Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 209
8
Building Ventilation, Weatherization,
and Energy Use
High energy costs and climate-change mitigation efforts are creating
pressures to decrease ventilation rates in buildings as a means of reduc-
ing the energy used to cool or warm indoor air. This chapter concentrates
on the interrelated issues of building energy use, emissions from building
materials, weatherization, and ventilation and on how they affect occu-
pants. It addresses energy consumption in buildings, the means used to
tighten buildings, programs to enhance the energy efficiency of buildings
and reduce harmful emissions from building components, the training of
personnel who implement weatherization programs, and the effect of tight-
ening on ventilation, indoor environmental quality, and occupant health
and productivity. The chapter concludes with the committee’s observations
regarding those issues.
Ventilation affects indoor levels of air pollutants, indoor moisture lev-
els, exposures to biologic agents, and the thermal environment of homes.
Research on those topics as opposed to ventilation itself is addressed in
Chapters 4–7.
ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS
Energy use in buildings has been a concern in the United States since the
oil embargoes of the 1970s but has gained new currency in recent years as
a result of rising costs and an interest in limiting greenhouse-gas emissions.
The Department of Energy (DOE) tracks trends in energy use. Its 2009
Buildings Energy Data Book, which has data through 2006, notes that the
209
OCR for page 210
210 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
dominant uses vary between residential and commercial structures1 (DOE,
2009). As noted in Table 8-1, the dominant uses of energy in the residential
sector are ambient space heating (about 26%) and cooling, water heating,
and lighting (each about 12–13%). In commercial buildings, lighting is the
dominant category at about 25%, but space heating, cooling, and mechani-
cal ventilation together account for more than 31%. DOE also estimates
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, from burning fossil
fuels to generate energy (mainly natural gas on site and natural gas and coal
for electricity production). Those figures are listed in Table 8-1, and they
track the energy-use numbers closely. All told, building CO2 emissions in
2006 accounted for 38% of total US CO2 emissions—20% contributed by
residential buildings, 18% by commercial structures.
BUILDING WEATHERIZATION
Weatherization describes the steps taken during building design or
retrofit to increase energy efficiency by limiting unintended air and heat
exchange between the indoor and outdoor environments. Because those
steps generally entail closing gaps in the building envelope, the process is
also referred to as tightening. This section describes some of the means typi-
cally used to tighten buildings and the effect of tightening on ventilation.
Strategies for Tightening Buildings
There are four common methods for reducing unplanned air leakage
in buildings.
Air-tighten the enclosure. Sealing cracks, gaps, and holes in the build-
ing envelope with vapor barriers, and other construction changes reduce
the amount of air that accidentally leaks in or out. In many US climates,
this saves substantial amounts of energy. Sherman and McWilliams (2007)
determined that around one-third of the energy used for heating and cool-
ing is due to accidental air leakage. There are far fewer measurement data
on accidental air leakage in commercial buildings, but it is reported to be
around 20–30% (range, 0–58%) of the heating or cooling energy used
(Edwards and Hamilton, 1993; Emmerich, 2005; Shaw, 1995). In a study
of several California buildings, Mowris and Fisk (1988) observed that ac-
cidental air leakage made up 0–30% of the total air-exchange rate. Persily
and Norford (1987) found leakage of 31–58% in a three-story office build-
ing. About 20–40% of the air leakage can be sealed in existing residential
1 There is, of course, great variation among buildings in these general categories; building
age, material, size, location, and predominant use are important factors.
OCR for page 211
TABLE 8-1 Percentage of Total Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Attributable to Specific Applications in
US Buildings in 2006 (DOE, 2010)
Energy Use Carbon Dioxide Emissions
All Residential Commercial All Residential Commercial
Space heating 19.8 26.4 12.1 18.8 24.6 12.2
Lighting 17.7 11.6 24.8 18.1 12.0 25.2
Space cooling 12.7 13.0 12.6 13.0 13.4 12.5
Water heating 9.6 12.5 6.3 9.4 12.4 6.0
Electronics 7.8 8.1 7.5 8.0 8.4 7.6
Refrigeration 5.8 7.2 4.1 5.9 7.4 4.2
Cooking 3.4 4.7 2.0 3.4 4.7 1.9
Wet cleaninga 3.3 6.2 — 3.4 6.4 —
Mechanical ventilation 2.8 — 6.7 2.9 — 6.2
Computers 2.3 1.0 3.8 2.4 1.0 3.9
Other 8.5 3.6 13.2 8.4 3.8 12.6
Attributable to buildings 6.3 5.7 6.9 6.4 5.9 7.9
but not directly to specific
end uses
a Primarily automatic washers, dryers, and dishwashers.
211
OCR for page 212
212 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
and commercial buildings; in new construction, it is feasible to seal about
90% of potential leakage in typical stock (Spengler, 2010).
Seal air-distribution systems. Holes and gaps in air handlers, supply and
return ducts, and plenums2 lead to leakage in buildings. If the air-handling
system is off, then they behave like any other leak. When an air handler
is on, leaks are exacerbated by the greater pressure difference across holes
or gaps. Cummings et al. (1996) reported that measured duct leakage in
commercial buildings averaged about 80 ft3/min at 25 pascals/100 ft2 of
duct surface area; the largest outdoor-air infiltration rates were in vented
spaces, such as attics, crawlspaces, mechanical closets, and wall cavities.
Indoor relative humidity may increase if hot and humid outdoor air infil-
trates these spaces. In response, air-conditioning units may have longer run
times to correct the imbalance and thus waste energy.
Manage indoor–outdoor air-pressure differences. If airflow through
heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment results in
excessively pressurized or depressurized zones, rooms, or building cavities,
then indoor air may be forced out or drawn in through the building en-
closure. The most common example is return air plenums. Any air leak in
exterior walls that bound a return plenum becomes an accidental outdoor-
air intake when the air handler is operating. If a mechanical room is used
as a mixing chamber for return and outdoor air, the room is likely to be
depressurized by 10–30 pascals and may be depressurized by as much as
90 pascals (Spengler, 2010). Another example common in residential and
small commercial buildings is a duct layout that includes supply diffusers
in every room and air returns in corridors. When doors to the corridor are
closed, the rooms are pressurized, and the corridors are depressurized. The
combination of that dynamic and duct leakage to the outside can greatly
increase the air-exchange rate in a building. In a study of unplanned air-
flows in 70 commercial buildings, 8 had air-exchange rates of 2 to 10 air
changes per hour (ACH) when the air handlers were running (Cummings
et al., 1996). Similar results have been reported for residential buildings. A
research project on 91 Florida homes found that the average air-exchange
rate went from 0.21 ACH with air handlers off to 0.91 ACH with air han-
dlers on (Cummings and Tooley, 1989). Depending on the circumstances,
poorly managed pressure differences may decrease desired circulation of
outdoor air indoors or increase energy costs through excessive intrusion
of outdoor air.
