• Word on the Street
• Wide World of LEED
• Fragranced Products: Truly a Surprising Package
• ALA's State of the Union
• NYC Proposes Law to Regulate Monitoring Equipment
• Publisher's Perspective -- Welcome to the 100th Issue of IE Connections
• Ask Dr. Burge -- How Can I Tell if the Outdoor Spore Aerosol Is "Normal?"
• Radon Corner -- Measuring Low Levels of Radon Inexpensively
• IAQ in Schools -- Maintaining Healthy IAQ During the Winter
• HVAC Systems and Building Science -- A Case Study of Unintended Consequences

OSHA CITES TWO VIOLATIONS
In a pair of actions, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration attacked indoor health failures at military facilities in Martinsburg, W.Va. and White Sands, N.M.

OSHA’s inspection at the White Sands Missile Range began in July, 2007 at the instigation of the New Mexico Environment Department, which alleged that employees were removing underground concrete pipe containing asbestos from a military housing site without using appropriate protective clothing or an enclosure to contain airborne particles. A press release dated Dec. 31, 2007 reported a $324,000 fine on 12 violations for Balfour Beatty Construction LLC and C.F. Jordan LP.

This followed another administration action from earlier that same month, against the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Martinsburg. In that case, three health and safety violations connected to mold removal in 2006 led to a notice of “Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions.”

ANTIMICROBIAL HEAVY METAL
Although some might argue that liberal, high-volume doses of Metallica and Fear Factory peel the paint off walls, actual elemental metals are gaining increased attention for their antimicrobial properties.

A release from the Copper Development Association touts the association’s receipt of congressionally appropriated funds “to continue clinical trials determining the antimicrobial effectiveness of copper, brass and bronze” in two separate studies.

One study focuses on “the ability of copper alloy surfaces to kill deadly pathogens and impede cross contamination. The monies will be used to complete the pilot conversion of touch surfaces in healthcare facilities in New York City and Charleston, S.C., where extensive clinical trials have begun.”

Based on the same premise, the second study “is designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of copper components in heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems in reducing the incidence of harmful microbes that spread through buildings and other indoor air environments.”

Lest anyone doubt such utilities, research on copper’s antimicrobial properties has been ongoing in various clinical and laboratory settings for several years, often with the funding of the U.S. government. In fact, a previous study conducted by ATS Labs in Eagan, Mich. under test protocols established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed copper alloys to be more than 99.9 percent effective “on five pathogens commonly found in healthcare facilities,” according to CDA.

LEAD POISONING WITH A BULLET
People visit firing ranges to practice marksmanship, try out a new firearm or even just to let off some steam. Safety precautions are serious business. But for regular visitors, it turns out that errant shots are the least of their worries.

A story from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner in Fairbanks, Alaska reported on one range that was forced to take steps to reduce airborne lead dust when blood tests on rifle team members from nearby Delta High School showed “dangerously high” lead blood levels. An investigation revealed that the students were dry-sweeping the range’s floors.

With funds provided by the National Rifle Association and the Delta Junction city council, the range is installing a new ventilation system capable of filtering lead dust and uses a new floor cleaner to prevent its release. Additionally, rifle team members are using a hand soap crafted to wash away latent dust so it doesn’t follow them home.

HEALTHY HOMES AWAY FROM HOME
Trips for business or vacation tend to involve hotel stays. Staying in what amounts to high-use residential space tends to mean exposure to a host of pathogens and allergens that can go much further than simply ruining the trip. In fact, one widely circulated TV news report on hotel drinking glasses showed how not-diligent hotel cleaning practices can be.

Fortunately, according to a story in the Chicago Tribune, “ever so slowly, hotels are recognizing that travelers who suffer from severe asthma and allergies triggered by dust mites, mold, smoke, pollen, chemicals and animal dander might like to stay in hypoallergenic rooms.”

Pure Rooms and Enviro-Rooms have entered the lodging market as safe places for the allergic, asthmatic and germophobic. “Both are cleansed by different to rid a room of disgusting germs and keep it allergen free,” reads the Tribune, “but finding a bacteria/virus-free, mite-free, pollen-free, dust-free, chemical-free, dander-free room is a challenge because the number of hotels that offer these special rooms is miniscule.”

For instance, Pure Rooms currently number only about 400 nationwide. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts is the largest chain to commit to Pure Rooms. NYLO, which offers mid-priced rooms, plans on having 50 properties outfitted with Pure Rooms by 2010.

Altruism isn’t the reason, though. As NYLO CEO John Russell told the Tribune, market research directed the chain to implement allergy-free rooms.

But, as the Tribune story points out, you may only be able to do so “for a price.” “Pure Rooms can command a higher rate because people are willing to pay a little more to have that amenity – a $10 premium. It does cost more to maintain these rooms.”

UPS AND DOWNS OF PRISON AIR
Going to prison is serious business – no freedom, constant danger. Working in a prison can be just as dangerous. What few people consider, though, are the dangers of a prison’s indoor environment.

Eastern Ohio’s Vindicator reported on “dangerously toxic levels of cadmium and lead” at the Federal Correctional Institution in Elkton, Ohio, according to a preliminary report from the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. The DOJ’s investigation, which included other federal agencies, concluded that “people were exposed at levels 450 times ... allowable by [OSHA].”

“The exposures took place while changing air-handling filters in the ventilation system at the inmate work factory known as UNICOR,” reads the Vindicator.

The good news is that efforts to improve indoor environmental quality have spread beyond residential and commercial spaces. An expansion of the La Crosse County Jail in Wisconsin is being discussed as “environmentally friendly,” as reported by La Crosse’s WKBT News. Potter Lawson Architects, which is designing the expansion, said the jail could “use water more efficiently or optimize its use of solar energy.” Also recommended was an increased ventilation system “to improve the indoor air quality for inmates and staff at the jail.”

Building green and implementing green features into existing structures has gained considerable popular and economic traction in the last several years. At the forefront of the movement, setting standards and certifications by which such changes are made, is the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System. Despite critics, LEED is positioned as a sustainability leader in a world steadily moving to a greener future.

Work on LEED first began in 1994, when Robert K. Watson, former senior scientist of the National Resources Defense Council and founder of EcoTech International Inc., spearheaded a consensus process on green building standards by including such stakeholders as non-profi ts, government agencies, manufacturers, architects, engineers and builders. From its initial standard for new construction, the LEED program grew to include six standards governing all aspects of development and construction by 2006, lead by Watson as chair of the steering committee until that same year. The program currently operates under the aegis of USGBC.

How It Works
LEED utilizes a rating system focused on sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy
and atmosphere, materials and resources, innovation and design process and indoor environmental quality. Points are earned for meeting standards. Currently existing rating systems cover new construction, existing buildings, commercial interiors, core and shell, schools, retail, healthcare and homes. A rating system for neighborhood development is in its pilot period.

Within the rating system exist core goals, set at the program’s genesis: To define “green building” by establishing common standards; promote integrated, whole-building design practices; recognize environmental leadership in the building industry; stimulate green competition; raise consumer awareness of the benefits of green building; and transform the building market.

To gain certification, a building must earn at least 26 non-innovation points. “Silver,”
“gold” and “platinum” levels are attained by reaching 33, 39 and 52 points, respectively. Comparative standards, like ASHRAE 90.1, form important aspects of how points are awarded. Some buildings currently certified are New York City’s 7 World Trade Center,

Pittsburgh’s David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Mexico City’s HSBC Tower and, having reached platinum status, the Bank of America Tower in New York City and the University of California Santa Barbara’s Bren Hall, a research laboratory.

The Canadian Green Building Council has introduced its own version, LEED Canada-NC v1.0, based on LEED-NC 2.0.

