FutureAir

Category: air

This is Air

April 2020

‘There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”‘

David Foster Wallace famously relayed the fish parable during his 2005 commencement speech at Kenyon College. The tale prefaced a lecture arguing against living an oblivious, unconscious life. Now, his most widely read essay, “This is Water”, is a testament of the times; times in which we often chose oblivion over awareness.

Over the course of the past five years, FutureAir has focused on the science of air – examining how and why indoor air is often more dangerous than the air outside – with the goal of improving the air we breathe indoors. The formula is simple: expand awareness of the problem and then provide a solution. We want people to look around and ask “What the hell is indoor air?” and later yell out, “AIR IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST TEMPERATURE!”

Most of us never thought to question the air in the spaces where we spend most of our time – home, office, school; we didn’t think twice when buildings were sealed and non-operable became the norm. We do not even consider that thermostats should measure more than just temperature; nor can we recall when the first state-wide ban on smoking indoors went into effect (in 1995).

FutureAir’s inquiry into the seemingly common elements that surround us begs the importance of considering “hard-to-see” forces at work around us. FutureAir awakens us to the reality that the systems most familiar to us are often the ones we question the least and the things we take for granted may lead to unforeseen harm. In probing the atmosphere around us, we uncover endless opportunities for improvement.

Read the next segment of our inquiry into the invisible forces around us here.

Wallace, David Foster. This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion about Living a Compassionate Life. Little, Brown, 2009.

Written by Mollie Wodenshek for Future Air

Work Fatigue: Testing Indoor Air Quality at the Office

June 2019

Harvard Study shows a link between cognitive functioning and indoor air quality in office environments

The Harvard study “Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments” outlines the relationship between indoor air composition and cognitive function. Unlike various other biased studies done on indoor air quality, where test subjects were often told of the poor air quality before taking or participating in the experiment, Joseph G. Allen and his team designed their experiment to be as fair as possible, citing their goal to “objectively quantify the impact of indoor environment on higher order cognitive function.”

Allen and his team ran an experiment that isolated the effects of poor indoor air quality on office workers, using the Strategic Management Simulation (SMS) computer-based cognitive test, two identical office spaces, and different kinds of air pollutants. When introducing participants to the study, it was essential that Allen and his team not reveal the status of the indoor environment, as it might influence the subjects’ behavior. The participant pool was comprised of 24 professional-grade employees who were instructed to arrive at 9 a.m. on 3 specific days for two consecutive weeks. Participants were encouraged to perform their usual work until 3 p.m., when they would be given the SMS test. Behind the scenes, however, Allen and his team were artificially controlling the levels of outdoor air, CO2, and VOCs in the offices. Air movement throughout the office was kept constant at 40 cfm/person, but the amount of outdoor air flowing through the ventilation system, CO2, and VOCs were variable and manipulated throughout the test.

Allen and his team used different amounts of outdoor air, CO2, and VOCs for each of the days, experimenting with “Conventional” office levels, “Green” office levels, and optimal concentrations they called “Green+” office levels.

Since the SMS test could be objectively scored with a numeric value, Allen and his team were able to normalize the scores across the test sections into coherent charts. As shown in the graph, tests taken in the “Conventional” office environment were consistently the lowest in every category. The largest differences between the “Conventional” and the other, more optimal office settings can be seen in the categories, “Crisis Response,” “Information Seeking,” and “Strategy.” Allen and his team confirmed that the results of five of the nine total functions tested in the SMS were statistically significant.

The results, while not conclusive, do demonstrate a correlation between certain cognitive functions and the environment in which one works. Studies such as this one are useful because they help make lesser known issues like indoor air quality more mainstream in the scientific community, which increases the chance that future studies will come up with a solution that ends the problem.

Written by Ryo Shimada for FutureAir.

Dumb and Dumb Air

May 2019

A recent article from The New York Times suggests that the conversation about indoor air quality has entered the collective consciousness. That is to say, beyond physical health risks, indoor air quality effects on our mental capabilities as well.

For the last fifty years, builders and contractors have focused on eliminating the threats of outdoor air pollution while inside. Building codes require sealing that reduce the amount of air flow in exchange for better greater efficiency for heating and cooling systems. However, these sealing processes have created dangerous indoor climates. When we sit in sealed room toxins from chemical product treatments and our own human breath build up and create harmful environments.

