• WORD ON THE STREET
• Are There Really “Outdoor” and “Indoor” Spores?
• Road Warrior Part 2 -IEQ Needs an Update
• Award Recipient Shares Secrets of Working With Builders
• AIHA Voices Official Opposition to NYC Monitoring Regulation
• VOC Exposure From Unexpected Sources

RISK OF OVERHEATING IN AIR-EXCHANGE SYSTEMS
Venmar Ventilation, based in Drummondville, QC, “has received several reports of major home fires where [sic] the suspected cause is a heat-recovery system. Burlington fire officials determined that two fires in Burlington have been attributed to Venmar units. However, Venmar’s own investigation of these incidents and their causes is not yet completed.

“Therefore, Venmar Ventilation is continuing its efforts to contact the owners of affected heat-recovery systems as these systems can fail and pose a potential fire hazard to homeowners.”
According to Venmar’s press release, “this program covers models manufactured between 1991 and 2001, as well as between October 2006 and August 2007.

“Owners of air-exchange systems that are covered by this Safety Upgrade Program must immediately turn their unit off and unplug it, and contact Venmar as soon as possible by phone at 1 866-441-4645, by visiting their Web site at www.venmar.ca, or by mail at SUP, 550 Lemire Blvd, Drummonville, QC, J2C 7W9.”
 
GREEN’S NEXT DIRECTION
“Even for those remaining skeptics,” wrote Christopher P. Hodges, P.E., CFM, LEED AP, IFMA Fellow, “there is little argument that we can produce buildings and design workplaces that are energy-efficient while minimizing their impact on the environment. ... Now that the design process is recognized as a major tool of sustainable practices in facilities, we should turn our attention to existing facilities.”

Hodges’s article, “Sustainable Facility Management is the Next Wave,” points out that while green building has become a new paradigm in construction, managers of existing facilities have so far resisted green retrofits.

“Facility managers face a different set of problems,” he wrote. “Shrinking operations and capital budgets make it difficult to implement sustainable practices that cost even minimally more than current practices [and] capital replacement cycles are out of sync with the aggregation of greening projects required to meet certification standards. ... Although there is gathering evidence of the financial benefits of sustainable practices in existing facilities, there is still a perception of high cost to achieve a green or high-performance facility, especially in existing buildings. That concern is justifiable, given the large gap that still exists between ‘doing what you can’ and achieving LEED certification.”

Hodges found the answer to his own question, “How do we overcome these gaps in existing buildings,” by writing, “The answer to the problem is to take existing building improvements one step at a time and work on the education of the facility manager in the ways of sustainability.”
 
CARB’S LATEST ANTI-GAS STRIKE
The California Air Resources Board, fresh off its ban on ozone-emitting air purifiers in the state, is taking on nitrogen dioxide, a key component of every Californian’s favorite airborne entity – smog.
Based on “review and final recommendations for the NO2 standard ... released in a final staff report on Jan. 5,” the Office of Administrative Law “approved amendments to the regulations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard” for the gas on Feb. 19. The amendments “reduce the current 1-hour-average standard of 0.25 ppm to 0.18 ppm, not to be exceeded, and establish a new annual-average standard of 0.030 ppm, not to be exceeded. The new standards become effective on March 20, 2008.”

Board staff first presented their recommendations to amend the standard “based on a review of the scientific literature on the health effects of NO2 that was conducted by staff from the Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Assessment,” on Feb. 22, 2007.
For more information, visit www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/no2-rs/no2-rs.htm.
 
GREEN AWARDS SHOWS
The major entertainment-industry awards shows are known for pomp, high fashion and instant controversy. Preening stars and executives congratulate themselves for jobs well-done. In all, the shows are entertainment at its finest. But that hasn’t deterred organizers from adding a little green to gala gold: In February, both the Grammy and Academy Awards went a little green.
After the Oscars were handed out, Hollywood’s famed Kodak Theater was cleaned with Seventh Generation’s All-Purpose Cleaner. Paper products, from napkins to toilet tissue, also came from Seventh’s line of post-consumer, non-chlorine-bleached recycled papers.

