3 ms·
>per continuous monitoring for a broad range of chemicals would cost about $1 million per monitoring station This seems a bit high, closer to $100k installatio
by ImaCake 2y ago
>per continuous monitoring for a broad range of chemicals would cost about $1 million per monitoring station
This seems a bit high, closer to $100k installation cost for fairly basic real time regulatory monitors seems about right. CEMS (automated stack testing) monitors should be somewhat cheaper if the engineers didn't screw up the housing location on the stack/vent.
Otherwise, your prose very much matches my experience with air quality monitoring in Australia. It's an absolute mess and very much amateur hour compared to water monitoring or meteorology.
- reaperman 2y ago$100k is about right in the USA as well for a single family of chemicals. Like in this case, if they only wanted to test for fluorinated compounds. Testing for "Acetone, Acetonitrile, Acetaldehyde, Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Hexane, Isopropanol, Isopropyl toluene, Methylene Chloride, Toluene, and Xylene." might be somewhere in the middle of $100k to $1M, depending on desired level of differentiation between similar chemicals.
- ImaCake 2y agoYes, and that is for regulatory monitors. You might need one such monitor at a critical sensitive location and then get by with various e-sampler monitors elsewhere which kinda suck but are good enough to help build a picture of emissions.