### CALIFORNIA

ENERGY

COMMISSION



# VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR

QUALITY IN NEW HOMESPIERCOLLABORATIVEREPORT

November 2009

CEC-500-2009-085Prepared By :

Francis J. Offermann PE CIH

Principal Investigator

Indoor Environmental Engineering

1448 Pine Street

Suite 103

San Francisco, CA 94109

California Energy Commission Contract 500-02-023

California Air Resources Board Contract 04-310

Prepared For : Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) 

## California Energy Commission

Marla Mueller

Project Manager

Linda Spiegel

Program Area Lead

Energy-Related Environmental Research

Ken Koyama

Office Manager

Energy Generation Research

Thom Kelly, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION

Melissa Jones

Executive Director

and



## California Air Resources Board

Tom Phillips

Contract Manager

Research Division

Peggy Jenkins

Manager

Indoor Exposure Assessment Section

Research Division



### DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as a result of work sponsor ed by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the California

Energy Commission (Energy Commission). It does not necessa rily represent the views of ARB, the Energy

Commission, their employees, or the State of California. The mention of commercial products, their source, or

their use in connection with reported ma terial herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of

such products. The ARB, the Energy Commission, the St ate of California, its employees, contractors, and

subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this

report; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon the privately owned

rights. This report has not been approved or disapprov ed by the ARB or the Energy Commission, nor has the

ARB or the Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this information in this report.

### i 

## Acknowledgments

The research team thanks the homeowners and families that participated in this study. It also

thanks this study’s field staff and subcontractors: Teresa Woo of Indoor Environmental

Engineering for leading the Team 2 field work and data entry; Jonathan Robertson of Indoor

Environmental Engineering for leading the Team 3 field work and data en try; Shaun Trevino,

Josh McNeil, and Leo Ranier of Davis Energy Group for the Team 1 portions of the field work;

Allen Amar o, Jerry Kniffen, Joe Lima, Josh McConnell, and Demitri Wells of Amaro

Construction for assisting with the Team 2 and Team 3 portions of the field work; Corina Jump

and Richard Mountain of Itron Inc. for the home recruitment and scheduling of all field team

visits and database man agement an d statistical analyses; Lisa Ramezzano of Indoor

Environmental Engineering for the field work logistics; Geoffrey Offermann of Indoor

Environmental Engineering for assistance in data analyses and document preparation; and Al

Hodgson an d Raja Tannous of Berkeley Analytical Associates for the formaldehyde analyses,

Russell Dietz of Brookhaven National Laboratory for the perfluorocarbon tracer samp le

analyses

, Chester LabNet for the particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) sample analyses, and DataChem for

the nitrogen dioxide sample analyses. In addition, the research team would like to thank Iain

Walker of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for assisting with the duct leakage analyses

and Collin Olson of the Energy Conservatory for assisting with the garage

‐ home zone pressure

diagnostics.

Special thanks to Peggy Jenkins, Manager of the California Air Resources Board’s Indoor

Exposure Assessment Section, and Tom Phillips, California Air Resources Board Contract

Manager, for their advice and guidance throughout this research project.

The team also thanks and acknowledges the Expert Advisory Panel for their valuable advice;

Larry Palmiter of Ecotope; Jed Waldman of the California Department of Public Health; Lance

Wallace, Environmental Protection Agency (retired); and Bruce Wilcox, PE. Input from the

Expert Advisory Panel on the study protocol, Pilot Study report, and the draft final report was

considered by California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission staff.

Finally, as th e Principal Investigator of this research project, Francis J. Offermann would like to

personally acknowledge the inspiration, encouragement, and mentorship received in the past

from the following individuals who are no longer with us: Dr. Craig Hollowell and Dr. Joan

Daisey of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Professor Ole Fanger of the Technical

University of Denmark; and Alfred and Estelle Stabel of Buffalo, New York.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of ARB Agreement #04

‐ 31 0 by Indoor Environmental

Engineering under the sponsorship of the California Air Resources Board and the California

Energy Commission.

### ii Please cite this report as follows:

Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources

Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy

‐ Related Environmental Research

Program. Collaborative Report. CEC

‐ 500

‐ 2009

‐ 085.

### iii 

## Preface

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) carries out and funds research to reduce the health,

environmental, and economic impacts of indoor and outdoor air pollution in California. This

research involves four general program areas:

• Health and Welfare Effects

• Exposure Assessment

• Technology Advancement and Pollution Prevention

• Global Air P ollution

For more information about the ARB Research Program, please see ARB’s website at:

www.arb.ca.gov/research/research.htm

, or contact ARB’s Research Division at (916) 445

‐ 0753.

For more information about ARB’s Indoor Exposure Assessment Program please visit the

website at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/indoor.htm

.

The California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program supports

public interest energy research and development that will help improve the quality of life in

California by bringing environmentally safe, affordable, and reliable energy services and

products to the marketplace.

The PIER Program conducts public interest research, development, and d emonstration (RD&D)

projects to benefit California.

The PIER Program strives to conduct the most promising public interest energy research by

partnering with RD&D entities, including individuals, businesses, utilities, and public or

private research institutions.

• PIER funding efforts are focused on the following RD&D pro gram areas:

• Buildings End

‐ Use Energy Efficiency

• Energy Innovations Small Grants

• Energy

‐ Related Environmental Research

• Energy Systems Integration

• Environmentally Preferred Advanced Generation

• Industrial/Agricultural/Water End

‐ Use Energy Efficiency

• Renewable Energy Technologies

• Transportation

Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes is the final report for project contract number

500

‐ 02

‐ 02 3, ARB contract number 04

‐ 310, conducted by Indoor Environmental Engineering. The

### iv information from this project contributes to PIER’s Energy

‐ Related Environmental Research

Program.

For more information about the PIER Program, please visit the Energy Commission’s website at

www.energy.ca.gov/research/ or contact the Energy Commission at 916

‐ 654

‐ 4878.

### v 

## Table of Contents

Preface........................................................................................................................ .......................iii

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... .................... xv

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ . 1

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... .... 13

1.1 Project Study Objectives .............................................................................................. 16

1.2 Report Organization..................................................................................................... 17

2.0 Project Approach/Material and Methods ...................................................................... 19

2.1 Study Design ................................................................................................................. 19

2.2 Home Recruitment and Selection............................................................................... 20

2.3 Field Work Teams and Work Assignments .............................................................. 22

2.4 Home and Site Characteristics Collection................................................................. 23

2.5 Home Air Leakage Measurements............................................................................. 25

2.5.1 Forced Air Unit Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage ............................... 25

2.5.2 Building Envelope Air Leakage Area ............................................................... 25

2.5.3 Home

‐ to

‐ Garage Air Leakage ............................................................................ 25

2.6 Window/Door and Mechanical Systems Usage ....................................................... 26

2.6.1 Occupant Use of Windows and Doors.............................................................. 26

2.6.2 Occupant Use of Mechanical Exhaust Systems ............................................... 26

2.6.3 Occupant Use of Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems ....................................... 27

2.6.4 Occupant Use of Nighttime Cooling Systems ................................................. 27

2.6.5 Occupant Use of Forced Air Heating/Cooling Systems (FAU) ..................... 28

2.7 Outdoor Air Ventilation Measurements ................................................................... 28

2.7.1 Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Airflow Rates .............................................. 28

2.7.2 Tracer Gas Measurements of Outdoor Air Exchange Rat e............................ 29

2.8 Indoor Air Quality Measurements............................................................................. 31

2.8.1 Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements (24

‐ hour)............................. 32

2.8.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 

### .............................................................. 32

2.8.1.2 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde 

### ....................................................... 33

2.8.1.3 Nitrogen Dioxide 

### ................................................................................. 35

2.8.1.4 Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) 

### ..................................................................... 36

2.8.2 Real

‐ Time IAQ Measurements........................................................................... 36

2.8.2.1 Carbon Monoxide 

### ................................................................................ 36

2.8.2.2 Carbon Dioxide 

### .................................................................................... 37

2.8.2.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity 

### .................................................. 37

2.9 Homeowner Source Activity....................................................................................... 38

2.10 Homeowner IAQ/Ventilation Perceptions and Decision Factors.......................... 39

2.11 Quality Assurance and Quality Control.................................................................... 39

2.12 Data Management and Analyses................................................................................ 40

3.0 Project Outcomes/Results and Discussion .................................................................... 47

3.1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control.................................................................... 47

3.2 Home Selection and Recruitment............................................................................... 50

### vi 3.3 Home and Site Characteristics Collection................................................................. 55

3.4 Home Air Leakage Measurements............................................................................. 57

3.4.1 Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage........................................ 57

3.4.2 Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area.................................................... 58

3.4.3 Home

‐ to

‐ Garage Air Leakage ............................................................................ 58

3.5 Window/Door and Mechanical Systems Usage ....................................................... 60

3.5.1 Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilation................................... 61

3.5.2 Measured and Owner

‐ Estimated Wi ndow/Door Usage Comparison ......... 62

3.5.3 Occupant Use of Mechanical Exhaust Air Systems ........................................ 64

3.5.4 Occupant Use of Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems ....................................... 65

3.5.5 Occupant Use of Mechanical Nighttime Cooling Systems ............................ 66

3.5.6 Occupant Use of Forced Air Unit (FAU) Systems........................................... 67

3.6 Outdoor Air Ventilation Measurements ................................................................... 67

3.6.1 Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Airflow Rates .............................................. 67

3.6.2 Tracer Gas Measurements of Home Outdoor Air Ex change Rates .............. 72

3.7 Indoor Air Quality Measurements............................................................................. 73

3.7.1 Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements (24

‐ hour)............................. 73

3.7.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations 

### .................................... 73

3.7.1.2 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Concentrations 

### .............................. 76

3.7.1.3 Nitrogen Dioxide 

### ................................................................................. 78

3.7.1.4 Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) 

### ..................................................................... 79

3.7.2 Real

‐ Time IAQ Measurements........................................................................... 80

3.7.2.1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

### ....................................................................... 80

3.7.2.2 Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) 

### .......................................................................... 81

3.7.2.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity 

### .................................................. 82

3.7.3 Volatile Organic Compound Concentration Study Comparisons........................ 82

3.7.4 Volatile Organic Compound Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels......................... 83

3.8 Homeowner Source Activity Log............................................................................... 83

3.9 Homeowner Reported IAQ Related Perceptions and Observations..................... 84

3.10 Relationships Between Home and IAQ Characteristics.......................................... 85

3.10.1 Indoor Air Contaminant Emission Rates ..................................................... 85

3.10.2 Formaldehyde Emissions from Forced Air Units ....................................... 86

3.10.3 Multi

‐ day Home Measurement Comparisons ................................................ 87

3.10.4 Multi

‐ Season Home Measurement Comparisons .......................................... 88

3.10.5 Group Comparisons ........................................................................................... 90

3.10.5.1 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde and Group Comparisons 

### .............. 91

3.10.5.2 Outdoor Air Exchange Rate and Window Usage Group

Comparisons 

### ........................................................................................ 92

3.11 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Concentration Correlations............................. 92

3.12 Incentives and Barriers that Influence People’s Use of Ventilation ...................... 95

3.13 Incentives and Barriers Related to People’s Purchases and Practices that

Improve IAQ ................................................................................................................. 97

3.14 Recent Developments Related to Codes, Regulations, and Guidelines................ 98

### vii 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 206

4.1 Summary...................................................................................................................... 20 6

4.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 207

4.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 215

4.4 Benefits to California.................................................................................................. 218

5.0 References ..................................................................................................................... ... 220

6.0 Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols ....................................................... 226

Appendix A: Pilot Study Report with Recruitment Letter and Script

Appendix B: Volatile Organic Compound Analytical Method

Appendix C: “All Homes” Sample Frame List

Appendix D: Home

‐ Season Test List

Appendix E: Air Contaminant an d Outdoor Air Exchange Rate PFT Measurements

Appendix F: Home and Mechanical Ventilation System Characteristics

Appendix G: Difficulties Encountered in the Field Study

### viii 

## List of Figures

Figure 1. Quiet indoor air sampler for formaldehyde, VOCs, PM 2.5 

### , NO 2 

### , CO, CO 2 

### , temperature, and relative humidity, typically installed in a home living/dining room

area for a 22

– 26 hour sampling period. ...............................................................................44

Figure 2. Outdoor air sampler for formaldehyde, VOCs, PM 2.5 

### , NO 2 

### , CO, CO 2 

### , temperature, and relative humidity, with outdoor radiation/rain shield...............................45

Figure 3. Locations of homes for the summer and winter 2006

– 2007 field sessions in

Northern and Southern California......................................................................................102

Figure 4. Forced air duct leakage cumulative frequency distribution - All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................103

Figure 5. Building envelope air leakage cumu lative frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................104

Figure 6. Window and door opening cumulativ e frequency distri bution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................105

Figure 7. Mechanical exhaust system usage cu mulative frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................106

Figure 8. Mechanical outdoor air system us age cumulative frequency distribution – All

Home Sample Frame..........................................................................................................107

Figure 9. Nighttime cooling system usage cumulative frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................108

Figure 10. Forced air unit system usage – All Home Sample Frame. .......................................109

Figure 11. ASHRAE 62.2-2004 Intermittent ventilation indoor air contaminant

concentration plot...............................................................................................................110

Figure 12. Outdoor air exchange rate PFT ( 24-hour) measurement cumulative frequency –

All Home Samp le Frame. ..................................................................................................111

Figure 13. Benzene concentration cumulative fr equency distribution – All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................112

Figure 14. 1,4 Dichlorobenzene concentrati on cumulative frequency distribution –All

Home Sample Frame..........................................................................................................113

Figure 15. Ethylene glycol concentration cumu lative frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................114

Figure 16. n-Hexane concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................115

Figure 17. Naphthalene concentration cumula tive frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................116

Figure 18. Phenol concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................117

Figure 19. Styrene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................118

### ix Figure 20. Tetrachloroethene concentration cumu lative frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................119

Figure 21. Toluene concentration cumulative fr equency distribution – All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................120

Figure 22. Trichloromethane (chloroform) cu mulative frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................121

Figure 23. Vinyl acetate concentration cumu lative frequency dist ribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................122

Figure 24. m,p-Xylene concentration cumula tive frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................123

Figure 25. o-Xylene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................124

Figure 26. Formaldehyde concentration cumula tive frequency distribution – All Home

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................125

Figure 27. Acetaldehyde concentr ation frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.....126

Figure 28. Formaldehyde indoor concentratio ns and outdoor air exchange rates. ....................127

Figure 29. Cumulative frequency distribution of the log of formaldehyde concentration –

All Homes Sample Frame..................................................................................................128

Figure 30. Cumulative frequency distribution of the log of acetaldehyde concentration –

All Homes Sample Frame..................................................................................................129

Figure 31. Cumulative frequency distribution for th e inverse of the air exchange rate – All

Homes Sample Frame........................................................................................................130

Figure 32. Cumulative frequency distribution of the square root of window usage – All

Homes Sample Frame........................................................................................................131

Figure 33. Cumulative frequency distribution fo r indoor temperature – All Homes Sample

Frame. ................................................................................................................................132

Figure 34. Cumulative frequency for the indoor relative humidity squared – All Homes

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................133

Figure 35. Cumulative frequency distributi on for outdoor temperature – All Homes

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................134

Figure 36. Cumulative frequency distribution for outdoor relative humidity – All Homes

Sample Frame. ...................................................................................................................135

Figure 37. Cumulative frequency distribution fo r the log of the normalized composite

wood loading – All Homes Sample Frame........................................................................136

Figure 38. Cumulative frequency distribution fo r home age – All Homes Sample Frame. ......137

Figure 39. Scatter plots of home age a nd indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.......................................................................138

Figure 40. Scatter plots of composite w ood loading and indoor formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.................................................139

Figure 41. Scatter plots of outdoor air exch ange rates and indoor formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.................................................140

### x Figure 42. Scatter plots of i ndoor temperature and indoor fo rmaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.......................................................................141

Figure 43. Scatter plots of indoor relativ e humidity and indoor formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.................................................142

Figure 44. Scatter plots of out door temperature and indoor fo rmaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Home Sample Frame. .......................................................................143

Figure 45. Scatter plots of outdoor relative humidity and indoor formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.................................................144

### xi 

## List of Tables

Table 1. Seasonal percentage of new Californi a single-family detached homes reporting no

use of windows for 24, 23, 22, and 21 hours per day. .........................................................17

Table 2. Percentages of air contaminant and PFT field samples, blanks, and duplicates

successfully collected and analyzed...................................................................................145

Table 3. Summer-North field session field bl ank analyses for volatile organic compounds,

including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.........................................................................146

Table 4. Summer-South field session field blan k analyses for volatile organic compounds

including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.........................................................................147

Table 5. Winter-North field session field blank analyses for volatile organic compounds

including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.........................................................................148

Table 6. Winter-South field session field blank analyses for volatile organic compounds

including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.........................................................................149

Table 7. Precision of volatile organic co mpound measurements over a 24-hour period...........150

Table 8. Winter-North field session field bl ank analyses for nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 

### particulate matter. ............................................................................................................ ..151

Table 9. Precision for carbon dioxide, car bon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 

### measurements over a 24-hour period.................................................................................152

Table 10. Summer and field session field bl ank analyses for PFT measurements. ...................153

Table 11. Precision of PFT outdoor air excha nge rates measured over the 24-hour Test

Day and the following two-week period............................................................................154

Table 12. Comparison of PFT measurements in the first and second zones of the home. ........155

Table 13. Home recruitment re sults for each region-season......................................................156

Table 14. Home sample comparison for the fi eld study to the UCB mail survey sample by

geographical strata. ........................................................................................................... .157

Table 15. Home characteristics-1. .............................................................................................1 58

Table 16. Home characteristics-2. .............................................................................................1 59

Table 17. Home characteristics-3. .............................................................................................1 60

Table 18. Homeowner reported home characteris tics, renovations, maintenance, and other

IAQ related activities-1......................................................................................................1 61

Table 19. Homeowner reported home characteris tics, renovations, maintenance, and other

IAQ related activities-2......................................................................................................1 62

Table 20. Homeowner reported home characteri stics, renovations, maintenance and other

IAQ related activities-3......................................................................................................1 63

Table 21. Mechanical outdoor air system types and controls....................................................164

Table 22. Forced air unit (FAU) heating/cool ing system duct leakage measurements. ............165

Table 23. Building envelope ai r leakage measurements............................................................166

Table 24. Home-to-garage ai r leakage measurements...............................................................167

### xii Table 25. Window and door opening usage durin g the 24-hour air testing day and the

preceding one-week. ..........................................................................................................16 8

Table 26. Percentage comparisons of actua l measured home window/door usage and the

homeowner’s estimated seasonal us age in the UCB mail survey......................................169

Table 27. Differences between the actual m easured home window/door usage and the

homeowner’s estimated seasonal us age in the UCB mail survey......................................170

Table 28. Mechanical system usage for the 24- hour Test Day period and the ratio of the

Test Day usage to the week average usage........................................................................171

Table 29. Mechanical outdoor ai r ventilation system character istics and code requirements...172

Table 30. PFT measurements of outdoor air exch ange rates for the 24-hour Test Day and

the following two-week period. .........................................................................................173

Table 31. Comparison of outdoor air excha nge rate PFT measurements to CBC 2001

minimum code requirements..............................................................................................174

Table 32. Percentage of samples with con centrations of volat ile organic compounds

greater than the method detection......................................................................................175

Table 33. Concentrations of individual volatile organic compounds measured indoors over

the 24-hour Test Day. ........................................................................................................17 6

Table 34. Concentration of individual vola tile organic compounds measured outdoors over

the 24-hour Test Day. ........................................................................................................17 7

Table 35. Maximum indoor concentrations of the volatile organic compounds comparison

to indoor air contaminant guidelines..................................................................................178

Table 36. Comparison of indoor concentratio ns of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde to

indoor air contaminant guidelines......................................................................................179

Table 37. Percentage of homes with indoor and concentrations of carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 

### particulate matter greater than the method detection limit. ..180

Table 38. Concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 

### particulate

matter measured indoor and outdoor over the 24-hour Test Day

. .....................................181

Table 39. Temperature, relative humidity, a nd carbon dioxide concentrations measured

indoors and outdoors over the 24-hour Test Day...............................................................182

Table 40. Comparison of volatile organic co mpound concentrations measured in new

residences in this study and two other studies. ..................................................................183

Table 41. Percentage of homes with concen trations exceeding California Proposition 65

Safe Harbor Dose concentrations.......................................................................................184

Table 42. Occupant cooking and cleaning s ource activities conducted during the 24-hour

Test Day.............................................................................................................................185

Table 43. Occupant special act ivities, garage and outdoor source activities conducted

during the 24-hour Test Day..............................................................................................186

Table 44. Homeowner reported IAQ rela ted perceptions and observations..............................187

Table 45. Indoor emission rates of volatile or ganic compounds over the 24-hour Test Day....188

Table 46. Formaldehyde concentration and emission rates from FAU systems........................189

Table 47. Multi-day home concentration and emission rates over three 24-hour periods for

Home 033...........................................................................................................................190

### xiii Table 48. Multi-day home concentration and emission rates over three 24-hour periods for

Home 041...........................................................................................................................191

Table 49. Multi-day home concentration and emission rates over three 24-hour periods for

Home 059...........................................................................................................................192

Table 50. Multi-day home concentrations and emission rates for three 24-hour periods for

Home 099...........................................................................................................................193

Table 51. Multi-season home concentration a nd emission rates over 24-hour periods in

three seasons for Home 005...............................................................................................194

Table 52. Multi-season home concentration a nd emission rates over 24-hour periods in

three seasons for Home 006...............................................................................................195

Table 53. Multi-season home concentration a nd emission rates over 24-hour periods in

three seasons for Home 013...............................................................................................196

Table 54. Multi-season home concentration a nd emission rates over 24-hour periods in

three seasons for Home 019...............................................................................................197

Table 55. Normality test results for formal dehyde and acetaldehyde concentration, air

exchange rate, indoor and outdoor temper ature and relative hu midity, composite

wood loading, home age, and window usage. ...................................................................198

Table 56. Group comparisons for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations. .................199

Table 57. Group comparison for outdoor air exchange rates and window usage......................200

Table 58. Correlations of indoor formaldehyde concentrations with home characteristics

and with indoor and outdoor environmental conditions. ...................................................201

Table 59. Correlation of indoor acetaldehyde con centrations with home characteristics and

with indoor and outdoor e nvironmental conditions...........................................................202

Table 60. Homeowner reported mechanical ve ntilation system opera tion and choices-1.........203

Table 61. Homeowner reported mechanical ve ntilation system opera tion and choices-2.........204

Table 62. Homeowner reported IAQ related improvement choices..........................................205

### xiv

### xv 

## Abstract

Concerns have been raised regarding whether homeowners use windows, exhaust fans, and

other mechanical ventilation devices enough to remove indoor air contaminants and excess

moisture. In a multi

‐ season study of ventilation and indoor air quality of 108 new single

‐ family,

detached homes in California, window use, ventilation rates, and air contaminant

concentrations were measured. The median 24

‐ hour outdoor air exchange rate was 0. 26 air

changes per hour; 67 percent of the homes were below the California building code requirement

of 0.35 air changes per hour; and 32 percent of the homes did not use their windows. Home

‐ to

‐

garage pressure testing guidelines were exceeded in 65 percent of the ho mes. The median

indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 micrograms per cubic meter (range of 4.8 to

136 micrograms per cubic meter). Nearly all homes had formaldehyde concentrations that

exceeded guidelines for cancer and chronic irritation, while 59 percent exceeded guidelines for

acute irritation. In conclusion, new single

‐ family detached homes in California are built

relatively airtight, can have very low outdoor air exchange rates, and can often exceed exposure

guidelines for air contaminants with indoor sources, such as formaldehyde and some other

volatile organic compounds. Mechanical ventilation systems are needed to provide a

dependable, continuous supply of o utdoor air to new homes, and reductions of various indoor

formaldehyde sources are also needed.

Keywords: air contaminant exposure guidelines, air exchange rate, carbon monoxide, building

envelope tightness, exhaust fans, for m aldehyde, garage air contaminants, indoor air

contaminant emission rates, indoor air contaminant sources, indoor air quality, mechanical

ventilation systems, natural ventilation, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ventilation

standards, volatile organic compounds, windows.

### xvi

### 1 

## Executive Summary

Introduction and Purpose

Concerns have been raised regarding whether homeowners use windows, doors, exhaust

fans, and other mechanical ventilation devices enough to remove indoor air contaminants

and excess moisture. Building practices and building standards for energy efficiency have

led to more tightly sealed homes that rely on occupants to open windows for ventilation.

