FE ATURE

Is green air clean air?

The relationship between the quality of our indoor environment and productivity is one that has been known and investigated for many years. Yet in our drive to reduce energy, are we glossing over the importance of indoor air quality? Sean McGowan reports.
It is widely accepted that poor indoor environmental quality (IEQ) contributes to reduced productivity, increased sick leave and staff complaints. Indeed, the CSIRO estimates it costs the Australian economy $12 billion annually. And while we talk about the issue a lot, the rise in importance of green building ratings has ensured the industry is, at least to some degree, doing something about it. But is it enough, and how serious are we, really? As Tony Arnel, chair of the Green Building Council of Australia, has pointed out in this issue (p.16), recent studies in Australia have revealed that staff productivity gains deliver a much larger business benet than energy savings. This is because stafng costs represent a much larger slice of the business budget than does energy. It would therefore seem to make better
18
EcO L I B r I U m M AY 2 0 11

business sense for tenants to place more emphasis on IEQ than energy efciency. Yet its energy efciency that continues to dominate the conversation.

 eeting the rating M requirements for indoor environmental quality doesnt automatically lead to clean, breathable air for building occupants

used interchangeably (see sidebar, The denitions). However, Innovative Plant Technologys Ronald Wood (see also August 2010 Ecolibrium) says the quality of the air we breathe has a more direct effect on our health, workplace performance and subsequent productivity than whether we are thermally comfortable. To achieve productivity gains we need to ensure that green air is really clean air, Wood says. According to Rob Lord, M.AIRAH, of SEED Engineering, it is his experience that tenants are still to identify IEQ as a key accommodation determinant. Given the regularity that comfort and air quality tops the lists of complaints from tenants, this is very strange, he says. Considering the relative economic gains of salaried employees versus extra fresh air impact on plant [costs], it should be a no-brainer.

The most obvious reason is that productivity improvements are much more difcult to measure than energy savings, and that the environmental footprint (CO2/kg) of a building is much more readily worked into a leasing agreement than staff productivity. The terms IEQ and IAQ (indoor air quality) are sometimes confused and

FE ATURE

I guess I dont understand why we treat ourselves so poorly, he adds. The number of studies that promote additional fresh air rates for health and productivity reasons is greater than I can research, so why isnt business clamouring for this? One reason could be the assumption that green buildings those that have been designed around rating systems such as Green Star, NABERS, LEED or BREEAM automatically lead to achieving an acceptable indoor air quality.

weighted credits) to IEQ (20 per cent) than, for instance, NABERS Energy, which tends to drive down minimum outside air rates. But as Wood says, the value of green building practices is not in question. The green building rating system in its various forms is achieving strong growth around the world, with energysaving strategies its strongest driver, Wood says. However, meeting the rating requirements for indoor environmental quality doesnt automatically lead to clean, breathable air for building occupants. He cites Jan Sundell, editor-in-chief of Indoor Air, the international journal of indoor environment and health, who wrote late last year that, there has never been a real connection between green and healthy in regard to green buildings. Sundell questioned whether most green engineers and architects have any knowledge or interest in indoor air sciences or health. Its a view sure to polarise the industry, but is one that Wood shares. ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality recognises there is a difference between real actual and perceived indoor air, Wood says. Occupants perceive the indoor air quality from their assessment of odours, thermal conditions, and if the air seems fresh or stuffy. Actual indoor air should contain no known contaminants at harmful concentrations, and as this obviously cant be guaranteed, ASHRAE performance protocols focus on perceived IAQ. Herein lies a major problem for building occupant health what, if anything, are we measuring in indoor air, and is it relevant? Lord says that the United Nations World Health Organisation (WHO) used to recommend a minimum outside air quantity of 15L/s/p for buildings in the urban environment; compared to AS1668.2, which allows 7.5L/s/p. He says that with the rise in popularity of green buildings, which focus heavily on energy efciency, greater emphasis has been placed on building tightly and not providing anything more than the minimum code-compliant outside air quantities. This can only have a detrimental affect on IAQ.

