Is direct reading tools are acceptable for getting the parameters of TVOC, Ozone, CO2 and CO if the reference test method is complied with the LEED requirement? The example of equipments are Aeroqual S5000 with ozone sensor, TSI Dustrak 8533 Aerosol monitor (gravimetric samples), TSI VeloCicalc and etc.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Gregor Braugman
Sustainability Specialist7 thumbs up
March 9, 2021 - 3:04 pm
Hong,
Yes, direct read instruments are acceptable for all of the contaminants listed for LEED v4.1, Option-2, Path-1 (Inorganic Gases). I verified this with the GBCI before using it on a project. I used a Graywolf Device for the PM's & CO along with an Aeroqual 5000 for the Ozone. Apparently the Graywolf device's Ozone sensor is not fine enough to comply. I have not gotten the review back for this project yet but I don't anticipate any problems.
Russ Pellegrino
Technical DirectorCentek Laboratories, LLC
16 thumbs up
March 10, 2021 - 3:34 pm
My question to that is how long do you need to collect data for? If laboratories need to meet minimum detection limits and uses calibrations on a daily basis what QA/QC requirements are done with a hand held?
As a laboratory we have to go through audits for ISO17025 certification to achieve the most reliable data. To meet that requirement for PM10 & PM2.5 the sample media needs to be collecting sample for 2 hours. Under the old LEED 3.2 requirements the data loggers need to stay at the location a minimum of 4 hours.
If you are going to think that standing there collecting data for a few minutes is going to represent an adequate analysis with no further QA/QC requirements I would side with caution.
Unless you have a data logger that is at least stationed the same amount of time for all your other sample collection then your data should be flagged as suspect.
As far as TVOC under LEED 4.1 you need a full chemical breakdown that a hand held will not do. Under EPA Methods TO15 & TO17 all of this can be achieved so there is no reason to rent a handheld. This is done at no additional cost. Same holds true for the CO
With our sampling protocol using certified ISO17025 & EPA methods after our discounts the PM test cost you less than renting meters.
HONG MEE SONG
March 9, 2021 - 11:09 pm
How about if the project are under Leed V4 Air Testing. Will be still same? The TVOC will be through lab method, but particulate, ozone, CO2 and CO will be using direct reading method.
Russ Pellegrino
Technical DirectorCentek Laboratories, LLC
16 thumbs up
March 10, 2021 - 3:33 pm
Hong,
Quick follow up for you...I just spoke with a company that specializes in the IAQ testing for the LEED, WELL and FITWELL programs and inquired about using handhelds. She explained to me that they use to use handhelds for the particulates (PM10/PM2.5/CO) and would sample for the same amount of time that the other test were sampling for (minimum 2 hours for 4.1). They found out later that it was not cost effective due to rentals, number of units and hours spent on site. This was one of the main reasons why they went with gravimetric.
I thought you might like to know what others thought that is a larger engineering firm.
Robert Cashins
May 2, 2024 - 3:39 pm
for V4.1 If testing with direct reading instruments 9TVOC, ozone,CO2, CO) is it acceptable to do testing by doing the following
1 identify locations to be tested
2Collect 2-5 minute average samples at each location
3 Repeat the testing every hour for 8 hours
4 Report the average concentration and peak values