How accurate are common particle counters?

When I started Smart Air in 2013, I wanted to buy a particle counter, and I had basically two options. I could buy a US$260 Dylos or spend thousands of dollars on the crazy expensive particle counters. Since then, the market has exploded with new air quality monitors as cheap as 99 RMB. But are they any good?

Putting Particle Counters to the Test

To get to the bottom of it, we tested three popular particle counters on the market. We tested the Dylos DC1700, the Origins Laser Egg, and a new particle counter called the AirVisual Node.



Dylos DC1100
Dylos DC1100


The Dylos is the trusty particle counter Smart Air has been using since 2013.


Laser Egg

Origins Laser Egg
Origins Laser Egg


The Laser Egg is the popular, more technologically savvy device.



Air Visual Node
Air Visual Node

And the Node is a fancier version, including a large screen, richer information, pollution forecasts, better user experience and even a CO2 monitor.



The Government Comparison

We placed the machines outside the Smart Air office on Dongzhimen Waidajie, about 1.3km away from the government PM2.5 monitor at the Agricultural Exhibition Center.

Map of Smart Air Office and Agricultural Exhibition Centre



We ran the machines for six days. The Laser Egg and the Node give output in PM2.5 micrograms. The Dylos gives number of 0.5 micron particles, so we converted it to PM2.5 micrograms using the semi-official formula (0.5 microns – 2.5 microns)/100.

Here are the results for the first (72-hour) test outside our office in Beijing:




Low-Concentration Tests


Next we tested on days with extraordinarily low PM2.5. That’s helpful because concentrations in homes—where most people use particle counters—are also typically low. So this data is good for testing how good the devices are at low concentration levels. We ran tests for 48 hours whilst the skies were clear.

Low concentration tests
Low concentration tests


Eyeballing both graphs, all three machines did a pretty good job of tracking the official numbers. Combining both tests, we found that both the AirVisual Node and the Laser Egg correlated r = 0.98 with the official PM2.5 numbers. For non-nerds, 0.98 is incredibly close to identical! The Dylos had the lowest correlation at r = 0.90, but still incredibly high (and similar to our previous test). These correlations are all extremely high and suggest that these particles counters are tracking government data well.


Average Deviation


Another way to measure accuracy is to look at on average how far the numbers were from the government data. The Node was the closest: it was off from the official numbers by an average of 4.8µg/m3. The Laser Egg was consistently further than the government machine, with an average deviation of 6.5µg/m3. The Dylos was off by an average of 9.1µg/m3.


Low concentration PM2.5 deviation from Agricultural Center


Perhaps one worry to note is that the Laser Egg was consistently under-estimating PM2.5 while air pollution was in the lower range. This means there could be a risk that the Laser Egg underestimates the real pollution levels in the home, giving a false sense of security. However, even these deviations were not large.


picture2 picture1 picture3


The Airpocalypse Test

To test accuracy at extremely high concentrations, we burned a cigarette in a closed 15m3 room. Our goal here was to see how well the particle counters were at reading concentration levels over a whole range of values, including toxic levels. With the help of cigarettes and a partner NGO in Beijing, we managed to get the concentration above 1,000µg/m3!

Airpocalypse test setup

For this test we also has another machine (Sibata LD-6S) on hand as a reference. This is an industrial PM2.5 dust indicator, with an accuracy of ±10% and repeatability error of ±2%. Thus, we used the LD-6S as our baseline.


Airpocalypse test results
Airpocalypse test results


Looking at the data, it’s immediately clear that the Laser Egg and the Dylos had a hard time keeping up with these really high levels of concentration. In contrast, the Node and the LD-6S matched very closely, and were able to measure values over 1,000µg/m3. The chances of you needing to measure these values outside of experiments are very slim, but it shows that the Node is more accurate at these high levels.


Take-Home Message

Overall, the three particle counters were reasonably accurate compared to the government machines. In the estimation of the Smart Air team, all of them are suitable for giving an approximate AQI value in your home. Of all three, the Node scored the highest, with the lowest deviation from the government machines in both outdoor tests and the highest accuracy in the “crazy bad” test.



