The Austin Air HealthMate is great as a noise machine. Very loud. It’s a HEPA filter and lasts 5 years. Never seen any other that lasts that long, but you pay for it upfront. after-market replacements are $250-300 for another 5 years.
I have that machine. It seems better at filtering chemicals and VOCs but not great at filtering particulates. It gets rid of odors very well but my PM2.5 meter barely budges.
I have IQAir HyperHEPA filters, plus whole-house AprilAire HEPA filters on the HVAC equipment in the attic. I’m fine on particulates.
Where I need extra help is with VOCs in certain locations. Like, in or near bathrooms. Or the cat litter boxes. IQAir does sell their GC line for that, and we have a couple of those. But the activated carbon filter media is super expensive. And these things are huge. Like, bigger than a dorm refrigerator.
I have odak clean air assistant from mountain labs. If you are looking for a device that can handle measurement and analysis all in box without app and subcriptions. You can choose this one.
My allergies became generally better at all hours just from sleeping in super cleaned air.
Why? Reducing baseline inflammation perhapse? Maybe decreased inflammation during sleep helps too, improved breathing? idk. Whatever it is this organism seems to prefer it.
Even when exposed to allergens during the day the run up to sneezing is much slower or doesn't happen.
It just looks like fog, but it is smoke, and the sky has an unusual orange color. Smells and tastes like you are standing in the path of a campfire, but you can't move out of the way. It irritates your eyes and throat if you spend more than 20 mins out there. You can go inside, but if the building you are in is leaky, it will smell like smoke inside there too.
The actual fire was hundreds of miles away. You can try driving in any direction for hours and not be clear of the smoke. Still, compared to other areas, this is barely worth complaining about.
I bought a large soldering iron air purifier and it turns out to be great; it has a continuious speed selector, easy to replace filters, and very pleasant spectrum. I like it better than the air conditioner, which cycles on and off noisily.
Those fans will not have sufficient static pressure to be useful. These makeshift purifiers may be great in a pinch (wildfire season and stores are all out), but far from the best.
The linked PC-fan purifier has been tested and shown to purify air faster than the conventional alternatives, and are not makeshift, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
From the specs it looks like they are probably closer to higher-static-pressure server fans, the CADR is a few hundred CFM and it pulls 30+ watts. And as with many of these designs, you can compensate for low pressure performance by increasing filter surface area... the greater the surface area the lower the pressure drop. Of course, the problem with this is you are just spending more money on filters, which is the expensive part.
But since you bought mostly media, you didn't get a housing that hides the media, and you get to look at any collected dirt for that longer interval as well...
I'm sure it works but like any engineering decision it has pros and cons.
If that's your biggest worry in life, seems like a high-class problem! Many people are satisfied 'just' protecting their heart and lung health.
However, if you really don't want to look at it, you can always flip most DIY designs inside-out so the fans blow in and dust collects on the inside instead of the outside! This doesn't clean the room quite as efficiently, but if the appearance of dust is a major concern that should be a fix.
Yeah it’s functionally fine but I would opt to buy a more polished product for the above reasons. Probably would be great for a shop or similar, which is where I’ve done DIY purifiers myself. My personal favorite for cutting down on dust during home projects is a 20x20 furnace filter slapped on the intake side of a box fan. It requires zero extra parts or assembly.
Flipping the fans isn’t great because then you have to clean the fans, this is why draw-through is the standard configuration. Also many designs like this rely on negative pressure to seal properly or even stay together. You might just have the lid take off like a helicopter.
The filter cost for the AirFanta 3 doesn't seem particularly high? In fact it seems cheaper than competitors.
All the purifier companies realized they make more money selling overpriced filters, so $60+ for the OEM filters is common nowadays. Despite it just being a standard HEPA filter cut to a specific size.
Airfanta 3 Pro filters (four) - $57
Coway Mighty Filter - $60
Coway Mighty2 Filter - $70-$80
I'd be concerned about the availability of filters after a few years. Some of these companies have been changing their models and filter type every year to add some nebulous feature. Others just go out of business.
Yeah, the retail prices of filters is all over the place because of the popularity of razor/blade model of pricing. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the BOM itself -- this device is using 4x the filter media of comparable filters, which would typically have one filter that size.
HEPA media itself is a commodity and aftermarket filters (and the BOM cost to the OEM) tend to level out at whatever rate is minimally profitable per area of filter media.
