Background: Global awareness of ambient air pollution has heightened due to its detrimental impact on health, particularly in regions with elevated PM_2.5 levels. Chiang Mai has emerged as an area experiencing the highest PM_2.5 levels in Thailand. Objectives: to examine the prevalence of respiratory allergies and assess the impact of air pollution on the health-related quality of life (QoL) among university students in Chiang Mai. Methods: Chiang Mai University (CMU) and Maejo University (MJU) students were recruited. The Global Asthma Network (GAN) questionnaire screened for respiratory allergies (RAs). The disease-specific QoL questionnaire (Rcq-36) was administered twice during low-PM_2.5 and high-PM_2.5 seasons to evaluate air pollution’s impact on health-related QoL. Those showing potential RAs underwent a skin prick test (SPT) to investigate allergic sensitization. Results: Out of 406 participants, 131 (32%) reported respiratory allergies. Among those undergoing SPT, a high rate (82.54%) had positive results. Across both universities, students reported significantly lower QoL in multiple domains, particularly respiratory, eye, sleep, and emotional well-being, during the high-PM_2.5 season. This aligned with their poorer self-reported health on a visual analog scale (VAS; p-value < 0.01). PM_2.5 levels significantly impacted social functioning for CMU students (p-value = 0.001) and role limitations for MJU students (p-value < 0.001). Notably, participants without respiratory allergies (non-RAs) were more significantly affected by PM_2.5 than RA participants in almost all parameters, despite experiencing fewer baseline symptoms. Conclusions: Respiratory allergies, particularly allergic rhinitis, are prevalent among university students in Chiang Mai. This study underscores the substantial negative impact of ambient air pollution on QoL for both allergic and non-allergic students.

This study evaluated the Omron HEM‐7120 automated oscillometric upper‐arm home blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents against the numerical accuracy criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard. Test readings were compared with mercury auscultatory readings from two physicians using the same‐arm sequential method. Three cuffs covered arm circumferences of 12–18, 17–22, and 22–32 cm. Of 90 participants, 85 were analyzed, yielding 255 comparisons. Mean differences were −4.0 ± 5.94 mmHg for systolic and −1.8 ± 7.20 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure, meeting Criterion 1. Participant standard deviations were 5.07 and 6.48 mmHg, below Criterion 2 limits. However, the requirements regarding age, reference‐blood‐pressure and cuff distributions, reference‐measurement variability, and observer qualification were not fully met. The device met numerical criteria in this cohort, but it is not fully validated under the Universal Standard.