However, there is very little information on current ventilation practices, indoor air

quality, or indoor air contaminant sources in homes. This study provides, for the first time,

accurate and current statewide information on ventilation and indoor air quality in new

California homes.

A mail survey conducted in 2005 on occupants’ use of windows and m echanical ventilation

equipment in 1,515 new single

‐ family homes in California confirmed that many

homeowners never use th e ir windows for ventilation. From this mail survey, a concern

emerged that the current California residential building code allowance for ventilation to

be provided merely through openable windows may not be sufficient to enable new homes

to receive adeq uate ventilation to control indoor air contaminants to acceptable levels.

As a follow

‐ up to the mail survey, a large field study was then conducted to measure

window and mechanical ventilation system use, outdoor air ventilation rates, sources and

concentrations of indoor air contaminants, and occupant perceptions. Data on indoor air

quality and household ventilation systems and practices were obtained from multipl e

season s and regions of the state. Measured levels of ventilation and indoor air quality were

compared to current guidelines and standards. These data will help characterize the full

range of indoor air contaminant exposure in such homes. Information on the use of

windows, fans, and central systems collected in this field study will help establish realistic

values for deve l oping California standards for building energy efficiency.

The Energy Commission used these study results to revise the state’s 2008 Residential

Building Energy Efficie ncy standards to require mechanical ventilation to provide more

healthful homes in California. The study results will improve the Califor nia Air Resource

Board’s ability to identify current sources of indoor air contaminants, to assess

Californians’ current exposure to measured toxic air contaminants, and to recommend

effective strategies for reducing ind oor air pollution.

Methods

The field study design involved recruitment of single

‐ family detached Californian homes

bui lt between 2002 and 2004, using the University of California at Berkeley mail survey

database as well as some supplementary recruitment. The homes were occupied by owners

for at least one year before testing occurred, and homes with occupants wh o smoked

indoors were excluded. This field study invol v e d 108 homes from Northern and Southern

### 2 California, including a subset of 26 homes with mechanical outdoor

‐ air ventilation

systems. Home age ranged from 1.7 years to 5.5 years. The field teams measured home

ventilation and indoor contaminant source characteristics, including the amount of

composite wood, indoor contaminant concentrations, the residents’ ventilation practices,

indoor air quality perceptions, and decision factors regarding ventilation and indoor air

qua lity

‐ related actions. Measurements of indoor and outdoor air quality and ventilation

parameters were made in the summer and fall of 2007 and the winter of 2007–2 008. Indoor

air concentrations of 22 volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, PM 2.5

particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, temperature, and

relative humidity were measured over one 24

‐ hour period. The outdoor air ventilation

rates were determined concurrent with the air contaminant measurements using tracer gas

measurements. In addition, the field teams measured the building envelope air leakage,

garage

‐ to

‐ home air leakage, forced air unit duct leakage, window use, airflow rates, and

fan system use. Twenty of the 108 homes were tested in both the summer and winte r

seasons; four homes were tested in the summer, fall, and winter; and four homes were

tested over multiple days, including weekends.

Results and Discus sion

The following summarizes the results and provides some of the key discussion points for

each of the six study obje ctives.

Objective 1. Determine how residents use windows, doors, and mechanical ventilation

devices such as exhaust fans and central heating and air

‐ conditioning systems.

Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilati on. In this field study, 32 percent of the

homes did not use their windows during the 24

‐ hour test day, and 15 percent of the homes

did not use their windows during the entire preceding week (Table E1). Most of the homes

with no window use were homes in the winter field session. The study concluded that a

substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter,

and confirms the season al results fro m the University of California at Berkeley mail survey

and the previous California Air Resources Board

‐ funded statewide survey of human

activity patterns. Results from the mail survey indicate that many homeowners never open

their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety,

noise, dust, and odors.

### 3 Table E1. Summary of window and door opening usage during the 24-hour Test Day and the

preceding one week.

Number of

Homes

Tested Number of Homes with

No Window/Door

Usage Percentage of Homes

with No Window/Door

Usage

(%)

Test Day a 108 34 32

Preceding Week b 108 16 15

a) Test day usage was measured during the 24-hour air testing day.

b) Preceding week usage was measured during the one week preceding the 24-hour air

testing day.

Occupant Use of Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems

. For the two types of mechanical outdoor

air systems encountered in the field study—ducted outdoor air systems and heat recovery

ventilator systems—the median test day use was 2.5 hours for the ducted outdoor air

systems (n=14) and 24 hours for heat recovery ventilator systems (n=8). These data indicate

that the ducted outdoor air systems, which typically are operated intermittently an d in

conjunction with the forced air unit fan, operate for only a small portion of the day, while

the heat recovery ventilator systems are typically operated continuously. To ensure

adequate delivery of outdoor air to the home, ducted outdoor air systems should have a

fan cycler, so that even if the thermostat fan switch does not operate the forced air unit fan,

the fan is au tomatically operated for a minimum time. Few of the homes in this study with

operational ducted outdoor air systems (four of the 14 homes) had fan cyclers. Thus, to

ensure adequate and energy efficient delivery of outdoor air to the home, ducted outdoor

air systems should include a fan cycler with fan cy c le times and outdoor airflow rates set to

provide sufficient outdoor air ventilation.

Occupant Use of Mechanical Nighttime Cooling Systems

. For the two types of nighttime

cooling systems found in the field study—whole house fan sys tems and forced air unit

return air damper systems—the median test day use was 0.7 hours for whole house fan

systems and 5.3 hours for return air damper syst ems. Use of these systems was confined

primarily to the summer months, so the nighttime cooling systems were operated for

relatively few hours each day, with the return air damper systems having longer operating

times.

Occupant Use of Forced Air Unit Systems. The median test day use for force d air units was 1.1

hours; 32 percent of the homes ha d zero forced air unit use during the 24

‐ hour test day,

and 11 percent had zero use during the entire preceding week. This low operating time of

the forced air unit fan limits the effectiveness of ducted outdoor air systems, which depend

on the operation of the forced air unit fan, to deliver the required outdoor air.

### 4 Objective 2. Measure and characterize indoor air quality, ventilation, and the potential

sources of indoor pollutants.

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage. A total of 86 percent of the homes had duct

leakage exceeding the California Title 24 maximum of 6 percent, demonstrating that new

homes in California have relatively leaky ducts.

Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area. The median ACH 50 (air changes per hour at

50 pascals) for the homes in this study was 4.8 air changes per hour, which compares to a

median of 5.2 air changes per hour for a group of homes built since 1992 and 8.6 air

changes per hour for a group of homes built before 1987. New Californian homes are

generally being built tighter, but not exceptionally tight, like those found in colder climate

regions.

Home

‐ to

‐ Garage Air Le ak age. A total of 65 percent of the homes did not meet the American

Lung Association guideline for a home

‐ to

‐ garage negative pressure of at least

‐ 49 pascals when the home is depressurized to

‐ 50 pascals with respect to the outdoors. In

the three

‐ home pilot study, tracer gas measurements indicated that between 4 percent and

11 percent of the garage sources entered the home. A substantial amount of air from

attached garages, which often contai n air contaminant sources such as vehicle fuel, exhaust

fumes, gasoline

‐ powered lawn equipment, solvents, oils, paints, and pesticides, can enter

the home’ s indoor air.

Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Airflow Rates. Sixty

‐ four percent of ducted outdoor air

systems failed to meet the California Energy Commission’s new 2008 Building Energy

Efficiency Standards. The very low outdoor air ex change rates for the ducted outdoor air

systems resulted from a combination of low outdoor airflow rates and short operating

times. Heat recovery ventilator systems performed much better. All of the heat recovery

ventilator systems met the new 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These results

show that the heat recovery ventilator systems that we tested are a more effective outdoor

air supply strategy than the ducted outdoor air systems.

The performance of the ducted outdoor air systems is poor because these systems

(1) lacked controls (such as fan cyclers) to ensure adequate operating times of the forced air

unit fan, and (2) lacked proper sizing and balancing of the outdoor air duct to ensure

sufficient outdoor airflow rate into the system whe n the forced air unit fan was operated.

In addition, the performance of intermittent mechanical outdoor air systems (such as

ducted outdoor air systems) is not equivalent to continuous systems (such as heat recovery

ventilator systems) with respect to controlling the short

‐ term exposures to indoor air

contaminants, especially if the cycle times are long (for example, greater than two hours).

The 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were adopted after this study was

completed, require a minimum opera tion time of 1 hour every 12 hours. During extended

### 5 outdoor air ventilation off

‐ times, intermittent ventilation systems allow for air

contaminants with indoor sources to increase substantially as compared to the increases

that would occur with a continuous ventilation system. For some indoor air contaminants,

such as those that cause irritation and/or odor, the effects are initiated by the immediate

exposure to the indoor concentration rather than prolonged exposure to a concentration

over a period of time. For such compounds, intermittent ventilation systems may not be

sufficient for reducing indoor concentrations to acceptable level s

.

Tracer Gas Measurements of Home Outdoor Air Exchange Rates. The median 24

‐ hour outdoor

air exchange rate measurement wa s 0.26 air changes per hour, with a range of 0.09 air

changes per hour to 5.3 air changes per hour (Table E2). A tot a l of 67 percent of the homes

had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code requirement

of 0.35 air changes per hour.

Table E2. Summary comparison of outdoor air exchange rate measurements and CBC 2001

minimum code requirements.

Number of

Homes

Tested Minimum

Air

Exchange

Rate

(ach) Median

Air

Exchange

Rate

(ach) Maximum

Air

Exchange

Rate

(ach) CBC Code

Requirement

(ach)* Percentage

of Homes

Below CBC Code

Requirement

(%)

24-Hour

Measurement 106 0.09 0.26 5.3 0.35 67

* 2001 California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division

1-Ventilation, Table A-12-A, Outdoor Air Requirements for Ventilation, Living Areas. Air

changes per hour (California Building Code 2001).

The relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never

open their windows for ventilation, resulted in many homes with low outdoor air

exchange rates.

Indoor Air Contaminant Concentrations. The only indoor air contaminants that exceeded

recommended non

‐ cancer and non

‐ reproductive toxicity guidelines were formaldehyde

and PM 2.5 particulate matter. For formaldehyde, 98 percent of the homes exceeded the 2008

Chronic and 8

‐ hour Reference Exposure Levels for irritant effects of 9 micrograms per

cubic meter, 59 percent exceeded the 2005 California Air Resources Board’s indoor air

guideline for irritant effects of 33 micrograms per cubic meter, and 28 percent exceeded the

2008 Acute Reference Exposure Levels for irritant effects of 55 micrograms per cubic meter

(Table E3). None of the homes exceeded the 2008 Reference Exposure Levels for

acetaldehyde. For PM 2.5

, only one home, with an indoor concentration of 36 micrograms

per cubic meter, exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s PM 2.5 24

‐ hour

ambient air quality standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.

### 6 Table E3. Summary comparison of indoor concentrations of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,

and indoor air contaminant guidelines.

Compound Number

of

Homes

Tested Minimum

Concentration

(μg/m 3 ) Median

Concentration

(μg/m 3 ) Maximum

Concentration

(μg/m 3 ) Indoor Air

Guideline

(μg/m 3 ) Percentage

Above

Indoor Air

Guideline

(%)

2 a 100

9 b 98

9 c 98

33 d 59 Formaldehyde 105 4.8 36 136

55 e 28

4.5 a 93

140 b 0

300 c 0 Acetaldehyde 105 1.9 20 102

470 e 0

a) Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level for carcinogens (OEHHA 2008a).

b) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Chronic Reference Exposure Levels,

2008 (OEHHA 2008b). Adopted after study completed.

c) OEHHA 8-hour Reference Exposure Levels, 2008 (OEHHA 2008b). Adopted after study

completed.

d) Indoor Air Quality Pollution in California (California Air Resources Board 2005).

e) OEHHA Acute Reference Exposure Levels, 2008 (OEHHA 2008b). Adopted after study

completed.

Most new homes had indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceeded recommended

guidelines.

Volatile Organic Compound Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels

. For each of the seven

volatile organic compounds with No Significant Risk Levels for cancer, there were some

homes that exceeded the No Significant Risk Levels concentration indoors. As summarized

in Table E3 for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, the percentages of homes exceeding the

No Significant Risk Levels concentration were 100 percent an d 93 percent, respectively. For

the five other volatile organic compounds, the percentage of homes exce eding the No

Significant Risk Levels concentration ranged from 8 percent for trichloromethane

(chloroform) and tetrachloroethene to 63 percent for benzene.

For the two volatile organic compounds with Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for

reproductive toxicity, onl y the benzene Maximum Allowable Dose Levels was exceeded.

A total of 20 percent of the homes had indoor benzene conce ntrations that exceeded the

calculated indoor Maximum Allowable Dose Levels concentration. Thus, a substantial

percentage of new homes have indoor concentrations that exceed recommended guidelines

for cancer and/or reproductive toxicity.

### 7 Potential Sources of Indoor Air Contaminants

. The primary source of the indoor

concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, which were the two air contaminants

that most frequently exceeded recommended guidelines, is believed to be composite wood

products. While the research team was not able to determine the extent to which

formaldehyde

‐ based resins were used in the composite wood identified in the homes

, formaldehyde

‐ based resins are the most common resins used in the production of

composite wood products. The composite wood identified in these homes include

particleboa r d that was used in 99 percent of the kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, as well as

many pieces of furniture. Other sources of composite wood include plywood and oriented

strand board in walls, subfloors, and attics, and medium density fiberboard in baseboards,

window shades, interior doors, and window/door trims.

Potential so urces of some volatile organic compounds were identified for homes with

elevated indoor volatile organic compound concentrations. The following potential sources

of indoor air contaminan ts are suggested from a comparison of the occupant activity logs

and house characteristics with the indoor contaminant concentrations and emission rates:

1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene an d naphthalene from mothballs, d

‐ limonene from furniture polish

and cleaning chemicals, 2

‐ butoxyethanol from anti

‐ bacterial wipes, toluene from air

fresheners, and tetrachloroethene from dry cleaned clothes or drapes.

Objective 3. Determine occupant perceptions of, and satisfac tion with, the indoor air

quality in their homes.

A total of 28 percent of the households reported experiencing one or more of nine physical

symptoms durin g the previous three weeks that they did not experience when they were

away from the home. The three most frequently reported symptoms were nose/sinus

congestion (19 percent), allergy symptoms (15 percent)

, and headache (13 percent). The

three most fre quently reported thermal comfort perceptions were “too cold” (19 percent),

“too hot” (15 percent), and “too stagnant (not enough air movement)” (12 percent). Thus, a

substantial percentage of occupants of new homes report experiencing physical symptoms

or thermal discomfort.

Objective 4. Examine the relationships among hom e ventilation characteristics, measured

and perceived indoor air quality, and house and household characteristics.

Statistical comparisons were conducted for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations, outdoor air exchange rates, and window usage. Formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde were selected for these analyses, as these were the two air contamina n ts that

most frequently exceeded recommended indoor concentration guidelines. Because of the

small number of homes in the sample groups and the important seasonal and house

‐ specific differences, these comparisons should only be considered as suggestive of

differences. Multivariate analyses need to be done to further establish any differences

between the groups.

### 8 Formaldehyde concentrations were found to be significantly higher in the following group

comparisons:

• Non

‐ mechanically ventilated Northern California homes had higher formaldehyde

concentrations than Southern California homes

• Ducted outdoor air homes had higher formaldehyde concentrations than homes

without mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems

• Ducted outdoor air homes had high er formaldehyde concentrations than heat

recovery ventilator homes

Acetaldehyde concentrations were found to be significantly higher in the following group

comparisons:

• Ducted outdoor air homes had higher acetaldehyde concentrations than homes

without mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems

• Ducted outdoor air homes had higher acetaldehyde concentrations than heat

recovery ve ntilator homes

Window usage was found to be significantly higher in the following group comparisons:

• Summer homes had higher window usage than winter homes

Outdoor air exchange rates were found to be significantly higher in the following group

comparisons:

• Heat recove ry ventilator homes had higher outdoor air exchange rates than homes

without mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems

• Heat recovery ventilator homes had higher outdoor air exchange rates than ducted

outdoor air homes

Correlation analyses were also conducted for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations with six home characteristics and four environmental conditions. For both

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations, the outdoor air ex change rate was

determined to have a significant inverse correlation. For formaldehyde concentrations,

indoor air temperature was determined to have a significant correlation. These results

indicate that as outdoor air ex change rates decrease or the indoor temperate increases, the

indoor concentrations of formaldehyde increase.

### 9 Objective 5. Identify the incentives and barriers that influence people’s use of windows,

doors, and mechanical ventilation devices for adequate air exchange.

Of the homeowners with mechanical outdoor air systems (that is, ducted outdoor air or

heat recovery ventilator systems, not nighttime cooling systems, evaporative cooling

systems, or window fans):

• 78 percent stated that the operation of the system was explained to them when the y

bought or mo ved into the house

• 63 percent responded that they understood how the system works

• 83 percent stated that they felt that they understood how to operate the system

properly

A total of 91 percent stat ed they chose the system because it came with the house, and the

things they liked most about the system were: “Fres h air” (52 percent), “Quiet”

(48 percent), and “Reduced concern about indoor air qua lity” (26 percent). The things they

liked least about the system were: “Not effective” (32 percent), ”Too drafty” (26 percent),

and “Too noisy” (26 percent).

Objective 6. Identify the incentives and barriers related to people’s purchases and practices

that improve indoor air quality, such as the use of low

‐ emitting bui lding materials and

improved air filters.

A total of 24 percent of the 105 respondents stated “none” in response to the question

“What special measures or choices have you or the builder take n to improve the quality of

the air in your home?” The four most frequent responses to improvements undertaken

were: “Hard flooring instead of carpeting” (33 percent), “Carbon monoxide alarm”

(28 percent), “High efficiency vacuum cleaner with special features such as filters to trap

more particles” (27 percent), and “Upgrade my central air filter” (25 percent).

Conclusions

The following summarizes the main conclusions from this st udy of new single

‐ family

homes built in California in 2002–2004.

1. Many homeowners never open their windows or doors, especially in the winter

months.

2. New homes in California are built relatively tight, such that outdoor air exchange

rates through the building envelope can be very low (e.g., 0. 1 air changes per hour).

### 10 3. In new homes with low outdoor air exchange rates, indoor concentrations of air

contaminants with indoor sources, such as formaldehyde and some other volatile

organic compounds, can become substantially elevated and exceed recommended

exposure guidelines.

4. Ducted outdoor air mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems generally did not

perform well as a result of the low o utdoor airflow rates and short operating times.

A total of 64 percent of ducted outdoor air systems failed to meet the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Conditioning Engineers 62 .2

‐ 2007

standard for residential ventilation, which is referenced in the Energy

Commission’s 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

5. Heat recove ry ventilator mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems performed

much better than ducted outdoor air systems. All heat recovery ventilator systems

met the California Energy California’s new 2008 Building Energy Efficie ncy

Standards.

Recommendations

1. Consideration should be given to installing mechanical outdoor air ventilation

systems in new single

‐ family residences to provide a depend able and continuous

supply of outdoor air to the residence for the purpose of controlling indoor air

contaminants.

2. Consideration should be given to regulating the emissions of air contaminants from

building materials, such as the 2007 California Air Resources Board regulation to

limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

3. Given the relatively high frequency of indoor formaldehyde concentrations that

exceeded recommended exposure guidelines, and the fact that formald ehyde is a

known human carcinogen, consideration should be given to conducting studies

focused on quantifying the emission rates of formaldehyde from all potential

indoor sources (such as bui lding materials, furnishings, consumer products, and

others). Based on this research, regulations should be developed to reduce indoor

formaldehyde emissions.

4. Outreach to public and professional groups should be increased regarding the need

to reduce indoor formaldehyde con c entrations in existing homes by sealing

exposed composite wood surfaces, selecting low

‐ emission furniture, improving

outdoor air ventilation in the home, and controlling indoor humidity.

5. Multi variate analyses of the data collected in this study should be conducted to

further develop the understanding of the relationships between indoor air

### 11 contaminant concentrations, indoor sources, ventilation, season, and other major

sources of variance.

6. A statewide population

‐ weighted assessment from the data collected in this field

study should be performed to better understand the air contaminant source and

ventilation characteristics of new homes.

7. Additional studies of indoor air quality and ventilation with diurnal win d speed

and temperature swings should be conducted to examine the significance of

nighttime cooling by natural or mechanical means.

8. Further studies in additional homes with mechanical outdoor air ventilat ion

systems should be conducted to confirm the findings identified in this study and

with consideration for other build ing factors. Both installation and field

performance of the mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems should be

evaluated.

9. Revision of the intermittent ventilation effectiveness fa ct ors in the 2008 Building

Energy Efficiency Standards and the Energy Commission’s companion Residential

Compliance Manual should be considered, to provide intermittent ventilation that

results in indoor air qua lity that is comparable to that provided by continuous

ventilation systems.

10. Research should be conducted on exhaust

‐ only ventilation systems, which were not

encountered in this stud y but may be used widely in the future.

11. Home builders should be educated about the importance of conveying to

homeowner s the need for outdoor air ventilation in homes, how the ventilation

systems operate, and the importance of designing systems that are easy fo r

homeowner s to maintain. In addition, consider creating an easy

‐ to

‐ read short fact

sheet that can be distributed to the public regarding residential ventilation systems

and the importance of the operation and maintenance of these systems to indoor air

quality.

12. Research should be con ducted to investigate residential exposures to ozone

‐

initiated reaction products, such as formaldehyde and other aldehydes and

ultrafine particles, that are formed when ozone reacts with contaminants such as

d

‐ limonene, which is emitted by ma ny air freshener and cleaning products as well

as some orange oil termite treatments. This project’s database contains important

information for such research, including d

‐ limonene concentrations, outdoor air

exchange rates, air cleaners that generate ozone, and formaldehyde and other

aldehyde concentrations.

### 12 Benefits to California

This was the first large field study of window use, outdoor air ventilation rates, and indoor

air contaminants in new California homes. The data from this study were immediately

useful for the California Energy Commission in guiding the development of building

design standards that require mechanical ventilation to protect indoor air quality and

comfort in California homes and for the California Air Resources Board to improve

exposure assessments of indoor and outdoor air contaminants. In particular, the Energy

Commission used the study results as a scientific basis to revise the State’s building energy

efficiency standards to provide more healthful, energy

‐ efficient homes in California. The

study results will also improve California Air Resources Board’s ability to identify current

sources of indoor air contaminants, to asse ss Cali fornians’ current exposure to measured

toxic air contaminants, and to recommend effective strategies for reducing indoor air

pollution.

### 13 

## 1.0 Introduction

Concerns have been raised about whether homeowners use windows, doors, exhaust fans,

and other mechanical ventilation devices enough to remove indoor air contaminants and

excess moisture. Building practices and building standards for energy efficiency have led

to more tightly sealed homes, and building codes have relied on occupants to open

windows for ventilation

. However, there is very little information on current ventilation

practices, indoor air quality (IAQ), or indoor air contaminant sources in homes.

In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) prepared a comprehensive report on

indoor air quality in res ponse to requirements of Assembly Bill 1173, Report to the California

Legislature–I ndoor Air Pollution in California (California Air Resources Board 2005). This

report summ arizes the best scientific information on indoor air pollution, including:

information on common indoor air contaminants and their sources; the potential health

impacts of indoor air contaminants and associated costs; existing regulations and practices;

and options for mitigation in schools, homes, and non

‐ industrial workplaces. This report

concludes that indoor air pollution causes substantial, avoidable illness and health

impacts–ranging from irritant effects to asthma, cancer, an d premature death–and costs

Californians billions of dollars each year.

Phillips et al. (1990) reported results of a statewide telephone survey of 1,780 Californians

conducted in 1987–1988 regarding the occupant’s use of mechanical and natural

ventilation. The authors reported that a sizable number of households only open

windows/doors for natural ventilation for a fe w minutes a day at most, especially during

the winter (25% never open windows/doors for ventilation). In addition, very few

households use ex haust fans. Based upon the results of this survey the authors conclude

that in homes where the occupants do not use windows/doors or mechanical systems for

ventilation, that these hous eholds may be susceptible to high concentrations of indoor air

contaminants.

