Cost is an important practical issue when it comes to air monitoring. Outdoor air monitoring can range widely in cost (hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars) based upon your objectives. The Village Green team think of cost as beyond the pricetag of the instrumentation, but also what type of infrastructure or labor is required to maintain long-term sampling. The system we are developing is in the tens of thousands of dollars for full system, with very little cost to maintain. This is still far too high for an individual to ever consider purchasing, but much much lower than some of the traditional ways of doing air monitoring. The air monitoring instruments themselves are the key cost-driver, so the system cost could decrease if lower cost and reliable monitoring technologies emerge in the future.

In terms of vandalism, we’re designing the system to be as tamper-proof as possible and we are engaging with our community partner to ensure the system is in a safe location.

“To demonstrate attainment, the annual arithmetic mean and the second-highest 24-hour averages must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. A 24-hour block average shall be considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly averages for the 24-hour period are available. ”

If they do not meet the same requirements for demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS then they are bogus but the public will not understand.

Monitors with insufficient data could result in NAAQS violations:

“(8-hour periods with three or more missing hours shall not be ignored if, after substituting one-half the minimum detectable limit for the missing hourly concentrations, the 8-hour average concentration is greater than the level of the standard.) ”

All the goals outlined cannot meet the requirements of EPA. Data completion will preculde solar power only. Having solar power and power from the grid will increase cost.

It is a bad idea to put such important data in the hands of the general public.

Thanks,
John