Update: I read a tweet thread by the author of the original post, and they also used an uHoo.
So if you find the "uHoo doesn't measure NO2 anyway" argument compelling, then really we're all just talking about nothing.
So if you find the "uHoo doesn't measure NO2 anyway" argument compelling, then really we're all just talking about nothing.
If a device can tell you something is maybe poisonous, a positive result is going to lead to very different behaviour than a negative one, even if they’re equally likely to be accurate. This is especially true when your priors (ie research with accurate devices and knowledge of combustion) lead you to expect (prior to measurement) that it will indeed be poisonous.
My limited research suggests the most affordable and reliable gaseous measurements like NO2 want a metal oxide sensor, which you don’t see on consumer grade equipment but is available affordably from commercial sources. It’s more hassle though so I gave up on measuring NO2 for now. Particulates seem to be readily measured with suitable accuracy by consumer grade equipment.