Replace atmospherically vented combustion equipment with high-
efficiency combustion equipment in residential buildings. Atmospherically
vented combustion equipment typically vents through a chimney. The
2A plenum is a space in which a building’s supply or return air is mixed or moves; it can be
a duct, a joist space, an attic, a crawlspace, or a wall cavity (EPA, 2011b).
OCR for page 213
213
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
chimney ventilates the equipment room and, when the equipment is not
running, exhausts air. When the equipment is running, it ventilates at a
much higher rate because of the high flue-gas temperature. Measurements
made in the 1980s found typical flows of air through chimneys of 50–100
ft3/min (Spengler, 2010). High-efficiency combustion equipment, such as
condensing furnaces, does not have a chimney—it vents to the outdoors
through pipes in a side wall. The combustion gases are vented to the outside
through a small fan, which typically runs at about 25 ft3/min. When such
furnaces are not firing, the flows are essentially zero. That dynamic affects
single-family buildings, some low-rise multifamily buildings, and small
commercial buildings that are constructed with residential methods. If the
equipment is in a basement or crawlspace in a climate that has a substantial
heating season, ventilation through the chimney is often controlling humid-
ity that enters through the foundation. That does not, however, apply to
sealed combustion units (which draw no air from the mechanical space)
and heat pumps (which need no vents, because there is no combustion).
Effects of Tightening on Ventilation
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) investigators com-
piled a dataset on blower-door tests used to assess air leakage from homes
across the country (Chan et al., 2003). Figure 8-1 illustrates the results of
the home air-tightness tests expressed as whole-house air exchange vs the
year when a home was built. The solid line represents the smoothed fit
through the data. It shows that the air-exchange rate—as extrapolated from
a blower-door pressurization test of air leakage—has been decreasing in
homes built over the past 40 years. The trend in tighter house construction
coincides with a housing boom in the United States in warm-climate areas,
such as Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, where air conditioning often re-
duced the dependence on natural ventilation.
An evaluation of air-tightness measurements in 201 commercial and
institutional buildings in the United States by Emmerich and Persily (2005)
found that the structures were tighter than the overall average for residen-
tial buildings but leakier than new residential construction. The authors
state that “unlike the residential air tightness data, the database of US
commercial building air tightness shows no indication of a trend toward
tightness for newer buildings” (Persily and Emmerich, 2009).
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR BUILDINGS
Several government and private initiatives are aimed at reducing energy
use in residences and commercial structures. Depending on the program,
they may include energy audits, general or building-specific recommenda-
OCR for page 214
214 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
FIGURE 8-1 Normalized air leakage in a sample of homes (measured as air changes per
hour) vs year when a home was built (Chan et al., 2003).
Figure 8-1.eps
bitmap
tions for action, and assistance in identifying or hiring contractors trained
to perform remediations and upgrades. Improvements can include such
weatherization measures as envelope and duct sealing, caulking, replace-
ment of leaky windows, and increased insulation and such conservation
steps as replacement of incandescent with compact fluorescent or LED
lighting and appliance and HVAC upgrades. Information on some of the
programs is summarized below.
National Weatherization Assistance Program
The national Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) was launched
in 1976 to help Americans with limited financial means to respond to
rapidly increasing fuel prices during the oil embargoes of the 1970s. WAP
weatherizes existing homes. Over the past 33 years, it has provided weath-
erization services to more than 6.4 million low-income households. Major
funding comes from DOE, and additional support from a variety of sources,
including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program block grants
and energy utility programs (WAP, 2009b).
WAP conducts energy audits and selects appropriate energy-conserving
measures that can be implemented for costs that do not exceed a capped
OCR for page 215
215
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
dollar amount. In 2008, WAP provided services to around 100,000 house-
holds at a cap figure of $3,500 per unit. In 2009, that rose to 171,000 units.
The target number of units weatherized for 2010 was 200,000 with a cap
of $6,500 per unit (WAP, 2010).
WAP grantees and subgrantees use professionally trained staff and
contractors. They make their own decisions on how training is provided.
Although that creates some variability across the country, protocols for
building assessment, weatherization measures, and quality-assurance pro-
cedures have evolved into a fairly consistent industry set of practices (WAP,
2009a). Training may be provided by independent weatherization trainers,
inhouse technical trainers, or local or regional weatherization training
centers. Typically, it is supplied by a mixture of the three. In 2009, 90% of
states used state-agency staff for training, 75% used local-agency peers for
training, and 70% used independent trainers (WAP, 2009a). Grantees also
make their own decisions about certification. Some require certification by
a national organization, such as the Residential Energy Services Network
(RESNET) or the Building Performance Institute (BPI). Others provide their
own certification, and 17 states do not require certification (WAP, 2009a).
Many of the training facilities for WAP also provide instruction to
private-sector building-performance contractors. Twelve weatherization
training centers in 11 states offer training that reaches beyond the WAP
community. BPI supplies education through a network of training affili-
ate organizations, individual certifications, company accreditations, and
quality-assurance programs. RESNET develops standards and certification
for home-energy raters (WAP, 2009a). DOE is also planning to provide ad-
ditional training for new workers in the weatherization field (WAP, 2009a).
ENERGY STAR
In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced
ENERGY STAR as a voluntary labeling program designed to identify
and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Computers and monitors were the first labeled products. However, in
1996, EPA partnered with DOE for some product categories, and the
ENERGY STAR label was extended to new homes and commercial and
industrial buildings (EPA, 2010b). In 1999, EPA, DOE, and the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development started Home Performance with
ENERGY STAR, an energy-performance program for existing homes. The
initiative provides guidelines and support for programs—often partnerships
of government agencies, building-science technical-support organizations,
building-performance contractors, and utility programs—to provide train-
ing and quality assurance for contractors who help homeowners to bring
their properties up to ENERGY STAR standards for new construction. To
OCR for page 216
216 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
receive an ENERGY STAR label, a home must be tested to demonstrate
performance. More than 75,000 homes have been improved through the
program (EPA, 2010b). More than a million US homes had received
the ENERGY STAR label as of 2009, and 20% of the roughly 500,000
new homes constructed in 2009 were ENERGY STAR–labeled.
The ENERGY STAR Indoor Air Package is a label that adds items that
address a broader array of indoor environmental quality issues—including
moisture control, pest management, combustion safety, ventilation, emis-
sions from building materials, and radon control—to the baseline ENERGY
STAR program (EPA, 2010b). It was initiated in 2005 and intended to
contribute to improved indoor air quality in new homes compared with
code-built homes.
