#20 - Simon Jones :Mandating indoor air quality for public buildings

An article recently published in Science, advocating for air quality standards in public buildings, is a fantastic position from many leading voices in the scientific air quality community.

I spent a little bit of time this week talking about it and some of the issues and challenges with the proposition.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl0677

Transcript

Simon: 0:14

welcome to air quality matters. I don't know if you spotted an article out in the last week or so, published in science and it was authored by over 40 international authorities on the indoor environment, including actually many of the guests on this podcast. In it it advocates for the establishment of national indoor air quality standards and outlines some strategies for improving indoor environments. On first read of the article, I have to say I was a little bit underwhelmed, but to be fair, this isn't an article for me and reading it again, as slightly, perhaps a slightly more neutral observer, it landed better and makes some interesting points. I think Indoor air quality is a crucial but often overlooked component of public health, a fact that became more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic than perhaps at any other time. The article argues that the pandemic has put a spotlight on the importance of indoor air quality and it's pushing for an immediate improvement in public spaces. By implementing strict indoor air quality standards, using technology to monitor air quality and supporting these efforts with regulations, it argues that we can greatly enhance public health and safety indoors. This is a necessary move, not just for health reasons but for societal well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how important indoor air quality is for public health, but I do wonder, as we've discussed on this podcast, whether or not the pandemic now has been a double-edged sword, and I wonder if the production of this article speaks to elements of that. Either way, there are a couple of headline takeaways from this article. Number one unlike outdoor air, there aren't strong regulations for air inside buildings, which without question leaves people exposed to pollutants and airborne diseases. It's crucial, as the article lays out, to set firm standards for indoor air to protect people's health in places like offices and schools. A second point is that experts are agreeing more and more that we need to increase the amount of fresh air circulating in buildings well beyond current minimum standards. This could help reduce the risk of disease transmission and improve overall health, but, set against the backdrop of reducing carbon emissions, it needs to be thought through. In my opinion, standards like ASHRAE 241 give an insight in how this may play out, for example, with perhaps modalities of operation in different circumstances and terminologies and principles like equivalent air change rates being considered, and not forgetting demand controlled ventilation, a process of matching ventilation with need. This is a ventilation practice that is already very well applied in many areas and will only get better the more sophisticated our ability to track pollutants become. Which brings me on to sensors and the third takeaway from this article. With new, affordable sensor technologies, we can now continuously check the quality of the air inside buildings. Monitoring things like fine particulates and carbon dioxide help us understand and manage air quality issues better. This proactive approach can improve health and well-being and productivity for everyone inside buildings.

Simon: 3:58

Despite extensive research and advocacy over decades, most countries still lack legislated indoor air quality performance standards for public spaces that effectively address the concentration levels of these pollutants. I was really pleased to see the article also points out the inadequacies of building codes concerning operation, maintenance and retrofitting, with most ventilation systems on a kind of run to failure program. Many of the operational challenges we see out there are based on this kind of fit and forget mentality within the sector. In Ireland, under the code of practice for indoor air quality in the workplace, for example, there is an attempt to ask for very reasonably I think that you evidence the effectiveness of ventilation at least every two years. The reality is most workplaces here in Ireland and in the UK and further afield is, if you ask somebody when was the last time the ventilation performance was checked in a building, they're going to look at you pretty blankly. The authors of this article argue for mandatory indoor air quality standards in public spaces, acknowledging that, while it's challenging to enforce such standards in homes, they should still be designed and equipped to potentially meet these standards, which I think is really interesting. We are seeing the likes of the International World Building Institute, for example, under the world building standards, develop residential offerings that may take a similar approach, not as rigorous and ongoing as, say, the full fat version of well v2 or well performance, but still a more principled approach.