In really tight buildings, I have witnessed air quality readings above 750ppm CO2 even while ventilating at two and a half times the code requirements, Lord says. It makes me wonder how much of our fresh air code is unwittingly reliant on leakage. The [rating] schemes generally promote a balanced view towards the two issues of IAQ and carbon. But is this the reality of the solutions being put forward? If simultaneously lowering energy and promoting IAQ is so desirable, then why is mixed-mode ventilation not pursued more often? He says this style of ventilation could receive more support from the GBCAs Green Star rating scheme. Lord doesnt buy the argument that natural ventilation doesnt work, particularly given the relatively benign climates of Australias major cities. It is just too hard and too much work to satisfy both natural and mechanical modes within the rating assessment, Lord says.

DOES GrEEN mEaN cLEaN?

Few could argue the advent of such rating systems has not improved the building stock, as well as leading to improved indoor environments. However, a not altogether uncommon presumption connected with green buildings is that not only are they good for the environment, but that they automatically create good environments that they deliver clean air, and that productivity improvements follow suit. This assumption might be attributed to the weighting green building rating systems such as Green Star place on IEQ. The system raises awareness about lifting fresh air rates and air-change effectiveness (ACE), as well as promoting the use of low-volatile organic compound (VOC) materials to achieve improved indoor conditions. Indeed, such is Green Stars focus on IEQ that it offers signicantly more balance in its coverage of energy (25 per cent of total

ThE TrOUBLE wITh OUTSIdE aIr

Although there is strong evidence to support the theory that outside air has fewer pollutants than indoor air, the question is whether it is clean enough, particularly in dense urban areas such as our major cities. According to Steve Moller, M.AIRAH, of Sustainable Built Environments (SBE), the assumption that outside air is cleaner is wishful thinking. The site is not always well considered in terms of opportunities and threats; many inner suburban sites are exposed to noise, dust and vehicle emissions, Moller says, adding that clean air suitable for improving indoor environments has a low level of pollutants, both gases and particulates. He says this is not always the case for outside air. Nevertheless, many studies exploring productivity argue that the introduction of outside air, taking into account quantity, quality, moisture content and ACE have a positive effect on health issues. Says Lord: My favourite [study] that illustrates this is from Carnegie Mellon Universitys Centre for Building Performance and Diagnostics, which
M AY 2 0 11 EcO L I B r I U m

ThE dEFINITIONS
We asked Umow Lai director Roger Kluske, M.AIRAH, who is also president of the Victorian division of AIRAH, for working denitions of indoor environment quality and indoor air quality. Indoor environment quality (IEQ) measures indoor air quality (IAQ) as well as daylighting, glare, thermal comfort, levels of volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, noise levels, mould and the like, Kluske says. IAQ is a subset of IEQ and measures CO levels, ventilation rate air only, in other words.

19

FE ATURE

reects on 17 different studies in HVACrelated IEQ and what it means in terms of percentage improvement in health issues. Allegedly over half of our illnesses at work are caught from return-air systems. In healthcare institutions, this gure is much less, perhaps due to the greater diligence around cleaning and ltration. I imagine productivity falls when there is a greater percentage of return air, ltration performance is not specied or maintained, and when outside air rates are maintained as low as possible all of the time. Woods view is that regardless of the ventilation system in place, outside air ventilation is an inappropriate method for improving IAQ because it has been contaminated through industrial processes, motor vehicle emissions, including ne particles from diesel exhausts, and consumer products. Ventilation and air-exchange systems are designed to effectively ush the internal air of a building and limit the build-up of pollutants and irritants, he says. But outdoor air is inherently polluted. Just like the water we drink, air is something that cannot be created, it can only be recycled. We dont knowingly drink polluted water yet we routinely breathe contaminated air. Another problem associated with the use of outside air to ush out indoor air pollutants is that little is known about the chemical reactions of some 80,000 chemicals that have been created in the last century, most since World War II. According to Reverend Professor Michael Humphreys of the Department of Architecture at Oxford Brookes University in the UK, not only are there multitudes of different substances in the air, but we

know very little about the effects of most of them on human well-being. And every year we invent more of them, he says. Also, they do not act in isolation, but can interact with each one another. We know even less about the effects of these innumerable interactions. Many of these indoor chemical reactions are thought to be the source of irritants, which can impact on occupant health.

the level of dust and particulates in the indoor environment, without necessarily having any real impact on air quality. Where HEPA (high efciency particulate air) ltration is used to improve air quality, even higher capital and energy costs due to increased pressure drops and the requirement for larger fans are experienced, yet VOCs are still not removed. There are a number of other limitations with HEPA lters that make it essential to combine ltration with other technologies in order to ensure effectiveness in a ventilation system, says Wood, adding that gas-phase or particle ltration is the only effective solution to indoor air pollution in the workplace. According to SBEs Moller, while good ltration of particulates is commonplace, gaseous pollutants are better dealt with by minimising them at the source and then diluting them through increased outside air rates. He says the industry needs to be talking more about the subject, and locating our intakes in the cleanest air, as well as reducing indoor pollutants.

