If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now
ASHRAE

Indoor Air Quality Standard Modified

ASHRAEASHRAE has proposed an alternate compliance path for existing buildings in its indoor air quality standard, in a move that recognizes that the ventilation rate procedure may be difficult to apply in these facilities.

Proposed addendum b is one of six addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, open for public comment through Oct. 5, 2014.

Responding to increasing interest in sustainability in existing buildings, Standard 62.1 is cited frequently as a criterion for evaluating ventilation systems in existing buildings. Examples include LEED-EBOM, Energy Star and bEQ. Some building categories, such as K-12 schools and office buildings, are frequently renovated and often have multiple zone systems that provide HVAC to similar space types.

ASHRAE says Section 6 (including the ventilation rate procedure) of the standard was developed as a design standard. As such, Section 6 and Normative Appendix A have the complexity to allow for many complex system designs and airflow pathways. The scope of the standard states in part “the provisions of this standard are not intended to be applied retroactively when the standard is used as a mandatory regulation or code.”

Proposed addendum b provides an alternate path of compliance that is needed by the marketplace for those situations where information required to determine system performance is unavailable or for smaller facilities with straightforward multiple zone applications, according to ASHRAE.

Also open for public comment is proposed addendum c, which would revise the current definition of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to include emissions from electronic smoking devices and from smoking of cannabis, now allowed by some jurisdictions. The existing requirements for separation of ETS-free spaces from ETS spaces remain unchanged. The proposed addendum also would clarify that provision of acceptable indoor air quality is incompatible with the presence of ETS, including cannabis smoke and e-cigarette emissions.

Last month ASHRAE, the International Code Council, the American Institute of Architects, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and the US Green Building Council signed a memorandum to collaborate on the development of Standard 189.1, the International Green Construction Code and the LEED green building program.

 

Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards 2017
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

  
6 Things to Consider When Deciding Whether to Build or Buy Software
Sponsored By: Progressly

  
The EHS Guidebook: Selecting, Implementing, and Using EHS Software Solutions
Sponsored By: EtQ

  
Packaging LED & Advanced Rooftop Unit Control (ARC) Retrofits for Maximum Performance
Sponsored By: Transformative Wave

  

4 thoughts on “Indoor Air Quality Standard Modified

  1. First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

    I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Catchy title. I was intrigued.

    This quote caught my eye:

    Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

    In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

    Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

    Continued…

    Method and Rates of Application

    ….

    Air Sanitizer

    Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

    A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

    General Toxicity Observations

    Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

    Carcinogenicity Classification

    A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

    Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

    2. FQPA Safety Factor

    The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

    In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

    The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

    An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

    I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

    http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/

  2. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    nap.edu

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  3. The source of the (neglible at WORST) chemicals is an unacceptble criterion. If ecigs violate clean air standards, then they violate it, if they do not, then they do not. Why would a scienfically-based organization violate their scientific reputation for a political point that is easily scientifically disproven? I do not object to environmental standards for THC in the air, nor do I object to environmental standards for food flavorings, the most-unknown ecigs component. Bear in mind that such standards would cause problems for fajitas, bananas foster, and possibly coffee bars.

  4. I believe there are two sides to every story. This article was recently published and it does an amazing job on conveying that. I believe that the American public should be informed of all sides of this issue/debate, b/c it affects millions. This is not something to shy away from. http://www.clearette.com/blog/e-cig-propaganda/ I pray that the FDA makes the right decisions and that we can prosper and continue to innovate technology to cure all of this. THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE!

Leave a Comment