astrofireplaces.com Fireplaces & Comfortable Homes

Statistics

Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Adoption Statistics: Ownership, Access, and Use

Local studies show how household interest, monitor access, and sustained use differ across indoor air quality monitoring programs, while underscoring the limits of small and place-specific samples.

November 12, 2026 7 min read astrofireplaces.com Editorial Team

Contents

Indoor air quality monitoring adoption statistics: ownership and interest

Household ownership is one measure of adoption, but available figures are local and do not all measure ownership of a monitor alone. In a 2023 baseline survey in Tbilisi, fewer than 0.5% of households owned either an indoor air quality monitor or an air purifier. Because the reported figure combines two device types, it should not be read as a monitor-only ownership rate. The survey covered 862 randomly selected households in 230 randomly selected census blocks, providing a substantial local baseline but no estimate for households elsewhere. (World Bank study)

The Pittsburgh evidence measures interest rather than existing ownership. In spring and summer 2016, Study 1 surveyed 276 residents recruited online and through Carnegie Library branches. Among the 195 respondents who had not already checked out a sensor, 146 (74.9%) said they wanted to know whether their indoor air quality was good or bad. In the same group, 152 (77.9%) preferred an indoor monitor as a way to learn about air quality. Those responses signal interest among surveyed residents; they do not show that respondents bought or regularly used monitors. (Pittsburgh study)

That distinction matters when interpreting indoor air quality monitoring adoption statistics. Stated interest can coexist with very low ownership if equipment is costly, access is inconvenient, or people are unsure how to interpret readings. The studies here measure separate points along that path, not one consistent adoption funnel.

Willingness to pay, affordability, and preferred access

In the Pittsburgh survey subset of 195 residents who had not checked out a sensor, mean stated willingness to pay for a monitor was US$63.59 (SD US$44.17). The study reported that monitors available at the time typically started at US$135. These are survey responses and a reported starting price, respectively—not evidence of what participants ultimately paid. (Pittsburgh study)

The Tbilisi baseline points to a larger gap between stated willingness to pay and the equipment used in the study. Households indicated they would pay less than 25% of the price of the indoor air quality monitor used in the trial. In the willingness-to-pay analysis, fewer than 2% were willing to pay enough to cover that monitor’s cost. The latter analysis excluded households that did not know their willingness to pay or did not answer, so it describes the analyzed respondents rather than every surveyed household. (World Bank study)

Free short-term access was attractive to many of the Pittsburgh respondents. Of the same 195 people, 119 (61.0%) named work as a convenient place to rent a monitor, and 105 (53.8%) named a public library. Respondents could name convenient options; these percentages do not mean that either rental service was universally available or that respondents later used one. The answers nevertheless show how borrowing through familiar institutions may appeal to people who express interest but are reluctant or unable to purchase a device. (Pittsburgh study)

Feasibility in homes with children with asthma

A Chicago pediatric pulmonary clinic pilot tested whether families could use a digital monitor at home over three months. It enrolled 20 participants between December 2023 and March 2024. Nineteen collected continuous indoor air quality data for at least one week. Participants averaged 81 of the planned 90 days of data collection (SD 19). On average, data were captured during 72% of available hours per participant (SD 16%), with individual completeness ranging from 34% to 97%; 74% of available days had at least 12 hours of data. (Asthma monitor pilot)

These measures describe feasibility and data continuity among enrolled families, not household adoption in Chicago. They also show why simply placing a monitor in a home does not guarantee a complete record: participation lasted for much of the planned period on average, while the share of available hours with data varied considerably across participants.

