Live data from Hacker News

Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

airgradient.com

161–170 of 218 posts

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#161
post #3

Author here. I wrote this article a few weeks ago after discovering that a well known air quality monitor in the market that retails for more than USD 1000 actually uses a PM module that costs less than USD 20. Often people assume that the more expensive, the better but as you can see in the article this is often not the case -especially when it comes to the accuracy of the monitor. If you are looking for an open sou…

Have you compared the Sensirion SEN55 against the Plantower sensors? I ask because I’ve recently picked up both and have played around with them each individually but haven’t compared them for accuracy yet. The nice thing about the SEN55 is that it contains all of the sensors in one unit (PM1.0 to PM10.0, temperature, Relative Humidity, NOX and VOC). They do cost a little bit more than the Plantower units, about $30-…

+1 for the SEN5X. Incredible little sensor. I picked up a devkit a year ago when it first came out, intending to build an OSS AQM around it, but alas, time and young kids got in the way. I'm really hoping it gains traction in the community.

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#162
Interesting article - good to know, too!

I've been tracking air quality in Gary, IN for a few years now. It started with a PurpleAir ($), then a AQMesh pod ($$$$$) for a few months, now I'm rocking a Sensit RAMP ($$$). Just haven't spent too much time updating the dashboard I built to showcase the data: https://millerbeach.community. I had one sensor up and running at a time, so couldn't compare all 3 (PM only) against each other.

Indoors, I've been using a Canairi Air Quality Sensor, but that's just a simple CO2 monitor, along with my Dyson hot/cool air purifier.

I'm looking for a rough idea of what my family are breathing, I don't mind if numbers aren't 100% accurate (hopefully as small -/+ %, though).

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero way your body is losing a quarter pound at night through either process in a room at 70 degrees

According to [0], humans exhale about 11.0L of CO2 per hour at night. 02 in, CO2 out, so we can get mols of gas with ideal gas law and mass loss with molecular weight of carbon. If I did my math right, it comes out to 53.9g over 8 hours of sleep (if you can get that much ). (Americans: 0.118 lb/night). Not quite a quarter pound but maybe closer than you thought! [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.129…

We also lose H20 through exhalation. I imagine that can make up the difference.

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#164
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's the same. Low cost air quality measurement is difficult. PM is tricky but almost manageable with laser scattering, toxic gases at typical inquinant concentrations are almost impossible to get right with electrochemical sensors, no matter how much money you throw at them. Weight measurement is easy, they could give you precise and accurate results but most customer base doesn't understand anything…

No, they lie to cover up the cheapness and inadequacy of their flextures. "Users can't handle the truth" is a bullshit excuse and you should be ashamed for making it.

Whoah there: Your typical (cheap) consumer scale will have four (50kg) load cells hooked up to an hx711 (or clone) and the cheapest microcontroller the manufacturer could find that can drive an LCD directly.

Even the cheapest load cell is pretty damned accurate and the average between the four of them is going to be accurate within 0.1kg (~0.22lbs). Having said that, load cells have this problem where their values drift over time but only if there's a constant weight on them. If you step off the scale and allow it to re-calibrate itself (which is what it does every time it turns on) there will definitely not be enough drift to matter from a, "how much do I weigh?" standpoint. All it takes is like 2 seconds without weight for a load cell to "settle down" back to its not-actually-very-noisy resting position.

I've tested loads of the cheapest possible load cells money could buy along with some load cells I took from an expensive transparent scale that had cracked. They were all far more accurate than I was expecting and any differences between them was negligible.

The longer you wait before weighing something the less accurate it'll be but only by tiny, negligible amounts. Like, if you're weighing something that's 100kg and you waited ten minutes after calibration (something most scales won't allow because they all have something like a 30-second timeout) you'd still get a value that's within 0.01 of 100kg. They don't drift that much at rest unless there's some serious temperature variations or you had something resting on the scale the entire time.

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#165
This is probably a stupid question regarding the equipment, but it seems to be a good addition for the user, even if additional hardware underneath is required - why is CO not more common on these devices?