But the Grammy staff went even further. The event itself was held in “the first and only LEED Gold certified, eco-chic residential building in California,” Elleven. Vernare provided decorations and furnishings and, going beyond the awards show and its venue, proceeds were donated to Brad Pitt’s Make it Right foundation, which is “dedicated to rebuilding a green New Orleans in the Lower 9th Ward.”
 
PAGING UPTON SINCLAIR
Last autumn, workers at Quality Pork Processors in Austin, Minn., a major supplier for Hormel, came down with a mysterious neurological condition that has doctors at the famed Mayo Clinic baffled. As reported by the New York Times Feb. 5, symptoms included “fatigue, pain, weakness, numbness and tingling in the legs and feet.”

“A man whom doctors call ‘the index case’ – the first patient they knew about – got sick in December, 2006 and was hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic for about two weeks. His job at Quality Pork was to extract the brains from swine heads. ... Tests showed that the man’s spinal cord was markedly inflamed. The cause seemed to be an autoimmune reaction: His immune system was mistakenly attacking his own nerves as if they were a foreign body.”

Despite not understanding the condition, doctors were able to treat the man, but he kept getting sick. By November, 2007, “other cases had begun to turn up.” Plant doctors and its owner called in the Minnesota Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. Studies of the ill workers revealed no mad cow disease, no trichinosis and no person-to-person spread – only employment “at or near the ‘head table,’ where workers cut the meat off severed hog heads,” and where the practice known as “blowing brains” occurred.

Despite some shielding, the “blower” could be splattered and “there was enough space for brain tissue to splatter nearby employees.” Minnesota state epidemiologist Dr. Ruth Lynfield said, “You could see aerosolization of the brain tissue.”

Tests revealed no viral, bacterial or parasitical cause, but a theory formed – that inhaled brain tissue created an immunological reaction by which the body created antibodies to combat the foreign materials that just so happened to closely resemble, on a molecular level, human nervous tissue.

Almost immediately, plant owner Kelly Wadding ordered a stop to brain harvesting and scores of other slaughterhouses have followed suit. Lynfield and others are on the case for a medical cause, but, in the meantime, it sounds as if the meatpacking industry could use a few industrial hygienists.

No, in fact, all fungi originate outdoors, although a few have become especially adept at utilizing man-made materials. For the sake of argument, however, let’s create some categories that might be useful in interpreting spore trap data:

1. Strictly outdoor fungi that never grow on man-made materials.
2. Outdoor fungi that may grow on natural indoor materials.
3. Outdoor fungi that have developed the capability of using a few man-made materials
4. Outdoor fungi that are omnivorous with respect to natural and man-made materials.

One group of strictly outdoor fungi is those that require living plants, fungi or animals on which to complete their life cycles. This group includes the “rusts,” powdery mildews, downy mildews and many other fungi. Spores in this group, which are very common in outdoor air, include many ascospores and hyphomycetes (filamentous fungi producing asexual spores not in fruiting bodies). Cercospora is an example of a common fungus that releases an abundance of airborne conidia into the outdoor air.

A second group of strictly outdoor fungi is those that require complex ecosystems for the completion of their life cycles. Notable here are the mushrooms, most of which live in close association with higher plants and do not reproduce without this association. Many of the very large number of basidiospores that often fill the outdoor air fall into this category.

Of course, there are some mushrooms that can grow and release spores indoors. These are the Group 2 fungi. The brown-rot fungus Serpula lacrimans is a good example. This fungus lives on wood, which is really a natural material that is brought into our interiors. Fungi common on jute and straw may also become abundant indoors because these materials are their natural outdoor food. These include Torula, Stachybotrys, Epicoccum and many others. Group 3 fungi are those that can readily utilize some types of man-made materials. The most familiar of these are the cellulose-decaying fungi.  Stachybotrys, Chaetomium, and Trichoderma, for example, readily colonize highly processed cellulosic paper materials. Also included in Group 3 are fungi that have become adapted to specific man-made conditions. Some Cladosporium species grow well on face cream, polyethylene and crude oil. Species in the genus Aspergillus have similarly learned to colonize man-made environments like oil-storage tanks in the North Sea. In some cases, these fungi have developed a taste for the unusual material and fail to grow well in simple culture media.

