#16 - Simon Jones: Particles Matter and so does accountability

Simon Jones

I look back at the last 4 episodes of Air Quality Matters this week.

I discuss a good National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document. 2024. - Health Risks of Indoor Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter and Practical Mitigation 

A recently released paper on Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Comfort, and Ventilation in Deep Energy Retrofitted Irish Dwellings

Plus, I might have a few things to say about the outcomes of studies like this!

Health Risks of Indoor Exposures to Fine Particulate Matter and Practical Mitigation Solutions

Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Comfort, and Ventilation in Deep Energy Retrofitted Irish Dwellings

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:13

Welcome to Air Quality Matters. And you've got me this week one of the downsides of being a consultant and out traveling a lot in the last couple of weeks I just haven't had the time to sit down with people, so my apologies for that. Normal service will resume shortly. I don't know if you can cast your mind back all the way to the last time. It was just myself on the podcast. I'd made a mental note that it had all got a bit bloke heavy, purely accidental, to be honest. It was just the way the schedules had worked out. But I said things were going to change and I don't know what you think, but I think I've probably made a decent recovery.

Speaker 1: 0:50

First up in that recovery was Francesca Brady, the CEO of Air Rated, and she was on really talking about the steady yet relentless progress that and recognition that air quality is making, particularly in the workplace sector, and we pondered and thought about the impact of COVID and really how that might have influenced that progress and whether it was perhaps a distraction or not. I think it gives a really interesting perspective on how we're building the business case slowly for air quality into things like productivity and absenteeism and all that good stuff, and I think it's that kind of communication and building the business case that's really pushing air quality forward in that type of sector. Next up, I had Dr Stephanie Taylor talking about her work around the human centered approach to air quality and I think it gives a really fascinating perspective on how we view air quality in buildings. That shift, while on the face of it obvious I mean, let's face it we build buildings for people can be fundamental, and what better measure of success of a building than its impact on the health and wellbeing of those that occupy it? Talking of perspectives, one of the fascinating things about my work, particularly in this podcast, is getting to talk to people from different areas of the world about this subject. While so much of what we do is aligned, location can be everything and we often talk about context. But I think that really came into view when I was talking to Priyanka Kulshretha from Delhi. She makes the point pretty well. I think everything from geography to weather, to habits and culture, to sources all have major impacts, not only on the built environment but how we deal with these kind of things at scale. India seems like a really fascinating place at the moment and really exciting when it comes to air quality. There's so much at stake yet so much potential there and real dynamism within the sector. And then last week I spoke with none other than Kath Nokes. If you know her, she's a domain expert that was launched into the center of this global pandemic and her perspective on that journey where we are today and what this experience meant and how we move forward was a fascinating conversation. Kath was rightly awarded an OBE for her work during the pandemic and anybody involved in the dialogue and conversations around ventilation from 2019 onwards, particularly in relation to that, would have been paying very close attention to Kath and her work. I hope you agree these last four podcasts have kind of rectified the blokey situation. That will change going forward and again, hopefully, normal service will resume in the next couple of weeks as I start to have some time to sit down with some more guests.

Speaker 1: 4:01

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted crucial lessons for us. Indoor spaces like schools, workplaces and homes are closely linked to our health. It showed everyone, I think, that being indoors could expose us to risks just through the air we breathe. A key concern of these environments is particulate matter tiny particles and droplets in the air that can include chemicals, dusts and allergens. Particularly worrying is the fine particulate matter, 2.5 and below which is so small it can get deep into our lungs and even affect our brains. If you've been listening to the podcast over the last few months, it's come up time and time again and this kind of pollution is known to cause serious problems such as heart and lung disease, brain issues and negatively impact birth outcomes, especially in communities that are already disadvantaged.

Speaker 1: 5:03

Despite being less studied, indoor exposure to PM 2.5 is becoming a growing concern. Considering how much time we spend indoors, where the levels of PM 2.5 can be higher than outside, this issue is gaining attention. One of the responses has been that the US Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, had asked experts to investigate the health risks of indoor PM 2.5. Looking into how it affects us and what we can do to reduce our exposure, especially in homes and schools and other non-industrial indoor spaces. This effort aims to find practical ways to protect our health and indoor air pollution. One of the outcomes of that work if you haven't seen it, is a really, really interesting report called the Health Risks of Indoor Exposure to Find Particulate Matter and Practical Mitigation Solutions.