Since all three machines are reasonably accurate, the question then really comes down to: How easy it is to use the device? And what features do they have?


The Dylos (1800 RMB)

The Dylos easily loses this fight. It has no phone connectivity, and downloading the data is a terrible pain—and that’s if you have one of the old school pin connecter cables.


The Laser Egg (499RMB)

The Laser Egg is an entry-point particle counter. It gives reasonably accurate results with a simple interface. It’s not feature rich, but it does what it says on the box. The Laser Egg is a great device for those wanting a low cost way of testing the air in their home.


The AirVisual Node (988RMB)

To our eyes, the Node offers the best features. For starters, it can measure CO2, temperature, and humidity. That makes it more of an ‘environment monitor’ than just a particle monitor. CO2 is important if you have lots of people in a small space as it can give an indication of how confined the space is. If you have indoor sources of air pollution (VOCs) like new furniture or remodelling, high CO2 levels can mean that those indoor pollutants are building up. Its user design shows AQI and CO2 for the past 24 hours both indoors and outdoors, a forecast for the coming days, and suggestions to help you decide when to open your windows and wear a mask. We’ve found these features helpful in our office.


After passing our tests, we will start shipping the AirVisual Node and Laser Egg through our Taobao shop and website. It’s a great option for anybody wanting a solid device for both home use and research (if you’re a nerd like us). Go take a look!

Over the next few months, we hope to get a larger pool of particle counters together and run more extensive tests. This is only the beginning! Once we’ve independently verified more devices, we may well be adding them to our shop as well.



9 thoughts on “How accurate are common particle counters?

  1. I read somewhere about “drift” in these sensors, and needing to recalibrate. What has been your experience over time with their accuracy? Can the Laser or Node be recalibrated?

    1. Good question! From our experience all devices do drift over time and need recalibrating. Even the Dylos. We regularly send our Dylos units back to the company in the US to get them recalibrated for $45 a time. As for the other units, they don’t seem to have an official recalibration service. I reached out to the guys at AirVisual and they said spraying compressed air to clean the sensor is one method to help improve accuracy. If high accuracy is a requirement for a customer then they can recalibrate in their factory.

  2. “Since then, the market has exploded with new particle counters as cheap as 99 RMB. But are they any good?”

    Although I came here to look up your results on the Node… I must admit this line got my attention, and I was a little disappointed to not hear anything about anything in *that* price range. I’m on a budget here in Beijing (which is why your product appealed to me in the first place) and I’m *really* eager to find out anything (even less comprehensive) that you could say about the reliability of the cheaper stuff!

    When will you write *that* review? 🙂

    1. Hey Edward, good question! We are as of right now working on a fundraiser campaign to raise some money to buy as many different particle counters as we can. Once we’ve done that we’ll test them all methodically and publish the results. We also definitely want to test the 99RMB ones! We have heard some reports that their accuracy is not great, and that’s also my guess, but we need to do the tests and see.

      Thanks for being patient

        1. Good point, whilst one would assume a cheaper particle counter won’t be as good as a more expensive one, it’s not always true (just like Smart Air’s purifiers!). The thing with particle counters is they are inherently more complicated than a purifier – they contain lasers which require calibration and testing. If the technology was identical then sure, they would work just as well as the expensive ones, and that’s exactly why we want to test these counters to verify this.

  3. I am looking forward to the next test of air quality monitors, will it be available soon?
    It would be great if you added dB measurements to the descriptions of Original and Cannon purifiers.
    Also, how much is shipping to Denmark, by air or sea for a Cannon + 3 filters?

    1. Thanks Ras!
      We’re currently working on a fundraiser so that we can buy even more pollution monitors! It should be launching in the next 2 weeks (at the latest, by the end of August 2017) so keep your eyes on this blog for more information.

      If you want information on shipping to Denmark please email Esther on [email protected] – thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *