IAQ Procedure, Baselining & Testing

We have a couple of nice success stories around IAQP - using a CO2 scrubber.  In one application, we went lower than the VRP rates to reduce load and energy.  in the other, we are focusing on the perceived benefits of lower CO2. As for our office WELL certification tools, we are using the AWAIR sensors and having a lot of interest internally - it seems like at least one of the three that we use to monitor our own space is constantly being "borrowed" to monitor client space for both pre- and post-renovation investigations. 

RE:  The scrubber, AND the pilot credits: https://enverid.com/awards/swfl-press-release-by-enverid-and-tlc-8-12-2019/ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-first-leed-pilot-credit-130000488.html The other story about using the enVerid is actually a collaboration between TLC and CMTA - the University of Miami dorm project (just finished design) which will use both the scrubber and active chilled beams - that's right:  ACBs in Miami.  

CMTA has generally used enVerid HLR's for enhanced air quality in the past as opposed to reducing OA below code requirements.  That is the strategy for the joint project in Miami that Kim mentioned which is a res hall.  CogFX was one factor but sleep quality was another major consideration for lowering CO2 levels.  The enVerid product seems to be a good option even if at somewhat diminishing returns economically.  My largest gripe now is that they are still only available in 1,000 CFM modules which becomes fairly inefficient for large projects.

Sounds like a good discussion yesterday - sorry to have missed it. I'm probably being a wet blanket weighing in on this, but I'm glad to have this forum for dialogue and getting perspective from others. 

I've found enVerid really tempting on a couple projects, especially those where I've got winter design conditions of -20F winter and 85F summer. I'll spare you all much of the back and forth we've had internally on it, but I think we've settled on applying the precautionary principle and not suggesting it right now unless the project is in a location with compromised ambient air quality. Here's are some select quotes from the conversations I had with our team internally - both related to enVerid and IAQP in general:

• Regarding ventilation, the WHO standards for ambient air should hold for indoor air, because there is only one air. Air exchange is THE health-based strategy because sealing buildings off creates problems we barely understand (like seen in submarines and spaceships).
• The VRP in 62.1 is decent and ends up being around this low-bar of ventilation per occupant. My perception is that it allows too much latitude in how air quality is measured.
• There is a double-problem: the method is theoretical without field studies, and the filters (like enVerid) are lab-tested and only for a few contaminants. We need field testing for the hundreds of VOCs of concern before we tell a client there is no risk associated with reducing OA rates below VRP. Dilution works for 100% of indoor-generated sources and I don’t think any filter will ever be able to claim the same.
• Below is a helpful decision tree for setting OA rates that should probably supersede current 62.1 method at some point (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6068630/pdf/ijerph-15-01360.pdf) (see attached flow chart)
• A better standard, like proposed HealthVent or EN15251, would not have this loophole [referring to IAQP] and we would not be fighting for occupants just to hold steady.
• [From our resident anthropologist]: The one general concern I still have is the potential evolutionary mismatch problem. Interior environments with lower levels of fresh air (even if we’re removing as much of the listed contaminants as possible), isn’t reflective of our ancestral environment. Our physiologies and psychologies aren’t optimally adapted to this.
• Are there other potential things in the air that aren’t being removed that would build in concentration levels over time with these lower ventilation rates to the point of being harmful or detrimental in some way? Based on some recent IAQ research I’ve read that really emphasized how little we still know about everything we’re putting into our interior environments, I question the appropriateness of reducing ventilation rates.
• What happens *when* (not if) the unit fails? It relies on heating up the filters overnight and purging the contaminants. When boilers and chillers fail, they get fixed because it affects thermal comfort immediately. Meanwhile, we find existing buildings that have run for years with broken/failed ventilation systems because people typically don't consciously perceive "bad IAQ".  

I struggle a bit right now because energy is also a health issue if we think about where our power comes from, and what that does to the surrounding communities. So there's a tension between trying to reduce energy use in buildings (which is good for community health), but at the same time keeping in mind occupant health. 
 

Pete,
Great points and I can't argue with any of them.  This is why we use it to further reduce CO2, VOC's and O3 but only after meeting 62.1 ventilation rates.  That just feels like the right thing to do.  In more mild/dry climates I think you could make a stronger case to simply increase OA further.

Thanks Brian. I should have been more clear that our discussion was focused on potentially using enVirid to reduce OA below ASHRAE 62.1. I think we were all on board with it as a good way to improve IAQ once OA rates have been met. 

We've had similar conversations around bi-polar ionization because there are product reps going around selling it and saying that you can reduce OA and allow CO2 levels to hit 2,000 ppm using the IAQP because of a Navy study on submarine environments. Some of my office mates now just laugh and leave the room when somebody (often a susceptible architect) asks me about that one. 

Pete, Agreed with you, especially regarding what we do not know about outdoor air.  Microbial, ions, natural chemical, scent, are among them. ASHRAE 62.1 is about "acceptable" air quality, not "good".  Similar to what you mentioned, probably estalish a "floor".  Also as long as the "quality" is acceptable, it is not necessarily needs to be outdoor air either.  But, I wonder do we truly know what is "acceptable" air? I am concerned also there are "positive" elements for outdoor air e.g. phytoncide, that we overlook because we worry what is "bad" and avoid them, without taking care of what is good and take them in.

At the risk of (a) being the guy who can't resist poking the wasp nest, and/or (b) being accused of being a flak for a gizmo: 1.  RE Pete's colleague's remark about "What happens *when* (not if) the unit fails?"  enVerid alarms through their remote monitoring system if the media is no longer effectively removing contaminants.  Then they send someone out to fix it.  We have actually seen it show up on the dashboard for the SWFL project.  The active monitoring of it working is part of why we like enVerid. 2.  RE several of Pete's colleagues' comments make it seem like reducing outside air flow is tantamount to malpractice.  By that logic, you wouldn't want to do demand control ventilation either [aside:  when I read that people recommended disabling DCV in response to CoViD-19, I wanted to scream and pull my hair - well, maybe just scream). 3. On the subject of the relative quality and contents of outside air versus inside air, I can tell you that you don't want to be downwind of a stockyard, or, look this one up, a Texas Panhandle carbon black plant.  Figuring out what should and shouldn't be in outside air is a pretty good research topic. 4.  I call your NIH decision tree and raise you a 62.1 IAQP chart

We are starting on a research project to establish a database/catalog of indoor environment quality sensors and transmitters that are capable of integrating with BACnet building automation systems.  These would include temperature, humidity, dew point, CO2, CO, VOCs (including individual constituents, like formaldehyde), the PM family (1, 2.5, and 10), light and sound.  Would include both multi-point (like the AWAIR Omni) and standalone sensor/transmitters.  We want to develop a scorecard that quantifies cost, accuracy, certification (e.g., RESET), calibration, and the ever-popular user-friendliness. In the interest of not reinventing a mousetrap, have any of you done this work already and would be willing to share your catalog?  And/or willing to divide up the workload and share?