Building energy saving techniques and indoor air quality : a dilemma

In European countries and North America, people spend 80 to 90% of time inside buildings and thus breathe indoor air. In Switzerland, special attention has been devoted to the 16 stations of the national network of observation of atmospheric pollutants (NABEL). The results indicate a reduction in outdoor pollution over the last ten years. With such a decrease in pollution over these ten years the question becomes: how can we explain an increase of diseases? Indoor pollution can be the cause. Indoor contaminants that may create indoor air quality (IAQ) problems come from a variety of sources. These can include inadequate ventilation, temperature and humidity dysfunction, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The health effects from these contaminants are varied and can range from discomfort, irritation and respiratory diseases to cancer. Among such contaminants, environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) could be considered the most important in terms of both health effects and engineering controls of ventilation. To perform indoor pollution monitoring, several selected ETS tracers can be used including carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), respirable particles (RSP), condensate, nicotine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, etc. In this paper, some examples are presented of IAQ problems that have occurred following the renewal of buildings and energy saving concerns. Using industrial hygiene sampling techniques and focussing on selected priority pollutants used as tracers, various problems have been identified and solutions proposed. [Author]

Major mite allergen Der f 1 concentration is reduced in buildings with improved energy performance.

BACKGROUND: Environmental conditions play a crucial role in mite growth, and optimal environmental control is key in the prevention of airway inflammation in chronic allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between building energy performance and indoor mite allergen concentration in a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Major allergen concentration (Der f 1, Der p 1, mite group 2, Fel d 1 and Bla g 2) was determined by quantitative dot blot analysis from mattress and carpet dust samples in five buildings designed for low energy use (LEB) and in six control buildings (CB). Inhabitants had received 4 weeks prior to mite measurement a personal validated questionnaire related to the perceived state of health and comfort of living. RESULTS: Cumulative mite allergen concentration (with Der f 1 as the major contributor) was significantly lower in LEB as compared with CB both in mattresses and in carpets. In contrast, the two categories of buildings did not differ in Bla g 2 and Fel d 1 concentration, in the amount of dust and airborne mould collected. Whereas temperature was higher in LEB, relative humidity was significantly lower than in CB. Perceived overall comfort was better in LEB. CONCLUSIONS: Major mite allergen Der f 1 preferentially accumulates in buildings not specifically designed for low energy use, reaching levels at risk for sensitization. We hypothesize that controlled mechanical ventilation present in all audited LEB may favour lower air humidity and hence lower mite growth and allergen concentration, while preserving optimal perceived comfort.