What can we discover about air quality when we stop guessing and start tracking it ourselves?

The Project

This project asks students to build a portable air quality monitor that can leave the lab, run on battery power, and extend its life with energy harvesting. Phase I: Plan the Field Mission — students define the problem with a real community partner and design the power budget and voltage-conversion path the monitor will need. Phase II: Build and Code the Sentinel — students implement the sensing and logging code, assemble the hardware across multiple class periods, and test the prototype before deployment. Phase III: What the Air Says — students deploy the monitor across several days, clean the data, and investigate how pollutants, traffic, ventilation, occupancy, and weather shape the readings. Phase IV: Build the Briefing — students turn the data into one community briefing, delivered as a website, documentary short, or live presentation, and build the visual evidence that supports it before they defend engineering and policy choices and recommend realistic improvements based on their data.

1. 1
   Phase I: Plan the Field MissionPhase 1 of 4

   1. The Community Brief

      Students meet their community partner and define the air-quality question the project must answer. They discover that strong engineering starts with criteria, constraints, and a real audience. They identify who will use the monitor, what counts as a useful reading, and which places are off-limits, producing a problem statement, deployment boundary, and success criteria the team can use throughout the project.

   2. Can It Stay Alive?

      Students calculate how long the monitor can run, then compare battery storage with energy harvesting options. They discover that autonomy depends on how much energy the device uses, not just how much the battery holds. They compare expected runtime, solar input, and recharge needs, producing a power plan that shows how the monitor can keep running in the field without constant attention.

   3. Building the Power Path

      Students design the battery, charging, and voltage-conversion path the monitor will need before any code or enclosure work begins. They discover that the power stage has to match the sensor and microcontroller requirements, producing a circuit plan that accounts for regulators, converters, and the energy-harvesting path.
2. 2
   Phase II: Build and Code the SentinelPhase 2 of 4

   1. Code the Sentinel

      Students implement the core code for sensing, logging, and communication before the full field build is assembled. They discover that clean code structure matters because the monitor has to collect data, save it, and transmit it without wasting power, producing a working software backbone they can load onto the prototype.

   2. Prototype Round 1

      Students wire the sensor, microcontroller, logging path, and enclosure into the first full prototype and test how the new code behaves on real hardware. They discover that a monitor has to survive both software bugs and physical failure points, producing a first build, a parts-and-problems list, and homework notes for the next round of revision.

   3. Prototype Round 2

      Students revisit the first build, use homework notes to revise the wiring, enclosure, code, or power path, and then run their field checks before deployment. They discover that prototype work is a sequence of small fixes, calibration checks, and fault tests instead of one big finish, producing a stronger second-pass build, a deployment checklist, and a device ready for real field conditions.
3. 3
   Phase III: What the Air SaysPhase 3 of 4

   1. Where the Air Changes

      Students choose deployment locations with their partner and map when each site should be sampled. They discover that place, movement, and ventilation can change what the monitor sees, and the same building can tell a different story from one doorway to the next. They compare where the air feels still, busy, or trapped, producing a deployment map with clear site logic and safety notes.

   2. First Readings

      Students deploy the monitors and track the first days of readings across different locations. They discover how missing data, spikes, battery drops, and sensor drift show up in real field work. They learn to distinguish a real signal from a setup problem, producing a live dataset and a troubleshooting log that keeps the build moving.

   3. Sorting the Signal

      Students graph the field data, remove obvious errors, and compare pollutant patterns across time. They discover that cleaned data reveals trends, outliers, and repeat patterns a single day would hide. They test which measurements matter most, producing charts and summary statistics they can use in later arguments about what the data actually shows.

   4. What Is Driving It?

      Students connect the measurements to observations about the site, the building, nearby traffic, and daily routines. They discover that air quality is shaped by multiple causes, not one simple answer, and that the strongest explanations combine measurements with what they observed in the field. They produce a cause map that includes evidence, uncertainty, and likely improvement levers the partner can act on.
4. 4
   Phase IV: Build the BriefingPhase 4 of 4

   1. The Air Story Studio

      Students build the first version of their website, documentary outline, or live presentation script while the monitor keeps collecting data. They discover that a community audience needs a clear narrative before it can absorb technical evidence, producing a first briefing draft that turns measurements into a story people can follow.

   2. Air Story Studio: Rough Cut

      Students revise the first story draft into a clearer script, page flow, or shot list and identify which claims still need better evidence. They discover that the audience can only follow the story when the structure is clean, producing a revised media outline that is ready for charting, narration, or layout work.

   3. Visualize the Evidence

      Students build the charts, dashboard views, or simple scenario visuals that their final briefing will depend on. They discover that visual evidence has to be readable, honest, and easy to explain, producing the chart set or dashboard panels that support the final community briefing.

   4. The Partner Review

      Students rehearse with their community partner, practice their answers, and revise their recommendations after tough questions. They discover that strong solutions weigh engineering, policy, ethics, cost, and maintenance together, and that a good plan has to survive real-world questions. They produce a recommendation brief, a question list, and a revised presentation plan ready for defense.

   5. Make the Case

      Students present the monitor, the data story, and the recommendations to a real audience. They discover that technical communication matters only when it connects measurements to action, root causes, and next steps. They produce a final monitor, a public-facing briefing, and a field report the partner can keep using.