The upfront cost of this device is high for what you get, because you're mostly buying filter media. The device itself is not much of a polished product. I'm sure it works fine but I wouldn't want one in my living room.
This is indeed the "conventional wisdom," but if you do the math it turns out this is incorrect.
The trick is to use high-airflow MERV 13 filters (ideally 3M 1900, which has high pleat count and low resistance) instead of high-resistance HEPA filters, so axial PC fans can generate enough pressure.
Merv-13 means it filters at least 75% of the particles passing through it.
For a standalone air filter which is pushing the filtered air into the same room its drawing from, we can assume reasonably good mixing of the intake and exhaust air. Thus to be equivalent to a HEPA-filter it only needs 1/3rd more airflow... Which really isn't much.
This doesn't follow for a a fancier setup where you're taking dirty air and blowing it into a cleanroom or something... but that's not how we're typically using household air filters.
Is it safe to assume all particles are equally as likely to be filtered, or are there particles that HEPA will filter that a MERV-13 will never filter no matter the number of cycles?
75% refers to the Most Penetrating Particle Size (MPPS), so they intentionally measure at the worst-case size so you don't have that problem. All other sizes are filtered at a higher percent.
They only measure down to 0.3 microns in size, and MERV-13 only does 75%. A proper HEPA filter does 99.97% at that size.
And that really does make a huge difference to someone who has allergies.
IQAir does HyperHEPA, and they go down to 0.003 microns (so, a hundred times smaller, down to the size of viruses), and they capture 99.5% at that size. That’s why they’re used in hospitals.
You want at least MERV 15 so that virus sized particles get filtered in meaningful amounts, but yes the guy above you is wrong and choking on dirty air
Filters are included, as well as high quality fans, AC/DC converter and speed controller, and the portable/collapsible enclosure. It's really not that expensive vs trying to put together the parts yourself, and it's tested to work very well compared to other more expensive filters.
You can make your own to save money, I made this project for example. I paired it with an Air-1 sensor and home assistant to ramp up and down the downs in real time according to the live air quality readings.
If you were actually looking for an answer, the AirFanta's creator Adam Wong recently answered a question about this:
Production costs include raw material procurement (my fan and filter suppliers are happy, since each machine requires four fans and four filters—more than they supply to other brands) and labor assembly costs. In addition, there are shipping costs from China to the US, Europe, and other regions, warehousing fees, and last-mile delivery fees. For what it's worth, in the US, shipping this 17 lb box already costs about $18. Also, Shopify and credit card channels take just under 5%. We also hope to promote on Amazon in the future. Estimated advertising costs are 20%, and Amazon charges another 15% in fees, so that adds up to 35%. If you're not in this business, it's normal not to know these expenses. But I have to say, the costs are much higher than they appear on the surface.
Yes I appreciate fees etc, but the component parts are available on Amazon individually for way less.
120mm high static pressure fans are £7 (so £28), an AC power-supply fan controller £11. IKEA filters are £3 each, so £12. So we're looking about £50, be generous and chuck in another tenner for 3d printed ABS and screws etc. £60 all-in at 1x retail/Amazon prime prices, delivered to my house.
If I was doing this at scale I am sure I could get lower than the retail Amazon prime prices. But even if I couldn't this is about half of the £130 RRP. Yes there are labour costs to assemble this but this is not exactly a swiss watch and looks like it comes flat packed anyway?
yes! Many people make these DIY filter boxes themselves, usually called CR boxes[0], which come in (quiet but pricey) PC fan and (louder but cheaper) box fan flavors.
Do note that the AirFanta uses 140 mm fans, and IKEA filters are E12 vs E11 so the airflow would be less optimal[1], but hey who's counting. ;) Also I envy how cheap your IKEA filters are; in the US they're $18 & $25 now.
I have one in the bedroom. On low, I barely hear it during the day (extra ambient noise from outside) but at night the white-noise is subtle but effective. That said, I don't like "loud" white noise, just a quiet hum.
YSK on low you won't be getting much air cleaning power. All air purifiers are rated based on their top fan speed.
Housefresh, which is a criminally underrated review channel btw, recently did a comparison of PC fans for this purpose. The Thermalright TL-14C family came out strong in the "Silent" category, with the best ultra-quiet 24/7 fan speed performance. This comes at the cost of slightly worse max speed CADR vs the venerable Arctic P14.
