Our contractor would like to use a flat pain that gives both a VOC content measurement and a RAVOC content measurement. The VOC measurement is outside the LEED requirement but the RAVOC is not, and a bit of research shows that RAVOC (Reactivity-Adjusted VOC) is actually a more accurate measurement of the product's harmful properties. Apparently some VOCs are more reactive than others. I haven't found as much info as I would like online, most of it seems to come from one company (Dunn-Edwards Paints) which makes me concerned that these claims may not be valid.
Can RAVOC content supersede VOC content for credit complicance? Is there any consensus on the validity of RAVOCs?
Dwayne Fuhlhage
Sustainability and Environment DirectorPROSOCO, Inc.
169 thumbs up
June 8, 2012 - 1:21 pm
The current architectural coatings regulatory system relies on a binary decision of whether a given VOC contributes to ground level ozone in the presence of sunlight and nitrogen oxides (tailpipe and power plant emissions). In the regulatory scheme, all VOCs are created equal. In the real world, there are reactivity gradients; some VOCs contribute very little to ozone production and some very much proportional to their mass. In addition, mass VOC has less to do with ozone generation than nitrogen oxides.
RAVOC is one potential tool (calculation method) to look at the actual ozone impacts of a product and its specific VOC contents. However, LEED looks at this from the perspective of minimizing exposure to applicators and occupants to the VOCs themselves. RAVOC would not be a means to make that assessment.
The flip side to this is that not all VOCs have the same health and safety impact. Ethanol emitted from a coating is the same chemical species as the ethanol in an alcoholic beverage. It technically is not on par with the health effects of a chlorinated solvent, but policy is a complicated thing.