Simon: 5:48

Overall, the article sets out for a discussion on the need for national indoor air quality standards and laws, contrasting the situation with outdoor air, which is much more regulated and monitored. It quite fairly lays out, I think, the challenges here. Indoor air pollution arises from both indoor sources, like building materials and human activities, and outdoor sources. Effectively indoor air quality management requires controlling indoor emission sources and minimizing the entry of outdoor pollutants by methods such as filtration. The complexities of these sources make it challenging to standardize and implement indoor air quality measures universally. They hinted it a bit later on in the article when talking about different priorities, but grounded in the basics of the hierarchies of control.

Simon: 6:45

There's probably an elephant in the room here that will need to be addressed. As it states in the article, and I quote, compliance with indoor air quality standards that refer to concentrations of indoor pollutants would require controlling indoor emission sources such as combustion, building products and cleaning products. If we're going to get serious about controlling sources of pollutants, it inevitably means taking on fossil fuel, building products and cleaning products industries, and in my view, this is a bullet that can't be dodged, and I say that in full recognition that it's probably three of the most powerful lobby groups in the world. Source control is not going to be a consumer-driven solution. It has to be led by regulation and control. It will need serious backing at a regulatory level and for the EPA and other such organisations to be given both the funding and teeth they need to start controlling some of these hazards.

Simon: 7:51

The article also talks a little bit about monitoring. Monitoring indoor air pollutants is crucial, but it presents technological and financial challenges, to be truthful. The article emphasises the need for robust and cost-effective monitoring systems that can accurately reflect the indoor air quality conditions and support the enforcement of standards. The routine real-time monitoring, especially of pathogens, however, remains technologically challenging. It points out. It's quite a timely request, and perhaps by design, at a time that we see such an unsettled sector, with many layoffs and shrinking organizations, and a sector still trying to find its place in the built environment. I think I'm having almost weekly conversations at the moment in the indoor environmental monitoring space, smart buildings and healthy building sector and not in a good way and that includes, to some degree, the healthy building certification space.

Simon: 9:03

The market for internet of things devices that monitor air quality, once thriving, is now facing significant challenges. Initially boosted by the influx of investment in, the market is now overwhelmed with cheap air quality monitors, leading to an industry shake-up that's being coined as the great IOT air quality recession. This situation is pushing companies to either evolve or risk failing. Many top executives from what were once seen as pioneering startups are leaving. Post-covid-19, the market was flooded with inexpensive monitors that promised to improve air quality indoors and outdoors. Many buildings ended up being filled up with these devices, but they rarely provided useful guidance, leaving users with lots of data but no clear action plans. It was a large part, actually, of my decision to set up the consultancy that I did.

Simon: 10:09

Frustrated by the lack of useful solutions. Consumers are now demanding more than raw data. They want clear, actionable advice, personalized tips and an ability to integrate with other smart home devices like air purifiers or building automation systems. But, importantly, they're still left with the challenge of road mapping assets that have had a lack of investment and have largely been run to failure. For every Google or LinkedIn headquarters with advanced BMS systems and healthy building certifications, there are thousands upon thousands of public spaces that are, quite frankly, not that. The great IoT air quality recession is a wake-up call for the industry. Companies that adapt to meet consumer demands for valuable air quality management systems will likely succeed. Those stuck in the old ways, just selling data, probably going to fall behind. The future of the IoT air quality market depends on providing actionable insights and a connected system that lets consumers manage the air quality effectively. Also, using sensors that meet real standards and can be calibrated will be crucial. Not only are companies that combine different sensors into one air quality monitor affected by this current downturn. Also, organisations that certify buildings as environmentally friendly or healthy are also feeling this impact beyond no illusion.