Speaker 1: 6:03

The report was published by the National Academies of Science, engineering and Medicine this year. It is a well-known name in the air quality community, chaired by Richard Corzai, the Dean of Engineering at the University of California. Some of you might know him through the Corzie Rosenthal boxes, those homemade filter boxes popular during the pandemic. It's a bit of a beast at 250 pages, but I wholeheartedly recommend reading the summary. It's a good synopsis and at about 10 to 11 pages it's very digestible. I think this is one of the most concise summaries of where we are right now with PM 2.5, with arguably one of the single biggest environmental risks of our time, and I think everyone, regardless of disciplines, could probably do with understanding this subject matter better. To read the report synopsis directly.

Speaker 1: 7:01

Human exposure to find PM and the subsequent health effects are complex and require a systems approach for understanding and developing appropriate practical mitigation strategies. The cascade of events leading to health impacts start with PM 2.5 sources, intrusion of outdoor sources into the indoor environment or PM generated from indoor sources. So understanding the nature of these, as well as their size, distribution and composition, is so important. Once particles are emitted, they are transported away from the source, mixed into the indoor space, distributed to different parts of the building and may be exhausted to outdoor air Excavated into indoor surfaces or captured by filters in mechanical systems, standalone air cleaners or even personal protective equipment in the breathing zone of an individual. Particles may also be transformed as they migrate through the indoor atmosphere or following deposition onto surfaces. Such processes affect the concentration, size, distribution and composition of PM 2.5 that building occupants are exposed to. These factors, along with the frequency and duration of our exposure, influence the health effects caused by the inhalation of PM 2.5, including ultrafine particles.

Speaker 1: 8:36

As you can see from that synopsis, there's a lot going on and it's an incredibly complex subject, and the report, I think, deals with most of that really, really well. The report offers five critical findings related to indoor exposure to find particulate matter and offers recommendations for mitigation. And, if you don't mind, I'm going to go through them, because I think they're a really good summary of what we need to do With regards to the findings. Number one adverse health effects from PM 2.5. There is substantial evidence that indoor exposure to PM 2.5 is harmful to health, affecting respiratory and cardiovascular systems, with emerging evidence of impacts on other organs and health conditions. A significant portion of indoor PM 2.5 originates outdoors, but with indoor inhalation of these particles posing the greater risk of the two.

Speaker 1: 9:38

Number two disparities in exposure. Certain populations, particularly those in economically disadvantaged or marginalised communities, those living near heavy industry or busy highways, in older or smaller homes, or those unable to afford lower-emitting appliances or air-cleaning technologies, are at higher risk of exposure to harmful PM 2.5 from both indoor and outdoor sources. I would argue, though, that this is something everybody needs to be paying attention to. Number three technologies role in addressing exposure. Advances in consumer grade sensors, data management, analysis and modelling offer new avenues for quantifying and reducing PM 2.5 exposure. These technologies allow community-based participatory research, enhancing awareness, addressing data gaps in disproportionately exposed communities and enabling real-time exposure mitigation actions.

Speaker 1: 10:46

Number four mitigation strategies. Practical, effective mitigation of PM 2.5 exposure in homes and schools is feasible with strategies that are affordable, now easy to implement and consistent in performance. Immediate actions include source reduction, improved ventilation, filtration and personal protective equipment. While specific health benefits of these mitigations are not fully documented due to confounding factors, reductions in PM 2.5 are generally beneficial. And number five policy and responsibility gaps.

Speaker 1: 11:29

The absence of a centralised authority overseeing PM 2.5 policy, like most indoor air quality, to be frank, impedes large-scale exposure reductions. Various factors, including source type, air handling technologies, building features and occupant behaviours all influence exposure levels. A unified approach is necessary to implement mitigation strategies effectively and support related research, addressing the fragmented progress that we're seeing in reducing indoor PM 2.5 exposure. I think, if anything points to the need for something like an indoor air quality observatory, like we've been discussing with Kath and Henry Burridge, I think this points to that very well. In my opinion, the recommendations in this report aim to mitigate exposure, particularly for vulnerable groups such as elderly, young and those with pre-existing conditions, while addressing knowledge gaps. And again, if you don't mind, I think I'll note these because I think they're really important and very sensible in their totality.

