I don't have a problem with the OP's analysis of the Ikea sensor. It seems generally reasonable. But rather with their implication that the DIY sensor being promoted is of higher quality.
Because accuracy is very much a "finished product" implementation issue, not just the sensor itself, such implication is off-base, particularly in direct comparison to any finished commercial product. The accuracy of the DIY version is going to vary -- a lot -- depending on the builder of such.
I wonder if AQMD would evaluate a "reference build" of the DIY sensor, seeing as there is an enclosure as part of the "reference" implementation. At bare minimum, the airgradient site should have comparison to highly ranked (by AQMD) sensors, such as purple air. I'm actually quite surprised there are no such comparisons on the site.
I don't have a problem with the OP's analysis of the Ikea sensor. It seems generally reasonable. But rather with their implication that the DIY sensor being promoted is of higher quality.
Because accuracy is very much a "finished product" implementation issue, not just the sensor itself, such implication is off-base, particularly in direct comparison to any finished commercial product. The accuracy of the DIY version is going to vary -- a lot -- depending on the builder of such.
I wonder if AQMD would evaluate a "reference build" of the DIY sensor, seeing as there is an enclosure as part of the "reference" implementation. At bare minimum, the airgradient site should have comparison to highly ranked (by AQMD) sensors, such as purple air. I'm actually quite surprised there are no such comparisons on the site.