Group 4 includes the omnivorous fungi. These fungi are adaptive with respect to food sources and can use a very wide variety of different materials in different forms. The ubiquitous Penicillia and some species of Aspergillus and Cladosporium (among many other fungi) belong to this group. Remember that these fungi are just as happy outdoors as in, so are not truly “indoor” fungi.The following table outlines some of these relationships. Note that some names are listed in several groups. This is because nutritional requirements do not necessarily follow generic lines and a single genus can have different species with wide-ranging nutritional requirements.

After attending my fourth medical conference in the past six months, I have concluded that the term “indoor environmental quality” is slightly misguided and out of date. But not for lack of specifics or lack of cooperation with doctors as previously reported in Part 1. My epiphany began during the first panel discussion at the Integrated HealthCare Symposium in New York City and has strengthened with time.

These practitioners of integrative medicine were enthusiastic and confident that conventional medicine could be expanded, improved and made more cost effective with subtle but powerful changes. Their conceptual framework can best be identified by the term “functional medicine.”
Conventional medicine collects information about a patient to create a diagnosis, which leads to a treatment plan. For example, the patient complains about headaches. The doctor asks questions and may conduct some tests. A cause is diagnosed and treatment is prescribed. Perhaps aspirin is used, or an aspirin substitute. Maybe the symptoms and test results indicate a tumor or an infection. Regardless of the specifics, treatment is started and adjusted until the symptoms stop. Case closed.

This is time-tested and proven millions of times every day in doctors’ offices across the country. So why tamper with what works?

Integrative medical practitioners don’t dispute the success of conventional procedures. But they quickly point to all the issues, conditions and syndromes in which conventional medicine has not been successful. They don’t use this evidence as arguments against conventional medicine, but rather to indicate that one size may not fit all. What about trying alternative methods to see if better results can be obtained in some instances?

But they don’t stop with alternatives. These pioneers insist the old can be integrated with the new, the mature science with the developing research. They emphasize the integration of philosophies, research, concepts and practices. They want to expand from the strict limits of evidence-based medicine to include more of a systems approach.

This is where their message strongly connected with me. Building science, for example, recognizes built structures as a dynamic meta-system composed of interacting smaller systems. A change in one parameter can affect the whole structure and the people occupying it. In other words, buildings are not static objects like piles of rocks.

The integrated-systems approach to medicine and health views the human body as a complex biological system composed of interacting smaller systems. A change in one parameter can affect the whole structure, including the health of the person occupying the body. In other words, human bodies are not static objects like rocks. Neither are they to be confused with “the public” as a pile of rocks.

Here is where the integrative-medicine approach becomes really fascinating because it leads directly to how subtle changes to IEQ could result in a quantum leap instead of an evolutionary stage: The experts at the Integrative HealthCare Symposium didn’t stop with their systems approach (after all, traditional analysis based on cause-and-effect symptoms will work just as well with a systems approach) – they came full circle and took us to the next level. Instead of focusing on the results of the systems, they looked at why the system produced those results. In other words, they are more interested in supporting and optimizing the functioning of the systems to produce health rather than illness and disease. Thus the term “functional medicine.”

This is not that different from the approach of building scientists, as indicated above. Although they care greatly about end results such as temperature, humidity and ventilation rates, they don’t focus fundamentally on them. Instead, they build and modify the complex systems to produce a healthy building rather than a sick building. They are concerned with functional buildings in the same way the integrative health professionals are concerned with functional bodies.

So let’s take a closer look at IEQ.

Current IEQ activity evolved from the roots of industrial hygiene. Emphasis is on determining exposure by measuring “stuff.” The results are then compared two ways: Inside-exposure data is compared with outside non-exposure data; and inside-exposure data is compared to laws, regulations and permissible exposure levels. IEQ is primarily driven by compliance with regulatory evidence, much like evidence-based medicine is driven by compliance with peer-reviewed evidence. This has worked well over the years and continues to work thousands of times every day across the country. So why tamper with success?

Tampering is needed because traditional industrial hygiene methods haven’t directly translated well to non-industrial environments. This simple fact is stated unequivocally by Robert F. Herrick in the foreword to “Bioaerosols:” “In retrospect, it is clear that we were wrong ...”
His suggested remedy, however, is similar to the first stages of the alternative doctors: Keep the same procedures, but modify how they are used. But both practitioners of medicine and practitioners of indoor environmental quality continue to fail in critical areas. Not by a failure of science, but by a failure of the focus of the science.