Additionally, where are all the ppbv CO detection capabilities? (most are ppm, likely to not be a scare to humans but always reading "0", but it makes determining sensitivity or any response at all pretty difficult)

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#166
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Bowflex scale does this. I tend to switch modes / user profiles if I care about accuracy.

See mine is too cheap to have any logic or memory in it

shrug I bought it for $39 about 11 years ago.

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#167
post #165

This is probably a stupid question regarding the equipment, but it seems to be a good addition for the user, even if additional hardware underneath is required - why is CO not more common on these devices? Additionally, where are all the ppbv CO detection capabilities? (most are ppm, likely to not be a scare to humans but always reading "0", but it makes determining sensitivity or any response at all pretty difficult…

CO detectors are life-safety equipment. The regulatory burden for laboratory certification and approval is much higher for them.

If you put an air-quality detector into your device and it's reading 30% lower than reality it's no big deal.

If you put a CO detector into your device and it's reading 30% lower than reality you may face massive liabilities.

It isn't a "hey, why not" feature.

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#168
post #116
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's the same. Low cost air quality measurement is difficult. PM is tricky but almost manageable with laser scattering, toxic gases at typical inquinant concentrations are almost impossible to get right with electrochemical sensors, no matter how much money you throw at them. Weight measurement is easy, they could give you precise and accurate results but most customer base doesn't understand anything…

Easy solution though, just limit the scale's display to a magnitude that it can accurately measure reproducible.

This is how the market for scales works: You buy a scale for the weight class you're planning on measuring. For example, you can't buy a scale made for weighing humans and expect it to be useful for weighing herbs or jewelry.

It's because of how load cells (and scales) are manufactured. They're made for weight classes like 100g, 1kg, 2kg, 3kg, 5kg, 10kg, etc. So to make a scale for a particular weight you pick the load cells you'll need for the range you want.

Higher quality scales don't select higher quality load cells; they're all the same (reasonable quality) for the most part! Instead they just use more load cells and just take an average of all their values, multiplied by the number of cells, to measure weight.

So if you want a damned accurate industrial scale for measuring weights around 1kg you'd use like twelve 100g load cells rather than a single 2kg load cell or two 1kg load cells. Of course, then the hard part becomes, "how do I distribute this weight perfectly evenly across all of them?" so you have to take tolerances into account to make sure that at no point can weighing part of your scale rub against the side of its container or accidentally get something wedged between the scale part and the case.

There's loads of other things to consider as well but for the most part the accuracy of the scale is a factor of how many load cells its using, not the quality/manufacturing tolerances of the load cells themselves. Because even with the most precise manufacturing methods load cells will still drift and be impacted by temperature. All you can do is calibrate regularly, test them, and hope for the best (or use a completely different technology).

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they lie to cover up the cheapness and inadequacy of their flextures. "Users can't handle the truth" is a bullshit excuse and you should be ashamed for making it.

Whoah there: Your typical (cheap) consumer scale will have four (50kg) load cells hooked up to an hx711 (or clone) and the cheapest microcontroller the manufacturer could find that can drive an LCD directly. Even the cheapest load cell is pretty damned accurate and the average between the four of them is going to be accurate within 0.1kg (~0.22lbs). Having said that, load cells have this problem where their values dr…

When you cheap out on flextures, it's not the accuracy under ideal perpendicular loads that goes, and cheap housings struggle to provide ideal perpendicular loads. These are not particularly difficult things to get right, but the construction of even relatively expensive ($150) scales is so cheap that it screws this up and results in >1% deviation over the surface of the scale if you bypass the digital cheating mechanism.

Is it a big problem? No, but there's a fake decimal and an attempt to hide that the decimal is fake. Not cool.

Re: Air quality monitors: paying more does not get you more accuracy

#170
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect I know exactly which one you bought ;) I wish I could find a good source for "outside CO2 levels" as I think they've been elevated but I have no way to prove it (beyond my indoor sensor showing high).

Aranet4 is the way to go. Tried going cheap and getting a bunch of Vitalights later as additional monitors but ended up finding out that their results were all over the place. Returned the Vitalight. Kept the Aranet4. I do have plans to build a few Airgradients when I have time.

It does not seem to have PM2.5
Post reply on HN