Re: Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality]

[Guest guest]



Ole

It is only true that moving air is expensive if we use very inefficient fan/motor/duct systems to do the work. It is not uncommon to see motor-fan set efficiencies of less than 5% in buildings (bathroom fan technologies can be less than 0.3% efficient). That means we are buying more than 20 times the energy that we are getting supplied to the moving air stream. For the bathroom fan technology used to ventilate a house we pay for 333 times the energy or power that is used to move the air.

Conditioning air is more expensive, but the amount that people almost never costs $1 per day. Maybe that is way too much, but if you are sick in a building and better away, one might dispute "too expensive" with some strongly emotions words.

In SI the flow rate [L/s] times the pressure drop [Pa] / 1000 gives the flow power in Watts. For good systems that is not a lot of energy or power. For example, 5 L/s against 25 Pa is only 0.125 W and over a day that is only 10.8 kJ (0.003 kWh). Low efficiency systems make that bigger, but even then we are sometimes talking pennies per day.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting

Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality]

Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question.

For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable.

I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable.

Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following:

What is indoor air quality?

What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality?

What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ?

What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Hello ,

I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality?

Brad Harr

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]

Carl:I would suggest a performance based definition of good IAQ,an environment that actively promotes a healthy and productive working space.To achieve this would require the rapid dilution and removal of any air contaminants generated by the people in the occupied space, as well as the absence of any air contaminantscapable of causing any health related complaints or symptoms.The effectiveness of the dilution and removal is a function not only of the amount of ventilation provided,but also on the geometry of how this air moves through the space. W. Bearg, PE, CIHLife Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742 A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

Dear Colleagues:

Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

for those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant by

ACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a

ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)

are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to the

achievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.

Any comments or questions?

Sincerely,

W. Bearg, PE, CIH

Life Energy Associates

www.LifeEnergyAssoc.com

20 Darton Street

Concord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]



In the IAQ Digest (from IAQA) just received this month, a reported story regardng McGuire AFB states:

"In recent months, indoor air quality has been the subject of much attention due to the summer's high temperatures this summer. Although serious health-related problems are rare, there is a common perception that IAQ causes poor health. The causes and possible effects are not always completely understood. Indoor air quality is good when it is odor and dust free, has adequate air movement and is a comfortable temperature and humidity. When IAQ is poor, most health-related complaints mimic cold or flu like symptoms such as headaches, sinus problems, nausea, fatigue or irritation of the eyes, nose or throat."

http://www.mcguire.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123221438

Might there be some info here that could be used in defining IAQ? Although ventilation isn't mentioned, "air movement" is, which is often confused with outdoor air exchange.

Food for thought.

Chuck Reaney

Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality]

Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question.

For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable.

I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable.

Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following:

What is indoor air quality?

What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality?

What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ?

What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Hello ,

I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality?

Brad Harr

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]

I like Dave's definition. I would add absense of any air contaminants capable of causing any health related complints, symptoms, or long term health effects.-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:20 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality] Carl:I would suggest a performance based definition of good IAQ,an environment that actively promotes a healthy and productive working space.To achieve this would require the rapid dilution and removal of any air contaminants generated by the people in the occupied space, as well as the absence of any air contaminantscapable of causing any health related complaints or symptoms.The effectiveness of the dilution and removal is a function not only of the amount of ventilation provided,but also on the geometry of how this air moves through the space. W. Bearg, PE, CIHLife Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742 Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality] Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question. For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable. I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable. Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following: What is indoor air quality? What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality? What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ? What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Hello , I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality? Brad Harr From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]

I like Dave's definition. I would add absense of any air contaminants capable of causing any health related complints, symptoms, or long term health effects.-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:20 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality] Carl:I would suggest a performance based definition of good IAQ,an environment that actively promotes a healthy and productive working space.To achieve this would require the rapid dilution and removal of any air contaminants generated by the people in the occupied space, as well as the absence of any air contaminantscapable of causing any health related complaints or symptoms.The effectiveness of the dilution and removal is a function not only of the amount of ventilation provided,but also on the geometry of how this air moves through the space. W. Bearg, PE, CIHLife Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742 Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality] Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question. For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable. I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable. Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following: What is indoor air quality? What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality? What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ? What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Hello , I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality? Brad Harr From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]



Ole ,

I see nothing wrong with your "dry ice" method. Since I've never heard of evaluating air exchanges that way, I think it's an excellent method, as it's simple and innovative, being particularly useful and applicable in an area occupied by a minimal number of people.

I'm sure you also know that CO2 is used in the same manner as the tracer gas by logging the levels say, over a 24 hour period, to obtain data regarding conditions of occupancy and non-occupancy, and how long it takes for levels to reach minimum (non-occupancy) vs. peak (occupancy). This is the same method you used, but with people instead of dry ice as the CO2 source(s).