Shift the focus from forcefully correcting what the system produces (symptoms and measurements) to identifying what the system naturally produces. Once the expectations and the realities are aligned, productive results can be attained. Why struggle to force a hut on stilts to maintain a constant temperature in the arctic when an igloo does so naturally? Let the hut on stilts function naturally just as the earth-couple cave functions naturally. Anything else is unnaturally forced, even if the regulations and medical evidence dictate otherwise.

If we are to change our focus about the functioning of the meta-system we call the indoor environment and the meta-system we call the human body, what is the parameter that will integrate the two?

The integrating unit is what is naturally common to both building systems and the body systems: An individual person, not the public, but each individual.

The logic may be better understood by considering the disconnects between people, medicine and buildings. We may know something is happening in the built environment, despite our inability to measure it. Medicine can’t explain or validate it because of the lack of a mature body of peer-reviewed evidence. Simply expanding the knowledge base of each to create an overlap has not and will not succeed, despite the best efforts of our most brilliant minds. And none of the above lacks of proof changes the irrefutable fact that the interactions of the various systems resulted in something happening to the individual.

My proposal is to shift our focus from the results of medicine and the results of the indoor environment to the function of each system. For health, it becomes the susceptibility profile of the individual rather than a catalog of symptoms. For indoor environments, it becomes the exposure profile of the building rather than an inventory of measurements. The unifying principle is what happens to the occupant. Is the building functioning in a manner supportive of its purpose? That determination cannot be made without an evaluation of the occupants. Are the people functioning in a manner supportive of their purpose? That determination cannot be made without an evaluation of the building.

Look for the crossover points of the ranges of parameters by integrating both sets of scientifically derived data points. But keep in mind the data does not determine the results. The functioning of the integrated systems, as demonstrated by the experience of the occupants, is what tells the tale.

The descriptive phrase “indoor environmental quality” is slightly misguided and out of date. But the reason is not because it is only a description and not a designation or certification. Rather, it needs an update because of a fundamental failing, as revealed by its historical roots and disconnection from the people who depend on it.

Analytical measurements are part of the puzzle. Analysis by the scientific method is another. Examining the experiences of the occupants is critical. But none of these in any combination supplies the answer. Instead, the answers will be revealed as we learn the functioning of the systems in an appropriate integration. Thus, IEQ should be changed from indoor environmental quality to integrated environmental quality.

It is always refreshing to see a member of the radon community’s private sector recognized for his success and that is exactly what happened this past January. Dan West, president of Radon Systems of Westerville, Ohio, was awarded the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists award for Excellence in Leadership during a ceremony on Jan. 10, 2008 at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, D.C.

For those who know Dan, it is a well-deserved award. He has not only provided an example of how to succeed in the radon business, he has also been very willing to share his experience through his efforts in training novices entering the field and taking on individual mentoring roles through our mitigation program at the training center.

Although Dan has experiences in many aspects of the radon field, this particular award was bestowed on him as a result of the successes he has had in getting builders on board to install radon-control systems during new home construction (RRNC). True to his reputation, Dan was willing to share some of his perspectives on how he has been successful in penetrating the new-home RRNC market in central Ohio.

Kladder: Dan, from your perspective, does it make sense to consider installing radon control systems in new home construction?

West: With our vast knowledge of why radon-mitigation systems in existing homes do or do not work, it only makes sense to build new houses with that proven technology and based on those methods. It does make them easy to fix!

Every new home in central Ohio should be built radon-resistant. I know it, the builders know it, and we are working hard to help create the consumer demand and pressure all municipalities in central Ohio to adopt or enforce Appendix F of the 1996 CABO Code, ASTM Standard Guide for Design and Construction of Low Rise Residential Buildings, E 1465 or the International Residential Code 2000.

Kladder: Are there special needs for radon-mitigation contractors considering installing systems as a subcontractor to builders?

West: New construction is a different breed of cat! The builder will require liability insurance with specific wording naming the builder as an additional insured on the contractor’s policy. The builder will also require worker’s compensation insurance and a copy of the certificate. The contractor will also need a safety plan on file with the builder and HAZCOM program up to date with current MSDS sheets. After these items have been submitted and approved, the contractor can work for anyone.