LEED’s Place in Environmental, Green Industries
“Overnight,” wrote Auden Schendler and Randy Udall in a 2005 article in Grist, “LEED has become a dominant brand.”

“Today,” said LEED committee member Russell Perry in a 2007 interview with Building Design+Construction, “for a client or design professional not to be aware of LEED, they’d have to be living under a rock.”

With so much public attention and the ever-keen ears of manufacturers and politicians listening in, LEED has vaulted to a high place in the world of sustainability. Deservedly so, according to a study by the U.S. General Services Administration that found LEED “the most credible” of the five green building rating systems it evaluated. The city of Chicago went so far as to mandate that all new public buildings in the city meet LEED standards. Some federal politicians intend to push for LEED-based standards on all new federal buildings and to likewise retrofit existing structures.

While designers push to meet LEED standards, the marketplace has responded in kind – a host of products designed to earn LEED points for the buildings incorporating them have hit or will soon hit the market. For instance, in response to water-saving credits, Zurn Engineered Water Solutions has introduced its EcoVantage Pint Urinal System.

Criticisms
Like any program, LEED is not immune to critics. Some in the industry point out that local environmental factors do not vary the points system. Others frown at certification costs that could, they contend, be used to take a green project even further.

Schendler and Udall listed in their 2005 article five points of contention – high costs; a points system that can shift focus from basic, good design; “arcane” energy modeling; a “crippling bureaucracy” that creates an overly long certification process; and “overblown claims of green-building benefits.”

“Perhaps the world doesn’t need a green building certification,” they wrote, “as much as it needs a green building specification [italics in original]. Instead of a wild goose chase for points ... maybe LEED certification should require getting 26 points, 20 of which are mandatory.”

Russell pointed out that the checklist approach to earning points “appears very arbitrary.” He stated a desire to “set the bar high ... but make it rational.”

Other industry organizations worry about points awarded for potentially suspect inclusions: American IAQ Council executive director Charlie Wiles called the award of a LEED Innovation in Design credit to a building that incorporated UVC lights in air handlers “an example of LEEDs gone wild.”

Current USGBC president/CEO Richard Fedrizzi responded to Schendler and Udall in a Grist article by Ted Smalley Bowen by saying, “I didn’t like the ‘LEED is broken’ part, but I did like the ‘Let’s fix it’ part.”

Beyond LEED
To a great extent, evinced by the success of LEED in the marketplace and general knowledge of the program in the population, the goals are at least in the process of being met. Companies and buildings tout their LEED status as a marketing tool and consumers are showing a growing taste for LEED and its green brethren.

LEED or not, the green marketplace is growing, including the built environment. As reported in this newspaper [Nov., 2007], consumer attitudes are shifting, in greater preponderance each year, in favor of green buildings, green cleaners, green toys. “Efficiency” has become a key word for consumers as they seek to trim costs and provide an iota of sustainability to the greater environment while protecting their health.

With potential buyers leaning more and more toward green products, major companies are seeking to harness the market. Clorox, for instance, is introducing a new line of plant-based cleansers, Green Works, to complement its current line of chlorine-based bleaches and antibacterials. Procter & Gamble and Unilever are aiming to reduce emissions. Wal-Mart has worked to eliminate certain suspect chemicals from its shelves.

But thinking green and being so certified are two different things, and LEED is but one of a host of certification programs worldwide. And according to Chemical & Engineering News, the U.S. government has begun a series of hearings to prepare for Green Guides, a set of environmental marketing guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission. The Environmental Protection Agency has its Design for the Environment program that seeks to reduce pollutants indoors and out. Even Congress is getting into the act with Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent efforts to green the Capitol.

Communities, not just companies and individuals, are beginning to think greener. Some pass standards, often based on LEED, for new buildings; others provide grant and loan programs to retrofit existing structures. Should government itself not support green initiatives, local non-profits can apply for grants from companies like Rockwell Collins.

The glut of standards, particularly across national borders, makes figuring out just what counts as green that much more difficult, which has lead some companies, such as Clorox, to create standards of their own based on market expectations. “We decided that because we are Clorox,” vice president of research and development in the company’s cleaning division Suzanne Thompson told Chemical & Engineering News, “we had to set a higher bar for ourselves.”

Next Steps
The USGBC has not pretended that LEED is perfect; indeed, revisions and expansions are commonplace. LEED-NC 3.0 is currently in the works with the expectation that it will include a requirement for a building’s carbon footprint and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. Russell stated in his interview that the Green Guide for Health Care will provide some guidance on the new version.

Public concern continues as more unwelcome ingredients, such as asbestos and lead in children‘s toys, are discovered in a variety of imported products. A longer-running dispute continues domestically between consumers and vendors of many products boasting undisclosed ingredients.

Among them is the class of widely marketed products known as synthetic fragrances. The older question about consumers’ right to know about the contents of any purchase is now entering a new realm of debate about the need to know all about the chemically laden manufactured goods on the market.

As reports about the adverse health impacts of commonly encountered products mount, the current American version of “free” enterprise seems to be traveling a collision course with the growing public outcry for greater regulatory oversight. Basic marketing philosophy for materials concocted in modern laboratories appears to be in conflict with the original vision of capitalism as a consumer-driven process, in which demand shapes supply. What happens to the nature of consumer demand in an era of consumer ignorance regarding the items they buy? Let’s examine this question using as a microcosm the debate surrounding the production of synthetic fragrances.

As many as 5,000 different chemicals are incorporated within various fragrance formulas, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. Industry asserts that fragrances have been used safely for hundreds of years. Such claims are belied by the fact that chemical compounds appearing in the products (e.g., benzaldehyde and linalool found to be present in a 1992 EPA laboratory study), have not been known for very long. Today’s fragrances rarely contain only those natural ingredients used in earlier centuries; hence the adjective, “synthetic.”

The public is prone to assume that all these chemicals have been thoroughly vetted for their safety prior to sale. Many chemicals have multiple uses across industries, appearing in cosmetics, medications, cleaning products and even food flavorings. The intended use of a product determines what agency, if any, has jurisdiction for inquiring into its business.

For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that it has no oversight duties with regard to the ingredients used in cosmetics. These consist of products intended to enhance attractiveness whether the product is ingested, topically applied or inhaled. The only exception is with colorants (as in hair dyes). Otherwise, unless some claim is made regarding benefits to health, as opposed to self-esteem, there is no requirement for registration of these products with the FDA. This means that recalls of products suspected of containing potentially harmful ingredients are essentially a voluntary act on the part of vendors.

How complex is the task of developing appropriate testing protocols for fragrance chemicals? There are multiple avenues for their internalization apart from direct application and absorption through the skin. Fragrances are intended to be inhaled, which would seem to make assessment of their potential as respiratory irritants or sensitizers a priority at least equal to the more commonly cited skin testing. Once airborne, fragrance chemicals are going to be absorbed by all in their vicinity, not just the intentional user. A class of secondary, unintentional fragrance consumers is created via the same mechanisms by which secondhand cigarette smoke has become an issue before the general public. Therefore, the societal impact of these products is far greater than basic consumer demand summarized in sales statistics.

Measurable reductions in lung function, to a moderate degree, have been observed upon exposure to the chemical 1,4 dichlorobenzene, which is commonly found in deodorizing compounds. Ninety-six percent of subjects in a 2006 study (Elliot et. al.) showed evidence of exposure via blood sampling. Exposure by persons with pre-existing respiratory problems or by healthy individuals in combination with other common environmental irritants would have an even greater impact upon intentional and unintentional consumers.

A thoroughly tested synthetic chemical can provide data accounting for factors of carcinogenicity, central nervous system effects, reproductive and developmental toxicity, cardiovascular and endocrine effects, and specific organ vulnerabilities (e.g. liver or kidney damage). While the industry may have dispensed with a few harmful substances formerly incorporated in fragrances, manufacturers do not speak of the thousands currently in use. These include petrochemicals, aldehydes, phenols and esters, which are all known to have wide-ranging adverse effects when studied in isolation. Their effects in combinations have yet to be addressed in research models.

A newer area of concern is that of “mutagen” effects, or how chemicals around us alter the ongoing activity of our genes, cuing them to turn themselves on or off as they go about the daily business of regulating our bodily functions. The interactions of the environment with gene functions (referred to as gene expression), indicates that one need not have a genetic predisposition or defect for harm to occur.

The identification of hazardous or potentially hazardous ingredients in a product is usually followed by assurances that the amount present is negligible. Unfortunately, the determination of how much is too much is highly variable. Relevant factors include age, gender, weight, general health status and cumulative levels of exposure to multiple chemicals.

Practically speaking, this position is irrelevant to the very large numbers of people who report that a product has harmed, rather than enhanced, their quality of life. Science has also progressed beyond the old saw “the dose makes the poison.” It is now recognized that small amounts of a substance can sneak under the radar of one’s physical defenses while larger amounts of the material would alert the body to implement damage control procedures.

The American Academy of Dermatology also informs us that fragrance ingredients, along with preservatives, are respectively the first and second most frequent causes of contact dermatitis. Physicians warn us that contact can be from airborne particles and not just occur in primary users of a product. Between 40 and 50 million Americans (20 percent of the population) have allergies to one or more substances. Health care costs and losses in productivity are estimated at $6 billion annually from this widespread problem.

Approximately 35 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic lung ailment. The majority are diagnosed with asthma (over 22 million) and a majority report fragrance as being a common trigger for attacks. Asthma costs the public over $19 billion per year in direct healthcare costs and lost productivity. It is the most frequent cause of missed school days in children.

Migraine headaches are experienced by some 28 million Americans at an annual cost of $14 billion in medical costs and lost productivity. Among the majority, who report triggering events for their attacks, a sizable percentage count olfactory stimuli among them (perfume and/or strong odors).

Subgroups of chronically ill persons like those on chemotherapy and people who became ill following incidents of exposures to toxic chemicals are particularly vigilant in attempting to avoid such products. There is a sizable body of evidence that synthetic fragrances are a burden upon very large numbers of people.

According to sufferers, reactivity ranges in severity from annoying to disabling. Advice by vendors to individuals with adverse reactions to such products has simply been to avoid them. These consumers may choose to leave fragranced products untouched on store shelves, yet are still exiting stores, offices, hospitals, schools and libraries with molecules from these products left adhering to their nasal passages and lungs. These particles may later be deposited in other organs or stored in adipose (fatty) tissue and subject to gradual release over time. The indoor air of our typical environments is heavily laced with fragranced products emitted from store merchandise, cleaning products, air fresheners and the individuals we encounter throughout the day. Residues from various
laundry and personal care products cling to their skins and clothing articles. Products may now include phthalates, those plasticizers which can act as perfume “fixatives,” making them longer lasting. The FDA plans to assess their safety in the near future, although other researchers classify them as endocrine disruptors.

Since general avoidance of fragrance chemicals is frankly impossible, consumers are left to try to identify key offending ingredients. This, too, is impossible, since industry is legally permitted to label the often-complex conglomeration of ingredients with a single term, namely “fragrance.” This does not allow individuals to collaborate with their physicians and isolate causes for environmentally triggered problems. It does not allow proactive, health-conscious individuals to discriminate among the varieties of fragranced products on the market today.

Only disclosure of ingredients offers consumers the opportunity to select preparations which are truly benign. The absence of such information makes it impossible to select products best suited to an individual’s particular health challenges, even by the expensive process of trial and error. Some adverse effects may be delayed and therefore not easily recognized.

Ostensibly, this withholding of information from consumers is done to protect trade secrets. One wonders what consumers are expected to do with such revelations if they became available. Certainly, competitors already analyze one another’s products in their own laboratories as a matter of course. In Europe, where labeling is required, companies do not appear to be going out of business because of competition from the man (or woman) on the street, who might choose to make such products at home!

Clearly, we need greater assistance from the fragrance industry to help consumers make appropriate selections from among thousands of fragranced products. These were created to enhance the quality of life rather than detract from it. Patents serve to protect industry interests, but only full disclosure of product ingredients will allow consumers to protect their own interests. Of course, this raises the question of why the interests of consumers and vendors would ever truly come into conflict with one another. Satisfied, healthy consumers generate more disposable income. This in turn enriches the makers of products that satisfy the demand for that level of quality in composition. If competition relies less on consumer ignorance and more on informed consumer preference, the marketplace can only become a source of healthy competition in a capitalist society.

Barbara Rubin holds an MA in speech/language pathology and worked in the field of developmental disabilities for 25 years within educational and medical settings. In addition to her role as a therapist and supervisor of clinical programs, she also taught in several colleges and universities in her field of expertise.

Following her retirement in 2000, Rubin became a freelance writer about the human health effects of pollutants commonly encountered within indoor settings. She has published several magazine articles and numerous commentaries in various newspapers and journals. She would like to thank Barb Wilkie and Alison Johnson for their gracious editorial assistance with this article.

Since the very beginning of the smoking habit, the inhalation of tobacco smoke has been identified as a health hazard. With medical evidence mounting over the years about the addictiveness of tobacco-based nicotine and the damage done to lungs by smokers and those around them, steps have slowly been taken to reduce the risk of exposure to tobacco smoke. Age limits were placed on the sale of tobacco, advertising was regulated and, with increasing public support, even smoking in enclosed public spaces has been banned in some areas.

While some U.S. states and numerous counties, cities and towns across the country have banned smoking in or near buildings, a spectrum of smoking opposition has been created. With that in mind, the American Lung Association released in January its “State of Tobacco Control: 2007” report, detailing efforts, or lack thereof, to curtail and ban smoking in an effort to protect non-smokers from the effects of smoke and nicotine exposure.

Tracking “progress on key tobacco control policies at the state and federal level [sic] and [assigning] grades to tobacco-control laws and regulations,” the “report is a call to action for national and state elected officials: Meet the challenge and enact strong tobacco-control laws so that everyone in the United States can breathe easier.”

Both the federal government and states were graded on a letter scale according to fixed criteria with details provided to explain the evaluations. The full reports for each state and the federal government can be viewed at www. stateoftobaccocontrol.org.

States Graded on Tobacco Control
The states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, were graded according to “Tobacco Prevention & Control Spending;” “Smokefree [sic] Air;” “Cigarette Tax;” and “Youth Access.”

The preponderance of states yielded mixed grades. California, for instance, received an F for prevention and control and a D for its cigarette tax, but was also awarded A’s for relatively smoke-free air and youth access. Texas failed in spending and smoke-free air and received a C for its tax, but nonetheless attained an A for youth access. Other states with mixed grades were Maryland, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oregon, Arizona, Ohio, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Wyoming, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, among others.

Overall failing grades, for those states with at least one F and lower scores across the board, were largely distributed in Plains States and the tobacco-growing South, including North Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri. Pennsylvania and Washington stood out as extra-regional states with poor scores. The worst were Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia, all of which failed in all four categories.

Five states with exceptionally high marks were New York, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine and Washington. All but New York, which scored A’s in spending, smoke-free air and youth access and a C for its tax, received two A’s and two B’s.

