned from a Citizen Science Pilot Study. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2012, 11, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, R.; Kocman, D.; Robinson, J.A.; Kanduč, T.; Sarigiannis, D.; Džeroski, S.; Horvat, M. Complex Activity Recognition Using Classification Methods on Low-Cost Portable Ambient and Activity Sensor Data. In Proceedings of the 13th Students’ Conference of the Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School and 15th CMBE Day book of Abstracts: Throughout Knowledge Towards a Green New World, Online, 27 May 2021; Jožef Stefan Institute and Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2021; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization WHO. Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide: Executive Summary; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 978-92-4-003443-3. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, T.W.; O’Connor, D.J.; Stocklmayer, S.M. Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Underst. Sci. 2003, 12, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramondt, S.; Ramírez, A.S. Media Reporting on Air Pollution: Health Risk and Precautionary Measures in National and Regional Newspapers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Participants in Ljubljana | Participants in All Cities | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | Total | Percentage | Total | Percentage |
Age | ||||
<18 | 8 | 11% | 77 | 15% |
18–64 | 60 | 82% | 398 | 79% |
>65 | 5 | 7% | 32 | 6% |
Pregnant | 1 | 1% | 6 | 1% |
Gender | ||||
Male | 39 | 53% | 242 | 47% |
Female | 47 | 47% | 269 | 53% |
Other | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Underlying health condition | 26 | 36% | 194 | 36% |
Education level of adult participants | ||||
Primary education/Not completed secondary education | 4 | 6% | 16 | 4% |
Completed secondary education | 9 | 14% | 101 | 23% |
Higher education | 52 | 80% | 313 | 73% |
Income level of adult participants | ||||
Lower 25% | 7 | 11% | 86 | 20% |
Average (25–75%) | 37 | 57% | 183 | 43% |
Upper 25% | 16 | 25% | 107 | 25% |
Unknown | 5 | 8% | 54 | 13% |
Section | Theme | Goal | Planned | Timeline in the Recording |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Welcome and short survey | Flashback paper survey on what participants remember about the campaign | 5 min | 00:00–04:10 |
2 | Introductory PowerPoint presentation | A presentation about the project and campaign, measurement uncertainties | 10 min | 04:10–10:15 |
3 | Discussion Part 1 | Mapping motivations and expectations on what participants would like to learn | 10 min | 10:15–11:57 |
4 | Discussion Part 2 | User needs: data aggregation in most useful way according to participants ideas | 10–15 min | 11:57–13:40 |
5 | Evaluation | Comprehension of suggested visualizations (paper survey) | 20 min | 13:40–32:29 |
6 | Discussion Part 3 | Visualization: first suggestions and their comprehension and suggestions for improvements | 20 min | 32:29–1:07:44 |
7 | Discussion Part 4 | Impact on behavioural change and user needs during and after the campaign | 10 min | 1:07:44–1:18:39 |
8 | Conclusions and socialising | Preliminary observations from the data. Final remarks and farewell | 10 min | 1:18:39–1:34:41 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Robinson, J.A.; Novak, R.; Kanduč, T.; Maggos, T.; Pardali, D.; Stamatelopoulou, A.; Saraga, D.; Vienneau, D.; Flückiger, B.; Mikeš, O.; et al. User-Centred Design of a Final Results Report for Participants in Multi-Sensor Personal Air Pollution Exposure Monitoring Campaigns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312544
Robinson JA, Novak R, Kanduč T, Maggos T, Pardali D, Stamatelopoulou A, Saraga D, Vienneau D, Flückiger B, Mikeš O, et al. User-Centred Design of a Final Results Report for Participants in Multi-Sensor Personal Air Pollution Exposure Monitoring Campaigns. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(23):12544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312544
Chicago/Turabian StyleRobinson, Johanna Amalia, Rok Novak, Tjaša Kanduč, Thomas Maggos, Demetra Pardali, Asimina Stamatelopoulou, Dikaia Saraga, Danielle Vienneau, Benjamin Flückiger, Ondřej Mikeš, and et al. 2021. "User-Centred Design of a Final Results Report for Participants in Multi-Sensor Personal Air Pollution Exposure Monitoring Campaigns" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 23: 12544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312544