Mark C Jackson

Home energy-efficiency retrofits.

In the February 2011 issue of EHP, Manuel (2011) took an important look at some potential adverse health implications of home energy retrofits. Here, we further discuss the complexity of possible indoor environmental concerns and encourage incorporation of comprehensive homeowner education campaigns in weatherization programs. The reduction of air infiltration by air sealing is a common energy retrofit measure (McCold et al. 2008). Several field studies of weatherized homes have reported average reductions in air leakage of 13–40% (Berry and Brown 1994; Judkoff et al. 1988), although the impact of weatherization on actual air exchange rates and indoor pollutant concentrations is poorly understood. Moreover, studies have seldom evaluated the effects of weatherization on low-income groups or vulnerable populations (e.g., asthmatic or elderly), although occupants in low-income residences are at higher risk for many indoor environmental hazards (Evans and Kantrowitz 2002), and some population subgroups may also be disproportionately affected by indoor air pollution (Hun et al. 2009). Although some research exists on the impact of weatherization on indoor concentrations of combustion products, radon, and moisture, other indoor pollutants deserve attention. For example, Logue et al. (2011) identified nine priority indoor air pollutant hazards in U.S. residences, which, among others, have been associated with a wide range of both chronic and acute health effects (e.g., benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, particulate matter < 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter). Moreover, reducing air exchange rates in residences will likely increase indoor concentrations of reactive pollutants and the probability of chemical reactions occurring between them indoors (Weschler and Shields 2000), generating by-products associated with respiratory symptoms and asthma, such as low-molecular-weight aldehydes, dicarbonyls, and secondary organic aerosols (Jarvis et al. 2005). On the other hand, reductions in air infiltration should decrease penetration of outdoor pollutants, which is of particular importance in traditionally leakier low-income households (Chan et al. 2005) in neighborhoods with high outdoor air pollution. Thus, we urge the environmental health community to investigate the net effects of weatherization on a wide variety of indoor and outdoor pollutants and health outcomes. Implementation of home energy retrofits also creates an opportunity to incorporate innovative, engaging homeowner education strategies to reduce both energy consumption and indoor environmental risks. Occupant behavior has a major influence on both energy consumption (Allcott and Mullainathan 2010) and indoor exposures to pollutants (Meng et al. 2005). Furthermore, many indoor air quality risks can be mitigated with relatively simple home behavior practices, such as using exhaust fans, avoiding toxic cleaning chemicals, and using appropriate air cleaners (Brugge et al. 2003). However, we have learned from research on household energy consumption that educational materials alone usually fail to alter behaviors (Charles 2009). Greater energy savings from home retrofits could be achieved by complementing homeowner education campaigns with regular feedback on energy use and economically motivational programs (Peschiera et al. 2010). Additionally, home walkthroughs with trained building specialists can identify energy-inefficient behaviors and appliances in conjunction with potential indoor environmental hazards. These and other behavior-change strategies to promote green and healthy housing should be made available to weatherization programs across the country, and their effectiveness should be assessed. Because home weatherization is currently a priority of the federal government, this is a crucial time to address these fundamental research questions and implement the findings nationwide.

A coupled sensor-spectrophotometric device for continuous measurement of formaldehyde in indoor environments.

Despite long-standing awareness of adverse health effects associated with chronic human exposure to formaldehyde, this hazardous air pollutant remains a challenge to measure in indoor environments. Traditional analytical techniques evaluate formaldehyde concentrations over several hours to several days in a single location in a residence, making it difficult to characterize daily temporal and spatial variation in human exposure to formaldehyde. There is a need for portable, easy-to-use devices that are specific and sensitive to gas-phase formaldehyde over short sampling periods so that dynamic processes governing formaldehyde fate, transport, and potential remediation in indoor environments may be studied more effectively. A recently developed device couples a chemical sensor element with spectrophotometric analysis for detection and quantification of part per billion (ppbv) gas-phase formaldehyde concentrations. This study established the ability of the coupled sensor-spectrophotometric device (CSSD) to report formaldehyde concentrations accurately and continuously on a 30-min sampling cycle at low ppbv concentrations previously untested for this device in a laboratory setting. Determination of the method detection limit (MDL), based on 40 samples each at test concentrations of 5 and 10 ppbv, was found to be 1.9 and 2.0 ppbv, respectively. Performance of the CSSD was compared with the dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) derivatization method for formaldehyde concentrations ranging from 5–50 ppbv, and a linear relationship with a coefficient of determination of 0.983 was found between these two analytical techniques. The CSSD was also used to monitor indoor formaldehyde concentrations in two manufactured homes. During this time, formaldehyde concentrations varied from below detection limit to 65 ppbv and were above the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit (REL) of 16 ppbv, which is also the exposure limit value now adopted by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to procure manufactured housing, 80% and 100% of the time, respectively.