In addition to the fact that many homeowners do not use windows/d oors for ventilation,

the building envelope tightness in new Californian homes ha s been increasing, which

reduces the natural infiltration of outdoor air into residences. Wilson and Bell (2003),

report that construction practices have resulted in lower infiltration rates. The building

envelope air tightness as determined from blower door tests in a sa mple of 76 homes built

in California since November 2002 had a median ACH 50 (i.e., air changes per hour at

50 pascals [Pa]) of 5.2, with a range of 2.3 to 8.7; while in a sample of 13 homes built before

1987, the median ACH 50 was 8.6, with a range of 6.2 to 13.2. In addition, Chan et al. (2003)

report in an analyses of more than 70,000 measurements in the U.S. housing stock that

envelope leakage has been steadily decreasing. For conventional homes that are not

participants of a low

‐ income or an energy

‐ efficiency program and that have floor areas

between 1500 square feet (ft 2 ) to 2000 ft 2

, the median normalized envelope leakage area has

decreased from 0.67 in homes built before 1950, to 0.49 for homes built between 1950 and

### 14 1979, to 0.38 for homes built between 1980–1995, to 0.31 for homes built between 1995 and

2002.

In recognition that many homeowners often do not use windows for outdoor air

ventilation and that residential building envelopes have evolved to be more airtight, the

State of Washington has, since 1991, required mechanical outdoor ventilation for

residences. A 1999 field study (Devine 1999) of 31 homes built since 1991 with mec hanical

outdoor ventilation systems revealed that the technical details of the mechanical outdoor

air ventilation requirements were widely misunderstood. While all 31 homes evaluated

were equipped with at least some system components, less than half (15) met the

requirements either prescripti vely or by performance.

Batterman et al. (2005) reported that attached garages may be important sources of air

contaminants in the home. In a study of 15 residential ga ra ges, the authors observed

elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the garage air. The calculated

emission rates of 34 volatile organic compounds in the 15 garages, totaled 3.0 ± 4.1 grams

(g)/day and were dominated be gasoline

‐ related compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene, and

xylenes). Although the impact of the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC)

in the garage air upon the indoor air concentrations of the residences wa s not assessed in

this study, the authors conclude that garages are potentially significant sources of VOC

into the air of residences.

Hodgson and Levin (2003) reported the indoor concentrations of VO C in two studies

involving 20 new single

‐ family homes. The VOC concentrations with maximum

concentrations of 50 pa rts per billion (ppb) or more included formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,

hexanal, toluene, ethylene glycol, 1,2

‐ propanediol, 2

‐ propanaone, and alpha

‐ pinene.

Hodgson et al. (2000) reported in a study of new manufactured and site

‐ built homes that

formaldehyde is by far the most likely of the 12 VOCs evaluated to prod uce sensory

irritation effects. Phenol and acetic acid were also identified as relatively potent irritants.

Multiplying the relative irritancy for these three VOCs by the geometric mean indoor

concentration measured in the seven site

‐ built homes in this study results in acetic acid

contributing 17 times more times sensory irritation than phenol, and formaldehyde

contributing 419 time more. In addition to the sensory irritant effects of formaldehyde, in

2004, the World Health Organization designated formaldehyde as a known human

carcinogen (IARC 2004).

Hodgson et al. (2002) measured the emission rates of formaldehyde in a new, fully

furnished but unoccupi ed manufactured home. The mat erials with the highest percentage

of the total emission rates of formaldehyde were determined to be to the particleboard

cabinetry cases (36%) an d the high density fiberboard passage doors (32%).

### 15 To help better understand ventilation and the impact upon air quality in new Californian

homes, a mail survey of new single

‐ family detached homes was conducted to determine

occupant use of windows, barriers that inhibit their use, satisfaction with IAQ, and the

relationships between these factors (Price et al. 2007). This study, sponsored by the ARB

and the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission), was conducted by the

University of California, Berkeley (UCB) Survey Research Center. In December 2004 an d

January 2005 a questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 4,972 single

‐ family detached homes built in 2003. A total of 1,448 responses were recei ved. An

additional sample of 230 homes was obtained from builders

. These add itional homes were

also mailed the questionnaire and were reported by the builders to have mechanical

ventilation systems. A total of 67 responses were received from this sample.

Table 1 (page 17) summarizes the percentage of homes responding to the questionnaire

that reported no use of windows for ventilation on a seasonal basis. The results are

presented for four categories of never

‐ used hours per day: 24

‐ hours/day (i.e., never

opened), 23 or more hours/day, 22 or more hours/day, and 21 or more hours/day;

corresponding to 0 hours, 1 or less hours, 2 or less hours, an d 3 or less hours of window

usage per day. As can be seen in Table 1, a substantial percentage of homeowners, ranging

from 5.8% in the spring to 29% in the winter, report never using their windows. The

percentage of homeowners reporti n g 21 or more hours per day of no window usage

ranged from 12% in the spring to 47% in the winter.

The reasons reported most frequently as “very important” by the homeow ners (i.e., 20% or

more of homeowners) for not opening their windows included: security/safety (80%),

maintain comfortable temperature (68%), keep out rain/snow (68%), save energy (61%),

keep out insects (52%), keep out dust (42%), too windy/drafty (45%), keep out noise (39%),

reduce air contaminants or odors from outdoors (36%), keep out pollen/allergens (35%),

privacy from neighbors (29%), and keep out woodsmoke (23%).

In July 2005 as a follow

‐ up to the UCB mail survey, a large indoor air quality field study

entitled Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes, sponsored by the California Air

Resources Board and the California Energy Commission, was launched to assist in

answering some of the questions regarding ventilation and indoor air quality in new

single

‐ family detached homes.

This field study involved 108 new single

‐ family homes from Northern and Southern

California, including a subset of 26 homes with mechanical outdoor

‐ air ventilation

systems. The field teams measured home ventilation an d indoor contaminant source

characteristics, includ ing the amount of composite wood associate d with

cabinetry/furnishings and the finishes of floors, walls, and ceilings; indoor contaminant

concentrations; the residents’ ventilation practices; IAQ perceptions; and decision factors

regarding ventilation and IAQ

‐ rela ted actions. Measurements of indoor and outdoor air

quality and ventilation parameters were made in the summer, fall, and winter. Indoor air

### 16 concentrations of volatile organic compounds; aldehydes (including formaldehyde); PM 2.5

particulate matter; nitrogen dioxide; carbon monoxide; carbon dioxide; temperature; and

relative humidity were measured over one 24

‐ hour period. The outdoor air ventilation

rates were determined concurrent with the air contaminant measurements using passive

perfluorocarbon tracer (PFT) gas measurements. In addition, the field teams measured the

building envelope air leakage, garage

‐ to

‐ home air leakage, forced air unit duct leakage,

window use, airflow rates, and fan system usage. Twenty of the 108 homes were tested in

both the summer and winter seasons, and four homes were tested in the summer, fall, and

winter. Four homes were tested over multiple days, including weekends.

This study provides, for the first time, statewide, accurate and current information on both

ventilation and IAQ in new California homes. Indoor air qua lity and hou sehold ventilation

practices were obtained from multiple seasons and regions of the state, which will help

characterize the full range of indoor air contaminant exposure in such homes. Measured

levels of ventilation an d IAQ were compared to current guidelines and standards.

Information on the use of windows, fans, an d ce ntral systems will help establish realistic

values for developing California building energy efficiency standards.

The Energy Commission used the study results as a scientific basis to revise the state’s

building energy efficiency standards, in order to provide more healthful, energy

‐ efficient

homes in California. The study results will improve ARB’s ability to identify curren t

sources of indoor air contaminants, to assess Californians current exposure to measured

toxic air contaminants, and to recommend effective strategies for reducing ind oor air

pollution.



## 1.1 Project Study Objectives

This project has the following six specific study objectives:



### 1. Determine how residents use windows, doors, and mechanical ventilation devices such

as exhaust fans and central heating and air

‐ conditioning systems.



### 2. Measure and characterize IAQ, ventilation, and the potential sources of indoor

pollutants.



### 3. Determine occupant perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the IAQ in their homes.



### 4. Examine the relationships among home ventilation characteristics, measured and

perceived IAQ, and house and household characteristics.



### 5. Identify the incentives and barriers that influence people’s use of windows, doors, and

mechanical ventilation devices for adequate air exchange.

### 17 6. Identify the incentives and barriers related to people’s purchases and practices that

improve IAQ, such as the use of low

‐ emitting building materials and improved air

filters.



## 1.2 Report Organization

Section 2, Project Approach / Materials and Methods, describes the study design,

participant recruitment, and measurements methods for home characteristics, window and

mechanical ventilation system usage, outdoor air exchange rates, indoor air contaminants,

and occupant perceptions and decision factors.

Section 3, Project Outcomes / Results and Discussion, presents and discusses the results

associated with each of the study objectives.

Section 4, Conclusions and Recommendations, presents the research team’s conclusions

and recommendations.

Because the r e are so many large tables and figures in this report, in order to not have

frequent and multiple page interruptions of the report text, the figures and ta bles have

been placed at the end of each section in which they are introduced. To help readers locate

the specific table or figure, the page number is included in the text of the report.

Table 1. Seasonal percentage of new Californi a single-family detached homes reporting no

use of windows for 24, 23, 22, and 21 hours per day.

Percentage of Homes Surveyed Reporting No Use of Windows a

for the Indicated Number of Hours per Day

(N = 1,334)

24 hours/day 23 or more

hours/day 22 or more

hours/day 21 or more

hours/day

Summer 7.5 9.1 12 14

Fall 8.6 12 16 18

Winter 29 36 45 47

Spring 5.8 5.8 8.4 12

a) Study of Ventilation Practices and Housing Characteristics in New California Homes (Price et al. 2007).

### 18

### 19 

## 2.0 Project Approach/Material and Methods

2.1 Study Design

This study’s design involved recruitment of 108 new Californian homes utilizing the UCB

mail survey database, although it was anticipated that some additional homes outside of

the UCB mail survey database would need to be recruited to fulfill the requirements of the

proposed study sample. Only single

‐ family detached homes built after January 2002 that

were owner

‐ occupied primary residences for at least one year were eligible for the field

study. Additionally, if occupants reported tobacco smoking inside the homes, the y were

excluded from the field study. The intent was to have homes that were recently built under

the latest California building stand ards (i.e., 2001), including the California Building Code

(California Building Standards Commission 2 001) an d the California Title 24 Energy

Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission 2001a and 2001b). The intent was also

to include occupants who would recollect their “new

‐ home experience” but had been in

the home long enough to be familiar with its operation across the year (four seasons).

Our proposed home sample frame consisted of a total of 108 California new single

‐ family

detached h o mes, with a total of 54 homes from the South Coast (Los Angeles and San

Diego) region and 54 homes in the Central Valley / Delt a (Sacramento) region. Our sample

frame also required for the 54 homes in each region to be divided into 27 homes for testing

in the winter field session and 27 homes for testing in the summer field session. In

addition, our sample frame requ ired inclusion of a minimum of 20 mechanically ventilated

homes (i.e., homes with mechanically supplied outdoor air to the whole house) selected to

represent at least three major manu facturers of these type systems

.

Additionally, our study plan required the following crossover/repeat testing of homes:

• 10 of the 54 homes in each region were selected for retesting during the alternate

season (summer or winter).

• The 4 homes of the 5 seasonal repeat homes in Northern California were retested

during the fall swing season.

• 2 of the 27 winter and 2 of the 27 summer homes in Northern California were

selected for testing on 2 additional consecutive 24

‐ hour perio ds, which include one

additional week day and one weekend day (i.e., Thursday, Friday, and Saturday).

Our study plan also required, to the extent there was sufficient sample in excess of those

required to fulfill the primary selection criteria, to select homes following secondary

selection criteria, which were requested by the ARB and Energy Commission. These

criteria were:

### 20 • Match the 60/20/20 percentage mix from the UCB mail survey three strata: Rest

‐ of

‐

State, Sacramento Delta, and Southern California Coastal

• Northern California Inland

o Use the Rest of the State stratum to identify the homes in the Central Valley

from Merced north

o Exclude homes in the Sa cramento Delta Stratum

o Exclude San Jose homes

• Northern California Delta

o Include the homes in the Sacramento Delta Stratum

o Exclude homes in the Bay Area

• Southern California Inland

o Use the Rest of the State Stratum to identify homes in the are a s from about

Lancaster so uth

o Exclude the Southern California Coastal Stratum homes

• Southern California Coastal

o If there are few homes available in this group, includ e some homes in the high

desert areas of Lancaster, Palmdale, areas east to Victorville, or in the Lake

Elsinore area. Verify that these areas me et the Energy Commission screening

criteria for nighttime ventilative cooling potential: Summer maximum

temperature of at least 90 ° F and nighttime minimum temperature at least 30 ° F

lower.

o Exclude homes if less than two miles from the coast.



## 2.2 Home Recruitment and Selection

To recruit the homes for this study, the database from the UCB (Price et al. 2007) mail

survey that was administered in 2004–2005 was utilized, along with supplemental listings

of new homes (i.e., built since 2002) in the same areas as homes already identified. The

UCB mail survey drew a random sample of 10,000 new single

‐ family homes from a listing

### 21 by DataQuick, which had the best available records of this type. This list was stratified:

2,000 homes from the Sacramento Delta area, 2,000 from the Southern Coastal area, and

6,000 from the rest of the state. The first two strata were defined by zip code areas where

substantial nighttime cooling was expected in the summer due to coastal or delta wind

influence. About one

‐ half of the selected homes in each stratum were sent a recruitment

letter. Over 300 of th os e homes were ineligible, mostly because the residents had not lived

in the home at least nine months, the home was vacant, or the address was incorrect.

In this stratified

‐ random sample by UCB survey, known as the Statewide Probability

Sample, a total of 4,648 eligib le homes were contacted, and 1,448 of those homes completed

the mail questionnaire, for a 31% response rate. The participating homes from this sample

have a sample weight assigned to them to adjust for the different sampling rates and the

slightly different response rates for each stratum.

The UCB Statewide Probability Sample appears to be fairly representative of new single

‐ family homes in California. The survey response rate of 31% was very good for mail

surveys, which us ually achieve a response rate of about 10%. As discussed by Price et al.

(2007), the ethnic composition of the households was similar to the California population

as a whole, except that the fraction of Asian households wa s a little larger than that for

California. As expected for recent homebuyers, the households had higher incomes and

household sizes compared to the general population.

In addition to recruiting the Statewide Probability Sample, the UCB mail survey re cruited a

Supplementary Builders’ Sample of new homes reported by the builders to have outdoor

air mechanical ventilation systems. This sample listing consisted of homes built by a

Northern California building firm with homes mainly in the Sacramento Delta area, homes

built in Southern California as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (2007) Building

America program and homes ident i fied by ARB staff. Out of 192 eligible homes from this

group, 67 completed the questionnaire, for a resp onse rate of 35%.

For the present study, the research team tried to contact participants in the UCB mail

survey who had previously indicated their willingness to participat e in a field study

involving measurements of ventilation and indoor air quality in their homes. Out of all the

completed questionnaires in the UCB survey (1,515), 965 respondents (66%) of the

respondents indicated such willingness. About one

‐ third (340) of these respondents were

located in Northern California, and two

‐ thirds (6 24) were loc ated in Southern California. A

total of 126 respondents (107 in Northern California and 19 in Southern California) were

excluded from the stud y due to their location in areas with coastal influences (Bay Area in

Northern California; proximity to the coast in Southern California.).

Unfortunately the datab a se did not contain telephone numbers for the 965 respondents; a

search by address returned phone numbers for 300 (32%) of them.

### 22 Initial recruiting attempts failed to obtain the target sample sizes because of the limited

number of potential participants and the need to cluster homes geographically. Therefore,

in addition to the interested respondents to the UCB mail survey, supplemental DataQuick

listings of owners of new (2002 to 2004 vintage) single

‐ family detached homes from the

neighboring areas were purchased. This supplemental listing had 8,345 addresses,

homeowner names, and telephone numbers.

From this overall sample listing consisting of UCB sample homes and the supplemental

DataQuick sample, recruitment letters were mailed. A copy of the recruitment letter and

recr uitment script is in the appendices of the Pilot Report, in Appendix A of this report.

The letters asked for homeowners interested in participati ng in the field study to call the

project participant recruiters’ toll

‐ free number. The letters also offered a $100 incentive in

addition to providing the indoor air quality and ventilation system testing to those who

participated in the field study. Calls were received from interested homeowners and the

calls were placed to those non

‐ responding homeowners for which telephone numbers

were available.

Upon making contact with the interested homeowners th e research team administered a

recruitment script and collected information on the home, occupancy, and ventilation

systems and described the details of the three visits req uired by the field teams.

Researchers also collected information regarding the participants’ preferences for dates

and times of the three field visits with the unders tanding that the same time periods would

be required for each of the three field visits. These were:

• Time Period 1: 9 AM to 12 PM

• Time Period 2: 1 PM to 4 PM

• Time Period 3: 4 PM to 7 PM

The recr uiters informed the homeowners that those who indicated flexibility in the field

visit dates and times would have a much higher probab ility of being selected.

Upon completion of the administration of these recruiting scripts to interested

homeowners, the hom es for the field study were selected based on the primary and

secondary sampling criteria discussed above.



## 2.3 Field Work Teams and Work Assignments

The fieldwork was divided amongst three field teams, each consisting of two field

technicians. All fieldwork was conducted according to the specific standard operating

procedures (SOPs) developed for each of the three field teams.

### 23 Field Team 1 installed PFT sources, installed data loggers on windows and fans, and

administered the Occupant Fan and Window Logs, the Indoor Contaminant Source

Activity Sheet, and the Occupant Questionnaire one week in advance of the field work

performed by Field Teams 2 and 3.

Field Team 2 followed Field Team 1 by 7–10 days, to allow for the PFT sources to

equilibrate. Their duties included: the installation and start of the air contaminant

sampling equipment at an indoor and outdoor location, installation and start of the PFT

samplers, collecting information on home construction characteristics, and collecting an

inventory of indoor air contamina nt sources.

Field Team 3 followed Field Team 2 by 22–26 hours. This field team was responsible for the

removal of the air sampling equipment, the PFT samplers, window/door and fan logs and

loggers, collecting detailed information on building air leakage, duct air leakage, and

ventilation system airflow rates.



## 2.4 Home and Site Characteristics Collection

Characteristics of each home were collected using forms that were filled out by the field

team members during the home inspections. The forms used to record these data are the

Home Characteristics Form 1, PFT Form, Home Floor Plan Sketch or floor plan provided

by the homeowner, Home Characteristics Form 2, and Room Tally Form. The following list

describes the home characteristics that were collected in each home:

• General Characteristics

o number of occupants

o number of stories

o foundation type

o conditioned floor area, volume and envelope area

o area of openable windows and doors

• Mechanical Characteristics

o heating/cooling system : general description, loca tion, filter type, duct

locations, airflow rates

o mechanically supplied o utdoor air system: general description and airflow

rates

o exhaust fans: number, co ntrols, and airflow rates

### 24 o appliances: fuel type, venting, location

o other ventilation/conditioning equipment: general description and airflow

rates

o air cleaning devices: type, manufacturer, and model

• Site Characteristics

o outdoor air contaminant sources (e.g., busy roadways, nearby gasoline

stations)

o site drainage conditions

o site wind shielding

• Home Contaminant Source Characteristics

o vacu um system

‐ type and typical usage frequency

o number of occupants and pets

o mechanical system fuels

o composite wood materials

o type of floor surface

o moisture staining/damage

The conditioned floor area, envelope area, and air volume was calculated from on site

dimension measurements. Floor plans were obtained for each of the h omes. Field Team 1

collected on

‐ site measurements of the home exterior dimensions, indoor ceiling heights,

and selected indoor wall dimensions. These dimensions were then used to calculate a scale

factor for the floor plans, and this scale factor was used to calculate the conditioned floor

areas, envelope areas, and air volumes on a room

‐ by

‐ room basis for the entire home.

The amount of composite wood in each home was calculated as th e combined sum of the

square feet associated with furniture/cabinetry and the finishes of floors, walls, and

ceilings. There were a substantial amount of composite wood products that were likely

present but could not be verified without damaging the surfaces. These included medium

‐ density fiberboard baseboards, interior doors, window trim, window shades, and plywood

subflooring. In addition, data were not collected on whether the composite wood product

was covered with a laminate.

### 25 

## 2.5 Home Air Leakage Measurements

2.5.1 Forced Air Unit Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage

Testing for forced air unit (FAU) duct leakage was conducted in accordance with ASTM

E1554

‐ 03, Standard Test Method for Determining External Air Leakage of Air Distribution

Systems by Fan Pressurization (ASTM 2003a). The method uses a fan flow meter device

(i.e., DuctBlaster) attached to the return air grill, which measures the airflow required to

pressurize the ducts to 25 Pa while the supply ducts are sealed. The FAU system duct

leakage airflow was then divided by the total FAU return airflow to get the percent duct

leakage.



### 2.5.2 Building Envelope Air Leakage Area

The building envelope air leakage area was determined by Field Team 3, using a

depressurization multipoint blower door test with automated pressure testing (APT)

instrumentation. Testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM E779

‐ 99, Standard Test

Method for Determining Air Leakage by Fan Pressurization (ASTM 2003b). For this test the

homes were configured with all windows and ext erior door closed, all interior doors open

(except doors to attached garages and hatches to attics), fireplace dampers closed, and all

exhaust fans off. The continuously oper ati ng mechanical outdoor air delivery fans (i.e., the

heat recovery ventilator systems [HRVs]) were left operating. Windy outdoor conditions

during testing of a few homes were such that a multipoint blower door test was not

possible. For these homes a single point depressurization blower door test was conducted

at 50 pascals of pressure.



### 2.5.3 Home-to-Garage Air Leakage

Home

‐ to

‐ garage air leakage measurements were collected by Field Team 3 using two

methods to measure the potential air leakage between the home and the garage. The first

method consisted of using a blower door with APT instrumentation to conduct a zone

pressure diagnostic test of the garage

‐ to

‐ home connection. This test consists of conducting

two multi

‐ point blower door home depressurization tests as described above; one with the

home door to the garage closed and one with the door open. From these data the

equivalent leakage area (EqLA @10 Pa) in sq uare inches was calculated between the garage

and the ho me and between the garage and outdoors. The second test method consisted of

measuring the differential pressure between the home and the garage while the home was

‐ 50 Pa wit h respect to outdoors. This test is recommended by the American Lung

Association in their Health Home Builder Guidelines (American Lung Association 2006).

When the home is depressurized to

‐ 50 Pa with respect to outdoors, the home

‐ to

‐ garage

negative pressure must be at least

‐ 49 Pa. It should be noted that the team contacted

members of the Technical Committee for information to determine the basis for this

guideline, and there are apparently no specific studies upon which it is based. Thus, it is

assumed that this guideline most likely represents the professional judgment of the

### 26 Technical Committee with respect to a garage

‐ home coupling factor that is both relatively

low and achievable.



## 2.6 Window/Door and Mechanical Systems Usage

The approach for measuring window/door and mechanical system usage applies a

combination of one

‐ time tests and weekly monitoring. Collection methods are summarized

in this section for the following ventilation parameters:

• windows and doors

• mechanical exhaust fans and appliances

• forced air heating/cooling systems

The usage of select win dows and doors, and operation of mechanical systems was

monitored for approximately one week by written logs and/or data lo gger instruments

. The amount of time that windows and doors were used and mechanical systems were

operated is reported in 24

‐ hour time periods counting back from the time that Field Team 3

entered the home and stopped the IAQ contaminant and PFT measurements.

The following is a description of the methods that were used to collect data on each of the

ventilation parameters.



### 2.6.1 Occupant Use of Windows and Doors

The homeowners were asked by Team 1 which windows and doors, if any, they use for

ventilation. Written logs and a writing utensil were placed on the glass or panel, near

where the window or door was opened. The homeowners used these logs to record the

time, duration, and distance of the window or door opening. The windows or doors that

were verified as never being used were not equipped with window written logs.

Homeowners were also asked to identi f y the two windows or doors that were most

frequently used for ventilation. Magnetic state loggers were taped to these two windows or

doors to record the time and duration that the window or door was opened.

Measurements of all window and door maximum opening areas in the home were

collected by Team 1. The opening width and height were measured using a tape measure.



### 2.6.2 Occupant Use of Mech anical Exhaust Systems

Homeowners were asked by Team 1 which exhaust fans they use for ventilation. Data

loggers or written logs were deployed for all exhaust fans that would be used and all

exhausting appliances (i.e., dryers).

### 27 For bathroom or laundry room exhaust fans, ac

‐ field data loggers were placed above the

exhaust grille in the vicinity of the fan motor for the two fans that the homeowners

identified as used the most

. For these exhaust fans with data loggers, no written logs were

installed. For any additional exhaust fans, beyond the two equipped with data loggers,

written logs and a writing utensil were placed near the fan switch/timer for the

homeowners to log the usage. For bathroom and laundry room exhaust fans that ar e meant

to run on a continuous basis, such as HRVs, the homeowner was questioned by Team 1

about usage and for those HRVs that were reported to operate intermittently, either a

written log or an ac

‐ field data logger was installed.