Depending on the builders you are working with, we have had as many as 38 houses called in at one time, ready to install RRNC. Fortunately, you typically have some time before other trades are scheduled. Do not think for a moment that RRNC is cheaper during construction than after the house has been constructed. Anticipate issues with electric: You may need a generator because not all sites have power available close by. Plan on at least two, and probably more, trips to the site. Now, having said all that, in my opinion, there is no reason why all professional mitigators should not be installing RRNC for the builders in their area. We are the experts, we have the training and we are ready to provide the service.

Kladder: Can you expand on why installing systems is more expensive when installed during construction rather than after it is built?

West: RRNC services should always be more expensive. Several trips are necessary, scheduling is more stringent, more liability insurance is required, the contractor will need a generator or power converter in addition to a safety plan and HAZCOM program in place. The reality is based on our experience. The cost to install RRNC should not be comparable to an existing home, which typically is mitigated in less than four hours. It is a common misconception that RRNC is cheaper to install. If the decision is made to wait for a test, it will be too late.

Kladder: How have you been able to develop a large market share of the RRNC work in the central Ohio area?

West: By being the first to install RRNC systems. If working in a subdivision, builders talk and notice who is working there. If you have a home builders association, join it. In the past, we have sponsored breakfast meetings and then presented RRNC design and installation techniques while emphasizing strongly that a trained radon specialist is the most qualified and the person trained to install the system properly.

Try to partner with a builder knowledgeable with regards to radon reduction and work with that builder to install RRNC features in all new homes sales.

I have also had success meeting with sales associates for the builder so they have a good understanding of the benefits of this feature and promote the system to their buyers. It is our job to educate the builder, just like the realtor. The more buyers demand radon systems in their new houses, the more the builder will have to address the radon issue.

Kladder: What are some key approaches for working with builders?

West: The smoother we can make the system installation for the builder, the more receptive he will be in the future. Always provide the builder some marketing tools personalized for that builder. In the past, I have presented RRNC for home builders in Franklin County, Wood County, Miami Valley and Mahoning County. Be available and take advantage for these opportunities every time that opportunity is presented.

Marketing our services to the builder is similar to the realtor. Service, service and more service is the key. Join your local home builders association. By joining the BIA, you will have access to all the builder members in your area. That is a good place to start. Education is the key to creating a demand for RRNC. Once the demand is created, the service then becomes the key ingredient. If we cannot provide a timely service to the builder, the builder will go elsewhere. In the past, we sent all the builders in the central Ohio BIA a copy of the EPA CD “Breathing Easy” and a cover letter referencing the CD. This is a great tool narrated by a realtor. Follow it up with a phone call or another letter. Do not get discouraged – it takes time to create a demand for services and expertise.

Kladder: You mentioned education as a key element, but RRNC is not all that difficult. Have there been problems associated with systems that have not been installed by trained contractors?

West: Problems we regularly see are vent pipes jammed into the soil without a tee fitting, vent pipes located on footer, floor wall floor joints sealed with wrong caulk or not at all, membrane in crawl not sealed well enough around vent pipe, no pipe slope for condensation, vent pipe too close to house eaves with no room to add the fan, schedule 40 pipe in a 3.5-inch wall cavity is noisy and vibrates with the addition of the radon fan, system not labeled properly or at all, expansion joints not sealed, the sump crock cover is left with a 3-inch uncapped hole open to the basement and the general integrity of all the fittings and pipe joints have not been sealed and leak.
 
Well, with a laundry list of potential problems with systems installed by untrained contractors, it is good we have folks like Dan out there working with the trades to show them how it can be done correctly. Again, congratulations to Dan West for his well-deserved award and sharing his thoughts with our readers.

As always who says there is nothing new in radon?

Controversial legislation in New York City, designed to regulate the use of private biological, chemical and radiological detectors, which was tabled due to opposition from public and private groups, has a new foe – the American Industrial Hygiene Association.