Studies have demonstrated the detrimental effects that indoor air toxins pose to brain function. In 2009, William Fisk, a mechanical engineer at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, experimented with indoor air pollution and found that people performed far worse when exposed to levels of carbon dioxide at 2,500ppm than those exposed to 1,000ppm of carbon dioxide. The New York Times stated that these levels are not usual in crowded spaces.

Since Dr. Fisk’s study, other scientists have taken up the issue of indoor air pollution. A Harvard study tracked its participants over a six-day period. They found that over the time span, as the levels of carbon dioxide grew from 500 ppm to 1,400 ppm, participants test score plummeted. The scientists were stunned by the results, not because of the decline in mental functions, but because the carbon dioxide levels they experimented with were not unusual. The levels of carbon dioxide they tested could be found in most indoor settings.

Although these studies demonstrate a negative relationship between indoor air quality and cognitive performance, the evidence is still far and few between. As The Times pointe out, other experiments have not met the same conclusion. The truth is that if you’re not looking for the effects of indoor air pollution, then you will not find them. Indoor air pollution is a silent killer.

Ultimately, we spend most of our times indoors and most of the time, our most important decisions are made indoors, often in small rooms with no ventilation. The New York Times’ article, “Is Conference Room Air Making You Dumber?” begs the question.

Other evidence suggests, “increasing the ventilation rate in schools can raise children’s scores on tests and speed at tasks, and reduce absences.” If we are already designing spaces for maximum performance and productivity, then these studies suggest going the extra mile to account for the factors that we cannot see.

The article concluded, “without a specialized sensor, you can’t really know how much carbon dioxide is building up while you hunker down in a small room for a long meeting.” If we only change the things that we can see and measure (think heating and cooling efficiency) than it is imminent that we invest in tools to make the invisible visible. Accounting for air quality in the spaces we spend the most time in will improve our health, cognitive functions, and our peace of mind.

“Is Conference Room Air Making You Dumber?” The New York Times

Written for FutureAir by Mollie Wodenshek

Image Credit: Hanna Barczyk

Healthy Materials

March 2019

Parson’s Healthy Materials Lab gave a talk entitled: The New Frontier of Materials: Human Health & Design that we at FutureAir believe is worth documenting.

Speakers outlined the dangers of the built environment. No one intends to pollute indoor air in building construction, but the chemical cocktail trapped inside poses an invisible threat—it is a silent epidemic.

The speakers presented a metaphor between the food we eat and the air we breathe. Just like the food we ingest, the air we breathe also becomes a part of our bodies and enters our system. So if we label the ingredients on food items should we not also label the ingredients in the air? Shouldn’t we identify where these air pollutants come from—which products, which materials? We have a right to know which items contribute to the composition of the poisonous indoor environments we spend more than 90%of our time in.

The goal of the Healthy Materials Lab is to bring awareness to the health threats posed by poor air in our indoor environments. They do this by producing and conducting case studies, and their website is pretty much an encyclopedia for all things chemical toxins in the home. Finally, they partner with companies in the construction field to incentivize healthy building material choices.

Ultimately, the chemicals of concern may never go away, but we can make and encourage better decisions that lead to healthier realities. An important point that was raised was that most members of the Healthy Materials Lab are designers in practice. They want to create beautiful environments that are also sustainable and healthy. With the current climate crisis, it seems we all have to double down and integrate a sustainable practice into our work and lives to build a world we can live and thrive in.

Written for FutureAir by Mollie Wodenshek

Image Credit: Builder Magazine

The FutureAir Mission

March 2019

Musings on Language and Culture

I remember a time in college when I believed that language could change the world. I thought if we altered our vocabulary we could alter our perspectives. A sort of reverse brain wiring. Although the relationship between language and brain development has been hotly contested, especially amongst psychoanalysts, I still believed in the power of language to shape perspective and culture. By now, I have come to accept language as a tool rather than the end. So, how do we choose words to reflect the future culture we want to see. How do we build the world we want to live in through language?