Speaker 1: 12:44

Number one immediate mitigation for susceptible populations. Prioritise and urgently implement affordable and effective interventions to reduce PM exposure in economically disadvantaged and marginalised communities and this part is so critical. Collaborate with community organisations and communication experts to enhance non-technical aspects, like education and public engagement. Behavioral factors and stakeholder engagement, though not alone, are crucial for encouraging behaviour changes that reduce exposure. Number two improve indoor air quality in schools. Implement immediate programmes to enhance air quality in schools, analogous to the green schools programmes that we see globally. This involves setting clear goals, providing guidance on source reduction, ventilation and monitoring and assessing the impact of interventions on health outcomes and student performance. Support for government entities, especially for impoverished districts, is essential. You may have seen I think it was this week or last week that the Greater London Authority over here in the UK have funded a wide rollout of air cleaners in schools in South London, with a focus on disadvantaged areas or areas exposed to high levels of air pollution, and it's a great example of this. I think let's hope this extends well beyond this initial venture or research to address knowledge gaps.

Speaker 1: 14:35

Number one Mitigation and health benefits. Conduct large-scale studies to quantify the benefits of mitigation strategies and understand their health impacts. Number two Indoor aerosol characteristics. Investigate aerosol size, concentration, sources and composition in various indoor environments. Number three Differentiate the health effects of indoor PM from outdoor. Number four Develop affordable real-time sensors for indoor particle monitoring to guide mitigation efforts. Number five Air cleaning technologies. Research needs to focus on developing affordable, effective and quiet air cleaners.

Speaker 1: 15:27

Number six Unified efforts to reduce exposure. Coordinate actions across federal, state, local, tribal and territorial levels is necessary to significantly reduce indoor PM exposure. Number seven Unified efforts to reduce exposure. Coordinate actions across federal, state, local, tribal and territorial levels is necessary to significantly reduce indoor PM exposure. This requires collaboration across environmental, building, public health and social service agencies, as well as community and school-based organizations. These overarching recommendations emphasize the importance of targeted interventions, educational efforts and research to fill the gaps in our understanding of PM 2.5 exposure mitigation. Look, it's a really great report. Well done to all those involved. I'll try and get somebody on from the group to discuss this report and particulate matter in more detail at some point, so watch this space.

Speaker 1: 16:37

Another really interesting thing to come out this week was a paper on indoor air quality, thermal comfort and ventilation in deep energy retrofit in Irish dwellings, a study that obviously is close to home for me and important to understand the impacts of a major venturing island the mass upgrade of homes for energy efficiency. This paper examines the impact of deep energy retrofits on indoor air quality and thermal comfort and ventilation in Irish dwellings. It's authored by the brilliant Marie Coggins, a senior lecturer in exposure science at the School of Physics and a partner in crime of myself and James McGraw at the AIVC. The study delves into how retrofitting activities aimed at enhancing energy efficiency influence the living conditions within homes. In recent years, there's been a significant push towards making homes more energy efficient to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Deep energy retrofitting involves upgrading a building's insulation, sealing leaks and often installing mechanical ventilation systems to improve energy efficiency. While these measures are beneficial for reducing energy consumption, their impact on indoor air quality and occupants' comfort has been subject to growing interest, as you'd expect.

Speaker 1: 18:03

This study by Coggins et al aims to shed light on these aspects by analysing data from Irish homes that have undergone such retrofits. What did they find? Well, when it comes to indoor air quality and pollutants, the study characterised the concentration of several priority indoor air pollutants, notably PM2.5, as we've just been talking about, and the results indicated that, while deep energy retrofits can lead to improved energy efficiency, they might also inadvertently affect indoor air quality by trapping some pollutants indoors if proper ventilation isn't maintained. Among the pollutants, the levels of total volatile organic compounds, tvocs and formaldehyde stood out, suggesting that building materials and furnishings might be a significant source. And when it came to ventilation and thermal comfort, a critical aspect of the study is it focused on the installed mechanical ventilation systems, which are often recommended as part of deep retrofitting to ensure adequate indoor air exchange.