Among the 15 participants who completed the exit survey, all rated setup of the monitor easy or very easy. All 15 gave the same rating for setup of the provided Wi-Fi hotspot. For future use, 13 of 15 (87%) said they were likely or very likely to use a monitor if one were provided through a clinic; the other two were neutral. The conditional wording is important: this was stated future intention when provision was assumed, not a measure of independent purchase or later use. (Asthma monitor pilot)

The pilot’s selected uHoo monitor was reported to cost US$300. Participants’ median System Usability Scale score was 67.5 (IQR 56.3–81.3) on a scale from 1 to 100. The small clinic sample and supplied equipment—including connectivity—limit what can be inferred about affordability or ease for households without that support. Still, the results show that high reported setup ease can occur alongside variable data completeness and a device cost that may be a barrier to self-funded uptake. (Asthma monitor pilot)

Monitor use, engagement, and follow-up

In Pittsburgh Study 1, 56 of 276 respondents (20.3%) said they had already taken action to improve indoor air quality, while 122 (44.2%) said they intended to take action. These are self-reported actions and intentions, not monitor adoption rates. (Pittsburgh study)

Follow-up participation narrowed after library sensor checkout. Of the 62 participants who checked out the sensor and completed Study 1, 26 agreed to Study 2, a reported attrition rate of 58.1%. Four of the 62 agreed to an interview. This attrition describes continued research participation; it does not establish that people stopped using or abandoned the sensor. (Pittsburgh study)

Among 25 Study 2 respondents who rated the Speck sensor after a three-week checkout, its mean ease-of-use rating was 4.24 (SD 0.97), its mean helpfulness for learning was 4.12 (SD 1.01), and its mean recommendation rating was 3.80 (SD 1.15). The table compared ratings with a midpoint of 3. These small respondent counts capture users’ views after a particular lending experience, not general consumer satisfaction. (Pittsburgh study)

The study also reported shifts in paired ratings among 26 Pittsburgh participants. Mean self-reported knowledge increased from 2.38 (SD 0.75) before use to 2.77 (SD 0.71) afterward. Mean perceived indoor air quality rose from 2.96 (SD 0.77) to 3.65 (SD 0.75). These are perceptions and knowledge ratings, not instrument-measured improvements in the air. Confidence rose from 2.31 (SD 1.01) to 2.62 (SD 0.94), but the reported P value was .07, above the conventional .05 threshold. (Pittsburgh study)

In interviews, three of four sensor users said they used it to monitor particulate levels in a space such as a child’s room, and three of four said they ran ventilation systems when needed as a new exposure-reduction measure. These findings can illustrate ways a few interviewed users incorporated readings into household routines. With only four interviewees, the proportions should not be treated as typical behavior. (Pittsburgh study)

A separate 2023 Tbilisi intervention distributed monitors to nearly 150 randomly selected households assigned to receive indoor and outdoor information. At endline, approximately two months after baseline, 85% of households in the Indoor and Outdoor treatment reported checking indoor pollution levels. This is reported checking after an intervention, not evidence of long-term monitor ownership. In the Torus social-housing campaign, monitors were rolled out in around 200 homes; the briefing says follow-ups reached around two thirds of participating households. By campaign end, around three quarters of households with a monitor (reported as n=148) had received at least one follow-up contact. These are approximate campaign delivery figures, and they measure support and contact as well as distribution. (World Bank study; Torus campaign briefing)

What local adoption studies can and cannot show

The figures point to distinct practical questions: whether households own equipment, whether they want air quality information, what they would pay, whether a device can be set up, and whether people keep checking readings or receive follow-up. A low ownership figure in a Tbilisi baseline survey can sit alongside high stated interest in a selected Pittsburgh respondent group because the populations, settings, dates, and measures differ. The numbers should not be combined into a single adoption rate.

Program eligibility also shapes who appears in uptake counts. In the Torus campaign, free monitors were available to Torus housing customers with a child under 11 (initially under 5) who lived in a pilot area. The campaign initially targeted 200 families with children aged 0–5 in three of seven localities. After uptake was slow, eligibility expanded to all seven localities and to families with children up to age 11. This is a defined social-housing program, not an open offer to all households. (Torus campaign briefing)

Together, the studies provide useful local evidence on interest, cost sensitivity, supported use, and engagement. They do not establish a current national or global percentage of households that own or regularly use indoor air quality monitors. For a household considering a monitor, the most relevant takeaway is that device access and setup are only part of adoption: affordability, connectivity, completeness of readings, interpretation, and ongoing follow-up can all matter, and the evidence here measures those factors in different populations.

Sources

Written by

astrofireplaces.com Editorial Team

Editorial team

Independent editorial coverage of fireplaces & comfortable homes.

More to Explore