Other Programs
Nongovernment “green and affordable” housing programs are under
way at the local and national levels. One example is the Enterprise Com-
munity Partnership, which serves low-income people in communities across
the country and provides funds and expertise to enable developers to build
and rehabilitate homes to be healthier, more energy-efficient, and consistent
with sustainability criteria. The program started in 2004 and by 2009 had
produced 17,500 new and renovated affordable homes (Enterprise Com-
munity Partners, 2010).
Many energy utility companies have energy-efficiency programs that
aid residential, commercial, and institutional customers. The amount of
money spent each year on such programs is large, totaling $5.3 billion in
2009 (Nevius et al., 2010). Program budgets vary widely by US Census
region: states in the West account for 45% of the national total; in the
Northeast, 25%; in the South, 17%; and in the Midwest, 13%. Utilities in
California alone reported combined budgets of about $1.6 billion—30% of
the national total. Programs were most likely to address energy-efficiency
improvements in residential furnaces and boilers and in commercial and
industrial lighting.
Commissioning and retrocommisioning are terms used to describe the
usually independent evaluation of newly constructed or existing buildings
(respectively) to determine whether they operate as designed or intended
and whether they can be improved. It is more typically performed on
commercial and public buildings. Examination of the energy efficiency of
HVAC, lighting, plumbing, and other mechanical systems is a typical com-
ponent of the process.
OCR for page 217
217
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
Effects of Programs on Energy Use and Employment
A 2010 LBNL case study of 14 energy-efficiency programs undertaken
by state and local governments, utility companies, and nonprofit organiza-
tions found a wide range of participation and a maximum energy saving of
about 15% for an individual home (Fuller et al., 2010). EPA reported that
newly built homes implementing ENERGY STAR upgrades can realize up
to 20% energy savings compared with conventional construction practice
(EPA, 2007).
Effinger and Friedman (2010) summarized the findings of an LBNL
report on retrocommissioning. The study—which comprised 112 buildings,
including offices, hospitals, hotels, a retail space, and a school—found that
measures to improve energy efficiency resulted in savings of 8–31% (me-
dian, 16%). The equipment affected included air-handling units, pumps,
chillers, cooling towers, outside air-temperature sensors, and heat exchang-
ers. The cost of the implemented measures and the retrocommissioning
itself had a simple payback of 0.5–2.5 years (median, 1.1 years). The LBNL
report itself (Mills, 2009) concluded that “these findings demonstrate that
commissioning is arguably the single-most cost-effective strategy for reduc-
ing energy, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions in buildings today.”
Residential energy upgrade programs through DOE, state energy offices,
and mandated service of public utilities are expected to grow substantially
over the next decade. California has committed to reducing energy use in
existing homes by 40% by 2020 (CPUC, 2008). Nationally, jobs in the sec-
tor are expected to grow from around 114,000 person-years of employment
(PYE) in 2008 to 200,000–380,000 PYE by 2020 (Goldman et al., 2010).
PRODUCT-LABELING AND BUILDING-
CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS
Well before the green-building movement gained currency in the 1990s,
indoor air quality concerns were recognized as more sealed buildings were
constructed, ventilation rates were reduced, and new equipment, materi-
als, coatings, and furnishings were introduced. In response to those con-
cerns, governments and private organizations developed product-labeling,
emission-testing, and building-certification systems to distinguish and mar-
ket3 healthier and more environmentally conscious products and buildings.
The following sections summarize and evaluate some features of the
green-building movement related to indoor environmental quality, includ-
3 The US Federal Trade Commission maintains Guides for the Use of Environmental Market-
ing Claims (also known as the Green Guides), which are intended to help marketers to make
truthful and substantiated claims about “green” products. The guides were under review and
revision when the present report was completed at the end of 2010 (FTC, 2010).
OCR for page 218
218 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
ing the process of materials testing and labeling, building-certification pro-
grams, and research needed to address knowledge gaps and uncertainties
about the effect of the processes as they are related to building design,
construction, and operation under future climate scenarios.
There is little peer-reviewed literature on this topic, and the commit-
tee’s work was informed in part by white papers on building materials and
product-testing regimens (Levin, 2010) and green-building rating systems
(Srebric, 2010) commissioned by EPA in support of the present study. A
2010 National Research Council workshop report addressed the broader
topic of third-party certification systems for products and services labeled
as sustainable (NRC, 2010).
Materials Testing and Labeling Systems
There are numerous green-product labeling and whole-building certifi-
cation systems: a World Resources Institute report indicated that there were
more than 340 such systems in November 2009 (WRI, 2010), and a Web
site created to compile “ecolabel” information listed nearly 380 in Febru-
ary 2011, including 85 related to building products and 64 to buildings
(Ecolabel Index, 2011).
Green-product labeling systems are intended to promote the use of ma-
terials that have low or lower problematic emissions as established through
uniform laboratory testing at fixed temperatures and airflow rates (Willem
and Singer, 2010). Initial protocols for developing voluntary materials-
labeling standards through emissions testing were developed in northern
Europe—most notably in Germany, Finland, and Denmark—but have since
spread around the world. The Levin (2010) and Srebric (2010) white papers
and Willem and Singer (2010) and WRI (2010) reviews contain informa-
tion on the major initiatives; information on some specific programs is
highlighted below. International standards and certification programs are
addressed because these may affect products used in the United States
through imports of certified products, US manufacturers designing for in-
ternational sales, or competitive pressures for US companies to manufacture
green products.
Denmark’s DICL4 system, which was the first to test materials in emis-
sion chambers, was developed to address the most common building-related
complaints: the evaluation of odors and sensory irritation, particularly irri-
tation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract. It assesses how a standardized
exposure to a material or product irritates mucous membranes or is detected
by people (Wolkoff and Nielsen, 1995), but it may also incorporate data
from animal studies (Wolkoff et al., 1991). Products are labeled in terms of
4 Danish Indoor Climate Label; also known as the Danish Indeklima Mærke (DIM).
OCR for page 219
219
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
the time that it takes either to achieve no (or a minor) change in breathing
frequency in a mouse assay or to drop below odor or irritation thresholds in
humans (Kephalopoulos et al., 2005; Wolkoff and Nielson, 1995; Wolkoff
et al., 1991). Indoor environment “comfort thresholds” are based on the
time required for the VOC emissions to decay to the point where their
room concentrations are below their indoor-relevant threshold, which is
half the value of either the odor threshold or the sensory-irritation esti-
mate (whichever is lower) for each individual VOC cited in the VOCBASE
database (Jensen and Wolkoff, 1996; Kephalopoulos et al., 2005). In most
cases, the odor threshold drives the determination of the time value for a
specific VOC because sensory-irritation estimates are typically at least an
order of magnitude higher than odor thresholds. In practice, use of half the
odor threshold is a public-health protective safety factor to account for the
presence of the same VOC from other outdoor or other indoor sources in
the building. With its focus on irritation and odor thresholds, the DICL test
protocol does not address other potential health effects of exposure to haz-
ardous chemicals, such as carcinogenic, allergenic, or endocrine-disrupting
properties (Kephalopoulos et al., 2005; Levin, 2010).
REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of
CHemical substances) is the name used for the European Community’s
(EC’s) legislation regarding chemical substances (European Commission
Environment, 2011). In contrast to the other programs mentioned here,
it has regulatory force with the European Union. The regulation includes
provisions regarding emissions from building materials. In 2011, the EC
announced that six toxic chemicals, three of which are widely used as plas-
ticizers in flooring, adhesives, and textiles, were being phased out under the
authority of REACH (European Commission Environment, 2011).
In 1988, the Canadian government founded EcoLogo—an Interna-
tional Organization for Standards (ISO) Type 1 ecolabel that takes toxic-
ity, recycled content, and renewable energy percentage into consideration
but does not consider impacts such as raw material extraction (EcoLogo
Program, 2011). It certifies building and construction materials such as
adhesives, heating and cooling systems, and paints.
The most well known of the building-materials and furnishing testing
systems in the United States may be the certification process promulgated by
the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute, an industry-independent non-
profit organization established in 2001 (AQS, 2009b). GREENGUARD’s
certification processes put building materials and building-related products
(such as carpets) into chambers for a fixed period to measure emissions of
VOCs, organic acids, formaldehyde, respirable particles, and other com-
pounds. Green Seal is a nonprofit certification organization seeking to
reduce the environmental impact of residential and commercial buildings
and materials (Green Seal, 2010). It follows guidelines for labeling set by
OCR for page 228
228 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
TABLE 8-2 Health and Productivity Outcomes Associated with Low
Ventilation Rates in Buildings (Adapted from Sundell et al., 2011)
Homes
Increased allergy symptoms Bornehag et al., 2005
Increased asthma symptoms Emenius et al., 2004; Norbäck et al.,
1995
Increased bronchial obstruction Øie et al., 1999
High-occupancy buildings
Higher rates of respiratory illnessesa Brundage et al., 1988; Hoge et al.,
1994; Menzies et al., 2000
Schools
Degraded perceptions of indoor air quality Wargocki et al., 2000
Increased symptoms of sick-building Wargocki et al., 2002
syndromeb
Increased absences Milton et al., 2000; Shendell et al.,
2004
Decreased performance in school work Wargocki and Wyon, 2007a,b
Possible reduction in test scores Shaughnessey et al., 2006
Increased allergy symptoms Harving et al., 1993; Norbäck et al.,
1995; Smedje and Norbäck, 2000;
Sundell et al., 1995
Increased asthma symptoms Smedje and Norbäck, 2000
Increased nasal symptoms Wålinder et al., 1997a,b, 1998
Office buildings
Degraded perceptions of indoor air quality Wargocki et al., 2000
Increased symptoms of sick-building Apte et al., 2000; Erdmann and
Syndromec Apte, 2004; Jaakkola and Miettinen,
1995; Mendell et al., 2005; Stenberg
et al., 1994; Sundell et al., 1994a,b;
Wargocki et al., 2002
Increased absences Milton et al., 2000; Shendell et al., 2004
Decreased performance and productivity Wargocki et al., 2002a, 2004
Increased rhinovirus prevalence Myatt et al., 2004
a Evidence supporting higher rates of respiratory illness in high-occupancy buildings may
be the result of confounding factors in addition to low ventilation rates.
b Sick-building syndrome (SBS) refers to a combination of nonspecific symptoms related to
residence or work in a particular building. Core symptoms may include irritation of the eyes,
nose, and throat; cough; dry skin; fatigue; headache; lack of concentration; and high frequency
of respiratory tract infections (IOM, 2004). There is no generally agreed-on definition of SBS,
and differences in the symptom lists used in various studies make it difficult to draw summary
conclusions.
atically turned UVGI lamps installed in the HVAC systems of three office
buildings on and off over the course of a year and collected environmental
and occupant data. Fungi, bacteria, and endotoxin concentrations were
measured, and building occupants who were unaware of the operating
condition of the UVGI lamps filled out questionnaires on their health. Other
OCR for page 229
229
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
environmental data (temperature, humidity, air velocity, HVAC recircula-
tion, and concentrations of CO2, nitrogen oxides, ozone, formaldehyde,
and total VOCs) and occupant data (participants’ assessment of thermal,
physical, and air quality and demographic, personal, medical, and work
characteristics) were also collected. Occupants reported significantly fewer
work-related mucosal symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% Con-
fidence Interval [CI], 0.6–0.9) and respiratory symptoms (adjusted OR, 0.6;
95% CI, 0.4–0.9) when the UVGI lamps were on. Reports of musculoskel-
etal symptoms (0.8; 0.6–1.1) and systemic symptoms (headache, fatigue, or
difficulty in concentrating) (1.1; 0.9–1.3) were not significantly different.
Although median concentrations of viable microorganisms and endotoxins
were reduced by 99% (CI, 67–100%) on surfaces exposed to UVGI, there
were no significant decreases in airborne concentrations. The results sug-
gested that limiting microbial contamination of HVAC systems might yield
health benefits.
Memarzadeh and colleagues (2010), who studied health-care facilities,
cautioned that UVGI disinfection of HVAC systems should not be relied
on as the sole intervention used to minimize microbial contamination. The
authors stated that
other factors, such as careful design of the built environment, installation
and effective operation of the HVAC system, and a high level of attention
to traditional cleaning and disinfection, must be assessed before a health
care facility can decide to rely solely on UVGI to meet indoor air quality
requirements for health care facilities.
Ventilation effectiveness, the ability of a system to provide supply air
that reaches the occupants’ breathing zone and distributes conditioned
air within occupied spaces to dilute and remove air contaminants (Levin,
1996; NRC, 2006), is one of those factors. The 2006 National Research
Council report Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning found
that ventilation effectiveness was—in combination with ventilation rate;
filter efficiency; the control of temperature, humidity, and excess moisture;
and HVAC operations, maintenance, and cleaning practices—a key fac-
tor in good indoor air quality. Experiments by Nielsen (2009) determined
that air-distribution patterns with high ventilation effectiveness played an
important role in minimizing airborne cross-infection in a hospital setting.
Weatherization Workforce Training in Considerations
of Indoor Environmental Quality and Health
As awareness of the potential of weatherization programs to engender
problems of indoor environmental quality and health has grown, initia-
tives have been undertaken to train the weatherization-industry workforce
OCR for page 230
230 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
to perform high-quality building retrofits that improve energy efficiency
while maintaining or enhancing the health and safety of occupants. These
are summarized briefly below.
