Would you trust an indoor air quality tech site ?

ArmiteMini iaq
Airmite Mini
indoor air monitor from EM-monitors

Tech sites which refer to indoor air quality (iaq), draw us into is an emotional argument. These reports tell us of  dangerous pollutants that surround us. Which can cause us serious harm. This  is why we need the ….”Z box”

The “Z box ” will measure 8 zillion components all to within the accuracy of a nats breath.

Which is real terms means ……absolutely nothing

No one ever brings up a WHO standard. Or even mentions calibration, testing or accuracy.

Recently i came up across a client who had purchased a HEPA ( High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter) combined with a charcoal filter in order to provide workers in the office space with confidence that the air was clean and filtered.

There are a number of issues with this. Whilst some HEPA filters are good many operate on the edge of being useful to achieve this level of particle size removal. Typically a HEPA system operates at 0.3micron , a corona virus size is of the order of 0.1micron (100nm). However when the virus associated with an aerosol the filter can provide some useful reduction of the aerosol with associated. Independent assessment of these systems in vital to their correct use

 

We would not buy children’s medicine from the chap in the market, who has no credentials, however its perfectly reasonable to make random internet purchases on goods which are supposed to be good for our health.

note references made are always about “style”, “size” “looks” and “features” but not a jot about how it is tested and whether it really works!

http://www.airquality-monitoring.co.uk

 

 

accurate indoor air quality

 

The Insanity Of “Tech Reviews” Regarding Home Air Monitoring Products

There was a time when reviews of products actually meant something . We are all too familiar with journals and magazines promoting products that their magazine had the manufacturer as their main advertiser or sponsor. A classic example of this is hifi magazines.

Not good , not fair, however at least people writing the article had a good knowledge of the product and a deep seated interest.

Where we used to apply BS kite marked standards  to products, now it is a free for all.

With regards to Air Quality Monitoring, new low cost sensors mean that the technology suddenly becomes affordable. Cheap is one thing but reporting accurately is another.

Normally when a product is built, it is designed to meet a standard. In this case an air quality or indoor air quality standard. However we don;t have an indoor air quality standard for homes or buildings. The BS ambient atmospheres is working towards a standard but it is slow  whilst chaos around them ensues. The nearest thing we have is a mixture of part F of the building regulations looking at NO2, CO and TVOC

And now here is the rub. So in all of the reviews – no one – yes – NO ONE performs any validation testing. Either against a reference standard test gas or a secondary standard monitor.

One chap reported that ” the temperature was 6 degrees out, but other than that it worked fine” !!!! A 8 year old school could good make a device with an accuracy to 0.1 degree. So the guy was happy measuring the device against something he though might be accurate. But was clueless in understanding if :

c;lean air monitring
Air quality
Airmite mini Dust plus 1 gas
compact remote dust & gas monitor

indoor air quality

b, what a correct reading would be anyway

 

For the record i am adding some guideline values here. This is difficult to source as many organisations and countries use different reporting criteris > ie 15mins , 1 hour , 8 hours etc

NO2 150ppb – 8 hour average

CO- 90ppm      15m average

CO 10ppm        8 hour average

TVOC  300ug/m3 8 hour average

O3    100ug/m3

CO2 – 400 -1400 8 hour average

occupation limits suggest 5000 ppm  as 8 hour average

one thing we can offer is to validate your monitor against a calibrated standard

contact info@em-monitors.co.uk

http://www.airquality- monitoring.co.uk