Priorities in indoor environmental science and health, as students see them

In a recent Indoor Air editorial (Volume 19, Issue 4, 2009), editor Jan Sundell wrote Indoor Air as a journal, as well as indoor air as a science, will die unless we start to co-operate, as Indoor Air and the society behind it, ISIAQ, are all aboutmultidisciplinary science! Howdire! Whether we consider deleterious effects in complex modern buildings or in rudimentary indoor systems in the developing world, indoor environments are fraught with human health hazards. Our highest goal, then, should not be to recruit lifelong indoor environmental scientists and engineers, but rather to clearly define human health challenges that take root in indoor environments and engage the expertise of teams and individuals from relevant disciplines to address them. Thus, while agreeing with Sundell s quote, we propose an alternate diction: Indoor environmental science and health research will flourish and progress when members from multiple disciplines collaborate and work toward common goals. Multiple disciplines cannot force common goals, yet solutions to problems in our field naturally encourage collaboration. The research questions in our field benefit from the inclusion of specialists from many disciplines, even if they do not focus entirely on indoor environments. Perhaps our field would further prosper by outcome-driven projects relying on many different outside specialists who would come to know the nature of our work in bits and pieces, rather than by convincing a few small groups of researchers to devote their careers to indoor environmental studies. In July 2009, with these collaborative goals in mind, we, the student members of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program in Indoor Environmental Science and Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin gathered to discuss research priorities in our field and to highlight some impending grand challenges we face as emerging indoor environmental scientists, but also as members of a larger, environmentally concerned scientific community. We produced the following list of priorities fromanovel, and previously unpublished, perspective: that of students.

Editorial: Priorities in indoor environmental science and health, as students see them: Editorial

In a recent Indoor Air editorial (Volume 19, Issue 4, 2009), editor Jan Sundell wrote Indoor Air as a journal, as well as indoor air as a science, will die unless we start to co-operate, as Indoor Air and the society behind it, ISIAQ, are all aboutmultidisciplinary science! Howdire! Whether we consider deleterious effects in complex modern buildings or in rudimentary indoor systems in the developing world, indoor environments are fraught with human health hazards. Our highest goal, then, should not be to recruit lifelong indoor environmental scientists and engineers, but rather to clearly define human health challenges that take root in indoor environments and engage the expertise of teams and individuals from relevant disciplines to address them. Thus, while agreeing with Sundell s quote, we propose an alternate diction: Indoor environmental science and health research will flourish and progress when members from multiple disciplines collaborate and work toward common goals. Multiple disciplines cannot force common goals, yet solutions to problems in our field naturally encourage collaboration. The research questions in our field benefit from the inclusion of specialists from many disciplines, even if they do not focus entirely on indoor environments. Perhaps our field would further prosper by outcome-driven projects relying on many different outside specialists who would come to know the nature of our work in bits and pieces, rather than by convincing a few small groups of researchers to devote their careers to indoor environmental studies. In July 2009, with these collaborative goals in mind, we, the student members of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program in Indoor Environmental Science and Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin gathered to discuss research priorities in our field and to highlight some impending grand challenges we face as emerging indoor environmental scientists, but also as members of a larger, environmentally concerned scientific community. We produced the following list of priorities fromanovel, and previously unpublished, perspective: that of students.

Editorial: Priorities in indoor environmental science and health, as students see them

In a recent Indoor Air editorial (Volume 19, Issue 4, 2009), editor Jan Sundell wrote Indoor Air as a journal, as well as indoor air as a science, will die unless we start to co-operate, as Indoor Air and the society behind it, ISIAQ, are all aboutmultidisciplinary science! Howdire! Whether we consider deleterious effects in complex modern buildings or in rudimentary indoor systems in the developing world, indoor environments are fraught with human health hazards. Our highest goal, then, should not be to recruit lifelong indoor environmental scientists and engineers, but rather to clearly define human health challenges that take root in indoor environments and engage the expertise of teams and individuals from relevant disciplines to address them. Thus, while agreeing with Sundell s quote, we propose an alternate diction: Indoor environmental science and health research will flourish and progress when members from multiple disciplines collaborate and work toward common goals. Multiple disciplines cannot force common goals, yet solutions to problems in our field naturally encourage collaboration. The research questions in our field benefit from the inclusion of specialists from many disciplines, even if they do not focus entirely on indoor environments. Perhaps our field would further prosper by outcome-driven projects relying on many different outside specialists who would come to know the nature of our work in bits and pieces, rather than by convincing a few small groups of researchers to devote their careers to indoor environmental studies. In July 2009, with these collaborative goals in mind, we, the student members of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program in Indoor Environmental Science and Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin gathered to discuss research priorities in our field and to highlight some impending grand challenges we face as emerging indoor environmental scientists, but also as members of a larger, environmentally concerned scientific community. We produced the following list of priorities fromanovel, and previously unpublished, perspective: that of students.