In working with FutureAir, I have come to recognize the importance of the moment we are in. FutureAir is more than a startup company designing a product to offer a solution to a problem. Beyond FutureAir’s utilitarian value, we are creating awareness. We are opening a door. Perhaps we are opening Pandora’s box, but it is a risk we are willing to take.

The idea of FutureAir is to reevaluate the spaces we spend the most time in and explore the effect of those environments on our health. As a society, since the post-Vietnam war era, we have turned attention toward outdoor air pollution. We have created ways to mitigate the human effect on air pollution. We have enacted measures and plans to counteract the effects of carbon emissions in the air. However, all the while we have been caring for the health of our planet, we have neglected to observe environmental issues closest to home–those within the home. How do the microclimates affect our human health?

What is Clean Indoor Air?

FutureAir is focused on indoor air. In fact, FutureAir hopes to consider indoor air as a resource like outdoor air, water, fossil fuels, etc. In considering indoor air a resource it becomes a part of the common.

In the capitalist American society we live and work in, the common has often become privatized to make a quick buck off exploiting people’s needs while simultaneously excluding low socioeconomic communities from access to resources. FutureAir does not claim to solve this ingrained issue, but we do profess to be a socially-conscious company.

With FutureAir, we are introducing a new resource to the market. The question is: how can we market and brand FutureAir to acknowledge the failures of modern architecture and the dangers of indoor air, while also making the company, and the resource of clean indoor air, inclusive?

Ultimately, everyone deserves access to clean indoor air and FutureAir’s Smart Air Manager™
will allow consumers to monitor the quality of air within their homes. However, FutureAir also hopes to share knowledge, generate awareness, and create behavior change. Perhaps the latter will be met through the language we utilize to shape our mission.

The Dictatorship on Words

On the morning of Martin Luther King Day 2019, I sat down to my computer to address some language choice issues on FutureAir’s one sheet. Co-founder and CEO, Simone Rothman, her daughter, Tess Gruenberg, and I were struggling over how to properly define the mission of FutureAir. We set out to figure out how FutureAir relates to indoor air. Initially, we called clean indoor air a luxury resource, however, luxury necessitated exclusivity, which is counter to the foundation of FutureAir. So, we discussed the novel idea of clean indoor air as, simply, a resource.

I came to realize that clean indoor air was indeed a resource like any other (i.e. air, water, solar, etc.). A resource is defined as a stock or supply of assets that can be drawn on to function effectively. Research has demonstrated the value of clean indoor air as a means for greater health and productivity amongst a workforce. Therefore, clean indoor air is something we need to function effectively. However, the difference between clean indoor air and other common resources listed before is the descriptive word “clean”.

The fact is, clean indoor air is not currently a given. Additionally, clean indoor air is limited. Workplaces, institutions, homes and other buildings have neglected to consider indoor air quality in building infrastructure at least since the 80s. Only in the 2010s have we seen a reversal of this negligent thinking. In FutureAir’s endeavor to bring awareness to the polluted nature of indoor air and provide a means to clean it, we are creating a resource that does not currently exist. It is a resource that comes out of deterioration and reckless development. It is a resource that comes out of decay; perhaps it rises from the ashes.

So the question remains, how do we frame clean indoor air as a resource when it is born from decay and not inherently abundant? How do we frame clean indoor air as a resource when it is a result of the man-made built environment? This brought an even deeper question: how do we, as a society, recognize nature as ubiquitous and not mutually exclusive from the man-made environment?

Ontologically…

As we parsed words on Martin Luther King day, I began to think about Martin Luther King, the master orator, and a MLK scholar I had seen speak at Colorado College in 2017, Russell Rickford. Rickford recited a poetic analysis of the “true” Martin Luther King versus the “King” that is socially acceptable, force-fed to us to the point of regurgitation.

The former King spoke of nonviolence but his orations threatened the status quo of society. He spoke of things that divided people in order to uplift Black Americans who had been oppressed and pushed to the fringes of society. He adamantly spoke out against imperialism and the war in Vietnam. He valued protest.

The latter King is white-washed and passive. He believes in love as the driving force behind unity. He is nonviolent to the point of non-threatening. He is the King we are enticed to remember in order to keep the rest of us silent.

