Tangential, but I've had this monitor[0] at home for about 2 years and I can recommend it.<p>I live in a place that's generally cold for a large part of the year, so I have all windows shut for most of the time. I've discovered that tracking CO_2 levels is a very good proxy for general air quality, and a good measure of both when to open windows and for how long to keep windows open.<p>For my apartment, I was surprised that the amount of time I needed to keep the windows open was 5x longer than what I initially assumed (I assumed 5 mins would be enough. Data shows that I need about 25 mins to get CO2 levels down to around 500ppm). I was also surprised to see how much more rapidly CO2 builds up when I have just 2 additional people at home.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.airthings.com/view-plus" rel="nofollow">https://www.airthings.com/view-plus</a>
Title seems misleading. It seems that they have results that elevated levels of CO2 in the air increase survivability of viral aerosol particles and infectiousness. Since CO2 is so low (400-1000ppm) this is surprising. Haven't had time to look through the paper closely but seems to be pH related which makes sense.<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47777-5" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47777-5</a>
> In its call to action, the group proposed CO2 as one of three key metrics, suggesting ventilation rates that would keep CO2 levels at 800 parts per million or below.<p>Pre-industrial CO2 levels were at 280ppm, currently we have 420ppm, rising & accelerating. Give it three or four decades and ventilation won't help anymore.<p>Edit: 420, not 480ppm
How is that new information "challenging old ventilation doctrine"? It confirms old ventilation doctrine: monitoring CO2 remains a good proxy for general air quality, including viral and bacterial threats, and reducing CO2 via ventilation reduces other threats. That's doctrine, and now it has stronger evidence to support it, and another possible explanation for why and how well CO2 is correlated with other air quality issues.<p>Ventilation good. CO2 bad. No challenge to old ventilation doctrine detected. (The article and the research seems much more nuanced than the silly title.)
Here is an excellent CO2 meter if you seek one for home or office use: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01FYWU2IS/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01FYWU2IS/</a><p>I can vouch for the monotonic rise or fall in its displayed values as affected by ventilation.
I bought a cheap AQ monitor off Amazon that does CO2. Anecdotally, I feel better when CO2 is lower. It's definitely sold me on the value of fresh air.