Speaker 1: 19:17

The findings reveal a mixed picture. While mechanical ventilation can significantly improve air quality by removing pollutants, its effectiveness is highly dependent on design, quality of install and maintenance, which many occupants were unaware of or neglected. The subjective perception of indoor temperatures being stable was strongly associated with the overall comfort satisfaction of occupants. This underscores the importance of not just focusing on air quality, but also ensuring that thermal comfort parameters are met, which will significantly affect occupant satisfaction. They also looked at occupant feedback. Providing subjective data from occupants provided insights into their experiences with thermal comfort, air quality and overall satisfaction. High correlations were found between thermal comfort ratings and air quality satisfaction, indicating that occupants value both equally. The feedback also highlighted a gap in knowledge regarding the operation and maintenance of ventilation systems, providing a need for better education and resources for occupants.

Speaker 1: 20:36

And, of course, there are limitations and considerations within these types of study. The study acknowledged several limitations, including its short sampling period and relatively small sampling size, which may not fully capture the diversity of the Irish retrofitted housing stock. Additionally, the data collected occurred at different seasons and was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as a lot of these types of studies have been over the last few years, which could have influenced indoor pollution levels due to changes in occupancy patterns and behaviors. Of course, future research is encouraged to address these limitations by conducting longitudinal studies with much larger sampling sizes and considering the effects of seasonal variations and exceptional circumstances like pandemics, on indoor air quality and thermal comfort. This research, I think, illuminates the complex interplay between energy efficiency measures, indoor air quality and occupant comfort. While deep energy retrofitting is crucial for achieving energy savings and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these studies highlight equally the important need to ensure that such retrofits do not compromise air quality or thermal comfort. The findings advocate for a holistic approach to retrofitting that includes adequate ventilation strategies and occupant education on system maintenance and safeguarding health and comfort.

Speaker 1: 22:12

For me, the report highlights the distance we need to travel as we move more towards air quality focus metrics and benchmarks and away from air movement type and minimum standard type benchmarks. For example, in the summary, it notes that a significant proportion of the dwellings did not meet an EN standard, a European norm standard for CO2, category 1 in this case. What may be missed by readers is that, aside from the potential poor performance with some or many of the systems, even if they had met the current guidance within the Irish regulations, they would not have met this criteria, and this presents a challenge in how we move forward as we move from more air movement and air change rate based guidance and standards towards more air quality focused ones. But this is where I get on my soapbox. How many more of these studies do we need that were intended to look at air quality in various scenarios in this case retrofit, but in others it may well have been new build, or whether certain ventilation types were fit for purpose in modern air type homes and all of them have the same thread run through them Half the study time is spent mopping up and trying to figure out why ventilation is poor, and it should be no surprise to anyone that poor performing ventilation equals bad air quality outcomes.

Speaker 1: 23:45

At this point, I don't know how anyone in public office can justify a spend in the built environment through grants or schemes or anything else when there's such a known performance gap in outcomes. Simply put, the public purse is not getting what it's paid for, and that's not and I repeat, not a lack of regulation at this stage. They are all clear enough on the intent. This is an accountability, governance and quality assurance problem. No doubt more money and studies will be undertaken to look at how ventilation systems perform to new standards or changes in this or changes and that, but unless there is a fundamental shift in focus. I'm afraid I can predict the outcome of most of them.

Speaker 1: 24:38

I work with many organizations, from housing through education to the workplace, and by far the most transformative of that work is shifting the focus to performance based outcomes and defining expectations, and with that comes the collective accountability. We know enough about the levers we can pull within buildings to get better outcomes. It's not that complicated, but the delivery of that is where we're falling short too often, and this stuff matters, as noted in the report from the US on PM and many others. This affects the health and wellbeing of us, our children, our friends and family, and it affects our employees, our students and even our pets. It impacts the performance, absenteeism time, resources and even the bottom line of business. Regulations and standards will creep forward as they do, but until we start tackling this seriously, it will continue to be the single biggest environmental risk we face. And look, as I always say, this stuff's important. Thanks a million for listening, as always. I'm Simon Jones, and this is Air Quality Matters.