IQAir HyperHEPA is substantially worse than the AirFanta 3Pro. The 3Pro gives you about 10x more clean air per dollar (2 CFM/$ vs 0.2 CFM/$), and 2.5x more clean air at a given noise level (45dBA: 213 vs 86 CFM).
I agree big fans moving slowly is better all else equal, and something AirFanta-like that used a 12" fan could be even better.
An air purifier is the best noise machine for me, much better than the white noise machines with the tinny speakers. Even the brown noise setting on those isn't nearly deep enough to let me sleep.
Yea, having it and using it at max just as I go to bed just makes me feel much better for the air I'll be breathing while sleeping. I also used to always fall asleep to some noise or music, so this is such a nice replacement
You can easily send white noise to good speakers, if you have any. There are free apps for it, not to mention hours-long YouTube videos with white/pink/brown noise.
Totally agree. I've never liked the speaker generators. The old school DOHM models are way better because they do not use a speaker, they have a fan inside.
The bigger the fan the better, IMO. I really love those cheap square box fans... It's hard to beat that deep, low hum that small speakers and small fans just can't replicate.
Now that I think of it, back when I was a kid in the 90s, there was a circa-70s oscillating fan that my family kept in the living room during the summer, and the noise it made was quite pleasant. The oscillation added a gentle rhythmic quality that made it even nicer.
I’d never put two and two together until now, but that fan had to have been a major factor in some of the unexpectedly great naps in that room.
We had a circulating fan from the 50s that had very little in way of a cage with metal blades. The fan was heavy as you might imagine from the time period. It worked great. It was definitely something we were repeatedly warned about it as kids to not put fingers/hands in it. The house was a pier&beam with the AC vents in the floor. The fan sat on the floor next to one of the vents to blow towards the couch. I'd agree that it had influence on naps as well
There are 20" square box fans that have a built in slot for a 20x20x1 filter. It's advertised as having a slightly more powerful motor. It is a good noise machine while also getting the added benefit of filtered air instead of just noise
this feels like a 'dose makes the poison' scenario. you're talking about maybe $10 of difference annually if both were run continuously. and that's only if you bought an inefficient air purifier - if you elected to use, for eg, four Arctic P14 PSTs in a CR box then that's maybe double the kWh. this ends up being a couple of bucks more annually for the added benefit of having better air quality
If you want the better sound but don't care about the purifier, then get a DOHM sound machine. It uses a fan and sound great, and I'd guess the energy consumption is pretty trivial.
None of those seem particularly concerning. We have a gas range, and 15 min past the end of cooking everything is fine. I must imagine that most people don't live right next to the freeway so they probably have even better air quality except during wildfire season.
CO2 - I'm thrilled with anything less than 800 ppm (half justified by being the lowest number I've ever seen a study suggest might have health effects, half justified by being at a point where I personally don't notice that I'm more drowsy).
PM2.5 - My impression is the health risks here are more cumulative exposure (and include things I'd like to go without in my life, like alzheimers) and a pretty straight line of "lower is better all the way to zero". The WHO's guideline is mean exposure of 5 µg/m³ so I guess I'd adopt that if I had to put a number on it. (But it's a mean, I wouldn't worry about briefly exceeding it)
PM10 - No real opinion (I'd rather worry about PM2.5)
VOC index - I'm not sure this is a standardized thing, but the version I've come across is an index relative to the average that particular sensor has seen in the last 24 hours. So there's no standard possible here.
---
As for a gas range I would worry about NOX considering the studies with them causing and aggravating asthma. That said your CO2 levels are low so I suspect you might have sufficient ventilation that this isn't a huge issue for you (especially if that ventilation is in the form of a fume hood over your stove that you actually use).
CO2 by itself doesn't appear to be a problem until some truly absurd levels are somehow achieved.
CO2 is usually a proxy for air quality because outside is usually something consistent like 400 therefore deviation from that figure indicates staleness.
I don't have the list of relevant studies I've read on hand atm but there was at least one where they simply pumped in CO2 (or didn't) and had an effect showing pretty directly that CO2 itself is problematic at reasonably low levels - as well as potentially being an excellent proxy for other air quality issues. Problematic in a "makes you drowsy/stupid" type of way - not a "kills you" type of way. Though there's also at least one correlative studies suggesting it might have long term health effects (which really wouldn't be surprising if it has any short term effects).
