AN INVESTIGATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN THE INDOOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING ENVIRONMENT (TEXAS)

Manufactured housing has been found to have substantial levels of formaldehyde in the indoor air. Because mobile homes are more affordable than conventional housing, there has been a large increase in their use in the U.S. This increase in mobile home use has been substantial in the sunbelt regions such as Texas, where high temperatures and humidities may enhance out-gassing of formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds from construction and furnishing materials and increase any potential health hazards.^ The influences of environmental, architectural and temporal factors on the presence of indoor formaldehyde and other organic compounds were investigated in conjunction with the Texas Indoor Air Quality Study of manufactured housing. A matched pair of mobile homes, one with electric heating and cooking utilities and the other with propane gas utilities, were used for a series of controlled experiments over a fourteen month period from October, 1982 through November, 1983.^ Over this fourteen month period formaldehyde levels decreased approximately 33%. Daily fluctuations of 20% to 40% were observed even with a constant indoor temperature. An increase in indoor temperature of 8(DEGREES)C doubled the measured formaldehyde concentration. Opening windows resulted in decreases of indoor formaldehyde levels of up to 50%. Studies of the impact of propane as a cooking source showed no increase in formaldehyde levels with stove use.^ The presence and concentration of selected volatile organic compounds is influenced greatest by occupancy. Occupants continually open and close windows and doors, vary the operation and settings (temperature) of air control systems, and vary in their selection of furnishings and use of consumer products, which may act as sources of indoor air contaminants. ^

Use of light intensity, temperature, and humidity to verify exposure location

Research studies on the association between exposures to air contaminants and disease frequently use worn dosimeters to measure the concentration of the contaminant of interest. But investigation of exposure determinants requires additional knowledge beyond concentration, i.e., knowledge about personal activity such as whether the exposure occurred in a building or outdoors. Current studies frequently depend upon manual activity logging to record location. This study's purpose was to evaluate the use of a worn data logger recording three environmental parameters—temperature, humidity, and light intensity—as well as time of day, to determine indoor or outdoor location, with an ultimate aim of eliminating the need to manually log location or at least providing a method to verify such logs. For this study, data collection was limited to a single geographical area (Houston, Texas metropolitan area) during a single season (winter) using a HOBO H8 four-channel data logger. Data for development of a Location Model were collected using the logger for deliberate sampling of programmed activities in outdoor, building, and vehicle locations at various times of day. The Model was developed by analyzing the distributions of environmental parameters by location and time to establish a prioritized set of cut points for assessing locations. The final Model consisted of four "processors" that varied these priorities and cut points. Data to evaluate the Model were collected by wearing the logger during "typical days" while maintaining a location log. The Model was tested by feeding the typical day data into each processor and generating assessed locations for each record. These assessed locations were then compared with true locations recorded in the manual log to determine accurate versus erroneous assessments. The utility of each processor was evaluated by calculating overall error rates across all times of day, and calculating individual error rates by time of day. Unfortunately, the error rates were large, such that there would be no benefit in using the Model. Another analysis in which assessed locations were classified as either indoor (including both building and vehicle) or outdoor yielded slightly lower error rates that still precluded any benefit of the Model's use.^

A feasibility study for assessing building occupants' indoor air quality expectations compared to nationally recognized standards

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) can have significant implications for health, productivity, job performance, and operating cost. Professional experience in the field of indoor air quality suggests that high expectations (better than nationally established standards) (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)) of workplace indoor air quality lead to increase air quality complaints. To determine whether there is a positive association between expectations and indoor air quality complaints, a one-time descriptive and analytical cross-sectional pilot study was conducted. Area Safety Liaisons (n = 330) at University of Texas Health Science Center – Houston were asked to answer a questionnaire regarding their expectations of four workplace indoor air quality indicators i.e., (temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide) and if they experienced and reported indoor air quality problems. A chi-square test for independence was used to evaluate associations among the variables of interest. The response rate was 54% (n = 177). Results did not show significant associations between expectation and indoor air quality. However, a greater proportion of Area Safety Liaisons who expected indoor air quality indicators to be better than the established standard experienced greater indoor air quality problems. Similarly, a slightly higher proportion of Area Liaisons who expected indoor air quality indicators to be better than the standard reported greater indoor air quality complaints. ^ The findings indicated that a greater proportion of Area Safety Liaisons with high expectations (conditions that are beyond what is considered normal and acceptable by ASHRAE) experienced greater indoor air quality discomfort. This result suggests a positive association between high expectations and experienced and reported indoor air quality complaints. Future studies may be able to address whether the frequency of complaints and resulting investigations can be reduced through information and education about what are acceptable conditions.^

Pilot study assessment of indoor air quality in two dental settings: Particulate matter and volatile organic compounds

Objective: To assess the indoor environment of two different types of dental practices regarding VOCs, PM2.5, and ultrafine particulate concentrations and examine the relationship between specific dental activities and contaminant levels. Method: The indoor environments of two selected dental settings (private practice and community health center) will were assessed in regards to VOCs, PM 2.5, and ultrafine particulate concentrations, as well as other indoor air quality parameters (CO2, CO, temperature, and relative humidity). The sampling duration was four working days for each dental practice. Continuous monitoring and integrated sampling methods were used and number of occupants, frequency, type, and duration of dental procedures or activities recorded. Measurements were compared to indoor air quality standards and guidelines. Results: The private practice had higher CO2, CO, and most VOC concentrations than the community health center, but the community health center had higher PM2.5 and ultrafine PM concentrations. Concentrations of p-dichlorobenzene and PM2.5 exceeded some guidelines. Outdoor concentrations greatly influenced the indoor concentration. There were no significant differences in contaminant levels between the operatory and general area. Indoor concentrations during the working period were not always consistently higher than during the nonworking period. Peaks in particulate matter concentration occurred during root canal and composite procedures.^