Energy use assessment of educational buildings: Toward a campus-wide sustainable energy policy

The purpose of this article is to assess the viability of blanket sustainability policies, such as Building Rating Systems in achieving energy efficiency in university campus buildings. We analyzed the energy consumption trends of 10 LEED-certified buildings and 14 non-LEED certified buildings at a major university in the US. Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of the LEED buildings was significantly higher (EUILEED= 331.20 kBtu/sf/yr) than non-LEED buildings (EUInon-LEED=222.70 kBtu/sf/yr); however, the median EUI values were comparable (EUILEED= 172.64 and EUInon-LEED= 178.16). Because the distributions of EUI values were non-symmetrical in this dataset, both measures can be used for energy comparisons—this was also evident when EUI computations exclude outliers, EUILEED=171.82 and EUInon-LEED=195.41. Additional analyses were conducted to further explore the impact of LEED certification on university campus buildings energy performance. No statistically significant differences were observed between certified and non-certified buildings through a range of robust comparison criteria. These findings were then leveraged to devise strategies to achieve sustainable energy policies for university campus buildings and to identify potential issues with portfolio level building energy performance comparisons.

Clinical Accuracy of the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem) and predicted REE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS: Cancer patients (n = 18) and healthy subjects (n = 17) aged 37-86 y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42 kg/m(2). INTERVENTIONS: Oxygen consumption (VO(2)) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10% and limits of agreement were -42 to 21% for cancer patients; mean bias -5% with limits of -45 to 35% for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n = 7, 46.7%) and only a third (n = 5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of -5% for cancer patients and 4% for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of -30 to 20% and -27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.