...and here I am, nice to "meet" you!

I've read the interesting document you posted from EPA, and I can give some feedbacks regarding what JRC did on this argument (the European experience!).

They tested several "low cost" sensors (low cost if compared to the so called fiduciary ones).
They worked within the FP7 MACPoll Project with many institutes of metrology to face with these devices in the best way possible. They understood some "rules" and the most important (in my opinion) are:

1. it is definitely difficult to individuate the "best" sensor for a specific parameter amongst the panorama they investigated (due to different factors such as cross sensitivity to other substances, reliability, etc.).
2. what is better to do is to combine some of them (even based on different technologies) to improve the possibility to manage data. For example, in regard with Ozone, it is possible to combine an electrochemical sensor with a MICS one (metal oxide semiconductors gas sensors) for NO2 to face with cross sensitivity.

We also worked on some configurations regarding air quality and compliant with the ACRONET Paradigm. Our experience led us to understand that:

a. if low cost measuring instruments are adopted, every installation requires a specific calibration. Then, the right process impose to test the instruments as much possible close to a fiduciary station (if available) measuring the same parameter of your interest. After this period, the analysis of the data sets will allow to extract the best fitting curve of calibration (for that site!!).
b. it is possible to develop a really low cost station for air quality monitoring but, in some cases, it is necessary to simplify the constraints. Furthermore, there are some sensors available on the market that, even if really low costs, are completely useless to monitor the interesting variables (i.e. the Particulate Matter). The evaluation phase (where both costs and project requirements must be put in relation) that lead to the selection of the measuring instruments becomes crucial.

Forgive me for the poem, please!

Best regards,
Adriano

Hi Adriano,

Thank you for the update! So essentially it seems that (to a degree) you get what you pay for, and if you are in a hurry (or have to pay for someone's time when doing the setup), the cheapest equipment starts to become expensive.

Are there more details available on the MACPoll website (assuming of course that I got the URL right... )?

Dear Matti,

definitely yes, you have to register at the website, then you'll find many reports with further information on the sensors.

What I'd like to add is that for some situations (parameters of interest) interesting cost can be still obtained even with "unconventional" solutions that can however fit with the requirements of a serious air quality monitoring project. The open challenge for these kind of solutions is to verify if public bodies are interested with and to approach the comparison with "fiduciary" ones. Once we could demonstrate the equivalence between the different methods, a big task would be solved.
However, also making the existing WSN more dense is surely interesting and it would be important to work in this direction (maybe simpler than the former one): the availability of big amount of data and information is crucial to copy with air quality issues.

Many thanks for your reply and best regards!
Adriano

Dear Adriano, All,

Somewhat tangentially related to the issue: I stumbled upon this website/company couple of weeks ago:

ilovescience.es/en/

The business model seems to be running crowdfunding projects to support science. If the goal is reached, they will take a share of the funding; if not, they don't charge anything.

This could perhaps be a way to fund a small-scale pilots, e.g. comparing the low-cost air quality monitors with the "fiduciary" ones?

Best regards,

Matti