For clothes dryer exhaust appliances, an ac

‐ field data logger was hooked directly onto the

power cord of the dryer using a zip

‐ tie, and ele ctrical tape if needed, or an ac

‐ field sensor

was clamped to the power cord and plugged directly into the data logger.

For kitchen range hood exhaust fans, written logs and a writing utensil were placed on the

wall or microwave near the fan swit ch for the ho meowners to log the usage and fan speed.

All bathroom and laundry room exhaust fan airflow rates were determined using a

balometer flow hood. Where the exhaust duct was accessible along the exterior wall of the

building, kitchen range hood exhaust fan airflow rates were determined using a balometer

flow hood. For those homes where the exhaust duct was not accessible, the average air

speed was measured at the hood air filters and the filter dimensions were collected using a

tape mea s ure.

Where the exhaust duct was accessible along the exterior wall of the building the dryer

exhaust airflow rate wa s determined using a balometer flow hood. While onsite the

number of bends (e.g., 90 0

, 45 0 ) and the length of the ductwork were estimated and the

dryer make and model information was collected. For homes where the exhaust duct was

not accessible, these characteristics were used to calculate the estimated dryer exhaust

airflow rate using the flow rate specifications from the manufacturer.



### 2.6.3 Occupant Use of Mechan ical Outdoor Air Systems

There were two types of systems encountered in the field study, ducted outdoor air (DOA)

systems and heat recovery ventilator systems (HRV). The DOA systems are also sometimes

called central fan integrated systems (CFI). The usages of the DOA systems, which are

integrated with the FAU systems, were monitored as described below for the FAU

systems. The usages of the HRV systems, which were either manually operated or

operated off a timer, wer e reco rded by the occupant on a log sheet. Typically the HRV

systems operated continuously 24 hours per day.



### 2.6.4 Occupant Use of Nighttime Cooling Systems

There were two types of nighttime cooling systems encountered in the field study: whole

house fan (WHF) systems and FAU return air damper (RAD) systems. The WHF systems

### 28 consist of a large fan installed in the ceiling that draws outdoor air in by exhausting air

from the home into the attic and subsequently to the outdoors through the attic vents. The

usage of the WHF systems was monitored in a similar fashion to the FAU systems. The

RAD systems have an automatic motorized damper integrated with the FAU return air

duct that switches the air drawn into the FAU between the home air (i.e., from the central

return air grille) and the outdoor air (i.e., fr o m an outdoor air intake on the roof). The

usage of the RAD systems was monitored using a relay and state logger combination.

Magnetic tape or a zip

‐ tie was used to secure the data logger with relay to the damp e r

control and the lead wires were fastened with alligator clips to the damper 24 volts

‐ direct

current ( VDC) motor wiring connections.



### 2.6.5 Occupant Use of Forced Ai r Heating/Cooling Systems (FAU)

The research team used ac

‐ field data loggers to measure the FAU heating/cooling system

operation. The data loggers were installed directly on the electrical wire for the fan with a

zip

‐ tie, and electrical tape if needed, for all FAUs in each home. The access panel to the

furnace was removed in all cases to reach the electrical board for the forced air

heating/cooling system. Airflow rates were measured at the return grill(s) using a

balometer flow hood equipped with a 2 x 2

‐ foot or 2 x 4

‐ foot capture hood. The flow rate

for those homes with a single fan dual zoned system with two fan speeds were measured

with both thermostats in the ”fan

‐ on” position, therefore, the highest fan flow rate was

collected.



## 2.7 Outdoor Air Ventilation Measurements

2.7.1 Mechanically Supplie d Outdoor Airflow Rates

Two different types of mechanical outdoor air systems were encountered in this field

study: ducted outdoor air to the return side of the FAU (DOA systems) and heat recovery

ventilators (HRV systems). In addition, there were other mechanical systems that provided

outdoor air ventilation, directly or indirectly by exhaust, such as nighttime ventilation

cooling systems (e.g., WHF, RAD), bathroom and kitchen exhaust fans, evaporative

coolers, and window fans.

Ducted Outdoor Air Systems

There were two types of DOA systems encountered in the field study: those with manual

dampers and those with automatic dampers and fan cyclers. Operation of the DOA

systems with manual dampers is paired with operation of the FAU, so the usage was

collected by the ac

‐ field logger that monitored the FAU fa n operation. The DOA systems

with automatic dampers and fan cyclers were monitored using a relay and state logger

combination. A magneti c tape or zip

‐ tie was used to secure the data logger with relay to

the damper control and lead wires were fastened with alligator clips to the damper 24

VDC motor wiring connections. The approach used to calculate the airflow rates of DOA

systems was to measure the average air speed through the outdoor air duct with a

### 29 velometer while the FAU is operating and then to determine the duct dimensions with a

tape measure.

Heat Recovery Ventilators

Heat recovery ventilators are two

‐ fan systems; typically one fan/duct system exhausts air

from bathrooms and laundry/utility rooms to the outdoors, and another fan/duct system

supplies outdoor air to the living space. The exhaust and outdoor air streams are ducted

through an air

‐ to

‐ air heat exchanger so that the outdoor air is warmed by the exhaust air

during the heating sea son and cooled by the exhaust air during the cooling season. The

HRVs were typically operated continuously, and were therefore not monitored with either

a data logger or written log. The homeowner was questioned by Team 1 about usage, and

for those HRVs that were reported to be operated intermittently, either a written log or an

ac

‐ field data logger was installed using a zip

‐ tie or tape to secure the data logger. The

approach used to measure the airflow rates of HR V s was a balometer flow hood. The HRV

outdoor airflow rates were measured at the single outdoor air supply air diffuser.

There were two types of nighttime cooling ventilation systems encountered in the field

study: WHF systems and FAU RAD systems. The approach used to measure the airflow

rates of the RAD systems was a balometer flow hood at th e return air grill. The approach

used to measure the airflow rates of the WHF systems was to measure the average air

speed over the air intake in the ho me with a hot wire anemometer and multiply the air

speed by the exhaust intake dimensions. This approach was used for the WHF systems

rather than the balometer flow hood, because of the much higher airflow rates associated

with the WHF systems.

There was also one home with a window fan consisting of a portable fan system that is

inserted directly into window and one home with an evaporative cooling (EC) system. The

EC system was separate from the FAU system and consisted of a roof mounted fan system

that pulled outdoor air through evaporative cooling pads and delivered the air to a central

supply air grille. The window fan sy stem usage was monitored using written logs and the

EC system usage was mea sured as described for the WHF systems. The airflow rates of the

window fan system and the EC system were mea sured as described for the WHF systems.



### 2.7.2 Tracer Gas Measurements of Outdoor Air Exchange Rate

The outdoor air exchange rate in all the homes was measured with a tracer gas technique

during the 24

‐ hour air contaminant measurements and in a selection of homes for two

‐

week period. This technique uses a passive constant injection of perfluorocarbon tracer

(PFT). The tracer gas sources were placed by Field Team 1 at locations in each home

approximately one week in advance of the tracer gas sampling, to allow for the emission

rates of the sources to equili brate. The number of sources and placement locations were

determined for each home based on room volumes and layout to approximate a uniform

indoor concentration. Since the emission rates from the PFT sources are temperature

dependent, an air temperature data logger was deployed, located at the heating/cooling

### 30 system thermostat, to log the air temperature at 15

‐ minute intervals. These temperature

data were then input into an equation of the emission rate as a function of time that was

supplied by Brookhaven National Laboratory, the supplier of the PFT sources, to calculate

the temperature

‐ corrected PFT emission rates. The PFT used for these tests was

perfluoromethylcyclohexane (PMCH).

The PFT samplers used for these tests were capillary adsorption tube samplers (CATS).

These are small passive samplers that were co

‐ located at the indoor air contaminant

measurement site (e.g., family/living room) and were deployed by Field Team 2. The

outdoor air ex change rate was calculated as described in ASTM E741 (ASTM 2000). For the

24

‐ hour measurements, the samplers were collected by Field Team 3, but for the two

‐ week

measurements the samplers were collected by the homeowner, and returned by mail. A

total of 25 homes had two

‐ week PFT measurements.

The calculated method detection limit (MDL) in terms of air changes per hour of outdoor

air and from the analyses of variance among th e duplicate samples wa s 0.016 air changes

per hour (ach).

In three 2

‐ story homes, during the Winter North field session, additional CATS samplers

were deployed in locatio ns other than the air contaminant measurement site on the second

floor (e.g., master bedroom, second floor bonus room) to evaluate the tracer gas

concentration uniformit y. In two of these three homes, a 24

‐ hour measurement was

collected during the same time as the CATS sampler at the air contaminant measurement

site, and in one of these three homes a two

‐ week measurement was collected during the

same time as the CATS sampler at the air measurement contaminant site.

Since the blower door measurements conducted by Field Team 3 the day after the

deployment of the PFT samplers by Field Team 2 would have a substantial and atypical

impact on the home ventilation rate, the long

‐ term PFT samplers were capped when we

shut down the indoor air sampler before the blower door tests. The hom e owners were then

asked if they would uncap the long

‐ term PFT sampler 48 hours later. Each of the

homeowners was called to confirm that the samplers were uncapped, and then the

homeowner collected the long

‐ term PFT samplers, PFT sources, and temperature data

logger approximately two weeks later. The homeowner used two mailing containers to

return the CATs sampler and PFT sources separately at least a day apart.

The forms used to record these data were the House Dimensions/PFT Form, the Logger

Form, the PFT Form, an d the Air Sampling Tube Return Instructions. The home floor plan

was also used by Team 1 to depict the locations of the PFT sources to assist Field Team 3 in

retrieving the PFT sources and CAT samplers.

### 31 

## 2.8 Indoor Air Quality Measurements

The following is a summary of the indoor air quality parameters that were measured in

each home, with the exception of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), which

were only measured in 31 homes of the Winter North field session.

• Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements

o Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

o Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde

o Nitrogen Dioxide

o Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 )

• Real

‐ Time IAQ Measurements

o Carbon Monoxide

o Carbon Dioxide

o Temperature and Humidity

These IAQ parameters were measured for 22–26 hour period at one indoor location in the

family/living room area of each of the homes. In addition, these IAQ parameters were also

measured over the same time period at one outdoor loc ation, in the backyard, for each

cluster of two to three homes. The homes in each cluster were all with i n two miles of each

other, with the exception of one cluster in the Summer North field session. This cluster had

one home in Brentwood, which was 6.4 miles from the other two homes in Discovery Bay.

Duplicate air samples were randomly selected to fulfill the 10% quality assurance and

quality control requirement. The airflow rates for the integr ated air samples were

measured at the beginning and end of the sampling period using calibrated rotometers.

Special air sa mplers were developed to collect the integrated and real

‐ time air contaminant

concentrations. Figure 1 (page 44) is a photograph of the air sampler at an indoor site and

Figure 2 (page 45) is a p h otograph of the air sampler at an outdoor site with the outdoor

radiation/rain shield. For the integrated air samples, this air sampler consisted of a pair of

air sampling pumps contained in an acoustically shielded fiberglass lock box mounted to a

tripod. The study used SKC AirCheck 2000 air sampling pumps, which include an internal

flow sensor that provides automatic electronic airflow control, such that the sample airflow

rate is maintained within ± 5%, and 115 volts

‐ alternating current (VAC) battery eliminators

to allow operation over the proposed 24

‐ hour sampling periods. One of these pumps

provided the air sampling flow rate for the PM 2.5 air sampler. The second pump, through

the use of a four

‐ port manifold with low

‐ flow control valves, provided the air sampling

flow rate for the VOCs, nitrogen dioxide, and formaldehyde/acetaldehyde air samplers.

### 32 A power on

‐ time meter provided a measurement of the time that 110 VAC power was

supplied to the air sampler so that if there was a power interruption during the air

sampling period the duration of the interruption would be known. The air sampling

pumps automatically restart upon restoration of the power following a power interruption.

In addition, a power cord restraint cover was installed at the connection of the power cord

to the power receptacle to guard against inadvertent disconnection of the power cord plug

from the receptacle.

For the real

‐ time IAQ measurements, a TSI IAQ

‐ Calc indoor air qual ity meter was

mounted on the tripod next to the integrated air sampler manifold. The AC adaptor for the

TSI IAQ

‐ Calc was connected to a source of AC power insid e of the fiberglass lock box. In

addition, the TSI IAQ

‐ Calc contained a parallel battery pack power supply that allows the

instrument to continue operation upon a power interruption.

For the outdoor air sampler, a special rain/radiation shield was fabricated from galvanized

sheet metal to enclose and protect the air samplers from rain and solar radiation. This

rain/radiation shield has screened and louver ed vents on two sides to allow ci rc ulation of

outdoor air within the enclosed area.

The following is a detailed description of the air sampling and analy tical techniques for

each of the IAQ parameters



### .

2.8.1 Integrated Time Aver aged IAQ Measurements (24-hour)

2.8.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds

Volatile organic compounds other than formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were measured

using methods based on U.S. EPA Method TO

‐ 17, ”Determination of Volatile Organic

Compounds in Ambient Air Using Active Sampling onto Sorbent Tubes“ (EPA 1999). This

method involves drawing air at a constant rate with a pump through a multi

‐ sorbent tube

(i.e., Berkeley Analytical Associates sorbent tubes). The multi

‐ sorbent tube consisted of a

3.5

‐ inch (89

‐ millimeter [mm]) long by 1⁄4

‐ inch (6.4

‐ mm) outside diameter (OD) passivated

stainless steel tube packed with two sorbent materials. The sorbent materials were

270 milligram (mg) Tenax TATM 60/80 mesh backed up by 100 mg Carbosieve S

‐ IIITM 60/80

mesh. The samples were split 1:5 to prevent overloading of the analytical instrumentation

and thermally desorbed and analyzed by gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry. The

calculated MMDL from the an alyses of variance among the replicate samples was between

2 and 5 nanograms (ng) for most compounds. Details of the analy tical method and

derivation of the method mass detection limit are summarized in Appendix B.

Samples were collected over a 24

‐ hour period at a flow rate of approximately 10 cubic

centimeters per minute (cc/min), which provided a method concentration detection limit of

0.1 μ g/m 3 to 0.4 μ g/m 3 for most compounds. Two samples were collected at each indoor

and outdoor air sample location and one of each sample pair was submitted for analyses

while the companion sampler was submitted as a backup sample.

### 33 Laboratory results for each sampler were corrected using the average of the field blanks for

each batch of samplers that was submitted to the lab for analyses. For field blanks where

the concentration was below the method detection limit of the instrumentation, a value

equal to one

‐ half the method detection limit concentration was used to calc ulate the

average of the field blanks.

A total of 20 volatile organic compounds were selected by the ARB for quantification.

These compounds were selected to include those with known indoor sources, those of

known or suspected health concerns in indoor environments, and those with relevance to

ARB programs.

2.8.1.2 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde

Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were measured according to ASTM

Standard D5197

‐ 03 (ASTM 2003c). This method involves drawing air at a constant rate

with a pump through a solid sorbent cartridge (i.e., Waters Associates Sep

‐ PAK silica gel

impregnated with dinitrophenylhydrazine, DNPH). In addition, since ozone is known to

interfere with this sample analyses, an ozone scrubber was installed directly upstream of

the solid sorbent cartridge. This scrubber consists of a solid sorbent cartridge fill ed with

granular potassium iodide (i.e., Waters Associates Sep

‐ PAK Ozone Scrubber).

Additionally, a scrubber (i.e., Anasorb CSC, coconut charcoal sorbent tube) was placed

downstream of the sampler to scrub the emissions of residual acetonitrile released by the

DNPH sample cartridge. The calculated MMDL from the analyses of variance among the

replicate samples was 9 ng for both formaldehyde an d acetaldehyde. Details of the

analytical method and derivation of the MMDL are summarized in Appendix B.

Samples we re collected over a 24

‐ hour period at a flow rate of approximately 20 cc/min,

which provided a concentration MDL of 0.3 μ g/m 3 for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

This concentration MDL is well below the California Environmental Protection

Agency/Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Cal/EPA OEHHA) Chronic

Inhalation Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) of 3 μ g/m 3 for formaldehyde and 9 μ g/m 3 for

acetaldehyde (OEHHA 2003) and well below the ARB Indoor Air Quality Guideline of

33 μ g/m 3 for formaldehyde (California Air Resources Board 2005).

Laboratory results for each sampler were corrected using the average of the field blanks for

each batch of samplers that was submitted to the lab for analyses. For field blanks where

the concentration was below the method detection limit a value equal to one

‐ half the

method detection limit concentration was used to calculate th e average of the field blanks.

Measurements of the emission rates of formaldehyde from the FAU in three homes were

also made. The impetus for these measurements, were so me prelimi nary measurements

conducted during warm months in some Arizona homes with FAUs located in attics

(Davis 2004). In this study the investigator concluded that that the fiberglass inside of the

### 34 FAUs may be contributing to increased indoor concentrations of formaldehyde. Indeed the

FAUs in the homes of this study contain a substantial amount of fiberglass soundliner,

which may contain formaldehyde resins, and thus these materials may become substantial

emitters of formaldehyde gas, especially when the materials are warm.

Measurements of emission rates were made by simultaneously measuring the

concentration of formaldehyde in the supply and return air of the FAU as well as the attic

air, where the FAUs were located, over a 30

‐ minute period at a sa mple flow rate of

approximately 950 cc/min. During these measurements the FAU fans were operated

without cooling or heating. The supply air concentrations were measured at a supply air

diffuser by inserting the sample inlet directly into the supply air diffuser. The return air

concentrations were measured by inserting the sample inl et directly into the return air

inlet. The attic air concentrations were measured in the atti c at a location close to the attic

access hatch, which was kept closed except to set the air sampler into the attic. The

emission rates were calculated according to Equati o n 1 as the difference between the

concentrations in the supply and return air streams times the FAU airflow rate.

E fau = (C

sa – C

ra ) Q fau (EQ 1)

where:

E fau = emission rate from FAU ( μ g/h)

C

sa = concentration in the FAU supply air at the supply air diffuser ( μ g/m 3 )

C

ra = concentration in the FAU return air at the return air inlet ( μ g/m 3 )

Q fau = airflow rate of the FAU (m 3 /h)

This calculation assumes that the concentration of formaldehyde measured at the supply

air diffuser represented the average concentration of the supply air delivered to the home

and that the concentration measured at the return air inlet represented the average

concentration of the return air leaving the home. While the latter is considered to be a

reasonably good assumption, the assumption of uniform concentrations at all of the supply

air diffusers is likely not nearly as good an a ssumption.

The emission rate of formaldehyde from the FAU was also compared to the total emission

rate of formaldehyde into the home indoor air. The to tal home emission rate was

calculated according to Equation 2 as the difference between the concentrations in the

indoor air and the outdoor air times the outdo or air ventilation (calculated from the air

exchange rate as determined by the PFT measurements and the home indoor air volume).

E home = (C i

– C

o ) 

### λ pft V (EQ 2)

### 35 where:

E home = total home indoor emission rate from FAU ( μ g/h)

C i = concentration in the indoor air ( μ g/m 3 )

C 0 = concentration in the outdoor air ( μ g/m 3 )



### λ

pft = home outdoor air exchange rate determined from PFT measurement (h

‐ 1 )

V

= home indoor air volume (m 3 )

This calculation assumes that the concentration of formaldehyde measured at the living

room/dining room sampling location represented the average home indoor air

concentration.

In addition to these FAU formaldehyde emission rate measurements, the air temperature

and relative humidity in the attic air was also measured.

2.8.1.3 Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) was measured following National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health (NIOSH) Method 6014 (NIOSH 1994a). This method involves drawing air at a

constant rate with a pump through a two

‐ stage solid

‐ sorbent tube (i.e., SKC 226

‐ 40

‐ 02

molecular sieve impregnated with triethanolamine). The samplers were extracted and

analyzed using spectrophotometry at a wavelength of 54 0 nanometers (nm). Both the front

tube section and the back tube section were analyzed separately to verify that there was no

significant breakthrough. The laboratory mass reporting limi t of 0.8 μ g was used for the

MMDL.

Samples were collected over a 24

‐ hour period at a flow rate of approximately 100 cc/min,

which provided a concentration MDL of 5.7 μ g/m 3

. This concentration MDL is well below

both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(EPA NAAQS) (EPA 1990) standard of 100 μ g/m 3 for an annual exposure, as well as the

ARB Indoor Air Quality Guidelines (California Air Resources Board 2005) of 150 μ g/m 3 for

a 24

‐ hour exposure.

Laboratory results for each sampler were corrected using the average of the field blanks for

each batch of samplers that was submitted to the lab for analyses. For field blanks where

the concentration was below the minimum mass reporting limit of the laboratory, a value

of 0 μ g was used to calculate the av erage of the field blanks.

### 36 2.8.1.4 Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 )

Particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) was collected using gravimetric analyses according to NIOSH

500 (NIOSH 1994b). This method involves drawing air at a constant rate with a pump

through a PM 2.5

‐ size selective inlet (i.e., SKC 761

‐ 203 Personal Environmental Monitor)

containing a 37 mm PTFE (i.e., Teflon) filter with a 2.0 μ m pore size (i.e., SKC

– 225

‐ 1709).

Prior to and after sampling, the filters were equilibrated in a climate

‐ controlled weighing

room and analyzed gravimetrically. For the MMDL the research team used a MMDL of

5 μ g, which is five times the 1 μ g sensitivity of the microbalance.

Samples were collected over a 24

‐ hour period at a flow rate of 2 liters per minute (L/min),

which represents the design flow rate of the PM 2.5 impactor and provided a concentration

MDL of 1.8 μ g/m 3

. This concentration MDL is well below both the EPA NAAQS (EPA

2007) ambient air quality standard of 35 μ g/m 3 and the ARB Indoor Air Quality Guidelines

(California Air Resources Board 2005) of 65 μ g/m 3 for 24

‐ hour exposures.

Laboratory results for each sampler were corrected using the average mass change of the

field blanks for each batch of samplers that was submitted to the lab for analyses. For field

blanks where the mass change was below the minimum MMDL of 5 μ g, the actual

reported mass chang e was used to calculate the average of the field blanks.



### 2.8.2 Real-Time IAQ Measurements

2.8.2.1 Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide was measured with real

‐ time instrumentation following EPA method

IP

‐ 3A (EPA 1989) using an electrochemical sensor. We used a TSI IAQ

‐ Calc meter, which

incorporates a passive diffusive sample element and has built in data logging capabilities.

The data logger was programmed to record carbon monoxide concentrations at one

‐

minute intervals. The se nsor has an accuracy of ± 3% or ± 3 parts per million (ppm),

whichever is greater, a precision of ± 2% of reading, a resolution of 1 ppm, and a range of

0–500 ppm.

The concentration MDL was determined to be 0.8 ppm from analysis of the variance of the

eight IAQ

‐ calc instruments used for this field study. The eight instruments were co

‐ located

in a well

‐ mixed test chamber with CO concentrations of 1 ppm to 2 ppm and the average

of 60 one

‐ minute consecutive measurements was used to determine the variance. The

concentration MDL was calculated as the product of the standard deviation of the eight

60

‐ minute average concentrations and the t

‐ test value for a 95% confidence leve l

(i.e., t =1.98, p = 0.05, df

= 7).

This concentration MDL is well below the ARB Indoor Air Quality Guideline (California

Air Resources Board 2005) of 9 ppm for 8

‐ hour exposures. The instrument was calibrated

immediately prior to the start of sampling and checked following the sampling period,

using zero and span (34 ppm) certified calibration gases. The sample data logged over the

### 37 24

‐ hour period was corrected using the pre ‐ and post

‐ calibration curves and assuming that

any changes in the calibrations occurred in a linear manner over time.

Prior to the commencement of the main field study and following a review of the Pilot

Study data it was determined that the carbon mon oxide sensors had a positive interference

with water vapor of 2–4 ppm. This occurs only in outdoor air samples during periods of

high relative humidity (i.e., greater than 75% and typically during rain events). No

attempts have been made to correct these data, nor has any data been deleted where this

effect appears to be occurring.

2.8.2.2 Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide was measured with real

‐ time instrumentation following EPA method

IP

‐ 3A (EPA 1989) using non

‐ dispersive infrared spectrophotometry (NDIR). A TSI IAQ

‐

Calc meter, which incorporates a passive diffusive sample element and has built

‐ in data

logging capabilities, was used. The data logger was programmed to record carbon dioxide

concentrations at one

‐ minute intervals. The sensor has an accuracy of ± 3% or ± 50 ppm,

whichever is greater; a resolut i on of 1 ppm; and a range of 0–5,000 ppm.