In January 2011, DOE issued revised guidance for WAP participants
aimed at ensuring the health and safety of weatherization workers and
recipients of weatherization services (DOE, 2011). The nonprofit National
Center for Healthy Housing has developed training programs for a variety
of stakeholders, including designers, builders, owners, code inspectors, and
public-health workers. Instruction covers new and existing single-family
and multifamily buildings and includes ventilation, moisture control, dust
control, integrated pest management, material emissions, and management
of air-pressure relationships (NCHH, 2008). The American Lung Associa-
tion of the Upper Midwest’s Healthy House program produces guidance for
builders and maintains a “Preferred Products” program that lists general
cleaning products, stains, finishes, and interior paints that meet standards
for low end-use emissions of harmful pollutants and irritants (American
Lung Association, 2011).
The Indoor Air Quality Guide: Best Practices for Design, Construction,
and Commissioning was developed by ASHRAE, the American Institute of
Architects, Building Owners and Managers Association International, the
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ Association, EPA, and the
US Green Building Council. The Guide “presents best practices for design,
construction and commissioning” and “provides information and tools ar-
chitects and design engineers can use to achieve an IAQ-sensitive building
that integrates IAQ into the design and construction process” (ASHRAE,
2009, p. XII). Its objectives for achieving good indoor air quality comprise
the following:
• M
anage the design and construction process to achieve good in-
door air quality.
• C
ontrol moisture in building assemblies.
• L
imit entry of outdoor contaminants.
• C
ontrol moisture and contaminants related to mechanical systems.
• L
imit contaminants from indoor sources.
• C
apture and exhaust contaminants from building equipment and
activities.
• R
educe contaminant concentrations through ventilation, filtration,
and air-cleaning.
• A
pply more advanced ventilation approaches.
EPA developed voluntary “Healthy Indoor Environment Protocols for
Home Energy Upgrades” and released a draft for public comment in late
2010 (EPA, 2010a). It focuses on indoor environmental quality issues and
OCR for page 231
231
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
identifies actions intended to “promote improved occupant health through
home energy retrofits” (EPA, 2011a). DOE released a companion draft
titled “Workforce Guidelines for Home Energy Upgrades,” which details
work specifications for high-quality retrofits. Together, the documents are
intended to help homeowners, energy auditors, and contractors perform
home-energy retrofits that remediate or prevent indoor environmental
health problems (EPA, 2010a). If made final and widely adopted, the docu-
ments have the potential to define future training efforts.
SYNTHESIS
Buildings are complicated to operate and, to date, operating measures
and guidance have been based largely on occupant comfort rather than
occupant health or productivity (Sundell et al., 2011). ASHRAE Standards
62.1 and 62.2, for example, offer some guidance for ventilating build-
ings properly, but these are minimum levels derived from a consensus
process based in the engineering, building, and equipment-manufacturing
industries. Among the limitations of the current approach are the lack of
integration with material-emissions data and the lag between health-science
research and guideline or standards-setting processes of government, indus-
try, and consensus groups. There is inadequate understanding of the ap-
propriate indoor air quality design standards or the range of susceptibility
inherent in the populations that work in buildings or attend schools. Persily
(2010) points out that high-performance guidelines for buildings need to
do a better job of addressing the issue of moisture control. Although code
requirements and other documents address moisture management, many
serious moisture problems persist and—as noted elsewhere in this report—
climate change may well exacerbate them.
New building materials and equipment arrive on the market every
day, and experience suggests that some may bring unforeseen problems of
indoor environmental quality with them. Many such problems might be
identified and avoided if the current process of designing and constructing
buildings took a more integrated approach that included consideration of
the links between indoor environmental quality and indoor and outdoor
sources, ventilation, occupant comfort, and energy efficiency.
Material testing and labeling systems represent an important source
of information on product emissions and a driving force in lowering emis-
sions. Private sector, federal, and state government efforts are already
yielding results as manufacturers seek the advantages that accrue from
being able to sell green products. Promoting the use of testing and labeling
systems by standards-setting organizations and in the marketplace will ac-
celerate this process, helping to produce healthier indoor environments that
are more resilient to the effects of climate change.
OCR for page 232
232 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
Research aimed at developing guidance is needed to address these situ-
ations. In addition, weatherization programs should incorporate tracking
mechanisms to identify problems of indoor environmental quality problems
as they arise and solutions as they are developed and implemented.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of its review of the papers, reports, and other information
presented in this chapter, the committee has reached the following conclu-
sions regarding building ventilation, weatherization, and energy-use issues:
• R
esearch indicates that poor ventilation in homes, offices, and
schools is associated with occupant health problems and lower
productivity. However, the information base is inadequate, and
studies in hot and humid climates are lacking.
• P
roper design, operation, hygiene, and maintenance of HVAC sys-
tems contribute to lower microbial contamination, decreased dis-
ease incidence, and increased occupant productivity.
• C
limate change may make ventilation problems more common
or more severe in the future by stimulating the implementation of
energy-efficiency (weatherization) measures that limit the exchange
of indoor air with outdoor air.
• G
overnment and consensus organizations are beginning to recog-
nize the importance of this issue and have established or are estab-
lishing voluntary guidelines and codes that account for the links
between energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, ventila-
tion, and occupant health and productivity. Problems will persist
until the weatherization workforce is properly trained to recognize
and avoid problems of indoor environmental quality, the efficacy of
guidelines and codes is validated, and they are widely implemented.
• I
ntroduction of new materials and weatherization techniques may
lead to unexpected exposures and health risks. Energy-efficiency
programs must therefore take emissions of building materials and
products into account and incorporate tracking mechanisms to
identify problems of indoor environmental quality as they arise and
solutions as they are developed and implemented.
REFERENCES
AQS. 2009a. Building rating systems (certification programs): A comparison of key programs.
http://www.aerias.org/uploads/2009.12.09_Green_Building_Programs_Comparison_
PUBLISHED.pdf (accessed February 17, 2011).
OCR for page 233
233
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
AQS (Air Quality Sciences, Inc.) 2009b. Primary green product standards and certification
programs: A comparison. http://www.aerias.org/uploads/2009.03.WP.GreenProdCert
ProgCompare.pdf (accessed February 17, 2011).
American Lung Association. 2011. Healthy house program. http://www.alaw.org/air_quality/
healthy_house_programs (accessed January 19, 2011).
Apte MG, Fisk WJ, Daisey JM. 2000. Associations between indoor CO2 concentrations and
sick building syndrome symptoms in US office buildings: An analysis of the 1994-1996
BASE study data. Indoor Air 10:246-257.
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 2009.
Indoor air quality guide: The best practices for design, construction and commissioning.