The latter King is palatable, easy to digest for the people in society who benefit from capitalism, imperialism, and oppression. The latter King makes it seem as if equality has been achieved, and we all stand equal in society. The latter King paints a picture of inclusivity without one actually existing.

In Conclusion

The connection between MLK day and the word choice debacle with FutureAir is not to say that FutureAir’s issues are comparable to the Civil Rights Movement. But the lesson to be learned from King is about who dictates history. The people who write history are most often the ones who benefit from it.

In developing the FutureAir brand and creating a new resource of clean indoor air, we are in effect writing history. We are not alone in this process either. Other companies are also serving to create clean indoor air. In this crucial environmental moment, we have a choice between accessibility and exclusivity.

So much of the sustainable movement has been commodified. This is not to say that commodification is unnecessary or bad. However, commodification can result in exclusivity that makes the common inaccessible. Think bottled water. The difference between water and clean indoor air is that although both are currently limited, clean indoor air has the potential to be abundant.

Air, as a natural resource, affects us in the manufactured domain in the form of indoor air. In its current state, indoor air is polluted. Thus, clean indoor air is, in theory, a new resource. As a resource, it is by nature, common. FutureAir and others are working to introduce the importance of clean indoor air into society’s environmental consciousness so everyone has the opportunity to benefit from it.

Tools and means to achieve clean indoor air may be a luxury, but it is important to remember that knowledge itself does not have to be commodified. With FutureAir, we hope to choose words that express the common nature of clean indoor air, and more importantly, how critical clean indoor air is to human health. FutureAir’s Smart Air Manager™ is a tool, but it is not the end. At FutureAir we are creating a means to achieve the next indispensable resource: clean indoor air.

Written by Mollie Wodenshek for FutureAir

References
Rickford, Russell, “It’s time to reclaim the true Martin Luther King,” Washington Post, 2018.

Measure Air, Change Air

March 2019

During the Industrial Revolution, humanity adopted the mantra, “Ignorance is bliss.” Collateral damage went unobserved. Side effects were not on the radar. We built this world inconsequentially.

In the modern age, societally, we have turned towards awareness. Droves of people have come to the forefront of development in order to remedy years of ignorance that have led to a sickening of humanity and our one and only Planet. Perhaps, we were truly ignorant in the past, or perhaps, we can forgo our ignorant perspective because now we have the means to change. But, how do we enact this change?

Public Health Policy & Law

Research from Jamie Chriqui, Jean O’Connor, and Frank Chaloupka, produced in 2011, evaluated the necessity of policy for public health awareness. Their article, “What Gets Measured Gets Changed: Evaluating Law and Policy for Maximum Impact,” uses examples of tobacco, obesity, and vaccination policy to demonstrate how change takes effect. In their review, they noted the importance of public health policy and law surveillance. In order to enforce behavioral change the “policy inputs” must be measured. In-depth analysis of policy provides information about what does and does not work.

A critical focus of the article concerned the “feedback loop” in making law and policy. In a sense, policy making is a bit of trial and error. Public health policy and law are the tools for change. The results of the implemented policy affect the on-going modification of that very policy. It is important to remember that policies evolve over time.

Ultimately, it is not enough to simply observe a problem, enforce a policy like a bandage, and call it a day. Implementing change is only half the battle. “We must ‘measure’ or evaluate the nuances of a given policy by evaluating its breadth and depth in a systematic and reliable fashion,” write the authors. Continuous surveillance allows policymakers to recognize where policy is successful and where it needs improvement.

Smart Air Manager

In the modern age of awareness, we need to evaluate the spaces where we spend our time as components of health. What’s more, we need to observe the invisible forces at work that affect our lives. We spend 90% of our time indoors, and yet there is little research on how indoor climates affect our health. FutureAir is designing a product to observe our indoor air. This monitoring system will allow us to work smarter to protect our health.

SAM™ is FutureAir’s Smart Air Manager that measures and reports air quality information in real time. SAM™ reports the levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH₄), temperature, and humidity. We already know that these chemicals can create toxic environments. SAM™ tells us when these components reach harmful levels, and it initiates action to improve air quality.

