Background: Associations of higher indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations with impaired work performance, increased health symptoms, and poorer perceived air quality have been attributed to correlation of indoor CO2 with concentrations of other indoor air pollutants that are also influenced by rates of outdoor-air ventilation.Objectives: We assessed direct effects of increased CO2, within the range of indoor concentrations, on decision making.Methods: Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants’ respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models.Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.Conclusions: Direct adverse effects of CO2 on human performance may be economically important and may limit energy-saving reductions in outdoor air ventilation per person in buildings. Confirmation of these findings is needed.
Implementation of air cleaning technologies for both VOCs and particles in office buildings may improve indoor air quality, or enable indoor air quality levels to be maintained with reduced outdoor air supply and concomitant energy savings. One promising air cleaning technology is ultraviolet photocatalytic oxidation (UVPCO) air cleaning. For the prototype device evaluated here with realistic mixtures of VOCs, conversion efficiencies typically exceeded the minimum required to counteract predicted VOC concentration increases from a 50% reduction in ventilation. However, the device resulted in the net generation of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde from the partial oxidation of ubiquitous VOCs. Further development of the technology is needed to eliminate these hazardous air pollutants before such a UVPCO device can be deployed in buildings.
This study explores the potential environmental and energy benefits of using activated carbon fiber (ACF) filters for air cleaning in HVAC systems. The parallel aims for the air cleaning system were to enable reduced indoor exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and to simultaneously allow reduced rates and energy consumption for outdoor-air ventilation. We evaluated the use of ACF media to adsorb VOCs from indoor air during repeated simulated 12-hour to 24-hour periods of occupancy. In a cyclic regeneration process, VOCs were desorbed from the ACF media and vented outdoors to enable the next cycle of air cleaning. The VOC removal efficiency of the ACF media was measured using a 9.5-cm 2 ACF specimen exposed to a mixture of VOCs that included toluene, benzene, o-xylene, 1-butanol, limonene, undecane and formaldehyde at 29 o C and 30% relative humidity. The concentrations of these model pollutants upstream of the ACF media were in the range 20 to 30 ppb, to simulate realistic conditions.Velocities through the ACF media were typical of those in normal particle filter systems (~0.5 m
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.