Indoor air quality is the least understood, most difcult to measure, most difcult to improve and yet the most important to occupant health.

Without effective, high-quality ltration, Wood believes increased fresh air intended to improve indoor air quality simply increases energy costs without any commensurate improvement. An increased ventilation rate may only be treating the symptoms rather than the cause, Humphreys says. And additional airow from these ventilation modes substantially increases building operating costs, consuming as much as 30 per cent of the total energy use. As such, he says effective ltration remains the weak link in achieving improved IAQ and IEQ. Although research has shown the use of plants as being successful in ltering VOCs, effective HVAC ltration comes with signicant capital, operation (energy) and maintenance costs. The result? Filtration often being employed only to protect the HVAC system and to reduce

ThE NEEd FOr prOGrESSION

The hurdle in achieving better indoor environments appears to be in the denitions the industry uses. What is clean air? Indoor air is primarily measured by CO2 readings, with AS1668 prescribing a maximum allowable concentration of 1000ppm. IAQ testing as specied by NABERS and Green Star goes further, taking into account CO2, particulate matter PM2.5, PM1 and VOCs. Wood says the physical measurement of CO2 and carbon monoxide (CO) levels are taken as the surrogate markers of air quality. Indoor air quality testing as specied by NABERS and the GBCA provides only a snapshot of contaminant levels, even for extended monitoring, and is more than likely being measured because we can, rather than the more complex testing of known chemical reactions, Wood says. He says while progress has been made in addressing the various factors contributing to the improvement of IEQ, IAQ remains an unresolved issue.

20

EcO L I B r I U m M AY 2 0 11

FE ATURE

Indoor air quality is fundamental to high-performance green building design, construction and operation, yet it has no universally accepted denition, Wood says. Indoor air quality is the least understood, most difcult to measure, most difcult to improve and yet the most important to occupant health. A preoccupation with thermal comfort and occupant perceptions of indoor air quality has diverted attention away from improving real indoor air quality. There is a need to progress from creating comfortable indoor environments to healthy indoor environments. Moller says it may be time for the industry to revisit the basis of AS1668. Are our indoor and outdoor conditions cleaner or dirtier now than when AS1668 was last revised? he questions. The US Centre for Disease Control identies three categories it says are the common cause of allergies: particulates such as dust and pollens; bioaerosols including moulds and bacteria; and VOCs.

Lord would like to see any future standard address these issues. In each of these categories, there is no doubt that air purication is the response, he says. But whether this is achieved by greater dilution through the use of more outside air, or greater ltration levels, and possibly a variety of lter types, this ought to be the decision of the designer and not necessarily the standard writer. In the meantime, the assumption by many that green air is clean air is likely to continue; however, so long as awareness of these issues continues to grow, it may not necessarily be a bad thing. Lord says while some may perceive the greater number of weighted points implies a prioritisation of energy efciency over IAQ, this perception doesnt survive investigation. Rather, he suspects the issue gets back to the fact that we can measure carbon more easily than occupant productivity.

Just imagine the scene if the reverse were true, Lord asks. Imagine a day where the NABERS IEQ rating became as heavily supported by government rebates and by brief writers as the NABERS Energy rating currently is. Our attempts at delivering quality indoor environments are littered with failures, from Sick Building Syndrome to the reduction of outside air rates as a result of the rst oil crisis. But money talks, and just as building owners and tenants have recognised the impact of energy efciency on their bottom lines, so too will they come to recognise the link between IEQ, employee health and productivity gains. My view is that my employers are growing more cognisant of the impact of employee health on the bottom line, says Lord. The growing adoption of workstation ventilation is a sign there may be change coming.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

A I R C O N T R O L

H E A T I N G

&

C O O L I N G

VAV Terminal Units Active Chilled Beams Volume Dampers Fire Dampers Intumescent Dampers Spiral Duct

Heat/Cool/Vent Systems WarmAir Evaporative Cooling Water Source Heat Pumps

1800 245 346 info@celmec.com.au www.celmec.com.au

M AY 2 0 11 EcO L I B r I U m

21