Re: The Lesser of Two Evils

[Guest guest]

Dear Colleagues:

I'm thinking that the comparison you present is a little bit of apples versus

oranges.

I'm concern about the degradation of the indoor environment for the health of

people where the indoor CO2 peaks at 1,500 ppm. To me, this represents a

ventilation deficiency, where not only the bioeffluents persist longer in the

indoor environment, but the likelihood of the airborne sharing of cold and flu

viruses also increases significantly. the other bioeffluents that will build up

include the metabolic waste products from the bacteria living on people's skin,

and the pheremones that will make people drowsy.

I also wonder if the assumption that there is no VOC or off-gassing issue is

valid. I wonder if there are copiers and laser printers emitting their slew of

nasties that also aren't being rapidly diluted and removed from the indoor

environment.

Sincerely,

W. Bearg, PE, CIH

--

LIFE ENERGY ASSOCIATES

20 Darton Street

Concord, MA 01742-5710

www.LifeEnergyAssoc.com

-------------- Original message ----------------------

> Assuming no VOC or offgassing problem which of the two secnarios is

> worse

>

> 1)A building peaking each day at 1500 ppm CO2, rh under 50%, spores

> less than ambient air

>

> 2)A Building peaking at 700 ppm CO2, 75% RH, spores 3000 to 5000

> counts per cubic meter predominantly Penicilium/Apsergillus while

> ambient air count approximatley 70 per cubic meter predominately

> ascosproes and ganoderma.

>

> 1 sure sounds a lot better than 2 in my opinion.

>

> Ambinet CO2 will float 400 to 450 ppm so this would be exceeding

> ambinet plus 700. Funnything with ambient plus 700, you could have

> urban traffic gridlock and exceed 600 ppm CO2 outside, then be 1300

> ppm inside and somehow compliant

>

>

>

>

>

Assuming no VOC or offgassing problem which of the two secnarios is

worse

1)A building peaking each day at 1500 ppm CO2, rh under 50%, spores

less than ambient air

2)A Building peaking at 700 ppm CO2, 75% RH, spores 3000 to 5000

counts per cubic meter predominantly Penicilium/Apsergillus while

ambient air count approximatley 70 per cubic meter predominately

ascosproes and ganoderma.

1 sure sounds a lot better than 2 in my opinion.

Ambinet CO2 will float 400 to 450 ppm so this would be exceeding

ambinet plus 700. Funnything with ambient plus 700, you could have

urban traffic gridlock and exceed 600 ppm CO2 outside, then be 1300

ppm inside and somehow compliant

[Guest guest]

The building is an assembly occupancy that has been plagued with

consistently high RH. It has been remediated already and will be

remediated again.

I traversed the fresh air duct and measured the actual ventilation

rate, it is sufficient for 90 persons according to 2007 62.1 and

this would be adequate for the vast majority of the time.

Approximately 12 staff work in this building CO2 is peaking at 700

PPM, and a normal fully occupied level of the building would be less

than 90 persons.

There is the potential for rare periods of time where upwards to 220

will be present for a few hours, and the latest time averaging in

62.1 does not yield much reduction in the ventilation rate.

This is a year round cooling environment, dry season ambient

dewpoints will be 70 to 75F, 72 is a decent average, the rainy

season will be 77 to 84F dewpoints, I use 80 dewpoint as my

design,level and it has been true to me. Published design conditions

do not exist.

Prior to the first remediation, certified hygenist reports said to

add more fresh air to certain areas at 15 CFM per person, this was

followed and the situation worsened.

The prime problem with this building, is large volumes of humid

ventilation air does not get pretreated before being introduced to

the space. This can be rectified and steps can be taken to

significantly improve the part load and the full load

dehumidification capacity; however at the ventialtion rate needed

for the fullest occupancy, the system will be overwhelemed with

mositure.

Do you increase the ventialtion rate and allow RH to spike over 70%

for a few hours every month in a building that will have been

remediated twice in 3 years or do you put in high capacity humidity

control to " CYA " for the absolute worse case scenario,? Lol,

the 'good engineering judgement'. More than likely " CYA " phobia will

result in increasing dehumidification capacity by 1000 pounds per

day so as not to be perceived as violating the latest ventilation

standard.