Besides which, proxy or directly high CO2 means you should ventilate...
the military has conducted studies where submariners were exposed to a PPM of 1000s with no ill effect. I suppose they were trying to determine how hard they need to scrub.
having said that, it's possible they omitted what other gasses and %s they used for advantage. there could be some mitigation possible there.
VOC index means literally nothing. (I've read the datasheet, implemented some kludges to log raw data, and contemplated the formulas. The data is high-pass filtered. You literally cannot conclude anything about a single measurement if you assume the sensor is somehow magically perfect. You might conclude that there is more VOC (or less -- not all VOCs have the same sign in their effect) when cooking than when not cooking.)
I target 0 PM2.5, but this only necessarily makes sense as a target if you have the ability to filter your home's supply air. And a good vent hood should be able to avoid any detectable bump while cooking (although a vent hood without filtered makeup air may cause a bump due to increased infiltration of exterior air).
The instrument is pretty crappy - it has basically no calibration or, AIUI, long term stability. So you can’t really use it to characterize the chemical content of the air. What you can do is observe changes. I’m guessing the manufacturer wanted to avoid people getting confused by the absurd raw reasons, so they came up with a formula called “VOC Index” that HPFs the data. It will average 100 IIRC. You’re supposed to use it to notice events that cause changes - if it hits 170 every day at 2 PM them you can guess that something’s happening at 2 PM.
None of this is in the chip. It’s implemented by the driver. There’s an implementation in esphome, for example.
>you can’t really use it to characterize the chemical content of the air
correct, that's not VOC sensors do. you need specific sensors for different gases for that. All VOC sensors are metal-oxide (MOx) sensors, i suggest reading on their supposed applications and uses.
What I mean is: the MOx sensors, in theory, measure some function of the concentrations of various gasses in the air. The datasheets even give you some flavor of this function for some of the sensors.
But the actual behavior, at least for the SGP4x series, is so outrageously unstable and path dependent that you still can’t learn the value if that function of the gas concentrations. At best you get changes on timescales of minutes to a few hours but not on timescales of days.
>you get changes on timescales of minutes to a few hours but not on timescales of days.
again, correct. That's how they're supposed to work. If the air is very slowly getting worse, MOx sensors might not catch it.
That being said, what "very slowly" means depends on the sensor. For example, for Bosch BME680 (very good with 'organics'), you can set the tracking interval between 4 and 28 days (i use 28). Sensirion SEN66 (very good with 'chemicals') can have a tracking interval of up to 1000 hours.
What sensor, exactly, are you describing here? Different VOC sensors have different gas sensibilities, as well as different algorithms to interpret the gas sensor raw data.
Depending on the month, my kitchen AQI averages between 1-4, representing PM2.5 values of 0.1 - 0.8 ug/m^3. Bedrooms are likely better as they don't have the gas stove.
CO2 while occupied is generally under 750; I'd prefer to keep it under 700 but we also balance that with energy efficiency for that make-up air; I don't have an ERV, so we suffer a little there.
(We don't live by a freeway but - (a) Pittsburgh's air isn't great; and (b) the canadian wildfires were pretty bad here at times this summer, and that was what caused that 0.8 ug/m^3 pm2.5 spike).
We have, um, a lot of air filters left over from covid, though, so we're a little spoiled in terms of being able to manage AQI easily.
I don't get this comment, are you joking? 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter "isn't great"?
Typical concentrations of pm2.5 in outside air in winter time where I live are roughly 200-250 micrograms during the day, and into high hundreds (400-800) to thousands (highest I've seen is 3000) in the evening.
Yes, this is correctly measured by multiple sources.
This is what "isn't great" looks like, not your less than 20% of the latest WHO recommendation.
The thing that's not fully optimized are the CO2 levels in my house. As I've continued improving the air sealing in the house to reduce my heating and AC costs, it's something I want to address a little more in the future through active ventilation.
pm10 is the mass concentration of particles with aerodynamic diameters up to approximately 10 µm, including PM2.5, so Jefftk's analogy was right. there must some kind of typo or measurement error
This makes me wonder, for a truly travel-size solution (or just otherwise compact needs), if there's a viable alternative that directs filtered air at a sleeper's head? In other words, would the net effect be equivalent for one person (such that they're breathing more or less the same cleanness of air)?