Simon: 11:48

The article also talks about some of the legislative and industrial priorities that affect things like this. Indoor air quality legislation varies widely across jurisdictions and there is a lack of unified approach globally. The complexity of legislating air quality, which often focuses more on results than specific behaviours, adds to the difficulty. There is also a need to determine the scope of regulations concerning different types of indoor environments, like schools and workplaces, and the industry has different priorities. The industry's focus has traditionally been more on thermal comfort and energy efficiency than indoor air quality. However, the document or article notes that market demand and new regulations could shift these priorities towards improving indoor air quality, and I have to agree. The adjustments would require those significant changes from industry, including the HEVAC sector, potentially leading to resistance from those benefiting from the status quo from those benefiting from the status quo. The adoption and implementation of indoor air quality standards are complicated by diverse values, goals and power structures of human stakeholders. Standards might have cultural or political implications, making them unfeasible in certain settings due to resistance from powerful groups. This aspect requires navigating complex social dynamics and achieving a balance between scientific recommendations and political will. These challenges highlight the multifaceted nature of improving indoor air quality very well, I think, requiring coordinated efforts across scientific, technological, legislative, industry and social spheres to effectively address this, mirroring in many ways, if you like, many of the types of organizations we have on this podcast weekly.

Simon: 14:00

So what does the article ultimately recommend? Well, firstly, it recommends a set of key parameters to measure, and they are particulate matter, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and ventilation rates. And, without going into too much detail, the headline numbers are for particulate matter, 15 micrograms per meter cubed over an hour, 800 parts per million for CO2, carbon monoxide values over 15 minutes an hour and eight hours, and ventilation rates at 14 liters a second. The article does point to pollutants recommended by the who. The world health organization has global air quality guidelines that were published in 2021 providing recommendations for concentration levels of six key pollutants and their average times. They were PM2.5, pm10, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and ozone, and apply to both outdoor and indoor air. Low-cost sensors are a viable technology to measure some of these six pollutants recommended by the WHO. However, not all six can be realistically monitored in buildings, nor do they all need to be monitored. The article points to the two most relevant candidates for routine regulatory indoor air quality monitoring, and they are particulate matter and carbon monoxide. Affordable sensors for these pollutants are reliable and long lasting.

Simon: 15:50

Particulate matter, or PM2.5, can come from both inside and outside sources and is known to be one of the top 10 health risks We've discussed this many times on the podcast and carbon monoxide is naturally found in the atmosphere in small amounts, but levels can become dangerously high due to incomplete burning of fuels and combustion either inside or outside. It's important to consistently measure carbon monoxide levels indoors, particularly where outdoor carbon monoxide levels are above safe limits or where fuels are burnt indoors. Many countries require carbon monoxide detectors in areas where combustion occurs to warn of dangerous high levels of gas. Although these detectors often pick up on lower levels that could still be harmful. I think you do have to read the supporting information in this article to get the full picture, though. For example, with PM, there are detailed reviews on using low-cost sensors to monitor particulate matter.

Simon: 16:55

But two main challenges exist with these devices. The article points to the fact that, first, they need to be properly calibrated and, second, they can mistakenly report higher pollution levels when water particles like high humidity or fog are in the air. Significant advancements have been made in improving the calibration of these sensors for outdoor use. For example, one study improved the accuracy of these sensors by developing correction factors that significantly reduced errors in the measurement data. However, the issues of overestimating pollutant levels due to high humidity remains unsolved. To manage this, one suggested method is to ignore data collected in relative humidity levels that exceed 75%, as this indicates the likely presence of water droplets in the air. This humidity related problem typically does not impact indoor measurements, though, as the indoor environment should be lower than this.

Simon: 18:00

The article also talks about other pollutants in the WHO section. The list includes various organic compounds like benzene and formaldehyde, which are not easily monitored on a daily basis in all indoor environments. As a result, monitoring of these pollutants typically occurs periodically, often during surveys and on a voluntary basis, rather than routinely. They are usually included in regulations and guidelines for the purpose of controlling emissions from construction materials and other consumer products. What I thought was really interesting in this article was that it does note that monitoring these organic compounds using online devices which do not specifically target them is not recommended, because the results can vary wildly depending on the message used. There are several different ways to measure total volatile organic compounds, tvocs, and the values assigned can depend greatly on the chosen measurement technique. Although there are guidelines for specific organic substances, these are intended for short-term checks and aren't suitable for ongoing monitoring inside buildings and aren't suitable for ongoing monitoring inside buildings. As for radon, testing and mitigation, efforts are advised, particularly in areas where the soil has high levels of radon, which can lead to varying radon emissions. National Radon Protection Authorities often provide radon maps to help guide these efforts. It is recommended that laws include provisions to protect people in high radon areas and that compliance with these laws is checked through periodic monitoring.