Each state report includes a summary of each grade, a list of smoking facts and pending governmental actions, a petition to request one’s state to join the Smokefree Air 2010 Challenge and a full report on the state’s tobacco and smoking environment.

Federal Tobacco Control
The federal government, judged on different criteria, scored among the worst overall grades: an F in “Food and Drug Regulation of Tobacco;” an F in “Cigarette Tax;” an F in “Cessation;” and a D in “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.” Specifically, ALA cited inaction in the House of Representatives on a Senate-approved bill authorizing the regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration; a low per-pack tax on cigarettes; and lack of Senate ratification of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty singed by President Bush in 2004.

In terms of efforts toward smoking cessation, ALA listed its reasons as “Nationwide:
Minimal; National Media Campaign: None; Federal Coverage of Cessation Services: Minimal; Smokers’ Health Fund: None.”

Like the states, the federal government’s report included a summary of its grades; statistics; pending legislation and regulation; and a petition to pass the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act in 2008.

Publisher’s Perspective:
Welcome to the 100th Issue of IE Connections
By Glenn Fellman

For the last 99 months, I’ve had a crappy job. Day after day without relent I have been challenged by issues like excess moisture and its huge consequences, bacterial infections, noxious fumes and confusing healthcare advice. It’s not pretty stuff.

To add insult to injury, those I tried to help often kicked and screamed in resistance to my work. Though it wasn’t in my nature beforehand, I quickly learned to assert dictatorial authority, ignoring their cries to make sure my work succeeded.

For the last 99 months, I feel like I have been changing diapers. And I have. Literally. Well, my wife and I have been changing them. Okay, mostly her, but I did my share. The last diaper left a rear end in our house in January, 99 months after the birth of the first of our three children. By my calculations, we changed more than 30,000 disposable diapers (costing nearly $9,000). My family alone contributed 5.66 tons of disposable diaper waste to landfills. Our carbon footprint could be confused for that of a Sasquatch.

As every parent knows, that crappy job is a labor of love and it so pales in comparison to the glory of parenthood that it’s really not so bad. Either that, or I’m already trying to rationalize surviving the 99 months. In any event, while I was changing diapers, I was also a part of something else that took place with remarkable regularity over 99 months – the publication of Indoor Environments Connections, which was first published in November, 1999. This is our 100th edition.

The two 99-month milestones have more in common than time. Like having a baby and raising it into childhood, launching a newspaper and shaping its persona is fraught with the unknown, requiring difficult, well-informed decisions balanced by gut reaction. Publishing, like childrearing, has also delivered moments of great joy and tremendous accomplishment.

For 99 months we’ve delivered the IAQ industry its only newspaper. Although there are many publications with content similar to ours, none compare to Indoor Environment Connections. Our industry news is cutting-edge and original and brings readers information they learn here first and often only within these pages. Our coverage of industry associations and events isn’t your typical trade rag pabulum – it’s timely and interesting. And our technical section now constitutes an impressive collection of hundreds of IAQ articles covering everything from Aspergillus to radon zones, written by a Who’s Who of industry experts.

We don’t publish press releases and we don’t reprint articles. We research, we write, we report, we edit, we create. And with this edition, we’ve done it 100 times in a row. We have never submitted our newspaper for a publishing award, though I’m confident we could get several. Our pride of accomplishment comes from the positive feedback of our readership and advertisers.

There are a lot of people who have been instrumental to this newspaper’s success and I’m going to exercise my right as publisher to take up lots of space and thank a bunch of them.

In all fairness, thanks begin with my wife, Lisa, for allowing me to go out on a limb and dangle our livelihood on the creation of a new publication. Without her, there would be no Indoor Environment Connections. Without two other women, this newspaper would most likely not exist as well. Diane Chester, who in the autumn of 1999 sold a newspaper’s worth of advertising for a newspaper that didn’t actually exist, has not only ensured our financial viability but also our technical excellence. She’s the consummate salesperson, a true industry insider who knows everybody and has a great eye for recruiting the finest contributors. Susan Valenti, who for a short time shared my role as publisher, was the one who developed the original concept of the newspaper and talked me into being a part of the venture. She was also our first editor.

Steve Sauer’s five-year run as our editor helped solidify our position as the IAQ industry’s newspaper. His questions were Larry King-penetrating, delivered with Stuttering John-brazenness. More recently, editor Jon Miller has taken the newspaper into uncharted territory with excellent, in-depth research and analysis of topics as diverse as bed bugs, moldy airport control towers endangering health and safety, and where presidential candidates stand on IAQ issues.

Our personnel have been propped up by an editorial board we cannot thank enough for its contributions and sustenance. Their writing, review of articles, news tips and insider insights help give our publication content, credibility and authority unparalleled among trade newspapers.

The majority of our readers are the members of the non-profit organizations we call our industry partners. These organizations and their constituents are our staunchest supporters. Their logos have proudly taken the bottom section of our front page since our first issue. Association memberships, including those organizations with the closest ties to IAQ, deliver a readership that advertisers have found consistently receptive.

The loyalty and support of our advertisers and industry partners has been phenomenal and paramount to our success. Many advertisers have graced our pages since the first year’s editions. Besides being our primary revenue source, they’ve been some of our biggest promoters. Advertisers help distribute thousands of newspapers every month at tradeshows they attend, courses they put on and to customers seeking an IAQ news source. We thank them all.

Literally hundreds of people have contributed articles to Indoor Environment Connections. I was advised to name none of them for fear that I might accidentally exclude someone and come to regret it. All the same, I can’t resist singling out a few of the people whose contributions have been extraordinary.

Besides our staff, Indoor Environment Connections only has three true columnists: Douglas Kladder, Carl Grimes and Harriett Burge. Doug’s monthly column, “Radon Corner,” has kept our readers’ attention on one of the most dangerous – and preventable – IAQ risks we know. Carl’s activism and unyielding spirit have delivered some of our most entertaining, informative and controversial material. Harriett’s IAQ advice column gives readers the opportunity to get rock-solid answers to the toughest queries. Writing a monthly or bimonthly column for several years in a row is remarkably challenging. Finding fresh material and delivering interesting content is something Doug, Carl and Harriett have mastered.

What we refer to as our “back-half” articles are the technical contributions that typically begin around the center page of the paper. Of the hundreds of people whose work has been published in this section, none have appeared as frequently – nor received such enthusiastic reader response – than Bill Turner and his colleagues from Turner Building Science LLC. Their articles on schools alone make up a resource library that every school facility manager should have on their shelf.

During the last 18 months, we’ve worked hard to solicit a technical contribution from every member of our editorial advisory board. While many of its members have contributed several articles over the years, some of them stand out not only for being truly prolific, but also for assisting us by providing technical review of articles submitted by others. Board members Robert G. Baker, George Benda, Barney Burroughs, David Governo, Jim Holland, Joseph Hughes, David Krause, Joe Lstiburek, Larry Robertson, Richard Shaughnessy, Alan Veeck and Charlie Wiles fit this description well.

In addition to editorial board members, there are others whose frequent and excellent contributions warrant appreciation. Consistently high-quality, informative, lively content for our readers has come from Jim Akey, Andrew Äsk, Bernt Askildsen, Hollace Bailey, John Banta, Walt Black, Bob Brandys, Gail Brandys, Dan Bridge, Michael Bowdoin, Greg Burnett, Christopher Capobianco, Mike Casanova, Stacey Champion, Charlie Cochrane, Leigh Daniel, Quentin Danziger, Frank Dean, Jeff Deuitch, Bob Dwyer, Aaron Engel, Chuck Felland, Randall Fike, Dave Gallup, Clair Grant, Michael Greene, Jon Heidelberg, Kevin Held, Tim Hoysradt, Wally Kowalski, Paul Laurenzi, King-Teh Lin, Shelly LeVick Masters, Jeffrey May, Steve Nicholas, Bill Palmer, Chris Ranwell, Erik Rasmussen, Jim Rosenthal, Mike Schell, Dave Shagott, Frank Spevak, Dan Stih, Jeff Stines, John Tiffany, Tim Toburen, Lance Weaver, Chris Willette and Steve Willis.