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Babich M, Danello MA, Hatlelid K, Matheson J, Saltzman L, Thomas T. 2010. CPSC staff
preliminary evaluation of drywall chamber test results. US Consumer Product Safety
Commission. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.161.6951&rep
=rep1&type=pdf (accessed February 17, 2011).
Bornehag CG, Sundell J, Hägerhed-Engman L, Sigsgaard T. 2005 Association between ven-
tilation rates in 390 Swedish homes and allergic symptoms in children. Indoor Air
15:275-280.
Brundage JF, Scott RM, Lednar WM, Smith DQ, Miller RN. 1988. Building-associated risk
of febrile acute respiratory diseases in Army trainees. Journal of the American Medical
Association 259(14):2108-2112.
Build It Green. 2011. GreenPoint rated: Your assurance of a better place to live. http://www.
builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/ (accessed May 4, 2011).
Carter J. 2010. Making green jobs safe jobs: A case study—The safe use of spray polyurethane
foam (SPF). PowerPoint presented at the Good Jobs Green Jobs Conference, Washington,
DC. http://www.osha.gov/dep/greenjobs/osha_greenjobs_conference_may2010.ppt (ac-
cessed March 4, 2011).
Chan WR, Price PN, Sohn MD, Gadgil AJ. 2003. Analysis of US Residential Air Leakage
Database. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2008. California long term energy efficiency
strategic plan: Achieving maximum energy savings for 2009 and beyond. San Francisco,
CA: CPUC.
Cummings JB, Tooley JJ, Jr. 1989. Infiltration rates and pressure differences in Florida homes
caused by closed interior doors when the central air handler is on. In Proceedings of the
14th Passive Solar Conference. Denver, Colorado: American Solar Energy Society.
Cummings JB, Withers CR, Moyer N, Fairey P, McKendry B. 1996. Uncontrolled air flow in
non-residential buildings. Orlando, FL: Florida Solar Energy Center.
DOE (Department of Energy). 2009. 2009 buildings energy data book. Washington, DC:
DOE.
DOE. 2010. Workforce guidelines for home energy upgrades. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
wip/pdfs/workforce_guidelines_home_energy_upgrades.pdf (accessed January 11, 2011).
DOE. 2011. Weatherization program notice 11-6. Washington, DC: DOE.
ECA (European Collaborative Action, Urban Air, Indoor Environment and Human Expo-
sure). 2010. Harmonisation framework for indoor material labeling schemes in the EU.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European. Report No. 27. http://www.
eurofins.com/media/1744366/ECA_report_no_27_final%20draft.pdf (accessed February
18, 2011).
Ecolabel Index. 2011. Ecolabel index: Who’s deciding what’s green? http://www.ecolabelindex.
com/ (accessed February 17, 2011).
EcoLogo Program. 2011. EcoLogo Program: Third party certification of environmentally-
preferred products. http://www.environmentalchoice.com/en/ (accessed May 3, 2011).
OCR for page 234
234 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
Edwards JO, Hamilton RI. 1993. Leaks in copper tubing from cooling coils of a large air-
conditioning unit. ASM International, Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis
2:204-206.
Effinger J, Friedman H. 2010. Right measures. ASHRAE Journal 52(10):84, 86, 88-89.
EHHI (Environment and Human Health) Inc. 2010. The green building debate: LEED certifi-
cation. where energy efficiency collides with human health. North Haven, CT: Environ-
ment & Human Health, Inc. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/leed/LEED_report_0510.pdf
(accessed February 18, 2011).
Emenius G, Svartengren M, Korsgaard J, Nordvall L, Pershagen G, Wickman M. 2004. Build-
ing characteristics, indoor air quality and recurrent wheezing in very young children
(BAMSE). Indoor Air 14:34-42.
Emmerich HJ, McDowell T, Anis W. 2005. Investigation of the impact of commercial build-
ing envelope airtightness on HVAC energy use. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
Emmerich SJ, Persily AK. 2005. Airtightness of commercial buildings in the U.S. Gaithersburg,
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Enterprise Community Partners. 2010. Enterprise green communities. http://www.greencom-
munitiesonline.org/about/documents/green_next_gen_fact_sheet.pdf (accessed January
11, 2011).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. 2006 annual report: ENERGY STAR® and
other climate protection partnerships. Washington, DC: EPA.
EPA. 2010a. Healthy indoor environment protocols for home energy upgrades. http://www.
epa.gov/iaq/pdfs/epa_retrofit_protocols_draft_110910.pdf (accessed January 11, 2011).
EPA. 2010b. ENERGY STAR. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_history (ac-
cessed January 11, 2011).
EPA. 2011a. Draft protocols for home energy upgrades. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/homes/retro-
fits.html (accessed January 30, 2011).
EPA. 2011b. Should you have the air ducts in your home cleaned? http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
pubs/airduct.html (accessed February 28, 2011).
Erdmann CA, Apte MG. 2004. Mucous membrane and lower respiratory building related
symptoms in relation to indoor carbon dioxide concentrations in the 100-building BASE
dataset. Indoor Air 14(Suppl 8):127-134.
European Commission Environment. 2011. REACH. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemi-
cals/reach/reach_intro.htm (accessed May 4, 2011).
Fischer D. 2010. Do green building standards minimize health concerns? Scientific American
online, June 7, 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-green-build-
ing-standards-minimize-health-cooncerns [sic] (accessed February 18, 2011).
FTC (US Federal Trade Commission). 2010. Request for public comment on proposed, revised
guides for the use of environmental marketing claims. http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2010/
october/101006greenguidesfrn.pdf (accessed February 19, 2011).
Fuller M, Kunkel C, Zimring M, Hoffman I, Soroye KL, Goldman C. 2010. Driving demand
for home energy improvements. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL).
Godish T, Spengler JD. 1996. Relationships between ventilation and indoor air quality: A
review. Indoor Air 6:135-145.
Goldman CA, Fuller MC, Stuart E. 2010. Energy efficiency services sector: Workforce size
and expectations for growth. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Green Seal. 2010. The original Green Seal of approval since 1989. http://www.greenseal.org/
Home.aspx (accessed May 3, 2011).
OCR for page 235
235
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
Harrad S, de Wit CA, Abdallah MA, Bergh C, Björklund JA, Covaci A, Darnerud PO, de Boer
J, Diamond M, Huber S, Leonards P, Mandalakis M, Ostman C, Haug LS, Thomsen C,
Webster TF. 2010. Indoor contamination with hexabromocyclododecanes, polybromi-
nated diphenyl ethers, and perfluoroalkyl compounds: An important exposure pathway
for people? Environmental Science & Technology 34(9):3221-3231.
Harving H, Korsgaard J, Dahl R. 1993. House-dust mites and associated environmental condi-
tions in Danish homes. Allergy 48:106-109.
