Alex
An interesting answer.
My present understanding is that, though not perfect, that some of these sensors give results that are closer to reference than diffusion tubes would be. I have been guilty in the past of suggesting someone "calibrate" a low cost SO2 analyser against an SO2 diff tube but that was in the absence of any local reference SO2 analyser. However, in general, it seems counter intuitive to use a tube as the reference when the low cost monitor my be more "accurate" than the tube. Of course both are far closer to reference analysers than any modelled data would be and yet that gets accepted.
By the way, the problem has arisen due to the lack of a local reference AQ monitoring site. This is a recurrent problem with the closing of LA sites. Can a local authority charge for data supplied to a consultant?
Regards
Peter Fleming
07958 205920
Skype: petermfleming
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Bulleid <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, 03 October 2018 08:44
To: 'Peter Fleming' <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Low cost AQ monitors
Hello,
If a second monitor was co-located with a 'proper' continuous analyser and the monitoring period was sufficient then I think the LA would have to consider it. As with diffusion tubes I'd check that the data made sense for the location but if it does then I'd have no objection.
However I'd imagine that the consultant is unlikely to want to put out a second analyser. Why not suggest putting a tube/tubes next to the AQMesh? It would give a 'DEFRA accepted' method as well as the added benefits of the additional AQMesh data for hardly any extra cost.
My understanding of AQMesh is that you can only see scaled data through the supplier's portal. It seems a bit 'black box' to me. I'd like to know what the raw data from my equipment is, and how that has been adjusted. Having said that, I would accept the data if I had confidence it was reasonable for the location it had been installed.
Regards,
Alex Bulleid (Mrs)
Senior Environmental Technical Officer
EXETER CITY COUNCIL
Civic Centre
Paris Street
EXETER
EX1 1RQ
01392 265718
-----Original Message-----
From: Air quality [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Fleming
Sent: 02 October 2018 16:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Low cost AQ monitors
Ladies & Gentlemen
I am advising a consultant on the use of low cost AQ monitors such as AQMesh, Motes etc. What is the general view on the acceptability of such data, in support of, or as part of, a planning application? I am aware this is not reference equivalent but my view is it is the better ones are probably better than diffusion tubes and certainly better than modelled data. Any (printable) comments welcome.
Regards
Peter Fleming
07958 205920
Skype: petermfleming
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the AIRQUALITY list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=AIRQUALITY&A=1
See our privacy notice for details on how we manage personal information.
https://exeter.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/council-information/data-protection/privacy-notices
Disclaimer: http://www.exeter.gov.uk/disclaimer
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the AIRQUALITY list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=AIRQUALITY&A=1
|