Simon: 19:46

I do like the fact that it does cover mould as well at one point. Measuring relative humidity and moisture indoors is crucial because it influences the growth of mold and allergens like dust mites. These factors can significantly affect indoor air quality and indoor chemistry, though the full extent of these impacts isn't completely understood yet. Moisture is a key condition for the growth of various microbes, including different types of bacteria and mold. The World Health Organization's 2009 review highlights that moisture and biological agents in buildings are linked to several health issues, including respiratory systems, allergies, asthma and immune system disturbances. To avoid these health problems, it's best to prevent and minimize dampness and controlled microbial growth in indoor surfaces and within the building structure. Managing moisture and moisture balance effectively helps mitigate the risk of mold and related health issues. It's a difficult one, if not impossible, to set limits for these conditions at a global level, I think because of the difference in climatic regions, I guess. Anyway, back to the article and the standards and thresholds that it's looking to set.

Simon: 21:08

It also deals with CO2. Currently, carbon dioxide CO2 levels are not covered in the WHO organisation's air quality guidelines. However, co2 can still be a useful indicator for contaminants and pathogen release by people in a room, and it can help assess how well a space is ventilated. Co2 sensors are widely available at this stage, affordable and pretty durable, making them suitable for use in all types of indoor environments. Using CO2 as an indicator is beneficial because, while both pathogens and CO2 are released when people breathe, it's easier to measure CO2 levels and relate them to human activity than to directly model the risk of pathogen emissions. It can also give a steer, if correctly understood, on the effectiveness of ventilation in various spaces. But remember what we were talking about earlier If we don't understand how to translate this information in a meaningful way, with proper insights, this data can be effectively useless. And lastly, the article talks about ventilation rates. Ventilating with clean air is a crucial method for reducing indoor contaminants, including those generated by human activity. Studies have shown that effective ventilation can significantly lower the risk of infections.

Simon: 22:42

The purpose of ventilation is to clear out and dilute pollutants produced indoors, including respiratory emissions and odours, quickly enough to prevent them from building up. This is done by replacing indoor air with either clean outdoor air or purified recirculated air. Normally, the rates at which outdoor air is brought indoors are determined based on hygiene and comfort levels. Proper air distribution is also important, though the article points out. The air should reach all occupied areas and avoid directing airflow from one person to another, particularly when we talk about pathogen control.

Simon: 23:27

Although modern buildings with mechanical ventilation systems can measure ventilation rates, these measurements alone aren't enough to guarantee good indoor air quality. Measurements alone aren't enough to guarantee good indoor air quality. It's necessary to consider the number of people in a space and their activities. One effective way to check if ventilation is adequate is by monitoring CO2. If CO2 levels inside exceed a certain threshold compared to outside air or recirculated air, it indicates that ventilation is insufficient.

Simon: 24:02

Whatever the world views of organizations like ASHRAE and others are, and whether or not they've been too focused on energy and comfort, my point is we don't do very well In fact we do very badly indeed at meeting even these ventilation rates set previously. Until society at large cares enough and legislation comes with enough teeth to enforce some of these standards, my fear is this article will just be consigned with all of the others as a meaningful attempt to advocate for better indoor air quality standards. On the flip side, though, I do think there are positive signs that organizations like ASHRAE and others are increasingly refocusing on health standards, which can only help these types of arguments. Do go and check the article out. I think it's a really important position statement by some really authoritative figures in the sector, and I think it's something that will only be more powerful the more this is shared and this position stood behind. Thanks, as always, for listening. I'm Simon Jones and this is Air Quality Matters.