The concentration MDL was determined to be 24 ppm from analysis of the variance of the

eight IAQ

‐ calc instruments used for this field stu dy. The eight instruments were co

‐ located

in a well

‐ mixed test chamber with CO concentrations of 540 ppm to 570 ppm, and the

average of 60 one

‐ minute consecutive measurements was used to determine the variance.

The concentration MDL was calculated as the product of the standard deviation of the

eight 60

‐ minute average concentrations and the t

‐ test value for a 95% confidence level (i.e.,

t =1.98, p = 0

. 05, df

= 7).

This concentration MDL is well below both the ASHRAE (ASHRAE 2004b) body odor

standard of 700 ppm over the outdoor concentration, which for typical outdoor

concentrations of 350 to 450 ppm represents an indoor concentration of 1,050 to 1,150 ppm.

The instrument was c a librated immediately prior to the start of sampling, and checked

following the sampling period, using zero and span (1,035 ppm) certified calibration gases.

The sample data logged over the 24

‐ hour period was corrected using the pre ‐ an d post

‐

calibrations curves and assuming that any changes in the calibrations occurred in a linear

manner over time.

2.8.2.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

Temperature and relative humidity were measured with real

‐ time instrumentation using a

thermistor sensor for air temperature and a thin

‐ film capacitive sensor for relative

humidity. A TSI IAQ

‐ Calc meter, which has built in data

‐ logging capabilities, was used.

The data logger was programmed to record temperature and relative humidity at one

‐

minute intervals. The temperature sensor has an accuracy of 1 ° F, a resolution of 0.1 ° F, and a

range of 32 ° F–122 ° F. Prior to the field effort, the instruments’ temperature sensors were

compared to a certified mercury thermometer and the sample data logged over the 24

‐ hour

### 38 period was corrected using a single point correction. The relative humidity (RH) sensor has

an accuracy of 3% RH, a resolution of 0.1% RH, and a range of 5%–95% RH. Prior to the

field effort, the instruments’ relative humidity sensors were compared with a laboratory

probe that was calibrated with salt solutions according to ASTM E104

‐ 02 (ASTM 2002). The

sample data points logged over the 24

‐ hour period were corrected using a single point

correction.

Meteorological data for the specific site of sampling were obtained from the nearest

weather station listed by the National Climatic Data Center. The data included hourly

wind speed and outdoor

‐ air dry bulb temperature. Three weather stations were used for

the northern California sites. The Sacramento Mather Airport was chosen; it is 13 miles

northeast from the Elk Grove site, 12 miles northeast from the Sacramento site, 7 miles

northwest from the Rancho Murieta site, 9 miles southwest from the El Dorado Hil ls site,

and 10 miles southwest from the Folsom site. The second was the Stockton Metropolitan

Airport, which is 23 miles east from the Brentwood sites, 18 miles east from the Discovery

Bay sites, and 8 miles northwest from the Manteca sites. Finally the Auburn Municipal

Airport was chosen for the Lincoln sites, which is 18 miles to the northeast.

Five weathe r stations were used for the Southern California sites. First was the Van Nuys

Airport, which is 18 miles southeast of the Valencia sites, 15 miles southeast of the Santa

Clarita sites, and 21 miles southeast from the Castaic sites. Second chosen was the Marine

Corps Air Station

‐ Miramar, which is 8 miles southeast from the San Diego sites and 6 miles

southeast from San Marcos sites. Third chosen was the Naval Aux i liary Landing

‐ Imperial

Beach that is 5 miles southwest from the Chula Vista sites. Next, the Palmdale Regional

Airport was chosen, which is 6 miles northeast of the Palmdale sites. Finally, the Riverside

Municipal Airport was used, which is 13 miles southwest and northwest from the Fontana

and Riverside sites, respectively.



## 2.9 Homeowner Source Activity

Homeowner activities potentially related to release of contaminants into the indoor air

were recorded by the homeowner during the 24

‐ hour IAQ measurement period using an

indoor Source Activity Log, which was administered by Team 1 and collected by Team 3.

The homeowner was asked to record the activity start times, duration, and type (e.g.,

cooking, cleaning, candle burning, dinner parties, barbecuing, leaf blowing, grass cutting)

starting at 7:00 PM on the day before the 24

‐ ho ur IAQ measurements and ending when

Team 3 retrieved the forms. This results in up to a 48

‐ hour time period when the

homeowner recorded their source activities, with the first 12–20 hours being practice and

which Team 2 checked, and the last 28–36 hours being the time period during which the

24

‐ hour IAQ measurements we re be collected for input into the database.

### 39 

## 2.10 Homeowner IAQ/Ventilation Perceptions and Decision

Factors

Perceptions regarding IAQ and ventilation were collected using the Occupant

Questionnaire that was be administered to the homeowner by Team 1 and collected by

Team 3. The Occupant Questionnaire was adapted from the UCB mail survey study. This

questionnaire collected information regarding the homeowners’ perception of activities

that may affect IAQ in the home. Al so included were key decision factors regarding home

ventilation and purchasing ventilating equipment, building materials, air cleaners, and

other products and materials that affect IAQ. The requested recall perio d was three weeks

and the homeowners were instructed to complete the questionnaire following the start of

the indoor air quality m easurements by Team 3.



## 2.11 Quality Assuran ce and Quality Control

The October 10, 2005, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QA/QC Plan) was

followed. The goal was to successfully collect and analyze a minimum of 98% of all field

samples. For each of the integrated air contaminant measurements, VOCs, NO 2

, formaldehyde/acetaldehyde, PM 2.5

, and the PFT measurements the goal was to successfully

collect and analyze a total of 10% field blanks and 10% field duplicates. In addition, for the

PFT measurements the research team used three of the 10% duplicate samples for samples

in a second zone of the home (i.e., the primary measurement zone was the living/dining

room on the first floors and the second zone location was a second floor bedroom). The

purpose of these two zo ne PFT measurements was to provide some data on the variation

in the PFT indoor concentration, as the calculations of outdoor air exchange measurements

from this measurement method assume that the indoor concentration of PFT is uniform

through the home. In accordance with the QA/QC plan, the PFT sources and PFT sa mplers

were stored and shipped separately to the field site.

Details of the QA/QC for the laboratory analyses of the VOCs, including formaldehyde

and acetaldehyde, are di scussed in Appendix B.

The QA/QC for the laboratory analyses of NO 2 and PM 2.5 were performed as described in

the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NIOSH 1994a and 1994b).

For each VOC, an MDL was established based upon the variance observed in duplicate

samples. The MDL was calculated to have greater than a 95% confidence that the measured

value is greater than zero. This was calculated as the product of the standard deviation of

the duplicate samples and the student’s t

‐ value t 0.095

. For nitrogen dioxide, the laboratory

mass reporting limit for the MDL was used, and for PM 2.5 an MDL equal to five times the

sensitivity of the microbalance was used.

### 40 The flow rates for all integrated air samples utilizing sampling media (i.e., VOCs,

aldehydes, nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 ), were measured before and after the designated

sample interval using rotometers, which were calibrated with a primary standard bubble

meter or frictionless piston meter at the start of each sample season.

For the real

‐ time measurements of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, these instruments

were calibrated in the field at the start and end of each 24

‐ hour sampling period utilizing

certified bottled calibration gasses. Temperature sensors were calibr a ted with a NIST

‐

certified mercury thermometer, and relative humidity sensors were calibrated with salt

solutions at the start of each sample season.

Airflow rate devices (e.g., flow hoods) were calibrated using orifice plates at the start of

each sample season. Pressure transducers for the building and duct leakage measurement

devices (e.g., blower door and duct blaster) were calib r ated with a primary standard

micromanometer at the start of each sample season.

To assess the precision of the measurements of both the air contaminants and PFT

measureme nts of outdoor air exchange rates, the 10% side

‐ by

‐ side duplicate samples were

used. Then both the absolute precision and relative precision of each sample pair were

calculated and summary statistics were prepared. The absolute precision was calculated as

the absolute difference of the results of the sample pair. The relative precision was

calculated as the relative standard deviation of the results of the sample pair. The relative

precision is the more useful metric for assessing the precision, however, where the

measured values are very low this calculation can result in inflated relative precision

values. Thus in the case of high re lative precision calculations it is useful to look at the

absolute precisions. Low relative precisions always indicate good measurement precision.

High relative precisions are only indicative of poor measurement precision if the absolute

precision is also high.



## 2.12 Data Management and Analyses

For this study spreadsheets were created in Excel for all of the field data sheets contained

in the SOPs that are detailed in our October 10, 2005, Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Plan (QA/QC Plan). Hard copies of these field data sheets were taken into the field and

used to record the data. The data on these hard copy field data sheets were then entered

into identical electronic copy field data sheets. These Excel sheets contain all of the

calibrations and calculations for converting the collected field data into the various

ventilation and indoor air quality parameters. A minimum of 10% of each set of Excel field

data sheets were compared with the corresponding hard copy field sheet for accuracy. If

errors were identified, they were corrected and then another 10% of those data were

checked in other field sheets. This process co ntinued until no erro rs were found. In

addition, the range of values was in spected for each variable, and for each variable that

was unusually low or high the data sheets were inspected for errors, any errors observed

### 41 were corrected, and then another 10% of those data were checked in other field sheets. This

process continued until no errors were found. If a particular piece of data was found to be

unusually low or high, and no error could be identified, then that piece of data was

deleted.

A similar check of data in the ACCESS/SAS databases was conducted after the data were

imported from the Excel data sheets. For each variable a 10% data check was conducted,

and data that was incorrect was corrected, as describe d for the Excel datasheets.

Unless specified otherwise, the results and associated population statisti cs are based upon

the “All Home” sample frame of 108 homes, which is summarized in Appendix C. The

complete list of all home seaso n

‐ region tests is summarized in Appendix D. The “All

Home” sample frame was constructed to provide a sample base for producing the

population statistics without having a home represented mo re than once and to provide a

balance between the North and South regions and the summer and winter seasons. The fall

swing season tests were excluded from this sample frame. The 10 seasonal repeat North

homes and 10 seasonal repeat South homes were randomly selected and evenly split into

the summer and winter field sessions. The first test day contaminant concentration and

outdoor air exchange rate data were selected for the four multi

‐ day test h o mes.

Appendix E contains for each home the following data; the results of the indoor and

outdoor air contaminant measurements, the indoor and outdoor temperature and relative

humidity measurements, and the outdoor air exchange rate PFT measurements.

Appendix F contains for each hom e the following data; home characteristics, including

building envelope air leakage and duct leakage measurements, window usage, mechanical

and outdoor air exhaust air exchange rate measurements, and characteristics of the

mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems.

The indoor emission rates of VOCs were calculated according to Equation 3, as the

difference between th e concentrations in the indoor air and the outdoor air times the

outdoor air exchange rate (as dete rm ined by the PFT measurements).

E

v = (C i

– C

o ) 

### λ pft (EQ 3)

where:

E

v = total volume specific indoor emission rate into home ( μ g/m 3

‐ h)

C i = concentration in the indoor air ( μ g/m 3 )

C 0 = concentration in the outdoor air ( μ g/m 3 )



### λ

pft = home outdoor air exchange rate determined from PFT measurement (h

‐ 1 )

### 42 This calculation assumes that the penetration factor of VOCs in the outdoor air that is

infiltrating through the building envelope was 1.0 and that there was no removal of VOCs

from the indoor air unrelated to the outdoor air exchange rate (e.g., surface

deposition/surface reaction, indoor air reactions, air filtration). The research team feels that

these are relatively va lid assumptions for the VOCs reported here. In addition, this

calculation assumes that that the concentration of VOCs measured at the living room/

dining room sampling location represented the average home indoor air concentration.

No emission rates were calculated for homes where both the indoor and outdoor

concentrations were less than the method detection limit concentration. For homes where

either the indoor or outdoor concentration was below the method detection limit

concentration, the calculation was perfor m ed utilizing a concentration of one half the MDL

concentration.

It is important to note these emission rates are different than the hom e emission rates of

formaldehyde that were described in Section 2.8.1.2 and calculated according to

Equation 2. Those emission rate calc ulations are total emission rates of formaldehyde into

the home indoor air and are expressed in units of micrograms per hour ( μ g/h). The

emission rates described above, and calculated according to Equation 3, are the volume

‐ specific emission rates t hat are the emission rates normalized by the indoor air volume of

the home. These volume

‐ specific emission rates are useful when comparing emission rates

between different homes, since larger homes have larger areas from which indoor air

contaminants can be emitted.

Several group comparisons for indoor air contaminants, outdoor air exchange rates, and

window usage were also performed. These group comparisons included North versus

South homes, summer versus. winter repeat homes, and homes with and without

mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems. For these comparisons, t

‐ tests were used to test

the hypoth esis that there is no difference between the mean values of two different sample

populations. A two

‐ tailed t

‐ test was used for two sampl es with unequal variance to

determine the probability that the mean of the two sample groups were not different for

the comparisons of North versus South homes and homes with and without mechanical

outdoor air ventilation systems. For the comparison of summer versus winter repeat

homes, a paired t

‐ test was used. For each of these comparisons the probability that the

difference between the means was not different was calculated. If the probability of no

difference was less than 0.05, then the difference between the means was deemed

significant.

Because t

‐ tests require that sa m ple populations be normally distributed, the Kolmogorov

‐

Smirnov (K

‐ S) statistic, as programmed in the SAS Univariate procedure, was used to test

whether the distributions of variables being compared were normal. The Kolm ogorov

‐

Smirnov null hypothesis is that the distribution is normal. If the K

‐ S statistic returned a

### 43 result with a probability of less than 0.05, then the distribution was determined to not be

normal. If the sample population was determined to not be normal, then a transformation

was applied to the sample, beginning with a log transformation. If the log transformation

did not produce normal data then other transformations were tried, including inverse,

squared, and square root transformations until a transformation that was normal was

identified.

Correlation analyses between select ed indoor ai r contaminants and house characteristics

and environmental factors were also prepared. For these analyses the Pearson correlation

method was used to test for the strength and direction of a linear rel ationship between

pairs of variables. Because these analyses require that sample populations be normally

distributed, the data wer e normalized as described above. The research team also prepared

Spearman correlation analyses, which do not require the sample populations be normally

distributed.Figure 1. Quiet indoor air sampler for formaldehyde, VOCs, PM2.5, NO2, CO, CO2, temperature, and relativehumidity, typically installed in a home living/dining room area for a 22–26 hour sampling period.



### 44Figure 2. Outdoor air sampler for formaldehyde, VOCs, PM2.5, NO2, CO, CO2, temperature, and relative humidity,with outdoor radiation/rain shield.



### 45

### 46

### 47 

## 3.0 Project Outcomes/Results and Discussion

3.1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Table 2 (page 14 5 ) contains a summary of th e percentages of air contaminant and PFT field

samples, blanks, and duplicates that were successfully collected and an alyzed along with

the goals in the QA/QC plan.

With respect to the percentage of field samples successfully coll ected and analyzed, the

study’s goal of a minimum of 98% was met, with the exception of the

formaldehyde/acetaldehyde samples, where the percentage successfully collected and

analyzed was 96%.

With respect to the percentage of field sample blanks successfully collected and analyzed,

the goal of a minimum of 10% of the total field samples successfully collected and analyzed

(i.e., less fiel d blanks and duplicates) was met.

With respect to the percentage of field sample duplicates successfully collected and

analyzed, th e study’s goal of a minimum of 10% of the total field samples successfully

collected and analyzed (i.e., less field blanks and duplicates) was met, with the exception of

the formald ehyde/acetaldehyde and carbon monoxide samples, where the percentages

successfully collected and analyzed were 9%.

Details on the sample and/or analyses failures can be found in Appendix G Difficulties

Encountered in the Field, which summarizes the difficulties encountered during the study,

followed by the corrective action that was taken. For the population statistics discussed in

this section, unless otherwise noted, the following samples were deleted: those that had

shortened sample periods (thus not representative of the sta n dard 24

‐ hour samples), those

with failed analytical analyses, or those that yielded unrealistic data.

The results of the sample blank analyses for VOCs, including formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde, are summarized separately in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 (pages 14 6 –1 49 ) for the

Summer

‐ North, Summer

‐ South, Winter

‐ North, and Winter

‐ South field se ssions

respectively. The average field blank masses were calculated separately for each field

sessions and subtracted from the field sample masses for that field session. If the ma ss of a

field blank was below the method mass detection limit (MMDL) then a value of one half of

the MMDL was used to calculate the average field blank mass.

For the 18 VOC blank samples, just six of th e 20 compounds ana lyzed had masses

exceeding the MMDL; phenol (6 samples), styrene (3 samples), hexanal (2 samples),

d

‐ limonene (1 sample), 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene (1 sample), and nap hthal ene (1 sample). The

compound with most field blank concentrations exceeding the MMDL, phenol, had field

blank mass concentrations that ranged from 3.3 ng to 24 ng, with an average of 7.9 ng

### 48 (MMDL 2.8 ng). The ratio of the average field blank mass to the MMDL for phenol was less

than 1.0 for all field sessions except for the Summer South field session, where the ratio

was 3.1. The only other compounds with ratios of the average field blank mass to the

MMDL that exceeded 1.0 were styrene (with a ratio of 1.5 for the Summer South field

session) and hexanal (with a ratio of 1.4 for the Winter South field session).

For the 19 aldehyde blank samples, 10 had masses exceeding the MMDL for acetaldehyde

and 5 had masses exceeding the MMDL fo r formaldehyde. For acetaldehyde, the field

blank mass concentrations ranged from 9.4 ng to 49 ng with an average of 20 ng (MMDL

9.0 ng). The ratio of the average field blank mass to the MM D L for acetaldehyde ranged

from 1.1 for the Winter North field session to 2.1 for the Summer North field session and

was less than 1.0 in the Winter South field session. For formaldehyde, the field blank mass

concentrations ranged from 10 ng to 22 ng, with an average of 15 ng (MMDL 9.0 ng). The

ratio of the average field blank mass to the MMDL for formaldehyde was less than 1.0 in

each of the field sessions.

The results of the VOC sample duplicate analyses, including formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde, are summarized in Table 7 (page 15 0 ). The mea n absolute precision ranged

from 0.003 μ g/m 3 for 1,4

‐ dichlorobenxene to 4.0 μ g/m 3 for formaldehyde. The mean

relative precision ranged from 0.01 for 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene to 0.27 for styrene.

The results of the sample blank analyses for nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 particulate matter

are summarized in Table 8 (page 15 1 ). For thes e two air contaminans, which were only

sampled during the Winter North field session, the samples were analyzed in three

batches; one for each of the th ree weeks of the fi eld session. For the nitrogen dioxide field

blanks, if the field blank mass was below the MMDL of 0.8 μ g, a mass of zero was used to

calculate the average of the field blanks. For PM 2.5

, the average mass of the field blanks was

calculated directly from the measured masses of the field blanks. There were a total of five

field blanks each for nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 particulate matter. The five nitrogen

dioxide field blanks were all below the MMDL for an average field blank mass of zero for

each of the three sample weeks. The five PM 2.5 particulate matter field blanks ranged from

‐ 1 to

‐ 3 μ g, with an average field blank mass of

‐ 2 μ g for Week 1 and Week 2 and

‐ 3 μ g for

week 3.

The results of the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 particulate

matter sample pair duplicate analyses are summarized in Table 9 (page 15 2 ). The mean

absolute precision for nitrogen dioxide was 0.2 μ g/m 3 and the mean relative precision was

0.02. The mean absolute precision for PM 2.5 particulate matter was 2.0 μ g/m 3

, and the mean

relative precision was 0.11. The mean absolute precision for carbon monoxide was 0.6 ppm

and the mean relative precision was 0.53. The mean absolute precision for carbon dioxide

was 16 ppm and the mean relative precision was 0.02.

### 49 The results of the sample blank analyses for the PFT samples for the outdoor air exchange

rate measurements are summarized in Table 10 (page 15 3 ). The PFT samples w ere

analyzed in three batches, Summer

‐ 1, for the first 12 homes of the Summer

‐ North field

session, Summer

‐ 2, for the remainder of the Summer

‐ North homes and all of the Summer

‐

South homes, and Winter, for all of the Winter

‐ North and Winter

‐ South homes. There were

a total of 16 field blanks analyzed. The percentage of field blank to field samples ranged

from 6% to 11% for the three laboratory analyses sessions. More field blank samples were

added to the Winter field session when it was determined that more were required to meet

the 10% required by the QA/QC plan.

A total of 13 of the 16 field blanks were above the Method Volume Detection Limit

(MVDL) of 0.001 picoliters (pL), and ranged from 0.009 pL to 0.043 pL. The impact of the

variance in the field blank analyses is minimal, since the amount of tracer that th e samplers

collect is so much larger than contained in the blanks. This is especially true for homes

with low outdoor air exchange rates.

For example, Home 025 had an out door air exchange rate of 0.35 ach based upon the

6.356 pL of tracer co llected by the sampler less the average of 0.017 pL for that batch of

field sample blanks. If it is assumed that the true amount of tracer in the sample prior to

sampling ranges from 0 pL to the maximum observed field blank amount of 0.043 pL, the

calculated outdoor air exchange rate ranges differ by less than 0.2%. For homes with very

high air exchange rates, and consequently less tracer collected by the sampler, the impact

of the blank correction to the analyse s can be more substantial. For example, Home 014 had

an outdoor air exchange rate of 5.3 ach based upon the 0.347 pL of tracer collecte d by the

sampler less the average of 0.013 pL for that batch of field sample blanks.

If it is assumed that the true amount of tracer in the sample prior to sampling

ranges from 0 pL to the maximum observed field blank amount of 0.043 pL, the

calculated outdoor air exchange rate range s differ by about 8%

(e.g., 5.1–5.9 ach).

The results of the PFT outdoor air exchange rate measurement sample pair duplicate

analyses are summarized in Table 11 (page 15 4 ). The mean absolute precision for the

24

‐ hour measurements was 0. 01 ach, and the mean relati ve precision was 0.02. The mean

absolute precision for the two

‐ week measurements was 0.01 ach, and the mean relative

precision was 0.01.

The research team also compared the PFT measurements of outdoor air ex change rates in

three 2

‐ story homes where the outdoor air exchange rate was measured at two locations;

one in the usual first floor living/dining room area and one at a second location on the

second floor. The purpose of these two zone PFT measurements was to provide some data

on the variation in the PFT indoor concentration, because the calculations of outdoor air

exchange measurements from this measurement method assume that the indoor

concentration of PFT is uniform through the home. The results of these measurements are

### 50 presented in Table 12 (page 15 5 ), alon g with th e number of hours that the FAU operated

and the square foot

‐ hours (ft 2

‐ hrs) of window opening. The absolute precision of the two

PFT measurements ranged from 0.01 ach in Home 019 and Home 099 to 0.06 ach in Home

116. The relative precision of the two PFT measurements ranged from 0.05 in Home 099 to

0.22 in Home 116.

While the research team only had two

‐ zone measurements in three homes, these

measurements indicated that the differences between the two PFT measurements we re

relatively small and that the air in the homes was well mixed. Home 116, which had the

highest difference in the two PFT measurements, had no operation hours of the FAU and

50.5 ft 2

‐ hrs of window usage, both of which are factors that are not conducive to good

mixing of the indoor air. Thus, even in this home with factors not conducive to good

mixing of the indoor air, the difference between the 2 PFT measurements of outdoor air

exchange was moderate (i.e., 0.22 ach versus 0.16 ach).



## 3.2 Home Selection and Recruitment

The home recruitment response rate for each region

‐ season is summarized in Table 13

(page 15 6 ). For the summer field session, a total 1,358 recru i tment letters were mailed to

new single

‐ family detached homes in Northern California, of which 340 were to UCB

mailer respondents and 1,018 were to addit ional sample. Researchers mailed 1,408

recruitment letters to new single

‐ family detached homes in Southern California, of which

329 were to UCB mailer respondents and 1,079 were to an additional sample. The

percentage of homeowners sent recruitment letters that called to say they were interested

in participating in the field study ranged from 3% to 7% for the summer and winter

recruitment sessions.

Clusters were then established for those homes based on their relative distance, and on

which of the three inspection times each ho me noted as being required or preferred.

Homes were clustered into groups of 2–3 homes with one outdoor air sampling location

for each clus ter.

Recruitment was begun in geographic areas where the most calls from homeowners

interested in participating in the field study had been received. Efforts were also ma de to

reach out by telephone to homeowners in the same areas who had not called in to express

interest, favoring UCB mailer respo ndents over the additional sample. Four percent of both

the UCB respondents and additional sample who had received the mailers refused to

participate. One percent of the UCB respondents and less than 1% of additional sample

who had received mailers were disqualified (renters, smokers, home built before 2002).