A year ago, I built four air tight condos here in the tropics, fresh

air can be brought compliance with 62.2. I live in one unit.

If I operate my air handler fan continuously my relative humidity

levels will fluctuate from 60 to 72%. Coil mositure is re-evaporated

in the off cycle, and the fresh air coming in steadily elevates the

humidity. I have a lot of data operating the system in this mode and

you can also see that 62.2 relies on some infiltration.

If I operate the air handler in Auto mode, just cycling with a

cooling call I can consistently hold relative humidity below 45%. If

I drop my air handler fan speed to maximize dehumidification, I can

hold relative humidity, under 40%. This is amazingly dry for the

tropics.

The problem in my own home is over night CO2 will climb up around

1800 PPM as we sleep. Next round of experiments are in place

already, and this will involve an inline fan to increase the

intermittent ventilation rate when the cooling coil is infact cold.

But back to this assembly building, it is a prime candidate for a

ventilation system that changes the fresh air rate based on the

amount of people present.

But all things equal peaking, at 1500 PPM CO2 under a rare maximum

occupancy load with humidity in check,has to be infinitely better

than breathing the spores from a fungal jungle and constantly

remediating the building.

It is like the IAQ Catch 22. We increase ventilation in an attempt

to provide better indoor air quality, but we also increase the risk

of driving up relative humidity which leads to mold and poor IAQ.

Sometimes I think we want to add more fresh air too quickly and are

basically making dehumidifier salesmen like the esteemed Mr. Ken

more wealthy.

Can anyone point out a study that isolates CO2 impacts by itself. So

far I only see OSHA saying 8 hours at 5000 PPM, others stating some

people are plagued with migraines at 2500 PPM, or 700 PPM above

ambient etc. So far I have not had migraines, nor do I feel that I

am destroying my own brain cells as my home climbs from 600 PPM to

1800 PPM CO2. My poor spelling is attributed to laziness, a touch of

dyslexia and not a loss of brain cells from elevated CO2.

My next step is to have our outdoor air quality here analyzed, but I

think I will not have to worry about particulate matter, ozone, etc,

this is not LA, Denver or the eastern seaboard, it is a small

windswept island in the middle of no where.

>

> Dear Colleagues:

>

> I'm thinking that the comparison you present is a little bit of

apples versus oranges.

>

> I'm concern about the degradation of the indoor environment for

the health of people where the indoor CO2 peaks at 1,500 ppm. To

me, this represents a ventilation deficiency, where not only the

bioeffluents persist longer in the indoor environment, but the

likelihood of the airborne sharing of cold and flu viruses also

increases significantly. the other bioeffluents that will build up

include the metabolic waste products from the bacteria living on

people's skin, and the pheremones that will make people drowsy.

>

> I also wonder if the assumption that there is no VOC or off-

gassing issue is valid. I wonder if there are copiers and laser

printers emitting their slew of nasties that also aren't being

rapidly diluted and removed from the indoor environment.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> W. Bearg, PE, CIH

>

> --

> LIFE ENERGY ASSOCIATES

> 20 Darton Street

> Concord, MA 01742-5710

> www.LifeEnergyAssoc.com

>

>

> -------------- Original message ----------------------

>

> > Assuming no VOC or offgassing problem which of the two secnarios

is

> > worse

> >

> > 1)A building peaking each day at 1500 ppm CO2, rh under 50%,

spores

> > less than ambient air

> >

> > 2)A Building peaking at 700 ppm CO2, 75% RH, spores 3000 to 5000

> > counts per cubic meter predominantly Penicilium/Apsergillus

while

> > ambient air count approximatley 70 per cubic meter predominately

> > ascosproes and ganoderma.

> >

> > 1 sure sounds a lot better than 2 in my opinion.

> >

> > Ambinet CO2 will float 400 to 450 ppm so this would be exceeding

> > ambinet plus 700. Funnything with ambient plus 700, you could

have

> > urban traffic gridlock and exceed 600 ppm CO2 outside, then be

1300

> > ppm inside and somehow compliant

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>