As reported in the Feb., 2008 issue of this newspaper [“NYC Proposes Law to Regulate Monitoring Equipment”], “Int. No. 650: A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to permits for atmospheric biological, chemical and radiological detectors” “would require environmental monitors to have their radiation and biochemical detectors registered and approved by the [New York Police Department].” The NYPD claimed it pushed for regulation at the advisement of an official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who expressed worry over “the growing, widespread use of private environmental sensors since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Richard Falkenrath, NYPD’s deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, noted the “locations and reliability of the sensors [are] little known,” and that “endemic use of such devices could lead to false alarms that could trigger ‘massive emergency response with all sorts of problems.’” The bill’s stated intent “is to ensure ‘that they are appropriate and reliable’” and would not require license for routine detectors, “including meters that measure noise or are used in radiation-exposure badges, laboratory detectors in universities or hospitals and Con Ed’s [Con Edison, the city’s main electric company] propane-gas sniffers.”

“We’re interested mainly in sensors which [sic] will alert someone to a possible chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons attack,” Falkenrath said at the time.
Opposition was staunch in that case, from city-council members and other city-government officials who complained of vagueness, loss of independent environmental-data collection, and “a problem that does not exist.” Testifying in opposition at the time was John Glass, past president of AIHA’s New Jersey chapter and current chair of the association’s environmental issues special interest group. Glass echoed the vagueness charges, noting that “based upon the definitions provided later in the document, they are the same tools that industrial hygienists have been using for decades.” He also testified “as to the difficulties and costs associated with proper equipment calibration; the surprising, accidental and commonplace incidents of exceedence and the unreliability of mandatory reports; and how multiple exceedence levels in a multi-purpose device may ‘be unaccounted for’ in cases for which exceedence was determined in a device’s intermediate uses.” Further, he questioned how data reported to NYPD would “be evaluated, responded [to] and recorded” and cited “ethical and liability concerns for practitioners.”

Based in part on Glass’s testimony, committee head and Queens council member Peter Vallone on Jan. 8 postponed a vote until “the council [narrows] the scope of the administration’s bill.”
But, as AIHA president Donald J. Hart, PhD, CIH noted in a recent letter to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, “there is strong support from you and others to reconsider this bill at a future hearing. Because of this, we feel it is of the utmost urgency that we contact you directly to again express our opposition to this bill.

“AIHA understands the desire of the City of New York to reduce the number of premature reactions to direct reading instruments by untrained individuals. We share this concern. However, there are numerous problems with enacting legislation of this magnitude without enlisting the input and expertise of those who are currently qualified and have the experience of using these monitoring devices for years.”

Hart’s letter, provided to IE Connections by Aaron Trippler, AIHA’s director of government affairs, lists examples of the association’s concerns that closely resemble Glass’s original testimony: “The definition of biological agent includes all biological entities. Existing science does not provide us with numbers that can be used to determine good or bad exposure;

“The definition of detectors is also designed so liberally that each homeowner in the City will need to file for a permit for smoke detectors. Under the law, it determines a radioactive substance as any substance that ‘emits ionizing radiation including alpha, beta, gamma and/or neutron radiation.’ Nearly all detectors on the market today are sourced with a small radioisotope;

“The permit application requires emergency response plans for use with the detectors. There is no way to determine what emergency plan could possibly be needed for situations that have not yet arisen;

“All exceeded limits must be reported to the NYPD. How would this data be evaluated, responded to and recorded? Perhaps more importantly, what will occur when the reviewer comes to a different conclusion than the site professional? Will the judgment of a seasoned exposure assessment scientist be disregarded in deference to the judgment of some administrator?”

The letter continues, “As you can see, we feel this legislation creates more concerns than the problem it addresses. Frankly, we are not convinced that there is a problem. Perhaps rather than enacting a new law to alleviate potential fear, it may be more advisable to require all entities offering professional consulting in this arena to have properly credentialed consultants overseeing the evaluations. ... This will insure [sic] that the individuals responsible for the final interpretation of data are qualified to make those decisions and reduce the occurrences of untrained individuals creating unnecessary hysteria.”

After reminding Bloomberg of AIHA’s expertise and its past assistance to the city, particularly for air-quality monitoring following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Hart wrote, “In closing, AIHA is not opposed to the City of New York enacting legislation that would better protect its citizens. On the contrary, this is the type of legislation we support. However, we ask that perhaps you step back for a moment to consider all of the potential problems created by enacting such a law with limited input from the professionals who provide these services on a daily basis.

