Here's a quick review of the rates that are recommended.
1/5
The recommended equivalent outdoor air rates can be found in Table 5-1 on page 4. They are overall very high. For reference, WHO recommends 10 litres per second (lps)/person and OSPE and Lancet recommend 13.5 lps/person.
2/5
Using standard densities from 62.1 at full occupancy, I've converted these rates into air changes per hour and what CO2 level you would expect to have if outdoor air was the only tool used (it won't be, but this is just for reference). 3/5
>8 ACH for classrooms. Compared to standard indoor air quality in 62.1 for educational facilities, the rate is about 3x higher. I think once and for all, we can agree that ASHRAE minimums for IAQ are woefully inadequate for infection control. We now have a better goal.
4/5
I'll have upcoming threads discussing more aspects of this standard, but I think this is the main thing people have been looking for.
For those who want to know, here are the assumptions in doing the CO2 and ACH calculations.
5/5
Should have been more clear. This isn’t the final standard but the initial public review. Things can change before final release.
Apologies. There was a typo when copying the values for healthcare equivalent CO2 levels. Here's the updated chart.
If anyone knows typical occupant density in healthcare resident room and common treatment area, I can estimate ACH at full occupancy. I don't know those values.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ASHRAE just developed a standard to mitigate airborne diseases. Once it's published, I'll do some threads explaining it. For now, I'll give a brief history behind this. 🧵
ASHRAE has had a standard for indoor air quality for many years (called 62.1). One major problem is that it never took into account airborne diseases. Andrew Persily explained why in last month's ASHRAE magazine.
2/7
Then an airborne pandemic hit us and we had no standards. ASHRAE setup the Epidemic Task Force. It gave advice on best practices for buildings and how to improve ventilation and filtration, but did not establish any standard.
I've written a post about air distribution. It seems like a technical and minor aspect of air quality, but it's extremely important. So much of the misinformation and bad decisions during the pandemic relate to misunderstanding air distribution.
1/15 itsairborne.com/air-distributi…
Air distribution refers to how air mixes and is supplied throughout the space. You can get clean air into a room, but you only care about what people are breathing in. When that clean air bypasses people and gets exhausted, it's a useless waste of energy.
2/15
The goal in the vast majority of ventilation systems is to have the air properly mixed. It ensures the clean air dilutes all the pollutants and there are no spaces with higher pollutant concentration. A proper design with diffusers can achieve this.
3/15
There's been a bureaucratic failure by Health Canada to protect Canadians from air pollution and it also hurt a lot of people throughout COVID. We should have had better filters in the air handling units, but didn't. Here's how the screw up occurred. 🧵
ASHRAE 62.1 primarily deals with outdoor airflow rates, but there's a section on filters. If national guideline on PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) is exceeded, MERV 11 or greater is required.
It's not as good as MERV 13, but still a good start. So what's the national guideline?
There is no national guideline. They give guidance for residential settings. "As low as possible".
Because there is no threshold for health effects, they refuse to set one. That's wrong.
The UK Department for Education has a new document for use of CO2 monitors. It sets the cutoffs as:
<800 ppm - close windows
800-1500 ppm - consider opening windows
>1500 ppm - open windows and doors
Are these appropriate levels? What should it be? 🧵
From an air quality/engineering perspective, CO2 is generally harmless does not tell you directly about other pollutants in the space. It only tells you the outdoor airflow per person. The goal is to verify the building is achieving the desired outdoor airflow per person.
So what should this value be? We need to distinguish between general indoor air quality (IAQ) and airborne pathogens. General IAQ does not account for airborne pathogens. Outdoor airflow is primarily about general IAQ but also works on airborne pathogens.
Can you make it low risk to be sitting in front of unmasked faces every day?
Believe it or not, you can. It takes 6 steps. 🧵
Step 1 - N95 Respirator + eye protection
This was obvious. Dentists usually wear a mask and some form of eye protection anyways. Wearing a better mask is low hanging fruit. If you want to learn more about masking, see these documents.
Many dentists did this during the pandemic, but barriers between rooms can limit long range transmission. They can be detrimental within a room, but they work here.
People have been asking if Beacon far-UV is effective. The cost right now is really low. The answer is I don't have enough info to make a definitive statement but it likely is effective and can have some very good uses. 🧵
The best data we have was just a proof of concept experiment. I believe it used 15 W Ushio lamps, but they didn't publicize that since the goal was just proof of concept. 1 lamp gave 33-66 air changes per hour in a typical room in your home. nature.com/articles/s4159…
I don't know how it would scale down to a 12 W lamp for effectiveness, but as I said, it likely would be effective. I'll be more confident once we have a better idea for dosing.
I think this could be really good for personal far-UV.