I wanted to single out two people in particular for their support not only in contributing and reviewing content, but also for providing advice, commentary and opinion regarding our newspaper’s overall content and direction. A few years into our publishing, Tom Yacobellis told us to drop the vanilla trade newspaper stuff, do some serious investigative reporting and chase after stories that make a difference in people’s lives. We listened. In subsequent years, our reporting on the activities of agencies including the FAA, EPA and OSHA, and associations including IAQA, EEF, NADCA,

IICRC, ASHRAE and ACGIH, included the good, the bad and the ugly. Another of our editorial board members, Irving Brown, has been steadfast in his encouragement for our efforts. His frequent, handwritten missives boost morale and help us remember both the importance of our work and the need to keep life’s activities at an even pace.
Well, now that I’ve used almost 1,500 words to express appreciation to all and sundry, it’s time to thank the one most important to Indoor Environment Connections – you, the reader. It’s your support that sustains us. Your letters, phone calls and comments make sure our staff remembers the importance of its work and how well it is appreciated. No matter where we go, people stop us to say how much they love this newspaper. I’ve been a part of a lot of publishing ventures before, but none so well-received as Indoor Environment Connections. We look forward to bringing you the next 100 issues.

Dr. Harriet Burge
Director of Aerobiology
EMLab P&K
San Bruno, Calif.

This question arises when an outdoor bioaerosol source is present that may be impacting adjacent homes or other buildings. A few examples of this kind of source are municipal composting and sewage treatment facilities, municipal landfills, construction sites and, of course, farming activities. I am sure you could expand this list from your personal experiences.

So how do you know whether activities at these facilities are changing the outdoor aerosol in nearby (or even distant) locations, given that we are always saying the outdoor aerosol varies naturally by orders of magnitude over very short periods of time? Well, although you cannot prove that the facility is not impacting the community, you can develop a hypothesis-driven sampling strategy that will either tell you that it is or give you an indication of the probability that it is not.

Before developing a testable hypothesis, you have to understand the nature of the source. Is it a yard waste-composting facility, which is likely to release thermotolerant organisms such as Aspergillus fumigatus and thermophilic actinomycetes? Is it a sewage-handling facility where you are concerned about the release of enteric pathogens? Is it a big harvesting operation releasing a huge cloud of dust blowing toward the air intakes of a large building? There are, of course, many other possible examples. The point is that you must know what kind of organisms you are looking for, and if you don’t already know, you will have to sample the source to find out.

Once you understand the nature of the source, which means not only knowing the kinds of organisms, but what kinds of activities are likely to lead to aerosols, then you can begin to develop a hypothesis and sampling strategy.
Let’s say you are dealing with yard-waste compost (since I have the most experience in that area). The organisms likely to be released vary with the age of the compost and the activity going on at the facility. Mushrooms are the first invaders and activity is not necessary for aerosol formation. As the piles heat up, Aspergillus fumigatus takes over, causing further heating, then the thermophilic actinomycetes invade. Both organisms require disturbance for aerosol production. Your hypothesis is, then, that basidiospores, Aspergillus fumigatus spores and thermophilic actinomycete spores are traveling to adjacent communities and generating unusual exposure conditions. Unusual, in this case, means unusually high concentrations of these particular organisms in outdoor air.

Now let’s develop a sampling strategy. For basidiospores, spore traps are the best choice. Given that there can be massive concentrations of basidiospores in the ambient environment, it is important to collect samples of the mushrooms from the site so the analyst can focus on that particular type for the spore-trap analysis. Next is Aspergillus fumigatus. It may be possible to use spore traps here as well, although you cannot be sure you have this species without culture. I would suggest a combination of culture-plate and spore-trap sampling. At any rate, you must use culture-plate sampling for the actinomycetes. Their spores are too small to be identified on spore traps. When submitting the samples for analysis, you should request specific counts for the organisms of concern.

Alternatively, you can request data on all organisms and select the ones of interest yourself. To decide when to sample, you need to evaluate the kinds of activity that occurs at the facility and develop a plan to sample during the time when activity maximizes the probability of capturing aerosol. You can also do control sampling when there is no activity, although it is not required. You also will need to consider wind direction and speed and sample when the air movement is toward the area of concern (i.e., when the area is downwind from the facility).

Where to sample is also an important consideration. Of course, you need to sample at the facility so you know you have a source at the time of the investigation. You also need to sample at the site of concern, and you should also sample upwind as a control.

How many samples should you collect? As usual, the more the better. The absolute minimum I would suggest is five replicate or sequential samples at each sampling site. This is because conditions can change rapidly and you don’t want to miss any clouds that might pass by quickly. I generally do a minimum of 10 at each site under each activity condition of concern.

Now, how are you going to interpret all of this data? First, you are looking for increases in the specific organisms of concern. At least initially, I would ignore all the other organisms recovered and make graphs displaying all data for each organism (separate graphs) for each site. These graphs are useful both for evaluating your hypothesis and for communicating your finding to the client. I would also calculate the median and range for each organism for each site. If the hypothesis is true, the downwind graph should show higher concentrations of the organisms than the upwind graph and the median concentrations should be lower at the upwind site. The degree of difference can be estimated by how much the upwind and downwind ranges overlap. There are, of course, other tests that can be used, but these simple ones will often be enough.

Finally, if you know that Aspergillus fumigatus and thermophilic actinomycetes are rare in your area, why can’t you just sample in the affected community without all the fuss? Well, if you have a database that actually documents the absence of these organisms in your environment, you can do this. Most of us do not have such databases
and it is not sufficient in these cases to assume that other people’s databases, collected
in other areas, are sufficient for your purposes.

Dr. Harriet Burge is director of aerobiology at Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. and associate professor and director of the microbiology laboratory at the Harvard School of Public Health. Widely considered the leading expert in IAQ, Burge pioneered the field more than 30 years ago. She has served as a member of three National Academy of Sciences committees for IAQ, including as vice chair of the Committee on the Health Effects of Indoor Allergens.

To submit a question to Dr. Burge, write to her by e-mail at askdrburge@emlab.com. All questions posed to Burge will receive a reply, although space limitations prevent us from publishing them all. By submitting a question, you agree to have your question and its answer published in a future edition of IE Connections.

Douglas Kladder
Director
Center for Environmental Research & Training
Colorado Springs, Colo.

This past December, Dr. William Fields posed the seemingly simple question of “What is the maximum period after exposure ends that [charcoal] labs can provide reliable results?” Like many simple questions, the answers are not equally simple and at times can reveal some answers we may not want to know. This simple question may indeed be such a question. To understand the import of this question, one needs to understand how charcoal canisters, which have become a mainstay of the short-term radon-measurement industry, work.

Charcoal Devices Are Like Leaking Sample Bottles
Simple charcoal devices, regardless if they are diffusion-barrier, open-face or whatever, function as collectors of radon in the air. These collectors are then transported to a lab where the radon can be sampled. In some respects, they are like a sample bottle used to collect water in that they can be shipped to an analytical facility. However, this is where the similarity ends.

Unfortunately, unlike filling a bottle with water that is held within the bottle until it is
analyzed, the radon collected on the charcoal device will dissipate due to its short half-life of 3.8 days. If several days go by from when the sample was taken to when the laboratory analyzes it, there may be little radon, or perhaps even no discernible radon at all, for the lab to analyze without a lot of guesswork, which is what gives rise to the simple question raised by Dr. Field.