The dashboard above is an overview of a complete week of data generated by SAM™. The bottom axis represents the day of the week, and the line graphs the particles per million of each element in the air (or, in the case of temperature and humidity, the graph shows the degrees and percentage respectively). The graph is also color coordinated for easy reading of the air. When the line is red, the air quality is dangerous–blue indicates air within the normal parameters, as defined by international agencies such as the EPA. The gray shadow map represents the previous day’s measurements for easy comparison.

On this particular graph, the VOC’s and CO levels were hazardously high during the latter half of the week.

SAM is a real-time air quality manager that brings awareness to the invisible problem of indoor air pollution and our health. One day, SAM’s measurements could affect policy and law change.

FutureAir is a means to policy and lawmaking. FutureAir is an investment in public health. Only through opening the door of the great unknown can we change it. “What gets measured gets changed” is the adage for the modern age.

Written by Mollie Wodenshek for FutureAir

References
Chriqui, James, O’Connor, Jean, and Chaloupka, Frank, “What Gets Measured Gets Changed: Evaluating Law and Policy for Maximum Impact,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2011.

Clean Air and Productivity

January 2019

Finally, something we can all agree on–the value of productivity. In our capitalist economy, employers and employees alike search for ways to increase worker output. Facebook and other large corporations have entire campuses for offices. These campuses provide cafeterias, gyms, and dry-cleaning facilities for employees. As a result, employees spend more time on campus and attentive and less time around town distracted.

The secret to productivity is about the workplace environment, but perhaps it is more intuitive than big business, big perks, and bright colors.

Recent research shows that indoor air quality can affect cognitive functions and our health and well being. Cognitive functions are those mental processes that lead to the acquisition of knowledge and allow us to carry out our daily tasks. And are definitely related to the air we breathe. A study by Harvard Business Review reported a five to six percent increase in worker productivity when the Air Quality Index (AQI) was reported as “good,” or between 0-50, rather than “poor,” or between 150-200 (as published by the EPA).

The researchers explained the variations in productivity as a consequence of particulate matter in the air. Particulate matter enters through our nose, mouth, and skin and enters the bloodstream. It travels to our central nervous system (CNS) and lodges in the brain stem. This causes inflammation of the CNS, cortical stress, and cerebrovascular damage. “Greater exposure to fine particles is associated with lower intelligence and diminished performance over a range of cognitive domains,” the study concludes.

The effects of air pollution on worker’s health have been previously researched but focused on workers in outdoor environments. The Harvard study demonstrated, for the first time, that knowledge-based employees also face the dangers of air pollution indoors.

Indoor spaces are containers for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs are the by-products of building materials and cleaning supplies and other pollutants often caused by humans. The unusual combination of these compounds makes them uniquely dangerous. A study conducted in 2013, demonstrated how a just-painted room had a similar effect on participants as consuming alcohol (Satish et al).

A study conducted in 2015 tested cognitive functions amongst participants in different building settings. The buildings were divided into “Conventional”, “Green,” or low VOCs, and “Green +” or “Green” with higher ventilation rates. The experiment was conducted for six days, and on two of those days, researchers increased the amount of CO₂ in the air. Each day the participants took a test that examined nine cognitive functions. The “Green” setting demonstrated a 61% increase in cognitive function, while the “Green +” setting showed a 101% increase in cognitive function.

All this knowledge comes at a cost worth paying attention to. The standard for indoor air quality comes from The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). However, recent research shows that these standards do not maximize employee health. The standards strike a balance between what is acceptable and what is affordable. Green buildings are more effective at increasing productivity and reducing health risks, but they cost a pretty penny.

Increased air quality often requires newer systems and greater ventilation which means more energy. A Harvard study found, “doubling the ventilation rate would cost less than $40 per person per year in all climate zones investigated, and would improve the performance of workers by 8%. This was equated with a $6,500 increase in employee productivity per year.” Although the initial cost may be great, “the increased productivity of an employee is more than 150 times higher than the energy costs associated with increased ventilation.” Though green buildings may impact carbon emissions more than necessary.

The workplace, home, and classroom should be spaces that stimulate the mind. If the workplace is a space we feel good in we will be more productive, if the classroom is invigorating it will encourage children to learn, and if the home is comfortable we will relax. For years we have designed spaces to be ergonomically sound and attractive. Now, with environmental insight constantly advancing, we can create spaces to maximize our attention, productivity, and health.