Hoge CW, Reichler MR, Dominguez EA, Bremer JC, Mastro TD, Hendricks KA, Musher
DM, Elliott JA, Facklam RR, Breiman RF. 1994. An epidemic of pneumococcal disease
in an overcrowded, inadequately ventilated jail. New England Journal of Medicine
331(10):643-648.
Hooper DG, Shane J, Straus DC, Kilburn KH, Bolton V, Sutton JS, Guilford FT. 2010. Isola-
tion of sulfur reducing and oxidizing bacteria found in contaminated drywall. Interna-
tional Journal of Molecular Sciences 11(2):647-655.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2004. Damp indoor spaces and health. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Jaakkola JJK, Miettinen P. 1995. Ventilation rate in office buildings and sick building syn-
drome. Occupational Environmental Medicine 52:709-714.
Jensen B, Wolkoff P. 1996. VOCBASE. Denmark: National Institution of Occupational
Health.
Kephalopoulos S, Koistinen K, Kotzias D. 2005. Urban air, indoor environment and human
exposure. environment and quality of life report No 24: Harmonisation of indoor mate-
rial emissions labeling systems in the EU. Inventory of existing schemes. Italy: European
Commission. http://www.inive.org/medias/ECA/ECA_Report24.pdf (accessed February
18, 2011).
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). 2010. LEED public policies. Up-
dated: 09/24/10. https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7922 (accessed
February 17, 2011).
LEED. 2011. LEED 2009 for new construction and major renovations. Updated February
2011. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8868 (accessed February 17,
2011).
Levin H. 1996. Best sustainable indoor air quality practices in commercial buildings. No-
vember 19, 1996, presentation at the Third Annual Green Buildings Conference and
Exhibition. San Diego, CA. http://www.buildingecology.com/articles/best-sustainable-
indoor-air-quality-practices-in-commercial-buildings/ (accessed March 9, 2011).
Levin H. 2010. National programs to assess IEQ effects of building material and products.
Washington, DC: EPA Indoor Environments Division. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pdfs/hal_
levin_paper.pdf (accessed February 18, 2011).
Memarzadeh F, Olmsted RN, Bartley JM. 2010. Applications of ultraviolet germicidal irradia-
tion disinfection in health care facilities—Effective adjunct, but not stand-alone technol-
ogy. American Journal of Infection Control 38(5 Suppl 1):S13-S24.
Mendell MJ. 1993. Non-specific symptoms in office workers: A review and summary of the
epidemiologic literature. Indoor Air 3:227-236.
Mendell MJ, Lei Q, Apte MG, Fisk WJ. 2005. Outdoor air ventilation and work-related symp-
toms in U.S. office buildings—Results from the BASE study. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratories.
Mendell MJ, Lei-Gomez Q, Mirer AG, Seppänen O, Brunner G. 2008. Risk factors in heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning systems for occupant symptoms in US office buildings:
The US EPA BASE study. Indoor Air 18(4):301-316.
OCR for page 236
236 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
Menzies D, Fanning A, Yuan L, FitzGerald JM; Canadian Collaborative Group in Nosocomial
Transmission of TB. 2000. Hospital ventilation and risk for tuberculous infection in
Canadian health care workers. Annals of Internal Medicine 133:779-789.
Menzies D, Popa J, Hanley JA, Rand T, Milton DK. 2003. Effect of ultraviolet germicidal
lights installed in office ventilation systems on workers’ health and wellbeing: Double-
blind multiple crossover trial. Lancet 362(9398):1785-1791.
Mills E. 2009. Building commissioning: A golden opportunity for reducing energy costs and
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Milton DK, Glencross PM, Walters MD. 2000. Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air
supply rate, humidification, and occupant complaints. Indoor Air 10(4):212-221.
Morey PR, Rand T, Phoenix T. 2009. On the penetration of mold into the fiberboard used in
HVAC ductwork. Healthy Buildings, page 4. Syracuse, NY.
Morey PR. 2010. Climate change and potential effects on microbial air quality in the built
environment. Washington, DC: EPA.
Mowris RJ, Fisk WJ. 1988. Modeling the effects of exhaust ventilation on radon entry rates
and indoor radon concentrations. Health Physics 54(5):491-501.
Myatt TA, Johnston SL, Zuo Z, Wand M, Kebadze T, Rudnick S, Milton DK. 2004. Detec-
tion of airborne rhinovirus and its relation to outdoor air supply in office environments.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 169:1187-1190.
NCHH (National Center for Healthy Housing). 2008. National Center for Healthy Housing.
http://www.nchh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rs1iUR2e%2F%2FA%3D&tabid=298
(accessed January 19, 2011).
Nielsen PV. 2009. Control of airborne infectious diseases in ventilated spaces. Journal of the
Royal Society–Interface 6(Suppl 6):S747-S755.
NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Green schools: Attributes for health and learning.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. Certifiably sustainable?: The role of third-party certification systems: Report of
a workshop. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Nevius M, Eldridge R, Krouk J. 2010. The state of the efficiency program industry: Budgets,
expenditures, and impacts 2009. Boston MA: Consortium for Energy Efficiency.
Norbäck D, Björnsson E, Janson C, Widström J, Boman G. 1995. Asthmatic symptoms and
volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide in dwellings. Occupa-
tional and Environmental Medicine 52:388-395.
Offermann FJ. 2009. Ventilation and indoor air quality in new homes. Collaborative Report.
CEC-500-2009-085. PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Sacra-
mento, CA: California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission.
Offermann FJ. 2010. IAQ in airtight homes. ASHRAE Journal 52(11):58-60.
Ogg NJ. 2006. Use of foam insulation below grade may provide access to subterranean ter-
mites. Pendleton, SC: Clemson University.
Øie L, Nafstad P, Botten G, Magnus P, Jaakkola JJK. 1999. Ventilation in homes and bronchial
obstruction in young children. Epidemiology 10:294-299.
Persily AK, Norford LK. 1987. Simultaneous measurements of infiltration and intake in an
office building. ASHRAE Transaction 93(2):942-956.
Persily AK, Emmerich SJ. 2009. Effects of air infiltration and ventilation. In Moisture control
in buildings: The key factor in mold prevention—2nd edition, edited by Trechsel HR,
Bomberg MT. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Persily AK. 2010. Indoor air quality guide—Best practices for design, construction and com-
missioning. May 14, 2009, presentation to the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor
Air Quality. Washington, DC.
OCR for page 237
237
BUILDING VENTILATION, WEATHERIZATION, AND ENERGY USE
Preziosi P, Czernichow S, Gehanno P, Hercberg S. 2004. Workplace airconditioning and health
services attendance among French middle-aged women: A prospective cohort study. In-
ternational Journal of Epidemiology 33:1120-1123.