Due to the geographical constraints of the study and the location of some homes, a few

willing homeowners could not be included in the study (5% of the mailers to UCB

respondents and 2% of the mailers to the additional sample). Due to sch eduling constraints

### 51 some homeowners had time conflicts and could not participate (1% of the mailers to UCB

respondents and 2% of the mailers to the additional sample).

Overall, 827 phone calls were made to 471 homes in Northern California to recruit 32

homes (25.8 calls per recruited home). The research team made 429 phone calls to 201

homes in Southern California to recr uit 31 homes (13.8 calls per recruited home).

Between August 7 and August 25, 2006, field measuremen ts were scheduled for a total of

32 Northern California homes, our target for the three

‐ week Summer North field session.

Of these, 17 (53%) were UCB mailer respondents and 15 were from the additional sample.

Week 1 consisted of 11 homes: 9 in Brentwood and 2 in Discovery Bay; Week 2 consisted of

12 homes: 9 in Elk Grove and 3 in Sacramento; and Week 3 consisted of 9 homes: 3 in Elk

Grove, 4 in Manteca, and 2 in Rancho Murrieta.

There were a total of 18 mechanically ventilated homes in the 32

‐ home sample, including

4 with nighttime ventilation cooling systems.

Between September 5 and Septemb e r 22, 2006, field measurements were scheduled for a

total of 31 homes—one home short of the 32

‐ home target fo r the three

‐ week Summer South

field session. Of these, 17 (55%) were UCB mailer respondents and 14 were additional

sample. Week 1 consisted of 12 homes: 3 in Valencia, 3 in Castaic, 3 in Santa Clarita, and 3

in Canyon Country ; Week 2 consisted of 8 homes: 2 in Chula Vista, 4 in San Diego, and 2 in

San Marcos; Week 3 consisted of 11 homes: 2 in Cas t aic, 3 in Santa Clarita, and 6 in

Palmdale.

There were a total of 4 mechanically ventilated homes in the 31

‐ home sample, including

1 with a nighttime ventilation cooling system and one with an evaporative cooling system.

The fall swing season study targeted the re

‐ test ing of four naturally ventilated homes in

Northern California. Recruitment letters were mailed to the 15 of the 32 Summer

participants Northern California who had naturally ventilated homes, and they were asked

to participate in a new series of tests in the fall sw ing season. Ten homeowners (67% of the

mailers) replied that they were interested in participatin g. One homeowner was not

interested, one homeowner was not able to participate within the timeframe suggested,

and three never replied and could not be contacted by telephone.

On October 16 and 17, 2006, field measurements were sch eduled in two clusters: 2 in

Discovery Bay and 2 in Brentwood. One home in Discovery Bay and one home in

Brentwood were UCB mailer respondents.

The inter Study targeted re

‐ testing of 10 homes each in Northern and Southern California.

A total 1,500 recruitment letters were mailed to new single

‐ family detached homes in

Northern California, of which 177 were to UCB mailer respondents and 1,323 we re to an

### 52 additional sample. The research team mailed 1,486 recruitment letters to new single

‐ family

detached homes in Southern California, of which 313 were to the UCB mailer sample and

1,173 were to the additional sample. Each of these mailers included all the participants

from the Summer season. Again, homeowners were asked to call back if they were willing

to participate in the study. A total of 71 Northern California homeowners (5% of the

mailer) and 62 Southern California homeowners (4% of the mailer) call ed in to state they

were interested in the study.

Recruitment started in geographic areas from which most calls from homeowners

interested in participating in the study had been received. The research team also reached

out by telephone to homeowners in the same areas who had not c alled in to express

interest, favoring UCB mailer respondents over the additional sample. Less than 1% of the

UCB respondents and 1% of the ad ditional sample who were contacted by phone refused

to participate. Less than 1% of both the UCB respondents and of the additional sample who

had received mailers were disqualified (e.g., renters, smokers, home vintage before 2002).

Due to the geographical constraints of the study and the location of some homes, a few

willing homeowners could not be included in the study (3% of the mailers to UCB

respondents and less than 1% of the mailers to additional sample). Due to scheduling

constraints some willin g homeowners had conflicts and could not participate (1% of the

mailers to both UCB respondents and to the add itional sample).

Overall, 385 phone calls were made to 264 homes in Southern California to recruit 33

homes (11.6 calls per rec r uited home). The research team made 158 phone calls to 73 homes

in Northern California to recruit 33 homes (4.8 calls per recruited home). Two factors

contributed to the higher success rate in the winter recruitment: 10 homes in each region

were repeat participants and due to the geographic constraints of the study, the location of

the 10 repeat homes dictated the location of the other homes that had to be recruited.

Consequently, the effort of recruiting and scheduling 24 additional homes in the North and

23 additional homes in the South was much reduced as compared to the Summer

recruitment.

Between January 16 and February 1, 2007, field measurements were sch eduled for a total of

33 homes in Southern California—one more than the 32

‐ home target for the three

‐ week

Winter South field session. Of these, 12 (36%) were UCB mailer respondents and 21 were

additional sample. Of the 33 homes, 10 had also participated in the Summer Study (8 UCB

mailer respondents and 2 additional sample). Week 1 consisted of 11 homes: 5 in Santa

Clarita, 3 in Valencia, and 3 in Castaic; Week 2 co nsisted of 11 homes: 5 in San Marcos, 3 in

Chula Vista, and 3 in San Diego; Week 3 consisted of 11 homes: 8 in Fontana, and 3 in

Riverside.

There were a total of four mechanically ventilated homes in the 33

‐ home sample, including

two with nighttime ventilation cooling systems.

### 53 Between February 12 and March 1, 2007, field measurements were scheduled for a total of

32 Northern California homes, our target for the three

‐ week Winter North field session. Of

these, 10 (31%) were UCB respondents and 22 were from the additional sample. Of the 32

homes, 10 homes were previous Summer participants (6 UCB mailer respondents and 4

from the additional sample). Three of the 10 repeat homes were fall participants as well.

Week 1 consisted of 12 h omes: 6 in Elk Grove and 6 in Sacramento; Week 2 consisted of 12

homes: 3 in Discovery Bay, 3 in Stockton and 6 in Brentwood; and Week 3 consisted of 10

homes: 5 in El Dorado Hills, 3 in Lincoln and Lincoln Hills, and 2 in Folsom.

There were a total of 17 mechanically ventilated homes in the 32

‐ home sample, including

5 with night time ventilation cooling systems.

The following is the breakdown of the recruit ed sample set. No

‐ mechanical outdoor air

homes are defined as those homes without either a mechan ical outdoor air supply system

or a nighttime cooling system.

Summer

‐ North

32 homes

18 mechanical outdoor air (including 4 with nighttime ventilation cooling systems)

14 non

‐ mechanical outdoor air

1 multi

‐ day home (Thursday

‐ Friday, Friday

‐ Saturday, Saturday

‐ Sunday)

Summer

‐ South

31 homes

4 mechanical outdoor air (including 1 with a nighttime ventilation cooling system)

28 non

‐ mechanical outdoor air

1 multi

‐ day home (Thursday–Friday, Friday–Saturday, Saturday–Sunday)

Winter

‐ North

32 homes

17 mechanical outdoor air (including 5 with nighttime ventilation cooling systems)

15 non

‐ mechanical outdoor air

1 multi

‐ day home (Thursday–Friday, Friday–Saturday, Saturday–Sunday)

10 seasonal repeats from Summer (i.e., 22 new homes)

Winter

‐ South

33 homes

4 mechanical outdoor air (including 1 with a nighttime ventilation cooling system)

29 non

‐ mechanical outdoor air

1 multi

‐ day home (Thursday–Friday, Friday–Saturday, Saturday–Sunday)

10 seasonal repeats from Summer (i.e., 23 new homes)

### 54 Figure 3 (page 10 2 ) is a map of th e State of California, depicting the locations of homes for

the summer and winter 2006–2007 field sessions in Northern and Southern California.

A total of 58 (44%) of the 132 home tests, including seasonal repeat tests, were recrui ted

from the UCB mail survey. Excluding seasonal repeats, a total of 42 (39%) of the 108 homes

were recruited from the UCB mail survey.

As can be seen from Table 13, the Summer recruitment substantially depleted the potential

participants from the UCB mail survey, and while 53% and 55% of the Summer homes

were recruit e d from the UCB mail survey fo r the North and South regions respectively,

only 36% and 31% were recruited from the Winter North and South regions, respectively.

Thus, the study met the primary selection criteria of 54 homes in the North, 54 homes in

the South, a minimum of 20 homes with mechanical outdoor air systems, 20 seasonal

crossover homes, and 4 multi

‐ day homes.

With respect to the secondary selection criteria requested by the ARB and Energy

Commission, the study was constrained by the lack of sufficient excess sample, as well as

the geographical constraints required for clustering of homes, to completely fulf ill all of

these requirements. Homes were excluded in the San Jose and San Francisco Bay areas. In

addition, 6 homes in Palmdale were recruited for the high desert are a, and for the ARB

concurrent acrylonitrile air testing, 3 homes were recruited from Chula Vista. The research

team was not able to completely avoid selecting homes in the Southern California Coastal

areas, and so included 7 homes in the San Diego area and 4 homes in the San Marcos area.

With respect to the secondary selection criteria of matching the sample percentages from

the UCB mail survey, Table 14 (page 15 7 ) presents this comparison for the three

geographical strata in the UCB mail survey: Sacramento/Delta, Southern California

Coastal, and Rest

‐ of

‐ State. While the field sample is in r e latively close agreement to the

UCB mail survey sample for the percentage of homes in the Southern California

geographical strata, 16% and 21% respectively, the percentage of homes in the field study

is over

‐ represented in the Sacramento/Delta region (i.e., 39% and 21%, respectively) and

under

‐ represented in the Rest

‐ of

‐ State region (i.e., 45% and 58%, respectively). One of the

reasons it was difficult to more closely achieve a matc h of the geographical strata

distributions between the field study and UCB mail survey study was that the study plan

required 50% of the homes to be in the North and 50% in the South, while the UCB mail

survey contained only 28 % in the North and 72% in the South.

Although the UCB mail survey sample, upon whi ch the sample selection was largely but

not entirely based, was a stratified random sample, the results in this study have not been

weighted to adjust for that stratification or other selection factors.

### 55 

## 3.3 Home and Site Characteristics Collection

The home and site characteristics were collected on

‐ site by the field teams and reported by

occupants on questionnaires. The data collected for these characteristics are summarized in

Tables 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (pages 15 8 –16 4 ).

The 108 homes recruited for the summer, fall and winter field sessions were primarily from

track developments by production builders, were built in 2002 or later, and have been

owner

‐ occupied for at least one year. As summarized in Table 15, the median age of the

homes was 3.4 years, with a range of 1.7 years to 5.5 years. The median square footage was

2,703 square feet (ft 2 ), with a range of 1,283 ft 2 to 5,064 ft 2

. The total median composite

wood loading was 925 ft 2

, with a minimum of 263 ft 2 and a maximum of 2,925 ft 2

. Most of

the composite wood came from furniture and cabinetry, with none from wall or ceiling

finishes and only one home with 979 ft 2 of a floor finish made from composite wood.

As summarized in Table 16, a total of 97% of the homes had slab

‐ on

‐ grade foundations and

99% had attached garages. A total of 60% of the homes had attached garages with living

spaces above the garage, which is a configuration with a stronger potential for transport of

garage air contamina nts into the home indoor air than attached garages without living

spaces located above.

A total of 99% of the homes had attics. The exterior envelope was typically stucco. All

homes had FAU heating systems, 94% of which, also had cooling capabilities, and all but

one, which was located in the garage, were located in the attic. The kitchen cooking ranges

consisted of 2% gas ranges and 98% electric ra nges. A total of 85% of the cooking ranges

had exhaust fans ducted to outdoors. The kitchen ovens consisted of 27% gas ovens and

73% electric ovens. Only 2% of the ovens had exhaust fans ducted to outdoors. The clothes

dryers consisted of 76% gas dryers and 24% electric dryers, with 98% with exhaust ducted

to outdoors and 11% wit h ex haust leaks. All of the FAUs were gas

‐ fired heaters; there were

no home s with electric heat. All of the FAU t

‐ stats had the fan switch set in the auto

position, which operates the fan only when the t

‐ stat calls for heating or cooling. The water

heaters consisted of 98% gas heaters and 2% electric heaters. There were no window air

conditioning units. There were a total of 61% homes with decorative gas log fireplaces that

were vented to the outdoors and a tot a l of 31% sealed combustion fireplaces vented to the

outdoors. There were no unvented gas log fireplaces. The field team inspectors reported an

odor upon entry to the home in 27% of the homes.

As summarized in Table 17, the primary kitchen cabinetry consisted of 97% with

composite wood with laminate, 2% composite wood with no laminate, and 1% solid wood

cabinetry. The primary bathroom cabinetry consisted of 99% with composite wood with

laminate, 1% composit e wood with no laminate, and none with solid wood cabinetry. The

overall cleanliness of the homes, was rated by the field team inspectors as “Very Clean” in

72% of the homes, an d the overall home clutter was rated as “No Clutter” in 49% of the

### 56 homes and “Some Clutter” in 41% of the homes. Outdoor contaminant sources within

500 feet of the home, were observed by the field team in 55% of the homes. The three

outdoor sources most frequently encountered were gas station at 13% of the homes, and

restaurants or open field crops at 8% of the homes

As summarized in Table 18, a total of 73% of the homes reported having two adults living

in the home, with 8% having just one adult and 1% having 5 adults. A total of 46% of the

homes reported having no children under 18 living in th e home, with 25% having two

children and 1% having 5 children. Only 3% of the homeowners reported having one or

more occupants that smoke in the home

, an d as per our recruitment criteria these smokers

reported that they do not smoke in the home. A total of 56% of the homes reported having

pets that live in the home, and 57% of the homeowners report e d wearing shoes in the

home. A total of 16% of the homeowners reported cloths or drapes that had been dry

‐

cleaned within the last week prior to the air testing date.

As summarized in Table 19, homeowners reported that within the last 6 months (3 months

for homes with seasonal repeat tests), a number of potentially air contaminant

‐ generating

indoor activities. The three activities reported most freque ntly were: pesticide applications

in 42% of the homes, painting in 32% of the homes, and new furniture installed in 22% of

the homes. No homeowners reported and fire/smoke damage, and 6% reported mold or

moisture damage.

The homeowners reported use of portable air cleaners in 17% of the homes. This

percentage compares to approximately 15% of California homeowners reporting that the y

used a portable air clea ner, as determined from the state wide probability sample in the

UCB mail survey (Price et al. 2007). In a telephone survey of 2,019 Cali fornia households,

approximately 14% reported they either owned or used a portable air cleaner in the past

five years (Piazza et al. 2007).

The homeowners also reported use of plug

‐ in air fresheners in 33% of the homes, candles

in 58% of the homes, incense in 11% of the homes, and mothballs in 7% of the homes. A

total of 28% of the homeowners reported activities associated with hobbies and crafts in

their homes. With respect to storage of materials in the home or garage that are potential

sources of indoor air contaminants, homeowners reported storage of various products with

a frequency of 61% of the homes for latex products to 100% of the homes for cleaning

supplies. A total of 92% of the homeowners reported storing motor vehicles in the garage.

As summarized in Table 20, a total of 13% of the homeowners reported vacuuming the

carpets and rugs in the most heavily used rooms “twice per week or more often”, while 5%

reported vacuuming “less than every 3–4 weeks.” In addition, 37% of the homeowners

reported steam cleaning of carpets, 16% reported professional dry cleaning, and 63%

reported spot cleaning or dry cleaning by the homeowner. With respect to problems

encountered in the home since they began occupancy the most frequently reported

### 57 conditions were: wall or window leaks in 13% of the homes, plumbing leaks in 10% of the

homes, other unpleasant odors in 7% of the homes, and other moisture problems in 7% of

the homes.

The types of mechanical outdoor air systems and controls observed in the field study are

summarized in Table 21. There were a total of 36 of the 108 homes (33%) with one or more

type of mechanical outdoor air systems. These included 17 homes (16%), with only a DOA

system, 12 homes (11%) with nighttime cooling systems (i .e., either whole house fans,

WHF, or FAU return air damper (RAD) systems, 6 homes (6%) with only an HRV system,

5 homes (4%) with multiple mechanical outdoor air systems, and one home (1%) with an

evaporative cooling system. There were a total of 40 mechanical outdoor air ventilation

systems in the 36 homes with these type systems

, with DOA systems comprising 43% and

HRV systems comprising 23%.

The type of damper controls included 30% manual, typically found with some DOA

systems, 33% automatic, typically found with some DOA and the RAD systems, 13%

gravity, typically found with the WHF systems, and 25% no damper, typically found with

the HRV systems.

The type of operation contr ol types included: 45% controlled with the FAU thermostat,

typically found with the DOA and RAD systems; 33% controlled with an on/off switch,

typically found with HRV systems; 18% with an FAU fan cycler, typically found with some

DOA systems; and 5% controlled by a timer, typically found with some HR V systems. The

location of the controls were in the home (i.e., accessible) in 75% of the homes, and in the

attic (inaccessible) in 25% of the homes, typically found with HRV systems.



## 3.4 Home Air Leakage Measurements

3.4.1 Forced Air Heating/C ooling System Duct Leakage

The forced air heating/cooling (FAU) system duct leakage area, as calculated from the duct

pressurization tests, is expressed as the percent of the total forced air heating/cooling

system flowrate and is summarized in Table 22 (page 16 5 ). Figure 4 (page 10 3 ) is the

cumulative frequency distri bution of the measured FAU duc t leakage percentage. These

measurements are compared to the California Title 24 (California Energy Commission

2001a) requirement of 6%. The home FAU system leakage had a median of 10% that

ranged from 1.9% to 73%. A total of 116 of the 138 systems (86%) had percentages

exceeding the California Title 24 maximum of 6%. The median ratio of the measured duct

leakage percentage to the maximum 6% requirement, for those homes exceeding 6% duct

leakage, was 1.7.

There were a total of 8 homes with duct leakage percentages exceeding 28%, which

represents 2.8 times th e median of 10%. Four of these nine hom es had mechanical outdoor

air ventilation systems integrated into the FAU system and included one DOA systems

### 58 and three RAD systems. The additional ducting associated with these systems is believed

to contribute to the higher duct leakage. In particular, the RAD systems, which were tested

with the return air/outdoor air damper set for 100% return air, are likely to have some air

leakage to the outdoors during this test.



### 3.4.2 Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area

The building envelope air leakage variables and envelope air leakage area, as calculated

from the building envelope depressurization tests, are summarized in Table 23 (page 166).

The building envelope air leakage is expressed in terms of both ACH 50 and specific leakage

area (SLA). Figure 5 (page 104) is the cumulative frequency distribution of the measured

building envelope air leakage. The median effective leakage area (ELA) was 104 square

inches (in 2 ) and ranged from 56 in 2 to 261 in 2

. The median 24

‐ hour average wind speed was

5.7 miles per hour (mph) and ranged from 1.4 mph to 16 mph. The median 24

‐ hour

average indoor–outdoor temperature difference was 5.3 ° F, and ranged from

‐ 2.3 ° F to 14 ° F.

The median ACH 50 was 4.8, and ranged from 2.8 to 8.4. The median SLA was 2.9, and

ranged from 1.4 to 5.6. A total of 64 homes (60%) had SLA values less than 3.0, for which

the California Title 24 Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Manual (California Energy

Commission 2001b) requires mechanical outdoor ventilation of 0.047 cubic feet per minute

per square foot (cfm/ft 2 ). This requirement only applies to those builders taking credit for

building a home with an SLA less than 3.0. It is unknown if any of the homes in this study

were built taking a credit for an SLA less than 3.0. There was also one home with an SLA

value of less than 1.5, for which California Title 24 additionally requires that the

mechanical ventilation outdoor vent ilation be sufficient to maintain an indoor air pressure

with respect to the outdoors that is greater than

‐ 5 pascals with all continuous ventilation

systems operating.

The median ACH 50 of 4.8 in this study compares to the median of 5.2 in a study of

76 homes built in California since November 2002, and a median of 8.6 in a sample of 13

homes built before 1987 (Wilson and Bell 2003).

There were four homes that had ACH 50 values exceeding 7.0, which represents 1.5 times

the median of 4.8. Three of these four homes did not have a mechanical outdoor air

ventilation system and one had an HRV system. Thus, the higher envelope leakage in three

of these four homes cannot be attributed to penetrations associated with the mechanical

outdoor air ventilation system.



### 3.4.3 Home-to-Garage Air Leakage

The results of the zone pressure measurements of the garage

‐ to

‐ home connection are

summarized in Table 24 (page 167). The home

‐ to

‐ garage leakage areas (EqLA @ 10 Pa, in 2 )

had a median of 16 in 2 and ranged from 0 in 2 to 97 in 2

. There are no guidelines for garage

‐

to

‐ home air leakage areas. The ratio of the home

‐ to

‐ garage leakage to the total leakage area

of the home

‐ to

‐ outdoors and the garage

‐ to

‐ outdoors was also calculated, and is expressed

### 59 as a percentage. This percentage had a median of 4.9% and ranged from 0% to 18%. Also

measured was the home

‐ to

‐ garage pressure with the home

‐ to

‐ outdoor air pressure held at

‐ 50 Pa. The median home

‐ to

‐ garage pressure was ‐ 49 Pa and ranged from

‐ 34 Pa to

‐ 55 Pa.

A total of 70 homes (65%) did not meet the American Lung Association guideline for a

home

‐ to

‐ gara ge neg ative pressure of at least

‐ 49 Pa when the home is depressurized to

‐ 50 Pa (American Lung Association 2006).

One other garage

‐ to

‐ home metric that was calculated is the ”coupling factor.” This is

calculated as the ratio of the garage

‐ to

‐ outdoor diffe rential pressure to the home

‐ to

‐

outdoor differential pressure. A coupling factor equal to 0 indicates no garage

‐ to

‐ home

coupling and a coupling factor of 1.0 indicates total coupling of the garage to the home.

The median coupling factor was 0.03, and ranged from 0 to 0.26.

During the Pilot Study that preceded this field study we also conducted a limited numb e r

of tracer gas tests of garage air entering the home. Appendix A contains a complete copy of

the Pilot Study report.

In the pilot study, the transport of gar age air contaminants into the indoor air of the home

was measured with a tracer gas techniq u e during the 24

‐ hour air contaminant

measurements and during a subsequent two

‐ week period. This technique uses a passive

constant injection PFT. The tracer gas sources were placed by Field Team 1 at locations in

the garage, approximately one week in advance of the tracer gas sampling, to allow for the

emission rates of the sources to eq uilib rate. A total of two sources were placed at a central

location in the garage. Since the emission rates from the PFT sources are temperature

dependent, an air temperature data logger was deployed in the garage to log the air

temperature at 15

‐ minute intervals. These temperature data were the n input into an

equation of the emission rate as a function of time that was supplied by Brookhaven

National Laboratory, the supplier of the PFT sources, to calculate the tempe rature

corrected PFT emission rates. The PFT used for these tests, para

‐ perfluorodimethylcyclohexane (p

‐ PDCH), was a different PFT than that used to measure

the outdoor air exchange rate of the home. The same PFT samplers that were used to

measure the outdoor air exchange rate of the home were used to sample the garage

‐ located

PFT entering the home.

The percent of the ga ra ge air contaminant sources entering the home was determined from

the ratio of the calculated source of garage PFT entering the home to the calculated source

of garage PFT emitted into the garage. The emission rate of garage PFT entering the home

was calculat ed from the average concentration of the PFT in the home (determined from

the laboratory analysis of the indoor PFT sampler) multiplied by the outdoor airflow rate

entering the home (determined from the tracer gas measurements of the outdoor air

exchange rate and the indoor air volume of the home). For the emission rate of garage PFT

into the gar a ge, the temperature

‐ corrected calculation of the garage PFT emission rates

### 60 were used. This calculation assumes perfect mixing of the indoor home air and a zero

concentration of the PFTs in the outdoor air.

The calculation of the percentage of garage emissions entering the home was calculated

according to Equation (4):

E h/g = (C i

‐ pdch ) 

### λ pft V 100 / E

g

‐ pdch (EQ 4)

where:

E h/g = percentage of garage emissions entering home (%)

C i

‐ pdch = concentration of PDCH garage tracer in the home indoor air (nL/m 3 )



### λ

pft = home outdoor air exchange rate determined from PFT measurement (h

‐ 1 )

V

= home indoor air volume (m 3 )

E

g

‐ pdch = emission of PDCH garage tracer into garage (nL/h)

This calculation assumes that the concentration of PDCH tracer measured at the living

room/dining room sampling location represented the average home indoor air

concentration and that the PDCH sources in the garage represented the sources of other air

contaminants in the garage.

