Comments on: Green Buildings Can Make You Smarter

By: abailes

abailes — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:06:04 +0000

In reply to Brad. Brad, I don't have direct

Brad, I don't have direct experience with the CERV, but Martin Holladay has written about it. (Unfortunately, if you're not a GBA Prime member, you won't be able to read it.)

By: abailes

abailes — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:00:10 +0000

In reply to Dale Sherman. All good questions, Dale. We

All good questions, Dale. We may be heading to a time when we all have to carry our oxygen bottles wherever we go.

By: abailes

abailes — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:56:54 +0000

In reply to Joe Hughes. Thanks for the update, Joe. I

Thanks for the update, Joe. I guess I missed that when you had him on your show in August. I wasn't blown away by the CO2 results in the Harvard study so I'm glad to hear there's been some followup work done.

Interestingly, another project of Wargocki's was the subject of an email I got from ASHRAE yesterday. He also studied the effect of CO2 on sleep quality and reported on that study last year. Here's the link:

Using Indoor Air Quality Tactics to Sleep Better at Night, Perform Well the Next Day

By: abailes

abailes — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:46:06 +0000

In reply to David Eakin. I agree, David. We need more

I agree, David. We need more measurements. There are plenty of devices out there to measure what's in the air, but unfortunately, I don't know of any that are both accurate and affordable (assuming that latter term is defined as on the order of $100 rather than $1,000+).

By: abailes

abailes — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:42:56 +0000

In reply to Walt Neboshynsky. Yes, Walt, the air you

Yes, Walt, the air you breathe in a car can be much worse than what you breathe in a building. I saw the abstract of a study recently that looked at that issue. They found that running the AC helped with air quality inside the car as the condensation helped to pull contaminants out of the air, too. Haven't been able to see the whole study yet.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:55:23 +0000

Well that clinches it. All of
Well that clinches it. All of those tests I failed when I was a kid were because the air was bad in the classrooms. Maybe I can go back and sue the schools blaming them for my poor results and stunted future. Lost potential wages times 30 years, yes, "looking for the right lawyer now". Hey, it could happen in this liberal age.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:23:33 +0000

Allison,
Allison,
Very interesting article. I have been researching ventilation for a future Net Zero home I would like to build. I ran across these guys up in Illinois that seem to take a similar approach… http://buildequinox.com/ If you have any thoughts on their approach, I am all ears… 🙂

By: Dale Sherman

Dale Sherman — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:42:40 +0000

A number of other
A number of other universities have also looked at cognitive function and air quality and their results correlate with the Syracuse study. Most of human existence has experienced CO2 levels of 180-280 ppm. The global average is now about 400 ppm. Classrooms and offices may see levels of 1,000-3,000+ ppm. Stanford’s Mark Jacobson has also studied CO2 domes, higher concentrations of CO2 (600-1,500+ ppm) over urban areas. During periods of high CO2 levels, ventilation may not lower the CO2 and VOC levels significantly, in fact they may raise them, depending on outdoor levels. This leads me to ponder just how much older urban buildings housing our nation's leaders may compromise cognitive function and critical reasoning. Do we need continuous monitoring in all buildings (including bedrooms) to ensure wise decisions? Where can we buy residential and commercial CO2 scrubbers? Or are my thoughts about this compromised by the CO2 levels in my office?

By: Joe Hughes

Joe Hughes — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:59:53 +0000

This is an interesting topic.
This is an interesting topic. Pawel Wargocki has done similar research since this was published and joined us to discuss the implications of both on IAQ Radio. http://www.iaqradio.com/pawel-wargocki-phd-technical-university-of-denmark-is-co2-a-pollutant-or-merely-an-index-for-iaq/

Here is part of what he found from the Z-mans blog (reviewed and approved by Dr. Wargocki) after the show.

To their surprise they could not observe the effects on performance during exposures to CO2. And neither there were any negative subjective responses seen. In contrary the exposure to bioeffluents (with CO2) caused responses which were particularly strong at 3000 ppm. They could not solve the mystery of why CO2 could cause the negative effects. They then decided to extend the levels of CO2 to close to 5000 ppm, which is an occupational limit, but again no negative effects on performance on their batteries of tests were seen.

The question of whether CO2 is a pollutant remains thus partially unanswered. Interestingly bioeffluents with CO2 produced effects indicating that the lack of effect is not due to lack of sensitivity of the selected experimental approach.

It’s more complicated than we would like!
Joe

By: David Eakin

David Eakin — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:57:31 +0000

Sick, dumb or otherwise – the
Sick, dumb or otherwise – the end result is not to guess how much ventilation is need nor to guess if outside air is better than inside air nor to guess what part of the indoor air is off (CO2, PM2.5, ozone, etc.). The result is to monitor indoor air to see if there is a problem to begin with so you can properly address it. You can’t manage what you don’t measure, and outside air quality is already being measured (in the USA) by the EPA (https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi). Now where are the affordable, accurate indoor air monitoring systems that match?