Returning to the sample bottle analogy, the decay of radon in the charcoal device would be like having a hole in your water bottle and needing to get it to the lab while there is still some water in the bottle to sample. I suppose the answer depends on how large the original sample was and how large the hole is as to whether there would be a sufficient quantity for the lab technician to perform an analysis.

In the case of radon, it is not a leak that is necessarily causing its time sensitivity in returning it to the lab, but rather that the radon trapped within the charcoal devices is radioactively breaking down to a smaller and smaller sample as time goes on. For example, if a laboratory claims to be able to measure to a lower level of detection (LLD) of 1 pCi/L, a sample taken in an environment of 100 pCi/L that arrives at the lab four days after the end of the test will contain a radon equivalency of 50 pCi/L, which is well above the LLD. It could take an even longer period of time (up to 25 days) to be returned to the lab and still be above the LLD for the sample. However, if the environment was initially 4 pCi/L in the home being tested, then taking eight days to get the sample to the lab could be problematic. So the first answer to Dr. Field’s questions is, “It depends on the initial sample. The higher the radon, the more forgiving the delivery period can be.”

Background Activity
The lower level of detection for charcoal canisters is also a function of the minimum detectable activity level for a laboratory. I spoke with Shawn Price, National Radon Manager for Air Check, a long-experienced and well-respected charcoal laboratory, about what MDA is and what factors can influence it. According to Mr. Price and his colleague,

Mike DeVaynes, charcoal laboratories measure the gamma bursts released from radon-decay products that are created from the radon collected on the charcoal during deployment. These gamma bursts, the frequency of which is the activity of the sample at the time it is analyzed and knowing the amount of time elapsed from when the sample was collected and the analysis performed, are counted and the lab can back-calculate to the amount of radon activity that was in the room, knowing the decay rate for radon.

Sounds simple, right? It would be simple if one could just measure the activity emanating from the charcoal device rather having to differentiate this from other gamma in the lab. Since there is gamma from sources all around us other than the radon sample, the lab has to be able to discern the gamma from the radon daughters on the charcoal separately from the gamma around us. This background gamma comes from the earth, the sun and the universe and can mask the gamma signal that the lab is attempting to measure from the radon-charcoal device. If the activity from the device is much higher than the background gamma, the amount of signal is easy to measure.

However, if the gamma from the sample is equal to or less than the background, all bets are off.
According to Price and DeVaynes, the ability to have a sample activity level in excess of the MDA is directly a function of how high the sampled radon environment was and how fast the sample is sent to the laboratory after deployment. But it is certainly possible to have a situation in which the amount of activity on a delayed sample or low-environment sample is less than the background level, and that is where concerns arise as to how this is reported.

For example, if the background gamma at a lab is equivalent to an activity reading of 0.5 pCi/L, a sample set in an environment of 6 pCi/L would have an equivalent activity level of less than 0.5 pi/L if it took two weeks to get to the laboratory. Does this mean, since the activity level is not discernible, the lab would report “non-detectable?” If so, this would be very misleading, since the radon at 6.0 was greater than the guidance level of 4.0 pCi/L.
When I asked this question of Price, he indicated that their laboratory reports, in which any activity less than the MDA and were returned to the laboratory over 12 days later, were “non-reportable” rather than being less than their LLD, which is an entirely different result. Although we can compliment Air Chek on this approach, one has to wonder how prevalent this same approach is within the entire charcoal-laboratory industry.

The minimum detectable activity level is not a number carved in stone, either. Every lab is different in its ability to both measure background and also to minimize its effects. Most labs go to great lengths to shield out gamma from the earth and sky with lead shielding. Even so, some background gamma enters the detector, which has to be measured regularly, since gamma from solar flares and whatnot is variable. Price indicated that they measure background many times a day to ensure that their detectors are functioning properly and that proper gamma-correction factors are being applied.

Transporting the Device
Adding to the issue of measuring at lower levels is the environment in which the devices are being shipped to the laboratory. Since radon is a gas and will want to desorb from the charcoal when heated, the temperature of the truck in which it is transported can also make a difference if the device is not sealed.

Price indicated in our discussion that his lab has conducted tests in which a significant amount of radon can escape a sampling device if simple sealing instructions are not followed. In this case, the loss of radon is like the water leaking from a sample bottle. When a device returns to a laboratory, the lab assumes the activity on the device is specifically due to the exposure when the device was open and not after it was presumably closed – in which radon could leak out or perhaps leak into the device if stored in a high-radon environment.

Why Is This an Issue?
Since the ability to measure radon levels above a minimum detectable activity is a function of the amount measured and the time to return it to the lab, recent interest in measuring lower and lower radon levels is beginning to push the envelope for charcoal devices not immediately returned to a laboratory. With new Environmental Protection Agency and state documents recommending post-mitigation levels to less than 2.0 pCi/L, the need to measure reasonably well at these low exposures is becoming more and more important.
DeVaynes indicated that, barring transportation and deployment issues, a device exposed to 2.0 pCi/L and analyzed two days after the completion of the test would have a variance of 0.2 pCi/L. If the same sample instead had been measured eight days later, the variance would more than double that, at 0.5 pCi/L. This amount of variance may not be a big deal when concerned about a criterion of acceptance of less than 4.0 pCi/L, but if a homeowner wants their radon exposure to be less than 1.5, it could make or break a mitigation contractor guaranteeing these kinds of results.

It may appear that our ability to reduce radon levels may not only be challenged by our mitigation technology but also by our measurement technology to validate such reductions. Alternatively, we may need to turn to more sophisticated devices than charcoal, which, according to Price, was initially developed to quickly and inexpensively provide a means for consumers to easily identify significantly elevated levels. They are not designed to measure very low radon levels and perhaps not even to the precision of a tenth of a pCi/L, which real estate transactions have moved to mistakenly expect.

As always, who says there is nothing new in radon?

Douglas Kladder is director of the Center for Environmental Research and Technology Inc. He can be reached by e-mail at dougkladdr@aol.com or by phone at (719) 477-1714.

William A. Turner, MS, P.E.
President/CEO

Steven M. Caulfield, P.E., CIH
Senior Vice President
Turner Building Science & Design LLC
Harrison, Maine

As you read this, it has been rather cold and snowy in many areas of the United States. In previous issues, we have focused on energy and IAQ. In this one, let’s look at possible health issues during winter operation.
To provide a healthy learning environment with good indoor air quality, a building should be reasonably clean and comfortable, not have mold growing inside it, not be over-ventilated, not be under-ventilated and have planned air flows in critical areas.

The goal is energy efficiency, good IAQ, good occupant comfort/productivity and reduced carbon dioxide emissions, or at least be carbon-neutral. Let’s discuss each of these.

Reasonably Clean
The visible dirt and dust that comes into a facility comes almost entirely from feet. A tiny fraction may come from open windows or from occupant activities. Schools are very high-traffic places without huge cleaning budgets, so there must be a system in place for daily removing the tracked-in dirt and not just making a dust cloud. This principle is very important with hard-surface flooring as well as soft. Whatever is used – treated dust mops, microfiber, autoscrubbers, wet mopping, near HEPA-filtered vacuums – must remove the dirt, not just redistribute it. Burnishing or buffing that creates dust clouds is also not desirable.

With textile flooring, the hidden dirt needs to be periodically removed with deep extraction of some sort, or you build up soil for a garden that germinates during high-humidity weather dampness at room temperature for more than 24–48 hours.