“AIHA asks that you withhold future action on this legislation, invite affected stakeholders ... and others to begin a dialogue that will produce a law that protects the health and safety of citizens through the combined resources of experts in all fields. AIHA offers its assistance in this endeavor in any way possible.”

Trippler wrote in an e-mail to IE Connections, “We believe this law is not needed – they are trying to create a solution to a problem that has not occurred. If they proceed down this path, they must at least ensure that qualified professionals are not included in the law.” But, Trippler, noted, “the draft regulations do address this concern as it pertains to [certified industrial hygienists].”

So far, he continued, “AIHA has not received any specific response from the NYPD or the mayor’s office. We did receive a letter from a couple council members. One specifically came out and supported our position.”

Asked if the letter and Glass’s prior testimony would have any impact, Trippler responded optimistically. “I believe our early opposition, as well as the abundance of opposition from others in the last month or so, convinced the sponsor that there were numerous problems with the proposal.

“While I have not been contacted by the mayor’s office, the NYPD or the sponsor on whether they will ask AIHA to assist in any further drafts, I believe they understand our concerns and will address some, if not all, of these concerns. [There are] no specific changes as key to the proposal other than what we stated in our letter.”

“I’m not sure what the next step in the process it,” Trippler wrote. “As I understand it, the revised proposal has not yet been proposed before the council.”

Achieving and maintaining good indoor environmental quality is a goal increasingly held by property owners and managers. HVAC systems are installed, filters are changed, ducts are cleaned, vapor barriers and insulation installed. Volatile organic compounds are kept at a minimum. Air cleaners are introduced to sweep out microbes, dust, particles and spores, and diligent cleaning prevents the growth of molds and bacteria that can affect health. Detectors and specialized systems are put in place to eliminate gaseous risks like carbon monoxide and radon.

Ironically, for all that, a building’s problems may just be beginning.

Despite any person’s best efforts to rid a building of IEQ troubles, unexpected culprits may yet exist. Previously unknown, or unconsidered, IAQ issues are discovered with regularity, including a recent emphasis on volatile organic compounds. But while reducing chemical components and fragrances is a first step, VOCs have myriad sources, not all of which are widely known. Atmospheric ozone and cleaning products are among the key VOC contributors missed by many.
 
Outdoor Ozone
Since the development of consumer concern for the emission of ozone by air-purifying devices and their banishment from the California marketplace by the state Air Resources Board [See IE Connections, Nov., 2007], ozone originating indoors has decreased as a risk factor and may in the near future be all but eradicated. But while the elimination of the gas’s indoor causes removes one key detriment to good IAQ, another cause of indoor ozone, and the VOCs it helps create, has been largely ignored.

According to a report by a team of researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Outdoor Ozone and Building-Related Symptoms in the BASE Study,” increased outdoor concentrations of ozone correlate to sick building syndrome, the set of mysterious symptoms – including fatigue, headache and irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract – that improve after a person leaves the affected building.

The Berkeley Lab team of Michael Apte, Ian Buchanan, Mark Mendell and Anna Mirer analyzed data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation, in which 100 U.S. office buildings were studied for one week in either the summer or winter between 1994 and 1998, according to Physorg.com. The BASE study surveyed workers’ self-reported health conditions, weather and workplace data. The Berkeley Lab team compared the BASE data to contemporaneous ozone data from air quality-monitoring stations near the surveyed buildings.
Analysis showed linear increases of upper respiratory symptoms with comparative increases in outdoor ozone concentrations. Ozone also correlated with indoor concentrations of aldehydes, including carcinogenic formaldehyde, and organic acids known to be sensory irritants.

Apte told Physorg.com, “Based on patterns of associations between building-related symptoms and certain volatile organic compounds indoors, we hypothesized that increasing levels of outdoor ozone would lead to higher prevalence of building-related symptoms among the occupants within a building.”