The more people, the more CO2 sources, and (theoretically) the higher the peak will be, and the greater the difference between peak and minimum. In your situation, evaluating an office with just one occupant (assumedly) I think the dry ice method is superior, as it will provide greater peak levels and a wider range between peak and minimum than one person would.

In my opinion, that would allow a higher confidence level with the data and it's evaluation. Good job!

Chuck Reaney, CIEC, CIAQP

Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality]

Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question.

For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable.

I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable.

Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following:

What is indoor air quality?

What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality?

What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ?

What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Hello ,

I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality?

Brad Harr

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]

just be careful, in small unventilated spaces like storage closets the dry ice can quickly displace the oxygen. 10,000 ppm is 1%.-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Chuck ReaneySent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:04 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality]  Ole , I see nothing wrong with your "dry ice" method. Since I've never heard of evaluating air exchanges that way, I think it's an excellent method, as it's simple and innovative, being particularly useful and applicable in an area occupied by a minimal number of people. I'm sure you also know that CO2 is used in the same manner as the tracer gas by logging the levels say, over a 24 hour period, to obtain data regarding conditions of occupancy and non-occupancy, and how long it takes for levels to reach minimum (non-occupancy) vs. peak (occupancy). This is the same method you used, but with people instead of dry ice as the CO2 source(s). The more people, the more CO2 sources, and (theoretically) the higher the peak will be, and the greater the difference between peak and minimum. In your situation, evaluating an office with just one occupant (assumedly) I think the dry ice method is superior, as it will provide greater peak levels and a wider range between peak and minimum than one person would. In my opinion, that would allow a higher confidence level with the data and it's evaluation. Good job! Chuck Reaney, CIEC, CIAQP Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality] Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question. For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable. I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable. Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following: What is indoor air quality? What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality? What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ? What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Hello , I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality? Brad Harr From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742

[Guest guest]

just be careful, in small unventilated spaces like storage closets the dry ice can quickly displace the oxygen. 10,000 ppm is 1%.-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Chuck ReaneySent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:04 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality]  Ole , I see nothing wrong with your "dry ice" method. Since I've never heard of evaluating air exchanges that way, I think it's an excellent method, as it's simple and innovative, being particularly useful and applicable in an area occupied by a minimal number of people. I'm sure you also know that CO2 is used in the same manner as the tracer gas by logging the levels say, over a 24 hour period, to obtain data regarding conditions of occupancy and non-occupancy, and how long it takes for levels to reach minimum (non-occupancy) vs. peak (occupancy). This is the same method you used, but with people instead of dry ice as the CO2 source(s). The more people, the more CO2 sources, and (theoretically) the higher the peak will be, and the greater the difference between peak and minimum. In your situation, evaluating an office with just one occupant (assumedly) I think the dry ice method is superior, as it will provide greater peak levels and a wider range between peak and minimum than one person would. In my opinion, that would allow a higher confidence level with the data and it's evaluation. Good job! Chuck Reaney, CIEC, CIAQP Definition of IAQ - [was: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality] Interesting discussion about indoor air quality. Does anybody have a definition - other than the 80% rule of thumb? I once asked that question to a group and was accused of asking a trick question. For example, I'm looking at a report where measurements were made of temperature, RH, CO and CO2. The conclusion was that the indoor air quality was acceptable. I have another report where measurements were made of airborne mold by culturing and microscopy. The conclusion was the indoor air quality was acceptable. Whether or not the "acceptable" conclusion was justified, my questions are the following: What is indoor air quality? What are the data necessary to sufficiently describe indoor air quality? What are the criteria for acceptable IAQ? What are the criteria for not acceptable IAQ? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Hello , I agree. Plus how many occupants would actually have the data to know what the IAQ quality was in their building?. In many cases, quality is very poor before many people start to complain. Plus, who is really going to keep track and say – I have data that 85% of the occupants are OK with the air quality? Brad Harr From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of sagefarm@...Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:01 PMTo: iequality Subject: A Comment on ASHRAE Standard 62—Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality Dear Colleagues:Just a comment on ASHRAE Standard 62 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Qualityfor those who have not yet had the opportunity to read this Standard and what is meant byACCEPTABLE Indoor Air Quality. For the purposes of this Standard it means providing a ventilation rate where it is expected that a substantial majority of those exposed (at least 80%)are NOT DISSATISFIED. By my reckoning this ACCEPTABILITY does NOT correspond to theachievement of good IAQ, despite what too many people seem to believe it means.Any comments or questions?Sincerely, W. Bearg, PE, CIH Life Energy Associateswww.LifeEnergyAssoc.com20 Darton StreetConcord, MA 01742