I’m guessing by this statement, you meant that CO2 is not a concern on an outdoor monitor?
If that is the case, you’re partially right, yes. Outdoor CO2 concentrations won’t impact you much, and there isn’t a need to monitor them in regards to how they impact you or your health, as even elevated CO2 levels outdoors (such as near a busy road) won’t often exceed 500ppm, let alone 600ppm (see the example here). On the other hand, indoor levels can easily reach 2000ppm or beyond, which will have a direct and significant impact on your cognitive performance and also impacts other factors, such as how long viruses can live in that environment.
The importance of monitoring CO2 levels outdoors is related to climate change and identifying local emission sources and their impact, not to health effects (as it is indoors). I believe this might be where your confusion comes from!
Regarding your second question:
The second module is installed for redundancy and reliability. In most cases, the second sensor isn’t needed, as it will provide similar readings to the first. However, having two sensors allows us to know if one is failing. Suppose the readings from both sensors match or are within a close range, confidence in the accuracy of the data increases. If there is a discrepancy, it can indicate the need for maintenance or a sensor replacement. However, these sensors tend to perform well for years, and that is why we opted for a more useful CO2 sensor instead.
Since you already have a second PM module, you could occasionally use it to test the first sensor. For example, in most cases, run 1x PM module and 1x CO2, but every six months or so, insert the second PM module for a day to ensure the readings are consistent with the first. It might be too much work, but it’s just an idea! At worst, you’ll have a PM module replacement if needed.
I hope this helps answer your questions!