[Greenbuilding] Stale Air

Stephen Collette stephen at yourhealthyhouse.ca
Wed Dec 15 08:46:46 CST 2010


John and all,

I agree with the age of homes not being an indicator of health. I've had a job with a dead squirrel getting into a rim joist (before he died naturally!) of a 1960's home and have seen older and newer homes with terrible issues. 

It is interesting as we in modern times (for the most part) reduce the heavy exposures like you and others said about coal and wood smoke and heavy particulates, I ponder our tolerance to "stale air" from those days might be greater due to massive exposures to other issues impacting our ability to detect other somewhat minor elements. You can't smell the BO for the coal smoke for example. Now that we have heating sources that spew that stuff outside instead of inside, we are now more aware of stale air, which may have always been present in homes. 

The various levels of ventilation based on occupancy is interesting. Similar to setting back the thermostat, which most homeowners are in the habit of doing. I wonder what kind of energy savings we would gain from an occupancy based ventilation system. That's pretty dynamic for sure to do that. I see my future with a bar code on my forehead, scanning me as go in and out of rooms and my house providing me with fresh conditioned air. How marvelous! 

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this stale air issue. I have thoroughly enjoyed everyone's thoughts. 

Cheers

Stephen

Stephen Collette BBEC, LEED AP, BSSO
Your Healthy House - Indoor Environmental Testing & Building Consulting
http://www.yourhealthyhouse.ca
stephen at yourhealthyhouse.ca
705.652.5159

> 
> We could ventilate less and tolerate it, yes, but the ventilation rates for homes are pretty low already (under 50 cfm for most homes), and yes the irony of ventilating to remove the smell/chemicals of the home is not lost on me.
> We do not hermetically seal house.  We try to, but fail (hence all the blower door tests of 4 5 or 8 ACH at 50Pa)
> the primary reason we airseal is to IMPROVE air quality, as many pollutants are generated outdoors (radon and soil gases, car pollution) or within the enclosure ( mold in walls, dead animals in out attics, etc).  The first step in air quality should, IMHO, be to provide a known quantity of air with a known quality to each space ( aventilation system with a carefully selected air intake location).  Second step is to stop emissions of dangerous pollutants in the homes (source control). Third step is to not drag pollutants into the home (dirt and dust on our feet is a big one like Mr Lamb described, but pollen and allergens need to be controlled via filters on the air intake).
> There is way too much nostalgia and precious little science regarding the air quality of older homes.  Many have quite mediocre air quality, while at the same time having poor comfort and excess energy use.
> The worst houses are the ones in between old and good new: these tighten up the house a bit, but dont provide ventilation, and add a fair bit of pollution from the materials and products used.  New houses should have better air quality than 1800s homes if one follows good IAQ practises and ventilates.
> The worst air quality I have ever seen was some of the yurts in Mongolian (tremendous particulate loadings from open coal stoves resulting in off the chart incidences of respiratory disease) and Botswana earthen huts (smoldering wood cooking fires inside during rainy season).  So old is not often, or even usually, better.
> 
> john

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101215/86b71d98/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list