No one I know expects the HVAC system to clean the floor (you could do it, but the energy use would be very high and the cold-draft effect unacceptable – imagine a dust-collection system with huge, noisy fans and you get the picture). If the diffusers are dirty, they should be cleaned periodically; however the dirt on them originally came from the floor. This said, HVAC air filters should be a minimum of MERV 8 or better. If your air-filter supplier does not know what a MERV is, find a new supplier. There are lots of good ones around. The same principal applies to your homes, too.

Reasonably Comfortable
One of the best ways we know of to make people complain of poor IAQ is make it too cold in an all-air system in a cold climate area, then make it too hot each afternoon. Add in over-ventilation to contribute to the dryness, and poor cleaning practices, and you have a great recipe for IAQ complaints.

If one looks at the ASHRAE comfort chart, running an all-air building at 66–68 F with 10 percent relative humidity should be expected to keep nobody comfortable short of an exercise class gulping water. (By the way, an all-air system delivers both heating and cooling through the air and tends to be somewhat drafty with all of that air movement.)

If you are concerned about wasting energy operating the facility at 72 F during the occupied period, hire a good infrared camera contractor to find and plug the gross air leaks that heat the outdoors. This does the occupants and the planet a favor, saves lots of fuel and reduces the heating and cooling of the outdoors.

No Mold Growth Indoors
As many roofs and wall systems leak, this is an ongoing challenge. For the most part, porous materials that get wet need to be dried in 24 hours or you get mold growth. There are all kinds of water tarps now available with garden-hose barbs that capture leak water from roofs, expansion joints and other local areas, and direct it to a bucket or trash barrel to keep the wallboard paper, wood and fiberglass sponges from getting wet.

If you have textile flooring in places that routinely get wet, you likely need to stop this via a hard-surface fix or eliminate the wetting, or you get mold growth indoors.

Utility trenches and crawlspaces are the other typical sources, or cold walls in portable classrooms where someone left out the insulation or failed to seal the floor joint when they bolted the classrooms together on-site (see Planned Air Flow below). Lots of really cold surfaces in winter sometimes leads to lots of condensation.

Don’t Over-ventilate
In the absence of identifiable pollutant sources other than the occupants, ASHRAE and most others recommend about 15–20 cfm of outdoor air per person during the occupied period. In most settings, this gives one a carbon dioxide reading of about 800–1,000 ppm. In an occupied facility, readings much less than this at 11 a.m. likely mean you are just plain over-ventilating, which provides little if any benefit and, in the heating winter mode, likely means excess dryness (more dry eyes and noses), as well as wasted energy. Why do it if there is no benefit?

Don’t Under-ventilate
Ventilating to control bioeffluents to acceptable levels is the essence of the ASHRAE dilutions guidelines in Standard 62. Ten-to-fifteen cfm of outdoor air per person, depending on the setting, is recommended for dilution of non-point source pollutants (people). In most settings, this gives one a carbon dioxide reading of about 1,000–1,500 ppm. In an occupied facility, readings above 1,000 ppm at 11 a.m. likely mean you need to take a real close look at what the ventilation systems are doing and why.

Point source pollutants, such as those generated by reprographics equipment, bathrooms, art activities, etc. need local exhaust, not general dilution, unless you really like to waste energy (see below).

Planned Air Flow in Critical Areas
Planned air flow in critical areas is likely the key item for overall good building IAQ. Air should be exhausted from areas where irritating materials are likely to occur with negative-pressure exhausts. Typical areas include bathrooms, reprographics activity and boiler rooms.

All photocopying and most large printing activities involve heating, melting and drying a mixture of carbon black, styrene and iron particles onto paper. The fugitive byproducts, including ozone, are often irritating, so why would you purposely expose occupants to them? ASHRAE recommends exhaust at 25 air changes per hour.

Bathrooms require exhaust by law to keep sewer gas and other odors out of normal building breathing air. In winter, dry traps in unused showers, sinks and floor drains also need to be addressed.

Boiler-room air should move out of the building not into it. Boiler exhaust must discharge well above the air intakes and out of the wake of the building if there are rooftop air intakes.

Welding, painting, cooking and other activities in kitchens and other vocational facilities require specialized systems to direct materials away from others. These large exhausts also require, often by code, planned make-up air systems that should be interlocked with the exhaust so they function at the same time.

Dirty crawlspaces and utility trenches likely need to be isolated with sealing and exhaust so the byproducts of the stuff growing inside move out of the building instead of into it due to normal stack effect or suction from unit ventilator returns. We should stipulate that “stuff” almost always grows in crawlspaces and utility trenches.
In most cold-climate designs, roofs are designed to stay cold. For this to occur, building air must stay out of the roof-venting area and cold outdoor air must flow in the vented space. Hot roofs are a different approach and can work well with enough super insulation to counter snow depths and suitable roofing materials where the lack of venting does not void the roofing warranty.

In many parts of the country, radon gas is a known, naturally occurring part of soil gases, and specialty suction systems are installed to keep the gas from passing through the school on the way to the atmosphere.

Conclusion
Winter is a challenging time for proper building operation to minimize the likelihood of an IAQ incident. With diligence to the above items and others the facility staff may have learned, some good planning for crisis intervention and a little luck, things can go well. If the building interior gets wet in the winter, the good news is that it can usually be rapidly dried out with some heat and dry outdoor air. In the cooling season, wet items are a lot harder to get dry fast enough to prevent mold growth.

William A. Turner, MS, P.E., is president and CEO of Turner Building Science & Design LLC. He has more than 25 years of experience in IAQ, HVAC and energy evaluation and development of solutions for building-system problems. Turner supervises a group of engineers, industrial hygienists, commissioning agents and building scientists who serve owners, architects, general contractors and construction managers. He can be reached by e-mail at bturner@turnerbuildingscience.com or by phone at (207) 583-4571 ext. 11.

Steven M. Caulfield, P.E., CIH, is senior vice president of Turner Building Science & Design LLC. He can be reached by e-mail at scaulfield@turnerbuildingscience.com or by phone at ext. 14. 

Timothy D. Toburen
Consultant
Indoor Environmental Technologies
Clearwater, Fla.

According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, every action has more than one effect and these effects always include some that are unforeseen. Indoor Environmental Technologies recently encountered an example of this law as it applies to modifications made to buildings to increase their energy efficiency.

The following changes interacted to create what IET has dubbed Cold Attic Syndrome.

• Modifications made to reduce heat gain through the attic.
• Modifications to the HVAC system to increase its energy efficiency and ability to control humidity.

Reducing Heat Gain Through the Attic
The case-study home is located on the Gulf Coast waterfront, where humidity levels are high most of the year, especially from June to September. During these months, the dew-point temperature in the outside air averages above 70 F and occasionally climbs above 80 F. These dew-point temperatures equate to 110 grains per pound and 156 gpp specific humidity, respectively.

Since indoor temperature is usually recommended to be set at 78 F and indoor dew point should be maintained below about 60 F, maintaining comfortable indoor conditions in the Florida environment without using excessive energy is challenging.

In most of Florida, air temperatures rarely exceed 95 F. Heat gain through walls is not as high as in areas like the desert Southwest, where temperatures routinely go much higher. However, the Florida sun is intense, resulting in high radiant heat gain to the structure. Most of this radiant heat load is absorbed by the roof, which heats the materials and air in the attic, which in turn transfers the heat through the ceiling to the occupied space below. Attic temperatures in Florida often exceed 135 F.

Several approaches have been tried to minimize solar heat gain and therefore the energy needed to maintain comfortable temperatures:

1. Ventilation reduces attic heat by exhausting hot air and pulling in cooler outside air. This can be done passively, by use of soffit and ridge vents, or actively with electric fans.
    