But, as the team demonstrated, filtration may inadvertently lead to even higher VOC concentrations if outdoor ozone concentrations are high. A separate report by the Berkeley Lab team, “Air Filter Materials, Outdoor Ozone and Building-Related Syndrome in the BASE Study,” showed that polyester and other synthetic-material air filters correlate strongly to health symptoms consistent with sick building syndrome if outdoor ozone concentrations are high. Conversely, buildings with fiberglass or natural-material filters reported fewer symptoms in high-ozone environments, as did synthetic filters in low-ozone environments.

“The study estimated that removing both risk factors – higher ozone in outdoor air and polyester/synthetic filters – could reduce [building-related symptoms] by 26 to 62 percent,” Apte said. He cautioned, though, that further verification is needed in both studies. “This research is a first step and it needs to be replicated in other studies with a statistical design specifically to address the ozone-symptom association and with accurate information on filters and ozone levels.”

Both papers will be published in the journal Indoor Air.
 
Cleaning Products
The chemicals inherent in most cleaners, besides offering the potential for accidental poisoning, are not known for their pleasant aromas; if they were, added scents would not be necessary. And while scents themselves are among the more widely known sources for airborne VOCs, a new report from Air Quality Sciences demonstrates that the cleaners themselves may be the real causes of the problem.

The AQS report, “Cleaning Chemicals and Their Impact on Indoor Environments and Health,” introduces cleaning and cleaning-product manufacture as “faced with the challenge of balancing two important goals: Creating effective cleaning products for a wide variety of applications ... while not adding pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds and particulates, back into the indoor air.”

To achieve these goals, the report states, manufacturers “are trying to better understand how their products impact indoor air quality and health;” “are also under pressure to provide green products that meet today’s market demands for effective, yet safe maintenance;” and “Consequently ... are striving to differentiate their products by earning third-party impartial verification of their environmental performance.”

Analysis of cleaning and cleaning products reveals that “adults in the [United States] spend an average of 20 to 30 minutes per day cleaning their homes ... [and] three million people ... are employed a janitors, cleaners, maids and housekeeping staff.” Whereas “a number of studies ... have confirmed that dust control and deep cleaning are effective methods for reducing the level of viruses, bacteria, particulates, endotoxins, molds and allergens in indoor environments ... a growing body of studies have demonstrated that the very products and processes that are used to keep indoor environments clean also may contribute to indoor pollution. ... In many cases, VOC emissions from cleaning products and application processes, which building occupants can easily inhale, are the primary cause of concern.”

Tests by AQS revealed acids, aldehydes, alcohols, esters and chloroethylenes in a wide variety of surface cleaners, deodorizers, disinfectants, spot removers and polishes. “Within two hours of certain cleaning processes, the total VOC levels in these environments can increase significantly, ranging from 40 μg/m³ to 25,000 μg/m³, and reach levels higher than the acceptable value (500 μg/m³) for VOC emissions from cleaning products [as established by the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute].

Beyond the range of health issues related to VOCs, AQS pointed to health-related loss of productivity and, particularly, the effects of VOC exposure on children in schools, who face loss of productivity among themselves and teachers, health risks [AQS notes that children face greater risks than adults “because they breathe in more air with respect to their body mass”] like asthma and, as a result, fall short of learning goals.

The positive consequence of VOCs’ effects on children, the report states, is “federal, state and local governments [requiring] the creation of green-cleaning programs and the use of green or environmentally preferred cleaning products.”

“Although there is no set legal or regulatory definition as to what is ‘green’ or ‘green cleaning,’ the concept itself is straightforward,” AQS says in introducing holistic and naturally based cleaning products by manufacturers. However, the report notes, “natural or green does not necessarily mean effective or safe,” and, to sate an increasingly savvy and informed consumer population, the push for independent certification of green products has created and strengthened standards-making bodies like Green Seal, the Environmental Choice Program and the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute. Standards developed by these and other bodies mandate that a product meet significantly low thresholds of maximum content for various chemicals and toxins.

But, the report warns, “it is important to realize that many ‘low-VOC’ products, even those certified as green or environmentally friendly, are rated by their VOC content, not by their VOC emissions. ... This is especially critical with cleaning products as potential exposures are directly related to how a product is used.”
With the cleaning industry “responsible for minimizing exposures to VOCs emitted from its

products,” AQS states that “to meet market demand and reduce product liability risks, product manufacturers will increasingly need to demonstrate their products’ safety by testing and monitoring VOC emissions.”