I grasp that such an approach might draw unfiltered surrounding air along with the filtered stream of air, and imagine that it would likely be easily overwhelmed by a steady supply of exceptionally polluted air (wildfire smoke or simply a heavily polluted urban area), but I still would be interested in knowing if the compromise never overcomes a level of placebo effect, or if there's a point where it actually achieves measurable benefit (both in efficacy and portability—like a even more compact and directional version of the Corsi-Rosenthal computer fan solution.)
I have seen models designed this way! Vornado used to make one, I think it's discontinued.
These directed-air "personal models" make a lot of sense to me... at least in theory. I haven't seen them properly tested.
The big air purifiers work great.. if the room is closed up. But their effectiveness approaches zero if you have the windows open or otherwise have unfiltered air entering the room. Which is kind of important, if you don't enjoy breathing in sky high levels of CO2. (If one's allergies are bad enough, or a wildfire is raging outside, CO2 might of course be preferable to particulates)
Where I need extra help is with VOCs in certain locations. Like, in or near bathrooms. Or the cat litter boxes. IQAir does sell their GC line for that, and we have a couple of those. But the activated carbon filter media is super expensive. And these things are huge. Like, bigger than a dorm refrigerator.
So, I welcome an alternative that does VOCs well.
I got one during Santa Cruz wildfires in 2020 and now the kids have a pavlovian reflex to sleep once that gets turned on.
Ikea makes an air-purifier table, which is a end-run around it being a useless box in the room when switched off.
It's fairly expensive, not as good as a purpose built one, but it blends into the average room pretty well.
>removes smoke and infectious particles
Where do people live that they need to remove such things, 18th century London?
SF Bay Area during the summer fires of a few years ago
So you got responses about smoke and dust which are a very very common air quality problem.
I guess that's too subtle for HN. In the future I will be sure to emphasise when my ANDs are boolean.
Wind blows smoke around. There are currently fires in northern Michigan that are affecting the air quality in Chicago, which is 350+ miles away.
https://data.usatoday.com/fires/
My allergies became generally better at all hours just from sleeping in super cleaned air.
Why? Reducing baseline inflammation perhapse? Maybe decreased inflammation during sleep helps too, improved breathing? idk. Whatever it is this organism seems to prefer it.
Even when exposed to allergens during the day the run up to sneezing is much slower or doesn't happen.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wildfire_smoke_Wyand...
It just looks like fog, but it is smoke, and the sky has an unusual orange color. Smells and tastes like you are standing in the path of a campfire, but you can't move out of the way. It irritates your eyes and throat if you spend more than 20 mins out there. You can go inside, but if the building you are in is leaky, it will smell like smoke inside there too.
The actual fire was hundreds of miles away. You can try driving in any direction for hours and not be clear of the smoke. Still, compared to other areas, this is barely worth complaining about.
For cost over time, twice the filters means twice the replacement interval, so the additional filter cost cancels out.
I'm sure it works but like any engineering decision it has pros and cons.
However, if you really don't want to look at it, you can always flip most DIY designs inside-out so the fans blow in and dust collects on the inside instead of the outside! This doesn't clean the room quite as efficiently, but if the appearance of dust is a major concern that should be a fix.
Flipping the fans isn’t great because then you have to clean the fans, this is why draw-through is the standard configuration. Also many designs like this rely on negative pressure to seal properly or even stay together. You might just have the lid take off like a helicopter.
All the purifier companies realized they make more money selling overpriced filters, so $60+ for the OEM filters is common nowadays. Despite it just being a standard HEPA filter cut to a specific size.
Airfanta 3 Pro filters (four) - $57
Coway Mighty Filter - $60
Coway Mighty2 Filter - $70-$80
I'd be concerned about the availability of filters after a few years. Some of these companies have been changing their models and filter type every year to add some nebulous feature. Others just go out of business.
HEPA media itself is a commodity and aftermarket filters (and the BOM cost to the OEM) tend to level out at whatever rate is minimally profitable per area of filter media.
The upfront cost of this device is high for what you get, because you're mostly buying filter media. The device itself is not much of a polished product. I'm sure it works fine but I wouldn't want one in my living room.
I leave them on setting 2 (unless someone is sick or we're having a lot of people over), and we get ~425 CFM for about $40/y in power (~5W each).