Written by Mollie Wodenshek for FutureAir

References
Change, Tom, Graff Zivin, Joshua, Gross, Tal, and Neidell, Matthew, “Air Pollution is Making Office Workers Less Productive,” Harvard Business Review, 2016.
MacNaughton, Piers, Satish, Ush, Guillermo, Jose, Lauren, Cedeno, Flanigan, Skye, Vallarino, Jose, Coull, Brent, Spengler, John, and Allen, Joseph, “The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health,” Building and Environment, Volume 114, 2017.
UL Environment, “Technical Brief,” Effects of Indoor Environmental Quality on Performance and Productivity, 2016.

Photo
Courtesy of Flickr user OliBac via Creative Commons

Air Pollution under Trump

December 2018

Back in October, President Trump tweeted a bastardized WHO (World Health Organization) map that purported the U.S. had the cleanest air in the world. Although the U.S. has cleaner air than more populated countries in Asian and African regions, it is far from unpolluted, and farther from innocent.

The original WHO map displayed the levels of PM2.5 around the world. PM stands for particulate matter, and PM2.5 denotes small, but inhalable, particles present in the air that can cause serious health issues. PM2.5 comes from coal power plant emissions, automobiles, wildfires, and other sources. The EPA set the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 at 12μg/m3 in 2012. The current average for the Northeast region in the United States falls beneath 12. However, in the West and the Rockies, the PM2.5 rises above the standard.

The EPA says, “Despite great progress in air quality improvement, approximately 111 million people nationwide lived in counties with pollution levels above the primary NAAQS in 2017.” According to Apte Research group, the levels of PM2.5 in the air reduce life expectancy one whole year on average. Of course, that average considers the best and worst air quality regions. The Apte Research Group reports life expectancy can be reduced by 0.4 years in the cleanest countries and 1.8 years in the most polluted.

Throughout the Obama administration, the U.S. took steps to create regulations to reduce PM2.5, however, in the wake of Andrew Wheeler’s appointment as director of the EPA, regulations are being rolled back, or in some cases, retrospectively revised. In October, the EPA discontinued its air pollution review panel, which makes regulations revisions easier to achieve.

Despite the looming government shutdown, the EPA on December 28, proposed a revision to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The proposed guideline revision would reduce public health as a factor in determining dangerous air pollutants. The Washington Post reported, “the change would prevent regulators from calculating positive health effects — known as “co-benefits” — that come from reducing pollutants other than those being targeted.”

Evidence suggests that Mercury restrictions prevent an average of 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks annually amongst workers. However, the EPA’s actions now suggest, “it was inappropriate to factor in such co-benefits.” The irony is the EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. It seems Andrew Wheeler is struggling or doesn’t care enough to follow the compounding effects of air pollution. Perhaps all the PM2.5 in the air is making his thinking hazy.

The correlations are clear, greenhouse gases are the largest emitter of PM2.5. PM2.5 pollutes the air, is hazardous to breathe, and reduces life expectancy. Now is NOT the time to turn back on progress, but to continue building awareness and understand the effects of air pollution on human health in order to live long healthy lives.

Written by Mollie Wodenshek for FutureAir

References
Apte JS, Brauer M, Cohen AJ, Ezzati M, Pope CA III, “Ambient PM2.5 reduces global and regional life expectancy,” Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 2018.
Dennis, Brady and Eliperin, Juliet, “EPA to make it harder to tighten mercury rules in the future,” The Washington Post, 2018.
Guillén, Alex, “Trump touts U.S. air quality — under Obama,” Politico, 2018.
Sengupta, Somini, “Air Pollution Is Shortening Your Life. Here’s How Much,” The New York Times. 2018.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Trends.”

Photo
Cheshire, Ohio. Captured by Maddie MgGarvey for The New York Times.

Familiar tools for cleaner air

September 2018

The great challenge we face with indoor air pollution is knowing our enemy.

Pollutants come from varied sources, such as household cleaning supplies, pets, chemical finishes, paints, cosmetics, etc. Some of these are harmful chemicals that end up trapped in our home and workspaces. Niko Järvinen of Naava, a company that utilizes plant systems to improve indoor air, says the effects of independent chemicals on the human body may be known, but the health effects of chemical interactions indoors remain uncertain.