For the 24

‐ hour measurement period, the percentage of the garage sources entering the

home range d from 2.6% (1.9% duplicate) for Home P1, to 9.8% for Home P3, to 10.1%

(11.9% duplicate) for Home P2. For the two

‐ week measurement period, the percentage of

the garage sources entering the home ranged from 4.0% for Home P1, to 7.2% for Home P2,

to 11.3% (11.4% duplicate) for Home P3. The garage

‐ to

‐ home air leakage ratios were 3% for

Home P1, 2% for Home P2, and 1% for Home P3, which compares to the median of 4.9%

observed in this study. The hom e

‐ to

‐ garage pressure, with the home

‐ to

‐ outdoor air

pressures held at

‐ 50 Pa, were ‐ 49.1 Pa for Home P1,

‐ 49.4 for Home P2, an d

‐ 49. 8 for Home

P3.

Thus, a substantial amount of garage air, along with the contaminants released by sources

in the garage (e.g., vehicle fuel and exhaust fumes, gasoline

‐ powered lawn equipment,

solvents, oils, paints, pesticides) enters the indoor air of the home.



## 3.5 Window/Door and Mechanical Systems Usage

The following fulfills the requirements results of Study Objective 1: Determine how

residents use windows, doors, and mechanical ventilation devices, such as exhaust fans

and central heating and air

‐ conditioning systems.

### 61 3.5.1 Occupant Use of Windo ws and Doors for Ventilation

The window/door usage in square foot

‐ hours (ft 2

‐ hrs; the product of the opening area and

the amount of time open) is reported for both the Test Day usage and Week Average

usage. If a one square foot opening (i.e., a 4

‐ inch opening of a typical double

‐ hung

window) is kept open for an entire day, then the calculated window opening is 24 ft 2

‐ hrs.

General population statistics are summarized in Table 25 (page 16 8 ). Fig u re 6 (page 10 5 ) is

the cumulative frequency distribution of window door opening recorded during both the

24

‐ hour air testing day and preceding one

‐ week period.

The median Test Day usage was 46 ft 2

‐ hrs, with a range of 0 ft 2

‐ hrs to 2,448 ft 2

‐ hrs. The

Week Average usage had a median of 70 ft 2

‐ hrs, with a range of 0 ft 2

‐ hrs to 1,260 ft 2

‐ hrs.

The homes with zero window usage for both the Test Day and Week Average included

multiple homes from the Summer and Winter field sessions and from both the North and

South Regions. The maximum usage for both the Test Day and Week Average usage were

both Summer field

‐ session homes, with one being in the North and one in the South.

As an indic ator of how well the usage during the Test Day compared to the usage during

the previous week, the Test Day/Week Average usage ratio was calculated. This ratio had a

median of 1.0, with a range of 0 to 7.0

. The minimum of 0 was from multiple homes, which

had no usage on the Test Day but did have usage during the previous week. The

maximum of 7.0 was from a home in the Winter

‐ South field session, where the Week

Average usage was 22.5 ft 2

‐ hrs and the Test Day usage was 3.2 ft 2

‐ hrs.

The number of homes that had no window/door usage for the Test Day and for the

preceding week was also reported. A total of 34 of the 108 homes (32%) of the homes did

not use their windows during the 24

‐ hour Test Day, and 16 of the 108 homes (15%) of the

homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes

with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. A total 29 of the 34 for the

homes with no window usage durin g the Test Day were in the winter field session, which

represents 53% of the homes in that session (N=55). All 16 of the homes with no window

usage during the preceding week were in the winter field session, which represents 9.4% of

the homes in that session.

As an indicator of how well the occupants logged their window/door usage on the written

forms, the actua l window/door usage measured with data loggers was compared with the

data from the occupant written logs. Log/Logger ratio numbers less than 1 indicate that the

window/door opening activity time

‐ period was under

‐ estimated on th e written logs by the

occupants. Log/Logger ratio numbers greater than 1 indicate that the Window/Door

opening activity time period was over

‐ estimated on the written logs by the occupants.

The Log/Logger ratio had a median of 1.0, with a range of 0.04 to 74. Note that an

unusually large Log/Logger ratio may result when a Log value is di vi d ed by a very small

### 62 Logger value. Two homes had Log/Logger ratios that were unusually high. Home 008,

with a Log/Logger ratio of 74, and Home 071, with a Log/Logger ratio of 24. Both these

homes were from the Summer field session, with one being in the North and one in the

South.

The usage of the garage door to the home, in hours of open time, is reported for use as an

indicator of communication between the garage, a potential source area for indoor air

contaminants such as automobiles

, chemicals, solvents, etc., and the home. General

population statistics, for both the Test Day usage, Week Average usage, and the Test

Day/Week Average usage ratio are summarized in Table 25.

The median Test Day usage was 0.06 hrs, with a range of 0.00 3 hrs to 6.2 hrs. The median

Week Average usage was 0.07 hrs, with a range of 0.004 hrs to 8.0 hrs. As an indicator of

how well the usage during the Test Day compared to the usage during the previous week,

the Test Day/Week Av erage usage ratio was calculated. The ratio had a median of 0.85,

with a range of 0.01 to 6.1.



### 3.5.2 Measured and Owner-Estimated Window/Door Usage Comparison

For the participants in the UCB mail survey, the measured usage in the field session (i.e.,

occupant written logs) was compared with the homeowner’s self

‐ reported estimates of

usage in the mail survey, to provide some information on the accuracy of that reporting.

There were two sets of questions regarding window usage in the UCB mail survey.

Questions 10–25 asked for each season what the average number of hours was that

windows or doors were open more than one inch for four home areas and thre e time

periods. The four areas were: kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms (including laundry room and

utility rooms), and other rooms. The three periods of time were daytime (6 AM to 6 PM),

evening (6 PM–11 PM), and nighttime (11 PM–6 AM). The question is problematic for us to

compare to the data that were collected for actual usage, as it is unknown how many

windows in the UCB mail survey data were open in each room and time period, or if the

hours listed as open for windows in a time period represent separate, concurrent, or

overlapping hours. For these reasons a compari s on of the data in this study to Questions

10–25 has not been included.

Questions 28–31 asked fo r each season, how many hours out of a 24

‐ hour day, on average,

did your house have no ventilation, or low, medium, or high ventilation as defined be l ow:

• No ventilation: All windows and doors closed.

• Low: One or two windows or doors open just a crack (up to one inch).

• Medium: Several windows or doors open at least a crack, or one or two windows

open partway (at least several inches).

• High: Some windows or doors fully open, or sev eral windows or doors open part

‐

way, or almost all windows or doors open at least a crack.

### 63 As this question includes information on both the hours of window/door opening, and the

number and extent of the opening, it is possible to calculate a range of reported

window/door openings as square foot

‐ hours, which then be compared to the actual

measured usage. For this calculation, a range for the opening area in sq uare feet for each of

the Low

‐ , Medium

‐ , and High

‐ usage categories described above was prepared. The

opening area ranges, wh ich were selected for the usage categories in square feet, are listed

below:

• No ventilation: 0 ft 2

• Low: 0.1 ft 2 to 0.5 ft 2

• Medium: 1.0 ft 2 to 3 ft 2

• High: 5 ft 2 to 15 ft 2

, or greater

A total of 33 homes in our field study were also present in the UCB mail survey. Of the 33

homes, 7 did not have usable responses on their Occupant Questionnaire. Many of the

remaining 26 homes were repeat homes so a total of 48 home

‐ inspection dates had data

from the Homeowner Questionnaire that were compared to the estimated window usage

ranges colle cted by the UCB mail survey. To do this calculation, the research team

collected the hours of usage for each season

‐ usage category from the UCB mail survey,

Question 28 –30, and multiplied it by the above opening area high and low ranges for the

reported usage category. This gives a low and high range of usage for each UCB mail

survey home

‐ season that was compared to the measured usage in the field study for that

home

‐ season.

Q31 was not used, as there were no spring tests in the field study. As was done in the UCB

mail survey analyses, th e researchers deleted from these analyses any homes where the

reported total usage hours exceeds 24 hours or where the reported usage hours are all

blank (these are posted as 99 in the UCB database). For those homes where there is at least

one non

‐ blank entry to the usage hour questions, it was as sumed that the blanks are zero.

Percent comparisons and the population statistics of the measured versus estimated

Window/Door usage are summarized in Tables 26 and 27 (pages 1 69 and 17 0 ).

The percentage of homes with zero measured usage and zero estimated usage was 15%.

The percentage of homes with measured usage within the e stimated usage range was 15%.

The percentage of homes with measured usage higher than the high end of the range

estimated usage was 52%. The percentage of homes with measured usage lower than the

low end of the range estimated usage was 8.3%. Thus a total of just 30% of the home

‐

season al comparisons had actual measured usage that agreed with the estimated usage

reported in the UCB mail survey, with measured usage higher than the estimated usage

comprising most of the disagreements

### 64 The research team also evaluated the magnitude of the window/door usage disagreements

in Table 27. Homes that had actual measured usage but zero estimated usage had a median

of 3.1 ft 2

‐ hrs that ranged from 0.3 ft 2

‐ hrs to 153 ft 2

‐ hrs. The median ratio of the actual

measured week average usage to the high end estimated usage in homes with higher

actual usage than estimated usage was 3.1. The median ratio of the actual measured week

average usage to the low end estimated usage in homes with lower actual usage than

estimated usage was 0.04.



### 3.5.3 Occupant Use of Mech anical Exhaust Air Systems

The occupant use of mechanical exhaust air systems is reported in hours for the 24

‐ hour

Test Day usage. General population statistics are summarized in Table 28 (page 17 1 ).

Figure 7 (page 10 6 ) is a cumulative frequency plot of the usge of the mechanical exhaust

systems.

The median Test Day usage was 0 hrs for kitchen exhaust fans, 0.05 hours for bathroo m

exhaust fans, and 0.3 hours for other exhaust fans (i.e., clothes dryer, laundry/utility room).

As an indicator of how well the usage during our Test Day compared to the usage during

the previous week, the Test Day/Week Average usage ratio was calculated. The median

ratio was 1.0 for kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans and 0.9 for other exhaust fans.

There was one home, 055, with an unusually high usage of Other Exhaust (i.e., dryer,

laundry) of 17.1 hours. In this home, the laundry room fan was operated for 14.2 hours and

the clothes dryer was operated for a total of 2.8 hours.

In the 20 05 UCB mail survey on occupants’ use of windows and mechanical ventilation

equipment in 1,515 new homes in California (Price et al. 2007), 17 % of the owners report

they rarely use the bathroom exhaust fans, and 13% say they never use the fans. In this

study, based upon the electronic logging of the two most used bathroom fans, 47 % never

used the fans during the 24

‐ hour Test Day, and 27% never used the fans during the entire

preceding week. Thus, the percentage of homes in this study reporting no usage of the

bathroom exhaust fans from electronic logging of fan operation is notably higher than

percentage of homes reporting no usage in the UCB mail survey.

In the 2005 UCB mail survey, 11% of the owners say they rarely use the kitchen range

exhaust fan and 2% sa y they never use the fan. In this study, based upon the occupant

written logs, 54% never used the fan during the one week preceding our 24

‐ hour Test Day,

and 78% never used the fan during th e 24

‐ hour Test Day. Thus, the percentage of homes in

this study reporting no usage of the kitchen range exhaust fan from their written occupant

logs is notably higher than the percentage of homes reporting no usage in the UCB

mail survey.

### 65 3.5.4 Occupant Use of Mech anical Outdoor Air Systems

Three of the 17 homes with DOA systems (Home 001, Home 011, and Home 119) had the

mechanical outdoor air systems disabled (i.e., outdoor air damper closed). The

homeowners of Home 022, which had an HRV system, complained that the system

brought in hot air in the summer and cold air in the winter, and thus they kept the system

off the entire week except for 0.09 hours on Day 3. The analyses of the usage reported

below excludes these fo ur disabled systems.

The occupant use of mechanical outdoor air systems is reported in hours for the 24

‐ hour

Test Day usage. General population statistics are summarized in Table 28 for the two types

of systems encountered in the field study: ducted outdoor air (DOA) systems and heat

recovery ventilator systems (HRV). Figure 8 (page 10 7 ) is a cumulative frequency plot of

the usage of the mechanical outdoor air systems.

The median Test Day usage was 2.5 hours for DOA systems and 24 hours for HRV

systems. Note that five homes with HRV systems were operated continuously for 24 hours.

As an indicator of how well the usage during the Test Day compared to the usage during

the previous week, the Test Day/Week Average usage ratio was calculated. The median

ratio was 1.1 and 1.0 for the DOA and HRV systems, respectively.

These data ind i cate that the DOA systems, which typically are operated intermittently and

in conjunction with the operation of the FAU, operate for only a small portion of the day,

while the HRV systems are typically operated continuously.

The low fractional on

‐ times for the DOA systems are the result of the FAU fan contr ol,

which typically was controlled by the FAU thermostat fan switch and was always set in

the “auto” posi t ion, and thus the fan only operated when the thermostat called for heating

or cooling.

To ensure adequate delivery of outdoor air to the home, DOA systems should have a fan

cycler, so that even if the thermostat fa n sw itch does not operate the fan, the fan is

operated for a minimum percentage of time. In addition, some of these fan cyclers have

controls for a damper in the outdoor air duct so that this damper can be opened only for

those times that outdoor air is desired. Typically these fan cyclers are set up to provide

outdoor air one

‐ third of each hour with an outdoor airflow rate that is three times highe r

than that required for continuous operation, and thus provide an average outdoor airflow

rate over the hour that is equivalent to the flow rate of a continuous system.

Of the 17 homes with DOA systems only six had fan cyclers, four of which had automatic

damper controls in the outdoor air duct. Of the 14 homes with operational DOA s ystems,

only four had fan cyclers, three of which had automatic damper controls in the outdoor air

duct. Measurements of the minimum percent operation time that these four fan cyclers

provided (e.g., the percentage of on

‐ time during the nigh t when the thermostat was set

### 66 back and only the fan cycler was causing the FAU fan to operate) indicated the following:

one FAU fan was never turned on, one was on for 10 minutes for each 90

‐ minute cycle (i.e.,

0.11 fractional on

‐ time), one was on for 10 minutes for each 30

‐ minute cycle (i.e., 0.33

fractional on

‐ time), and one FAU fan ran continuously, but the outdoor air damper opened

55 minutes for each 75

‐ minute cycle (i.e., 0.73 fractional on

‐ tim e ).

ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 (ASHRAE 2004a) requires that intermittently operated residential

outdoor air mechanical ventilation systems operate at least 1 hour out of every 12 hours

(i.e., a minimum fractional on

‐ time of 0.08 3). Thus, three of the four DOA systems with fan

cyclers met the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 minimum fractional on

‐ time requirement. The 10

operational DOA systems, which did not have fan cycl ers and were operated by the

thermostat fan switch in the “auto” mode, do not meet the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 minimum

fractional on

‐ time requirement.

It is important to note that while the thermostat fan switch could be set to the “on”

position, and thus overcome the low operational times of some of these DOA systems, this

would not be a very ene rgy efficient means of providing outdoor air to the home. The FAU

fan system is a large fan designed to provide the large supply airflow rates required for

heating or cooling the air in the hom e, and operating the FAU fan continuously would be a

large and costly consumption of electricity. The flow rates of outdoor air required for

ventilating homes is just a fraction (e.g., 5%–10%) of the total supply airflow rate delivered

by the FAU fan. Thus, to ensure adequate and energy

‐ efficient delivery of outdoor air to

the home, DOA systems should include a fan cycler with fan cycle times and outdoor

airflow rates set to provide the sufficient outdoor air ventilation.

Note that intermittently operated mechanical outdoor systems do not provide indoor air

quality that is equivalent to that provided by continuous mechanical outdoor air systems.

The concentrations of indoor air contaminants with indoor sources can inc rease

substantially during the off periods of intermittent systems, especially for those systems

with long cycle times (e.g., 12 hours), which may result in the occupants experiencing

odors or irritation.



### 3.5.5 Occupant Use of Mechani cal Nighttime Cooling Systems

The occupant use of mechanical nighttime cooling systems is reported in hours for the

24

‐ hour Test Day usage. General population statistics are summarized in Table 28 for the

two types of nighttime cooling systems encountered in the field study: whole house fan

(WHF) systems and FAU return air damper (RAD) systems. Figure 9 (page 10 8 ) is a

cumulative frequency plot of the usage of the mechanical nighttime cooling systems.

The median Test Day usage was 0.7 hours for WHF systems and 5.3 hours for RAD

systems. As an indicator of how well the usage during the Test Day compared to the usage

during the previo us week, the Test Day/Week Average usage ratio was calculated. The

median ratio was 0.7 for WHF fans and 1.0 for RAD systems.

### 67 Note that there were five homes where there was zero usage of the nighttime cooling

system. These included three RAD systems in the winter field session and two WHF

systems—one in the summer and one in the winter field sessions. Thus, the zero usage for

four of these homes is consistent with the fact that the hom es were in the winter field

session where nighttime cooling would not be expected to be used.

These data indicate that the RAD systems encountered in this field study were operated for

more hours each day than the WHF systems encountered.



### 3.5.6 Occupant Use of Forced Air Unit (FAU) Systems

The occupant use of mechanical FAU) heating/cooling systems is reported in hours for the

24

‐ hour Test Day usage. For homes with multiple FAUs, data were summarized here for

only FAU#1, which typically served the downstairs living/dining area. General population

statistics are summarized in Table 28. Figure 10 (page 1 09 ) is a cumulati v e frequency plot

of the FAU systems’ usage.

The median Test Day usage for FAUs was 1.1 hours. A total of 32% of the homes had zero

FAU usage during the 24

‐ hour Test Day and 11 % had zero usage during the preceding

week. As an indicator of how well the usage during the Test Day compared to the usage

during the previo us week, the Test Day/Week Average usage ratio was calculated. The

median ratio was 0.9.

These data indic a te that the FAU systems encountered in this field study were operated for

relatively few hours each day.



## 3.6 Outdoor Air Ventilation Measurements

This section fulfills the ventilation requirements, stated in Study Objective 2, Measure and

characterize IAQ, ventilation, and the potential sources of indoor air contaminants.



### 3.6.1 Mechanically Supplie d Outdoor Airflow Rates

The mechanically provided outdoor airflow rates for DOA and HRV systems are reported

for the systems on the Test Day in units of air changes per hour (ach) and cubic feet per

minute (cfm), along with the percent operation time. General population statistics and

comparison to the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 requirement (ASHRAE 2004a) and the California

Title 24 Alternative Calculation Method (ACM)

‐ 2001 code requirement (California Energy

Commission 2001b) are summarized in Table 29 (page 17 2 ). The analyses o f the outdoor

airflow rates reported below exclude s the four disabled mechanical outdoor air systems.

The ASHR AE 62.2

‐ 2004 requirement for mechanically pro vided outdo or air ventilation is

calculated according to Equation 5 as follows:

### 68 Q

r = (0.01 cfm/ft 2 ) A floor ) + 7.5 cfm (N br +1) (EQ 5)

where:

Q

r = required continuous mechanical outdoor airflow rate (cfm)

A floor = floor area (ft 2 )

N br = number of bedrooms

The California Title 24 ACM

‐ 2001 code requirement for mechanically provided outdoor air

ventilation is calculated according to Equation 6 as:

Q

r = (0.047 cfm/ft 2 ) A floor (EQ 6)

For the 14 operational DOA systems, the median 24

‐ hour average outdoor airflow rate, in

units of ach, was 0.01 ach with a minimum of 0.002 ach and a maximum of 0.08 ach. The

median 24

‐ hour average percent operation time was 10%, with a minimum of 0.6% and a

maximum of 74%. The median outdoor airflow rate when the system was operational was

38 cfm, with a minimum of 8.8 cfm and a maximum of 355 cfm.

A total of 64% of DOA systems had outdoor airflow rates that failed to meet the ASHRAE

62.2

‐ 2004 guideline, and 86% failed to meet th e California Building Code (CBC) 2001

requirements. Note that this comparison was made using the outdoor airflow rate that was

measured when the system was operating, and assuming the system was operated

continuously and not with the actual time averaged outdoor airflow rates corrected for

ventilation effectiveness, as prescribed by ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004.

The very low outdoor air exchange rates for the DOA systems were a result of the

combination of low outdoor airflow rates and low fractional on

‐ times.

The low outdoor airflow rates were the result of the connection location of the outdoor air

duct, which typically has a diameter of five or six inches. The most common connection of

the outdoor air duct is to a sheet metal box just above the hallway return air inlet grille,

which contains the air filter. As this air filter is typically low efficiency and has a low

pressure drop, there is little negative air pressure at the outdoor air intake location to draw

in outdoor air. The few system s that ha d the outdoor air connection located further

downstream of the return air ducting (e.g., just before or at the fan box) had much higher

airflow rates.

The low fractional on

‐ times are the result of th e FAU fan control, which typically was

controlled by the FAU thermostat fan switch and was always set in the “auto” posit i on,

and thus the fan only operated when the thermostat called for heating or cooling. As was

### 69 previously discussed in Section 3.5.4, “Occupant Use of Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems,”

only 4 of the 14 operational DOA systems had fan cyclers, which could be set up to ensure

that the homes received adequate delivery of outdoor air.

ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 (ASHRAE 2004a) requires that intermittently operated residential

outdoor air mechanical ventilation systems operate at least 1 hour out of every 12 hours.

The outdoor air ventilation rate for intermittently operated systems, Q f must be increased

according to Equation 7 by a factor equal to one divided by the product of the fractional

on

‐ time and the ventilation effectiveness:

Q f = Q

r / ( ε x f) (EQ 7)

where:

Q f = required intermittent mechanical outdoor airflow rate (cfm)

Q

r = required continuous outdoor airflow rate

– see Equation 5 (cfm)

ε = ventilation effectiveness factor for intermittent ventilation

f

= fractional on

‐ time of intermittent ventilation system

The ventilation effectiveness is determined by the fractional on

‐ time, f, according to the

following ranges of fractional on

‐ times:

• 0.33 (f < 0. 35)

• 0.50 (0.35 ≤ f < 0.60)

• 0.75 (0.60 ≤ f < 0. 80)

• 1.0 (f ≥ 0.80)

In addition, if the system runs at least once every three hours then the ventilation

effectiveness can be assumed to be 1.0.

The fan cycler in Home 021 operated the fan 10 minutes out of every 30 minutes, which is a

fractional on

‐ time of 0.33. The ventilation effectiveness for this fractional on

‐ time is 0.33.

Thus, the required increase in the outdoor airflow rate is one divided by the product of the

fractional on

‐ time of 0.33 and the ventilation effectiveness of 0.33, or an increase of 9.2

times the requirement for a continuously operated ventilation system. The ASHRAE

62.2

‐ 2004 requirement for this house, based on the square footage of the home an d the

number of bedrooms, is 57 cfm of outdoor air delivered continuously, or based upon the

fractional on

‐ time of the fan controller, 57 cfm times 9.2, or 524 cfm. The flowrate of

### 70 outdoor air measured in this system was just 44 cfm, which is less than the continuous

flow rate requirement and just 8% of the intermittent flow rate requirement.

The fan cycler in Home 099 operated the outdoor air damper 55 minutes out of every

75 minutes, which is a fractional on

‐ time of 0.73. For some reason the FA U ran

continuously in this home even though the thermostat fan switch was set for “auto. ” The

ventilation effectiveness for this fractional on

‐ time is 0.75. Thus, the required increase in

the outdoor airflow rate is one divided by the product of the fractional on

‐ time of 0.73 and

the ventilation effectiveness of 0.75, or an increase of 1.8 times the requirement for a

continuousl y operated ventilation system. The ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 requirement for this

house, based on the square footage of the home and the number of bedrooms, is 79 cfm of

outdoor air delivered continuously, or based upon the fractional on

‐ time of the fan

controller, 79 cfm times 1.8, or 144 cfm. The flowrat e of outdoor air measured in this

system was just 10 cfm, which is less than the continuous flow rate requirement and just

7% of the intermittent flow rate requirement.

The fan cycler in Home 118 operated the fan 10 minutes out of every 90 minutes, which is a

fractional on

‐ time of 0.11. The ventilation effectiveness for this fractional on

‐ time is 0.33.