The trick is to use high-airflow MERV 13 filters (ideally 3M 1900, which has high pleat count and low resistance) instead of high-resistance HEPA filters, so axial PC fans can generate enough pressure.
For a standalone air filter which is pushing the filtered air into the same room its drawing from, we can assume reasonably good mixing of the intake and exhaust air. Thus to be equivalent to a HEPA-filter it only needs 1/3rd more airflow... Which really isn't much.
This doesn't follow for a a fancier setup where you're taking dirty air and blowing it into a cleanroom or something... but that's not how we're typically using household air filters.
And that really does make a huge difference to someone who has allergies.
IQAir does HyperHEPA, and they go down to 0.003 microns (so, a hundred times smaller, down to the size of viruses), and they capture 99.5% at that size. That’s why they’re used in hospitals.
https://makerworld.com/en/models/2470181-nukit-tempest-euro-...
If you were actually looking for an answer, the AirFanta's creator Adam Wong recently answered a question about this:
[0] https://reddit.com/r/crboxes/comments/1x3vnyn/i_just_launche...120mm high static pressure fans are £7 (so £28), an AC power-supply fan controller £11. IKEA filters are £3 each, so £12. So we're looking about £50, be generous and chuck in another tenner for 3d printed ABS and screws etc. £60 all-in at 1x retail/Amazon prime prices, delivered to my house.
If I was doing this at scale I am sure I could get lower than the retail Amazon prime prices. But even if I couldn't this is about half of the £130 RRP. Yes there are labour costs to assemble this but this is not exactly a swiss watch and looks like it comes flat packed anyway?
Do note that the AirFanta uses 140 mm fans, and IKEA filters are E12 vs E11 so the airflow would be less optimal[1], but hey who's counting. ;) Also I envy how cheap your IKEA filters are; in the US they're $18 & $25 now.
[0] https://cleanaircrew.org/box-fan-filters/
[1] https://twitter.com/Engineer_Wong/status/1899144721710408038
I prefer having quiet air filters that I can run all day (based on air quality) instead of noisy ones I only use at night.
I have one in the bedroom. On low, I barely hear it during the day (extra ambient noise from outside) but at night the white-noise is subtle but effective. That said, I don't like "loud" white noise, just a quiet hum.
Housefresh, which is a criminally underrated review channel btw, recently did a comparison of PC fans for this purpose. The Thermalright TL-14C family came out strong in the "Silent" category, with the best ultra-quiet 24/7 fan speed performance. This comes at the cost of slightly worse max speed CADR vs the venerable Arctic P14.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlz37IdCcIE
I still haven’t seen anything else that can compare to IQAir HyperHEPA filters. They use these things in hospitals.
Turning them up to med/high would just cause too much airflow.
I agree big fans moving slowly is better all else equal, and something AirFanta-like that used a 12" fan could be even better.
I’d never put two and two together until now, but that fan had to have been a major factor in some of the unexpectedly great naps in that room.
https://valuecrateaz.com/products/lasko-air-flex-2-in-1-box-...
https://bigbargainmart.com/products/lasko-air-flex-2-in-1-bo...
https://ruralkingmarket.shop/product/lasko-air-flex-2-in-1-b...
The point stands. If you care about this, it's a personal choice whether that comfort is worth ~20€. I would wager many people say it is.
For sleeping I prefer rain sounds though
PM2.5 - My impression is the health risks here are more cumulative exposure (and include things I'd like to go without in my life, like alzheimers) and a pretty straight line of "lower is better all the way to zero". The WHO's guideline is mean exposure of 5 µg/m³ so I guess I'd adopt that if I had to put a number on it. (But it's a mean, I wouldn't worry about briefly exceeding it)
PM10 - No real opinion (I'd rather worry about PM2.5)
VOC index - I'm not sure this is a standardized thing, but the version I've come across is an index relative to the average that particular sensor has seen in the last 24 hours. So there's no standard possible here.
---
As for a gas range I would worry about NOX considering the studies with them causing and aggravating asthma. That said your CO2 levels are low so I suspect you might have sufficient ventilation that this isn't a huge issue for you (especially if that ventilation is in the form of a fume hood over your stove that you actually use).
CO2 is usually a proxy for air quality because outside is usually something consistent like 400 therefore deviation from that figure indicates staleness.
