direct reading instruments

LEED 2009 for New Construction states “Conduct baseline IAQ testing after construction ends and prior to occupancy using testing protocols consistent with the EPA Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air (aka IP methods) and as additionally detailed in the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition”. The EPA IP methods were published in 1990 and have not been updated since. Indoor air quality professionals typically do not use them and there are few if any labs that perform these analyses. However, the above statement says “consistent with”. There are other EPA methods referred to as TO methods for outdoor air, ASTM methods, and OSHA and NIOSH methods for occupational exposure monitoring. Many of these methods, which are what IAQ professionals typically use, may be considered “consistent with” the IP methods. There are twenty IP methods with two for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), three for formaldehyde, three for carbon monoxide, and two for respirable particulates (none for PM10). It should be noted that respirable particles are very different from PM10 which is an outdoor air parameter. Respirable particles are for human exposure assessments. The two IP VOC methods are both laboratory methods with one collecting the samples in an evacuated stainless steel canister and the other collecting the sample on solid adsorbent tubes. There are no IP methods for direct reading of VOCs. The three IP formaldehyde methods include two lab methods and one direct reading method. The instrument for the direct reading of formaldehyde is no longer manufactured and its technology is not in common use. The three IP carbon monoxide methods are direct reading. The two IP respirable particulate methods include a lab method and a direct reading method. The IP direct reading method is expensive and not commonly used for IAQ evaluations. More modern particulate monitors use laser technology for counting particles and an algorithm to convert the count into a mass per volume. Currently available direct reading aerosol monitors (mass per volume units) are typically calibrated to Arizona road dust. Unless that is what you are measuring you should calibrate the instruments to the particulate types you are measuring. This is done by collecting the lab version of the IP method and adjusting the direct reading instrument to the result for the particle size fraction you measured. The equivalent lab method for respirable particulates is the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) method 0600. There are methods for PM10 but they are designed for a 24 or more hour collection time which is what PM10 is based on. A method that will overestimate PM10 and therefore, if passed, could be considered an alternative is NIOSH method 0500 for total particulates. NIOSH 0500 is a very cost effective means of measuring nuisance dust after construction completion. In conclusion, based on the previous information, the use of a direct reading instrument for VOC sampling would NOT be “consistent with” the IP methods and therefore NOT comply with LEED 2009 requirements. Using a direct reading instrument for PM10 measurement may be considered “consistent with” IP methods provided the instruments are calibrated properly. This ignores the fact that LEED requires the measurement of an inappropriate parameter (PM10) using methods not designed for this parameter. I personally use a modified EPA TO-17 method (similar to IP-1B) for VOCs and NIOSH 0500 for PM10. LEED v.4 is more specific in the methods to be used though many of them are still not those commonly used by IAQ professionals and, in some cases, are measuring inappropriate parameters.

WOW! Dale just schooled us all. I wonder how reviewers interpret IAQ testing requirements. Seems like as written it's not even possible to correctly measure for PM 10. and PM 10 isn't resipirable so.... we are testing the wrong thing to earn a point.