Further research has demonstrated the correlation between indoor air pollution and short-term health determinants, such as ENT irritation, headaches, fatigue, and dizziness. Additionally, long-term exposure has been associated with hazardous health issues, such as respiratory and heart diseases, cancer, and potential fatalities.

In order to combat the chemical conundrum, Järvinen’s company installs green walls that act as biofilters. Specific plants absorb the air and purify it at the root level then release clean air in return. The resulting air is far from sterile. The biofiltration systems mimic air composition found in nature which serves to improve health. The resulting air maintained 30-50 chemicals rather than the 300+ chemicals found in an office environment without filtration.

There are even more ways to reduce air pollution inside the home or workplace. Recent research from the University of Utah has demonstrated the potential for indoor air pollution mitigation through the use of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) units. Neal Patwari and Kyeong T. Min set up twelve air pollution sensors in four separate homes. The sensors were distributed inside and outside of the homes. Each home had its HVAC systems set to one of three variables: “Normal,” or HVAC oscillation based on temperature, “SmartAir,” in which the HVAC system operated on temperature and air quality data, and “Always On.”

The experiment concluded that HVAC systems that only responded to temperature data did not clean the air as well as the “SmartAir” or “Always On” settings. The “SmartAir” and “Always On” settings equivalently provided clean air, but the “SmartAir” setting proved 58% more energy efficient! HVAC systems that oscillate according to both air quality and temperature measurements maximize air quality and energy efficiency. But do not forget to clean or change your air filter when necessary.

We may not know the exact sources of indoor air pollution but we can measure and mitigate it. At FutureAir, we are developing SAM to measure air quality so we can act when the air quality is poor–turn on the HVAC, open a window, buy a few plants, or use an essential oil diffuser to reduce pollutants in the home or workplace.

Written by Mollie Wodenshek for FutureAir

References
Gillman, Steven, “Artificial forest air and light-based chemical reactions tackle indoor pollution,” Phys.org.
Olson, Annaliese, “Air Quality at Home: 10 Ways to Purify Your Indoor Environment Naturally,” The Environmental Magazine.
University of Utah, “Clear the Air,” EurekAlert!.

Photo
NAAVA

Want Cleaner Air? Use Less Deodorant

June 2018

Researchers found in a study in February of 2018 that petroleum-based chemicals used in perfumes, deodorants, paints and other consumer products can, taken together, emit as much air pollution in the form of volatile organic compounds, or V.O.C.s, as motor vehicles do.

The researchers said their study was inspired by earlier measurements of V.O.C.s in Los Angeles that showed concentrations of petroleum-based compounds at levels higher than could be predicted from fossil-fuel sources alone.

“These V.O.C.s that you use in everyday products even though it may just be a teaspoon or a squirt or a spray the majority of those kinds of compounds will ultimately end up in the atmosphere, where they can react and contribute to both harmful ozone formation and small-particle formation,” said Dr.Gilman, a research chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration involved in the study. In total, the researchers found that forty percent of the chemicals added to consumer products wind up in the air.

To make their calculations, the study’s authors constructed a computer model that simulated air quality in Los Angeles, weaving in data from the chemical composition of consumer goods and tailpipe emissions. This model enabled the researchers to see the fingerprints of the chemical compounds coming from personal care products and, using these fingerprints, they determined that roughly half of the V.O.C.s in Los Angeles air could be attributed to consumer products.

Ravi Ramalingam, who leads the California Air Resources Board’s consumer products and air quality efforts, said he was not surprised that paints and perfumes were making up a bigger share of emissions as cars and trucks became cleaner. He said his agency was surveying the chemical makeup of about 300,000 consumer products sold or used in California, and preliminary results also suggested that emissions from those products were higher than previously estimated, though by a lesser amount than thought.

Galina Churkina, a research fellow at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies who was not involved in the study, noted that the study did not consider emissions related to biological sources like trees and animals. In response, the authors of the study said that there was still more research to conduct around such topics, as there are tens of thousands of chemicals in consumer products, and researchers have not yet pinpointed which chemicals are most likely to form ozone or PM2.5 particles.

Click here to read the full article.