Besides which, proxy or directly high CO2 means you should ventilate...
having said that, it's possible they omitted what other gasses and %s they used for advantage. there could be some mitigation possible there.
https://senecaeffect.substack.com/p/the-other-side-of-co2
Let's just say, if you look closely at the meta-analyses, all the effect size goes away if you omit one certain author....
If true, SAT scores should systematically vary by hundreds of points depending on which room you take it in. This is not observed.
I target 0 PM2.5, but this only necessarily makes sense as a target if you have the ability to filter your home's supply air. And a good vent hood should be able to avoid any detectable bump while cooking (although a vent hood without filtered makeup air may cause a bump due to increased infiltration of exterior air).
The instrument is pretty crappy - it has basically no calibration or, AIUI, long term stability. So you can’t really use it to characterize the chemical content of the air. What you can do is observe changes. I’m guessing the manufacturer wanted to avoid people getting confused by the absurd raw reasons, so they came up with a formula called “VOC Index” that HPFs the data. It will average 100 IIRC. You’re supposed to use it to notice events that cause changes - if it hits 170 every day at 2 PM them you can guess that something’s happening at 2 PM.
None of this is in the chip. It’s implemented by the driver. There’s an implementation in esphome, for example.
correct, that's not VOC sensors do. you need specific sensors for different gases for that. All VOC sensors are metal-oxide (MOx) sensors, i suggest reading on their supposed applications and uses.
But the actual behavior, at least for the SGP4x series, is so outrageously unstable and path dependent that you still can’t learn the value if that function of the gas concentrations. At best you get changes on timescales of minutes to a few hours but not on timescales of days.
again, correct. That's how they're supposed to work. If the air is very slowly getting worse, MOx sensors might not catch it.
That being said, what "very slowly" means depends on the sensor. For example, for Bosch BME680 (very good with 'organics'), you can set the tracking interval between 4 and 28 days (i use 28). Sensirion SEN66 (very good with 'chemicals') can have a tracking interval of up to 1000 hours.
https://sensirion.com/media/documents/296373BB/6203C5DF/Sens...
I’ve personally played with the SGP41, but I’m guessing the poster I replied to has the SGP40 because they didn’t mention NOX Index.
CO2 while occupied is generally under 750; I'd prefer to keep it under 700 but we also balance that with energy efficiency for that make-up air; I don't have an ERV, so we suffer a little there.
(We don't live by a freeway but - (a) Pittsburgh's air isn't great; and (b) the canadian wildfires were pretty bad here at times this summer, and that was what caused that 0.8 ug/m^3 pm2.5 spike).
We have, um, a lot of air filters left over from covid, though, so we're a little spoiled in terms of being able to manage AQI easily.
Typical concentrations of pm2.5 in outside air in winter time where I live are roughly 200-250 micrograms during the day, and into high hundreds (400-800) to thousands (highest I've seen is 3000) in the evening.
Yes, this is correctly measured by multiple sources.
This is what "isn't great" looks like, not your less than 20% of the latest WHO recommendation.
Unless it's just a mixup/typo.
The greater Pittsburgh region is #11 on the most polluted cities in the US by short-term particle pollution: https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/most-pollut...
It's not Mumbai. But it's bad by US standards.
The thing that's not fully optimized are the CO2 levels in my house. As I've continued improving the air sealing in the house to reduce my heating and AC costs, it's something I want to address a little more in the future through active ventilation.
(Equivalent to saying you have more people under 2.5 years old than under 10 years old.)
I grasp that such an approach might draw unfiltered surrounding air along with the filtered stream of air, and imagine that it would likely be easily overwhelmed by a steady supply of exceptionally polluted air (wildfire smoke or simply a heavily polluted urban area), but I still would be interested in knowing if the compromise never overcomes a level of placebo effect, or if there's a point where it actually achieves measurable benefit (both in efficacy and portability—like a even more compact and directional version of the Corsi-Rosenthal computer fan solution.)
These directed-air "personal models" make a lot of sense to me... at least in theory. I haven't seen them properly tested.
The big air purifiers work great.. if the room is closed up. But their effectiveness approaches zero if you have the windows open or otherwise have unfiltered air entering the room. Which is kind of important, if you don't enjoy breathing in sky high levels of CO2. (If one's allergies are bad enough, or a wildfire is raging outside, CO2 might of course be preferable to particulates)