Rim D, Novoselac A. 2010. Ventilation effectiveness as an indicator of occupant exposure to
particles from indoor sources. Building and Environment 45(5):1214-1224.
Roosens L, Abdallah MA, Harrad S, Neels H, Covaci A. 2009. Exposure to hexabromocyclodo-
decanes (HBCDs) via dust ingestion, but not diet, correlates with concentration in human
serum—Preliminary results. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(11):1707-1712.
Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ. 1999. Association of ventilation rates and CO2 con-
centrations with health and other responses in commercial and institutional buildings.
Indoor Air 9:226-252.
Shaughnessy RJ, Haverinen-Shaughnessy U, Nevalainen A, Moschandreas D. 2006. A pre-
liminary study on the association between ventilation rates in classrooms and student
performance. Indoor Air 16(6):465-468.
Shaw CY. 1995. Maintaining acceptable air quality in office buildings through ventilation. Ot-
tawa, Ontario: National Research Council Canada Institute for Research in Construction.
Shendell DG, Prill R, Fisk WJ, Apte MG, Blake D, Faulkner, D. 2004. Associations between
classroom CO2 concentrations and student attendance in Washington and Idaho. Indoor
Air 14(5):333-341.
Sherman MH, McWilliams J. 2007. Air leakage of US homes: Model prediction. Orlando, FL:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Smedje G, Norbäck D. 2000. New ventilation systems at select schools in Sweden—Effects on
asthma and exposure. Archives of Environmental Health 55:18-25.
Spengler JD. 2010. Personal communication.
Srebric J. 2010. Opportunities for green building (GB) grating systems to improve indoor
air quality credits and to address changing climatic conditions. Washington, DC: EPA
Indoor Environments Division. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pdfs/jelena_draft_paper_11-4-10.
pdf (accessed February 18, 2011).
Stenberg B, Eriksson M, Hoog J, Sundell J, Wall S. 1994. The sick building syndrome (SBS) in
office workers. A case-referent study of personal, psychosocial and building-related risk
indicators. International Journal of Epidemiology 23(6):1190-1197.
Sundell J, Lindvall T, Stenberg B, Wall S. 1994b. Sick building syndrome (SBS) in office work-
ers and facial skin symptoms among VDT-workers in relation to building and room
characteristics: Two case-referent studies. Indoor Air 4:83-94.
Sundell J, Lindvall T, Stenberg B. 1994a. Associations between type of ventilation and air flow
rates in office buildings and the risk of SBS-symptoms among occupants. Environmental
International 20:239-251.
Sundell J, Wickman M, Pershagen G, Nordvall SL. 1995. Ventilation in homes infested by
house-dust mites. Allergy 50:106-112.
Sundell J, Levin H, Nazaroff WW, Cain WS, Fisk WJ, Grimsrud DT, Gyntelberg F, Li Y,
Persily AK, Pickering AC, Samet JM, Spengler JD, Taylor ST, Weschler CJ. 2011. Ven-
tilation rates and health: Multidisciplinary review of the scientific literature. Indoor Air
21(3):191-204.
Wålinder R, Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Smedje G, Erwall C. 1997a. Nasal congestion in rela-
tion to low air exchange rate in schools. Acta Oto-laryngologica 117:724-727.
Wålinder R, Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Smedje G, Erwall C. 1997b. Nasal mucosal swelling
in relation to low air exchange rate in schools. Indoor Air 7:198-205.
Wålinder R, Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Smedje G, Erwall C, Venge P. 1998. Nasal patency
and biomarkers in nasal lavage—The significance of air exchange rate and type of ven-
tilation in schools. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
71:479-486.
OCR for page 238
238 CLIMATE CHANGE, THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH
WAP (Weatherization Assistance Program). 2009a. Plans, implementation, and results. http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/plans_implementation_results.html (accessed January 11,
2011).
WAP. 2009b. Weatherization assistance program. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap.html
(accessed January 11, 2011).
WAP. 2010. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the weatherization assistance
program. http://www.waptac.org/WAP-Basics/Recovery-Act.aspx (accessed January 11,
2011).
Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Ole Fanger P. 2000. Productivity is affected by the air quality in offices.
Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2000 1:635-640.
Wargocki P, Lagercrantz L, Witterseh T, Sundell J, Wyon DP, Fanger PO. 2002a. Subjective
perceptions, symptom intensity, and performance: A comparison of two independent
studies, both changing similarly the pollution load in an office. Indoor Air 12(2):74-80.
Wargocki P, Sundell J, Bischof W, Brundrett G, Fanger PO, Gyntelberg F, Hanssen SO,
Harrison P, Pickering A, Seppänen O, Wouters P. 2002b. Ventilation and health in non-
industrial indoor environments: Report from a European multidisciplinary scientific
consensus meeting (EUROVEN). Indoor Air 12:113-128.
Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Fanger PO. 2004. The performance and subjective responses of call-
center operators with new and used supply air filters at two outdoor air supply rates.
Indoor Air 14(Suppl 8):7-16.
Wargocki P, Wyon DP. 2007a. The effect of moderately raised classroom temperatures and
classroom ventilation rate on the performance of schoolwork by children. HVAC&R
Research 13(2):193-220.
Wargocki P, Wyon DP. 2007b. The effects of outdoor air supply rate and supply air filter
condition in classrooms on the performance of schoolwork by children. HVAC&R
Research 13(2):165-191.
West M, Hansen E. 1989. Determination of material hygroscopic properties that affect indoor
air quality. In IAQ 89, the human equation: Health and comfort, ASHRAE. Atlanta,
GA: ASHRAE.
WGBC (World Green Building Council). 2011. Directory of councils. http://www.mt.worldgbc.
org/green-building-councils/gbc-directory (accessed February 17, 2011).
Willem H, Singer BC. 2010. Chemical emissions of residential materials and products: Review
of available information. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. http://
epb.lbl.gov/publications/lbnl-3938E.pdf (accessed February 18, 2011).
Wolkoff P, Nielsen GD, Hansen LF, Albrechtsen O, Johnsen CR, Heinig JH, Franck C, Nielsen
PA. 1991. Study of human reactions to emissions from building materials in climate
chambers. Part II: VOC measurements, mouse bioassay, and decipol evaluation in the
1–2 mg/m3 TVOC range. Indoor Air 1(4):389-403.
Wolkoff P, Nielsen PA. 1995. A new approach for indoor climate labeling of building
materials—Emission testing, modeling, and comfort evaluation. Atmospheric Environ-
ment 30(15):2679-2689.
Wolkoff P, Nielson GD. 2010. Non-cancer effects of formaldehyde and relevance for setting
an indoor air guideline. Environment International 36(7):788-799.
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2010. 2010 global ecolabel monitor. http://www.ecolabel
index.com/downloads/Global_Ecolabel_Monitor2010.pdf (accessed February 17, 2011).