2. Insulation effectively slows heat gain from the attic or roof to the occupied space. There are two locations where insulation can be installed – on the underside of the roof and on top of the ceiling. When installed at the roof line, the attic must be of an unventilated type, which, as we will show, has other advantages. When insulation is installed on top of the ceiling, the temperature in the attic itself is not lowered, but heat transfer from the attic into the occupied space is reduced.
    
3. Radiant heat gain can also be reduced by modifying roof or attic construction methods.
   For instance, using tiles rather than shingles reduces attic temperatures, particularly when
   barrel tiles, which provide an insulating air space between the tile and the roof deck, are
   used. Using reflective or light-colored roofing materials also reduces absorption of radiant heat. A separate radiant barrier can also be installed in the roof or attic.

Increasing the HVAC System’s Energy Efficiency and Ability to Control Humidity
There are numerous ways to accomplish this. The particular systems chosen for the home in this case study used several approaches, including two-speed motors for both the air handler fan and compressor. With proper controls, these systems have the potential to efficiently remove both heat and humidity over a larger percentage of the operation cycle and also to effectively remove humidity during periods when the heat load on the structure is reduced during cooler periods.

A side effect of these more efficient systems is that the air leaving the coils and traveling through the ducts is often at least several degrees colder than in more “traditional” systems, is colder through a longer percentage of the operational cycle and the system, properly sized and controlled, runs for a greater percentage of the day. These characteristics all contribute to greater energy efficiency and humidity removal, but, as an unintended consequence, the outer surfaces of the HVAC ducts become colder and remain cold longer. This surface temperature drops low enough to cause condensation. While the ducts are insulated, the temperature of the air inside the ducts still eventually affects the temperature of the exterior surface of the duct.

Case Study
The home in question was first occupied in the last week of July, 2007. About a month later, the owners discovered significant condensation occurring on HVAC duct-system components in the attic. Building materials were getting wet and mold growth was starting. IET was retained to investigate and make recommendations to correct the situation.

The home is a 7,000 square foot, three-story concrete-block structure in a waterfront location on the Florida Gulf Coast. The moisture problems were discovered in the attic above the third floor, where the air handler and ducts for the HVAC system conditioning the third floor are located.

Heat gain through the attic into the occupied space was reduced by:

• Roofing with light-color barrel tiles.
• Ventilation through soffit and ridge vents. However, the ridge vents were never actually
installed, leaving only the soffit vents to provide ventilation.

• A foil radiant barrier on the underside of the top chord of the roof trusses.
• R30 fiberglass batt insulation installed on top of the ceiling, with the vapor barrier facing up.

Figure 1: Diagram of attic and HVAC
system components at time of inspection.

These methods were highly successful at reducing attic temperatures. During a week of temperature-humidity data logging, air temperature in the attic tracked outside air temperature closely, never exceeding it by more than two degrees. During this week, the peak temperature in the attic was 93 F and the low temperature was 85 F. Because the attic was ventilated, attic dew-point temperatures also tracked outside conditions closely, varying between 69 F and 81 F.

As discussed above, the HVAC system used in this home tends to keep colder air moving through the ducts for longer periods than many other systems. This results in the surface temperature of the duct boots (the insulated box above the ceiling that connects the fl ex duct to the vent) being colder for longer than other systems. Exacerbating the situation, a layer of R-30 fiberglass batt insulation above the boots means that boot surfaces are well-insulated from even the modest attic air temperature. During the week we monitored conditions, the surface temperature of the duct boot varied from 63 F to 72 F.

Fiberglass insulation is highly permeable. This allows humid attic air to easily penetrate through it, where it comes into contact with the surface of the duct boot. Although there is a vapor barrier on the upper side of each strip of insulation, its effectiveness is limited because the vapor barrier is not continuous. During the week of data logging, the surface temperature of the duct boots was almost continuously below the dew-point temperature of the attic air, resulting in a signifycant amount of condensation, which then ran down onto the ceiling drywall. (See Figure 2 below)

Figure 2: Thermal image (left) and visible
light image of duct boot under insulation.
Note surface temperature reading on
thermal image.

Condensation also occurred during this period on flex-duct insulation where it attaches to the duct-board supply plenum. The attachment was made with a clamp installed over the outer jacket, compressing the insulation. As a result, the insulation lost effectiveness and the surface temperature of the duct at this point reached condensing levels for much of the period during which we logged conditions. (See Figure 3 below)

Figure 3: Thermal image (left) and visible
light image of plenum to flex duct connection.
Note significantly colder surfaces where duct
insulation is compressed.

Results of Investigation
IET found that the low attic temperature, the colder-than-usual air in the ducts and the high humidity of the attic air interacted to produce significant condensation on duct-system components not adequately insulated for the conditions. Condensation was especially severe on the 14 duct boots located on the third floor. Given sufficient time, this condensation would result in extensive mold growth on drywall and other materials around the affected areas.

Options for Correction
Two approaches were considered:

• Significantly increase the surface temperature of the affected duct components.
• Reduce the humidity of the air contacting the affected duct materials.

Figure 4: Diagram of modifications needed
to seal attic and insulate at roof.

Application of the spray foam to the roof is a simple process when done during construction, but can be quite challenging when performed as a retrofit. Due to the complex nature of the attic in this home and the resultant difficult access to some sections, spray foam application to the underside of the roof was regretfully abandoned
as an option, although it was recognized by all concerned as the best solution.

The remaining option, in simplified terms, has been described as “Seal the vents and stick a dehumidifier in the attic.” This approach is not ideal. Even with soffit vents sealed, this attic was not designed to be air-tight, so humidity will continue to penetrate. The dehumidifier required to remove this humidity, when operating, adds to the energy usage of the home. The pressure envelope for the home remains at the ceiling, leaving the HVAC ducts in the attic outside the envelope. This means any HVAC-system leaks will contribute to negative pressure and humidity control issues in the occupied space.

However, “seal and dehumidify the attic” was a viable approach in this particular case, in which the owners wanted to avoid the disruption that would be caused by major modifications to the home. We expect this dehumidifier will operate primarily from June through September, when average dew point in the outside air is above 70 F, with less-frequent operation during spring and fall months. Dehumidifier run time will primarily be a function of how airtight the newly sealed attic will be, a factor which cannot be quantified in advance. See Figure 5 for an illustration of this approach.

Figure 5: Diagram of modifications needed
to “seal attic and install a dehumidifier.”

Recommendations to the Client
IET’s recommendations to the client were as follows:

1. Seal the soffit vents. This work can be performed from the outside, minimizing disruption for the residents. Also, seal other accessible openings between the attic and
   outside air.
    
2. Install an energy-efficient dehumidifier in the attic. Initially, set the humidistat at 65 percent. Ideally, the humidistat would be controlled by dew point rather than relative humidity. However, we have not yet located a reasonably priced humidistat of this type.
    
3. Flex duct connections to the duct board plenum were relatively accessible. Modify these connections to minimize compression of the insulation, allowing it to retain its R-value.
    
4. Monitor humidity conditions in the attic to ensure the dew point remains below 65 F. As experience is gained with the system, adjustments to the humidistat set point may be needed, with the goal of minimizing energy usage while still preventing condensation.

Preventing Cold Attic Syndrome in New Construction
Cold Attic Syndrome may develop in ventilated attics in hot/humid climates when one or more of these factors apply:

• Ambient temperatures in the attic are unusually low.
• The HVAC system produces colder-than-usual air and/or runs for longer periods than usual, resulting in colder surfaces on system component surfaces for longer periods.
• Permeable insulation is installed at the ceiling, insulating HVAC-system components from the heat of the attic, but still allowing humid air to contact these components.