We’re excited to share that Local Haze now supports AirGradient sensors—a major step forward in our mission to empower open, citizen-driven air quality monitoring.
We recently shared Part 1 of this two part blog series with AirGradient’s team. In this final post, we continue to highlight the innovative AirGradient team and their work. We explore the inspiration behind their technology, their mission to democratize air quality monitoring, and their vision for the future of grassroots environmental data.
Continuing from our first post, our first air quality topic today concerns the distinction between particulate matter (PM) and gaseous pollutants. The majority of low-cost outdoor air-quality monitors focus entirely on particulate matter. Local Haze is currently also focused on particulate matter and does not currently support gaseous pollutants.
Why does AirGradient include sensors for gaseous pollutants in addition to particulate matter in your outdoor products?
We decided to include gas sensors in our monitors for a few reasons. The carbon dioxide sensor was added as CO2 is a great way to identify local emission sources. While low-cost carbon dioxide sensors are not yet capable of accurately monitoring ambient carbon dioxide concentrations, they are useful for identifying emission sources. This is very important because air pollution and climate change are directly related, yet they’re often treated as separate problems. (You can read the article here for more info on why AirGradient added CO2 sensors.)
ABOVE: Open Air outdoor monitor with a specially designed holder for the CO2 module.
In our new Open Air Max, we’ve also added O3 and NO2 sensors which will give researchers an even greater insight into the air quality they are studying. It made sense to add these sensors, as the AQI (at least, as per the EPA) is made up of six pollutants – PM2.5, PM10, CO, O3, NO2 and SO2. While PM is considered the most harmful air pollutant, there are also other harmful pollutants and you can’t get a full picture of your air quality without also monitoring these.
Historically, public air quality has been heavily focused on the effects of long-term exposure, using reference-grade monitors and summarized in scoring such as the US EPA’s AQI, which is calculated over a 24-hour period. The rise of low-cost sensors has made measurements as frequent as every 2 minutes available. Local Haze bases its communication of air quality on an “instantaneous” calculation of AQI and provides push notifications of significant changes.
How does AirGradient view “real-time” air quality vs. long-term exposure?
We believe both real-time and long-term air quality data serve important but different purposes.
One of the biggest benefits of low-cost monitors is their ability to show real-time air quality data. While this is often more prone to noise and isolated incidents (due to impacts by other factors such as hyper-local pollution), it is also much faster to respond to pollution events – such as wildfire smoke. When air quality can deteriorate within hours, waiting for 24-hour averaged data isn’t practical for protecting health.
However, long-term data is often more accurate as it can overcome factors like sensor noise and temporary fluctuations. Most government stations use 24-hour sampling periods, meaning they are slow to adjust as concentrations are averaged over the past 24 hours. This approach is valuable for understanding chronic exposure patterns and regulatory compliance.
As such, both have their place. Real-time data allows individuals to make immediate decisions about their health and safety, while long-term trends provide the scientific foundation for understanding chronic health impacts and informing policy. The key is transparency about what each type of measurement represents and when each is most appropriate to use.
The Local Haze team views the air-quality monitor space as three categories based on price and sponsoring organization: low-cost (< USD $500) by individuals and community groups; commercial (< USD $10k) by municipal governments and commercial companies; and expensive reference monitors managed by regional and central environmental government departments. There is open data available from the majority of low-cost sensors and a reasonable percentage of reference monitors, but little from commercial monitors.
With AirGradient moving into commercial outdoor monitors, how are you going to be approaching the open availability of data from these sensors?
While the final decision ultimately rests with our customers – we won’t force them to share data – we strongly encourage it and this philosophy won’t change with our Open Air Max monitors. We actively incentivize data sharing through methods like waiving subscription fees for every monitor that publicly shares its data.
We also understand there are legitimate cases where organizations or other groups aren’t ready to share data immediately or have regulatory constraints. That’s why we afford customers the choice while advocating for transparency. Our goal is to demonstrate that ‘professional-grade’ accuracy and open data sharing aren’t mutually exclusive.
Gaps in air quality data hurt everyone. Communities lose access to hyperlocal information, researchers can’t study pollution patterns, and decision-makers lack the comprehensive data they need. As such, we will always advocate for open (and transparent) data regardless of monitor.
Conclusion
From climate-aware classrooms to rooftop sensor networks in underserved regions, the impact of community-led air monitoring is growing—and tools like the AirGradient Open Air monitor are helping make that movement possible. As open hardware continues to evolve, so does the potential for citizens everywhere to hold polluters accountable, influence policy, and protect public health with data that’s transparent, timely, and trusted.
We’re grateful to the AirGradient team for sharing their insights and continuing to champion open, accessible environmental sensing.
Stay tuned for more interviews, updates, and air quality insights on the Local Haze blog.