Thus the required increase in the o u tdoor airflow rate is one divided by the product of the

fractional on

‐ time of 0. 11 and the ventilation effectiveness of 0.33, or an increase of 27.5

times the requirement for a continuously operated ventilation system. The ASHRAE

62.2

‐ 2004 requirement for this house, based on the square footage of the home and the

number of bedrooms, is 38 cfm of outdoor air delivered co ntinuously, or based upon the

fractional on

‐ time of the fan controller, 38 cfm times 27.5, or 1,047 cfm. The flowrate of

outdoor air measured in this system was just 31 cfm, which is less than the continuous

flow rate requirement and just 3% of the intermittent flow rate requirement.

The fan cycler in Home 102 did not operate the fan at all, The thermostat did operate the

fan for 1.63 hours, however ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 does not allow for intermittent operation of

a mechanical outdoor air system with a thermostat and without a fan cycler because this

will not ensure adequate outdoor air delivery to the home during mild weather periods

when the thermostat may not turn on the FAU fan. Similarly the 10 other homes with

operational DOA systems that did not have fan cyclers do not meet the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004

requirements for intermittent operati on of a mechanical outdoor air system.

Note that intermittent mechanical outdoor air systems, such as DOA systems, cannot

perform equivalently to continuous systems such as HRV systems with respect to

controlling the short

‐ term exposures to indoor air contaminants, especially if the cycle

times are long (e.g., greater than two hours). During extended outdoor air ventilation off

‐

times, intermittent ventilation systems allow for air contaminants with indoor sources to

increase substantially as compared to the increases that would occur with a continuous

ventilation system. For some indoor air contaminants, such as those that cause irritation

### 71 and/or odor, the effects are initiated by the immediate exposure to the indoor

concentration rather than the exposure to a concentration over a period of time.

In addition, the increased outdoor air ventilation as required by ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 for

intermittent ventilation systems does not always provide equivalent long

‐ term average

indoor concentrations, especially fo r systems with long cycle times (e.g., 12 hours). The

long

‐ term average concentrations for air contaminants with indoor sources can be

substantially higher in homes with intermittent ventilation systems, which is important for

health effects such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.

To examine the equivale nce of conti nuous and intermittent ventilation, a constant emission

indoor air contaminant source of 1,000 μ g/h was modeled in a home ventilated according

to ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 ve ntilation rates. A well

‐ mixed single

‐ zone computer model was

used to simulate the indoor air contaminant concentrations for a 4

‐ bedroom home with a

1,500 ft 2 floor area, 8

‐ ft ceiling height, and a 12,000

‐ cubic foot (ft 3 ) indoor air volume. The

simulation used one

‐ minute time steps for a 24

‐ hour period with the initial concentration

set to equal the concentration at the end of the 24

‐ hour simulation and assumed a zero air

contaminant concentration in the outdoor air. The outdoor air ventilation rate for a

continuous ventilation system as prescribed by ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 is 52 cfm for this home.

In addition, the research team included an infiltration rate of outdoor air into th e home

equal to the ASHRAE 62.2.

‐ 2004 infiltration default credit of 2 cfm/100 ft 2

.

For the intermittent ventilation system the research team used a cycle time of 12 hours and

a fractional on

‐ time of 0.10, which according to ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 has a ventilation

effectiveness factor of 0.33.

Figure 11 (page 11 0 ) is a plot of th e modeled indoor air contaminated concentrations for

continuous and intermittent ventilation systems. The average 24

‐ hour ind oor air

contaminant concentration was 9.3 μ g/m 3 for the intermittent ventilation system, which is

29% higher than the 7.2 μ g/m 3 average concentration for the continuous system. In

addition, the maximum indoor air contaminant concentration was 15.9 μ g/m 3 for the

intermittent ventilation system, which is 220% higher than the 7.2 μ g/m 3 maximum

concentration for the continuous system.

For the analyses of the HRV systems, Home 022 was excluded because the homeowner had

turned the system off for the 24

‐ hour Test Day as well as for all but 0.9 hours of the

preceding week. For the 8 operational HRV systems, the med ian 24

‐ hour average outdoor

airflow rate, was 0.30 ach with a minimum of 0.12 ach and a maximum of 0.47 ach. The

median 24

‐ hour average percent operation time was 100%, with a minimum of 32% and a

maximum of 100%. The median outdoor airflow rate when the system was operational, in

units of cfm, was 128 cfm, with a minimum of 66 cfm and a maximum of 159 cfm.

### 72 None of the HRV systems failed to meet the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 guideline, and 22% failed

to meet the CBC 2001 requirements. The two homes that failed to meet the CBC 2001

requirement were the result of low outdoor airflow rates and not low operating times.

These results show that, as encountered in th is field study, HRV systems are a more

effective outdoor air supply strategy than the DOA systems.



### 3.6.2 Tracer Gas Measure ments of Home Outdoor Air Exchange Rates

The air changes per hour (ach) in the homes are reported over the 24

‐ hour Test Day and

the two

‐ week measurement period. General population statistics are summarized in Table

30 (page 17 3 ). Figure 12 (page 11 1 ) is a cumul aive fre q uen c y plot of the 24

- hour o u tdoor

air exchange rate measurements.

The median 24

‐ hour me asurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. The

median two

‐ week measurement was 0.24 ach, with a rang e of 0.11 ach to 2.3 ach

. As an

indicator of how well the 24

‐ hour Test Day ach compared with the two

‐ week period ach,

the absolute and relative difference between the 24

‐ hour versus two

‐ week period

measurements was calculated for the all homes with both measurements (i.e., not just those

homes in the All Home sample frame). The median absolute difference was 0.07 ach, with a

range of 0.001 to 5.1. The median rel ative standard deviation was 0.19, with a range of 0.01

to 1.1 (Table 30, page 17 3 ).

The 24

‐ hour Test Day measurements were compared to the CBC code requirement of

0.35 ach and then the outdoor air exchange rate/CBC 2001 minimum code requirement

ratio for homes that were below the code requirement was calculated. There were 72

homes (67%) with outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum code requirement of

0.35 ach. General population statistics for these homes are summarized in Table 31 (page

17 4 ). The media ratio was 0.58, with a range of 0.25 to 1.00.

There were eight homes with outdoor air exchange rates exceeding 1.25 ach, which is 4.8

times the media n of 0.26 ach. Of these eight homes, seven were homes in the Summer Field

session, with six of these homes havin g relatively high window usage of between 421 and

1306 ft 2

‐ hrs. In addition, four of these eight homes had mechanical outdoor air ventilation

systems, including two HRV, one WHF, and one DOA.

On the other end of the spectrum there were eight homes with outdoor air exchange rates

less than 0.12 ach, which is less than half of the median of 0.26 ach. Of these eight homes

,

seven were homes in the winter field session, with six of these homes having zero window

usage. In addition, four of these eight homes had operating mechanical outd oor air

ventilation systems, all of which were DOA systems.

There were two homes where the outdoor air exchange rate was substantially less than the

measured mechanical outdoor air ventilation rates.

### 73 The 24

‐ hour average mechanical outdoor air exchange rate for Home 034 was 3.7 ach,

whereas the PFT 24

‐ hour measured outdoor air exchange rate was 0.59 ach. The FAU did

not operate at all during this period and the whole house exhaust fan operated for

11.3 hours. There was a lot of window opening, 457 ft 2

‐ hrs, of which 72% was located on

the second floor, where the inlet to the whole house exhaust fan was located. As the PFT

air sampler was on the first floor and the whole

‐ house exhaust fan was exhausting air on

the second floor with most of the open windows, the airflow into the exhaust fan was

mostly from the second floor open windows creating a two

‐ zone situation, with lower

ventilation rates on the first floor where the PFT sampler was located.

The 24

‐ hour average mechanical outdoor air exchange rate for Home 044 was 2.2 ach,

whereas the PFT 24

‐ hour measured outdoor air exchange rate was 0.86 ach. The FAU did

not operate at all during this period and the whole

‐ house exhaust fan operated for

4.8 hours. There was also a window fan blowing outdoor air into the second floor fo r

18.5 hrs. There was a lot of window opening, 301 ft 2

‐ hrs, of which 34% was located on the

second floor, where the inlet to the whole house exhaust fan was located. As the PFT air

sampler was on the first floor and the whole house exhaust fan was exhausting air on the

second floor with most of the open windows, the airflow into the exhaust fan was mostly

from the second floor open windows, creating a two

‐ zone situation, with lower ventilation

rates on the first floor where the PFT sampler was located.

It is important to note that the ventilation inefficiencies caused by poor mixing of the

indoor air, such as in these two homes, has the most impact in homes where the outdoor

air exchange rates are high (e.g., greater than 2 ach); in homes with lower outdoor air

exchange rates (e.g., less than 0.5 ach) there is much less of an impact. This is because in

homes with low outdoor air exchange rates, the air has a longer residence time in the

home, which allows for more mixing of the indoor air to occur from mechanically and

thermally induced airflows.



## 3.7 Indoor Air Quality Measurements

This section fulfills the indoor air quality requirements stated in Study Objective 2,

Measure and characterize indoor air quality (IAQ) ventilation, and the potential sources of

indoor air contaminants.



### 3.7.1 Integrated Time Averag ed IAQ Measurements (24-hour)

3.7.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations

Table 32 (page 17 5 ) contains the analytical method mass detection li m it, MDL mass, the

typical air sample method detection limit concentration, MDL concentration, the indoor air

contaminant concentration guidelines, the ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor air

contaminant concentration guidelines, and the percentage of samples with concentrations

above the MDL concentration for volatile organic compounds.

### 74 The primary selection of an indoor air contaminant concentration guideline for VOCs for

this project was the California Air Resources Board Indoor Air Pollution in California,

Table 4.1 ARB Indoor Air Quality Guidelines, July 2005 (California Air Resources Board

2005). The second basis for selection, for those compounds without ARB indoor air

guidelines, is the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t Chronic

RELs (OEHHA 2003). The final basis of selection, for those compounds with neither ARB

indoor guidelines or OEHHA Chronic RELs, is 2.5% of the occupational standard. This

recommendation is based upon the different exposure periods (40

‐ hour week for an

industrial worker versus 168

‐ hour per week for a full

‐ time occupant) and to provide a

safety factor of ten for more sensitive populations (Nielsen 19 97).

The ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor air contaminant concentration guidelines

ranged from 4E

‐ 5 (0.00004) for 2

‐ butoxyethanol and n

‐ hex ane to 2E

‐ 2 (0.02) for

naphthalene.

The percentage of homes with indoor concentrations exceeding the MDL concentration

ranged from 0% for caprolactam to 100% for phenol and toluene. The percentage of

outdoor air samples wit h concentra tions exceeding the MDL concentration ranged from

0% for ethylene glycol, 1

‐ methyl

‐ 2

‐ pyrrolidinone, trichloromethan e, and vinyl acetate to

98% for phenol.

The indoor concentrations of VOCs are summarized in Table 33 (page 17 6 ). Figures 13–25

(pages 11 2 –12 4 ) are cumulative fre q uency plot s of th e indoor and outdoor concentrations

of the 15 VO C s that have Chronic RELs (OEHHA 2003). The median indoor concentrations

ranged from 0.1 μ g/m 3 for caprolactam and 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene to 11 μ g/m 3 for

d

‐ limonene and alpha

‐ pinene. The maximum indoor concentrations ranged from 0.1 μ g/m 3

for caprolactam to 219 μ g/m 3 for 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene.

The outdoor concentrations of VOCs are summarized in Table 34 (page 17 7 ). Th e median

outdoor concentrations ranged from 0.1 μ g/m 3 for 2

‐ butoxyethanol, caprolactam,

1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene, naphthalene, alpha

‐ pinene, and styrene to 1.2 μ g/m 3 for toluene. The

maximum outdoor concentrations ranged from 0.2 μ g/m 3 for 1

‐ methyl

‐ 2

‐ pyrroldinone,

naphthalene, trichloromethane, and vinyl acetate, to 6.3 μ g/m 3 for toluene.

The maximum indoor concentrations of VOCs are compared to the indoor air contaminant

guidelines in Table 35 (page 17 8 ). None of the indoor concentrations of the 20 VOCs

exceeded the indoor air contaminant guidelines. The ratio of the maximum indoor

concentration and indoor air contaminant guideline ranged from less than 0 .000 1 for

caprolactam to 0.646 for tetrachloroethene. There were several homes where the indoor

concentrations were substantially higher than the median (i.e., 25 times or more higher).

### 75 Homes 097 and 022 both had indoor concentrations of 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene that were

between 1,600 and 2,200 times higher than the median of 0.1 μ g/m 3 (i.e., 161 μ g/m 3 in

Home 022 and 219 μ g/m 3 in Home 097). The outdoor air exchange rates in these two homes

were not unusually low—0.64 ach in Home 097 and 0.41 ach in Home 022. Thus, an indoor

source of 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene appears to be the primary cause of these elevated

concentrations. An examination of the potential indoor sources in these two homes

indicates that mothballs, a known source of this chemical, is the likely source. There were a

total of seven homes where the hom eowners reported the use of mothballs, including the

two homes cited above. Two of the other five homes where use of mothballs was rep o rted

also had indoor concentrations that were relatively high in comparison to the median;

Home 094 with concentrations 760 times higher (i.e., 75.6 μ g/m 3 ) and Home 071 with

concentrations 335 times higher (i.e., 33.5 μ g/m 3 ).

Home 112 had indoor concentrations of naphthalene that was 25 times higher than the

median of 0.2 μ g/m 3

. The outdoor air exchange rate in this home was also not unusually

low, 0.31 ach. Thus, an indoor source of naphthalene appears to be the primary cause of

the elevated concentration. An examination of the potential indoor sources in this home

indicates that mothballs, a known source of this chemical, is also the likely source. In the

United States naphthalene is no longer used to make mothballs; instead

1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene is used. However, people still have these mothballs stored at home or

bring them into the United States from abroad.

Home 074 had indoor concentrations of styrene that were 75 times hig her than the median

of 0.9 μ g/m 3

. The outdoor air exchange rate in this home was relatively low, 0.17 ach,

which contributed to the elevated indoor concentration. An examination of the potential

indoor sources in this home did not reveal any indoor sources. While a potential indoor

source of styrene is polystyrene, no unusual amount of this material was observed in the

home. It is possible that polystyrene materials may be used in construction of this home

that are no t visible, such as structural insulated panels (SIPs), which often contain

polystyrene,

Home 075 had indoor concentrations of tetrachloroethene that was 15 times higher than

the median of 0.2 μ g/m 3

. The outdoor air exchange rate in this home was relatively low,

0.25 ach, which contributed to the elevated indoor concentration. An examination of the

potential indoor sources in this home indicates that dry cleaned clothes or drapes, a known

source of this chemical, is the likely source. The homeowner reported that clothes or

drapes had been dry

‐ cleaned within the last week.

Home 120 had indoor concentrations of trichloromethane (chloroform) that was 60 times

higher than the median of 0.2 μ g/m 3

. The outdoor air exchange rate in this home was

relatively low, 0.12 ach, which contributed to the elevated indoor concentration. An

examination of the potential indoor sources in this home indicates that use of chlorinated

water, a known source of this chemical, is the likely source. The homeowner reported

### 76 showering or bathing, warming/boiling water, and use of the clothes washer during the

24

‐ hour air sampling Test Day.

Unlike the other homes in this study, which at most had one or two volatile organic

compounds with concentrations substantially higher than the median, Home 108 had five

compounds with elevated concentrations; benzene at 11 times the median, n

‐ hexane at 26

times the median, toluene at 12 times the median, m, p

‐ xylene at 14 times th e m edian, and

0

‐ xylene at 17 times the median. The outdoor air exchange rate in this home was relatively

low, 0.24 ach, which contributed to the elevated indoor concentrations. Potential sources of

these compounds include paints, caulking, and solvents. The homeowner reported

painting and caulking of the exterior of the front door and the purchase of two new leather

recliners within the last six months, and spot cleaning or dry cleaning of the carpet within

the last two months.

3.7.1.2 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Concentrations

Table 32 (page 17 5 ) contains th e analytical method mass detection limit (MDL mass), the

typical air sample method detection limit concentration (MD L concentration), the indoor

air contaminant concentration guidelines, the ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor

air contaminant concentration guidelines, and the percentage of samples with

concentrations above the MDL concentration for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

The selections of indoor air contaminant concentration guidelines for formaldehyde and

acetaldehyd e for this project were the California Air Resources Board, Indoor Air Pollution

in California, Table 4.1 ARB Indoor Air Quality Gui d elines, July 2005 (California Air

Resources Board 2005 ) and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment Chronic RELs (OEHHA 2003) and Acute RELs (OEHHA 2000). For

formaldehyde, the OEHHA Chronic REL (OEHHA 2003) of 3 μ g/m 3 and the OEHHA

Acute REL (OEHHA 2000) of 94 μ g/m 3 was included, in addition to the ARB Indoor Air

Guideline of 33 μ g/m 3

. For acetaldehyde, the OEHHA Chronic REL of 9 μ g/m 3 (OEHHA

2003) was included.

The ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor air contaminant concentration guidelines

ranged from 9E

‐ 3 (0.009) for formaldehyde (ARB Indoor Air Guideline of 33 μ g/m 3 ) to 3E

‐ 2

(0.03) for acetaldehyde (OEHHA Chronic REL of 9 μ g/m 3 ).

The percentage of homes with indoor concentrations exceeding the MDL concentration

was 100% for both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The percentage of outdoor air samples

with concentrations exceeding the MDL concentration was 97% for both formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde.

The indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are compared to the indoor

air contaminant guidelines in Table 36 (page 1 79 ). Figure s 26 and 27 (p a g e s 12 5 an d 12 6 )

### 77 are cumulative frequency plots of the indoor and outdoor concentrations of acetaldehyde

and formaldehyde.

The median indoor concentration of formaldehyde was 36 μ g/m 3

, with a range of 4.8 μ g/m 3

to 136 μ g/m 3

.

For formaldehyde, all of the homes exceeded the Chronic REL of 3 μ g/m 3

, 59% exceeded

the ARB Indoor Air Guideline of 33 μ g/m 3

, and a total of 6.7% exceeded the OEHHA Acute

REL of 94 μ g/m 3

.

For those homes exceeding the indoor formaldehyde guidelines, the ratio of the indoor

concentrations to the indoor air contaminant guidelines were also calculated. The median

ratio was 12, with a range of 1.6 to 45 for the Chronic REL of 3 μ g/m 3 ; 1.5, with a range of

1.0 to 4.1 for the ARB indoor air guideline of 33 μ g/m 3 ; and 1.2, with a range of 1.0 to 1.4 for

the OEHHA Acute REL of 94 μ g/m 3

.

The median indoor concentration of acetaldehyde was 20 μ g/m 3

, with a range of 1.9 μ g/m 3

to 102 μ g/m 3

. The median indoor concentration of acetaldehyde was 20 μ g/m 3

, with a range

of 1.9 μ g/m 3 to 102 μ g/m 3

.

For acetaldehyde a total of 82% of the 105 homes exceeded the OEHHA Chronic REL of

9 μ g/m 3

. For homes exceeding the indoor acetaldehyde guidelines, the ratio of the indoor

concentrations to the indoor air contaminant guidelines was also calculated. The median

ratio was 2.5, with a range of 1.2 to 11.

Figure 28 (page 12 7 ) compares the indoor formaldehyde concentrations and the outdoor

air exchange rates in 84 homes without mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems and in

38 homes with working mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems (i.e., 17 pure DOA, 6

pure HR V, and 15 other and mixed mechanic al outdoor air systems). Also included in

Figure 28 are the median ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 (ASHRAE 2004a) and California Title 24

ACM (California Energy Commission 2001b) recommendations for mechanical outdoor air

ventilation as calculated for the specific homes in this study. The ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004

median calculated rate was 0.15 ach, while the California Title 24 ACM median calculated

rate was 0.30 ach.

Note that ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 assumes that na tural infiltration will add to the mechanically

supplied outdoor air exchange rate a total of 2 cfm/100 ft 2

, or 0.15 ach, assuming an 8 ft

ceiling height. However, if the indoor

‐ outdoor temperature difference and wind speed are

low, the natural infiltration rates can be much less than 0.15 ach. For a two

‐ story home

with a building envelope leakage equal to the median of the sample of homes in this study

(i.e., ACH 50 of 4.8 or SLA of 2.9), the natural infiltration rate for an indoor

‐ outdoor

temperature difference of 2 ° F and a wind speed of 2 mph, is just 0.08 ach. This is calculated

according to the ASHRAE Basic Model (ASHRAE 2005). Furthermore, if the mechanical

### 78 outdoor air ventilation system is not a balanced system, such as the DOA systems in this

study, then the natural infiltration rates can be substantially muted when the system is

operating. For those systems equipped with fan cyclers set to operate the system for 33%

operation time, the added natural infiltration is reduced from 0.08 ach to 0.06 ach, as

calculated according to the ASHRAE

‐ recommended calculation for combining infiltration

and mechanical ventilation outdoor rates (ASHRAE 2005). If an unbalanced syst em is se t

up to run at a low continuous rate, then the added natural infiltration rate can be reduced

from 0.08 ac h to less than 0.01 ach.

Figure 28 also includes the California Air Resources Board recommended maximum

indoor 8

‐ hour formalde hyde exposure guideline of 33 μ g/m 3 (California Air Resources

Board 2005). This guideline was developed to protect sensitive subgroups of the

population to non

‐ cancer irritant effects. In 2004, the World Health Organization

designated formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen (IARC 2004).

As can be seen in Figure 28, there are few homes with outdoor air exchange rates of at least

0.5 ach that had indoor concentrations of formaldehyde above the recommended

maximum indoor concentration of 33 μ g/m 3 ; just 5 of 122 homes, or 4%, of the homes. For

homes with outdoor air exchange rates of at least 0.30 ach (i.e., the median mechanical rate

recommended by California Title 24 ACM for the homes in this study), a total of 14 of 38

homes, or 37%, had indoor concentrations of formaldehyde above 33 μ g/m 3

. For homes

with outdoor air exchange rates of at least 0.15 ach (i.e., the median mechanical rate

recommended by ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2004 for the homes in this study), a total of 32 of 57 homes,

or 56%, had indoor concentrations of formaldehyde above 33 μ g/m 3

.

If we look separately at the number of homes with indoor formaldehyde concentrations

exceeding the 33 μ g/m 3 guideline, we find that 55% (46 of 84) of homes without mechanical

outdoor air ventilation systems, 100% (i.e., 17 of 17) of homes with DOA systems, and 50%

(i.e., 3 of 6) homes with HRV systems exceeded this guideline. Note that one of the three

HRV system homes with elevated indoor formaldehyde concentrations was only operated

32% of the time via a manual switch by the homeowner.

3.7.1.3 Nitrogen Dioxide

Table 37 (page 18 0 ) contains th e analytical method mas s detection limit (MDL mass), the

typical air sample method detection limit concentration (MDL concentration), the indoor

air contaminant concentration guidelines, the ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor

air contaminant concentration guidelines, and the percentage of homes with indoor and

outdoor concentrations above the MDL concentration.

The California Air Resources Board 24

‐ hour guideline of 150 μ g/m 3 (California Air

Resources Board 2005) was selected as an indoor air contaminant concentration guideline

for nitrogen dioxide.

### 79 The MDL concentration of 5.7 μ g/m 3 was determined by dividing the MDL mass of 0.8 μ g

with the typical air sample volume (i.e., 140 L). The ratio of the MDL concentration to the

indoor air contaminant concentration guideline is 0.04.

The percentage of the homes (i.e., Winter

‐ North homes only) with indoor concentrations

exceeding the MDL concentration was 48%

. The percentage of the outdoor air samples

with concentrations exceeding the MDL concentration was 9%.

The indoor and outdoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are summarized in Table 38

(page 181). The median indoor concentration was 3.1 μ g/m 3

, with a range of 2.6 μ g/m 3 to

50 μ g/m 3

. The median outdoor concentration was 2.9 μ g/m 3

, with a range of 2.7 μ g/m 3 to

14 μ g/m 3

.

None of the indoor or outdoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations exceeded the 150 μ g/m 3

guideline.

In addition, none of the homes exceeded the California Air Resources Board annual

ambient air quality standard of 56 μ g/m 3 for outdoor air. (California Air Resources Board

2007a).

3.7.1.4 Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 )

Table 37 (page 180) contains the analytical method mass detection limit (MDL mass), the

typical air sample method detection limit concentration (MDL concentration), the indoor

air contaminant concentration guidelines, the ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor

air contaminant concentration guidelines, and the percentage of homes with indoor and

outdoor con centrations above the MDL concentration.

The California Air Resources Board 24

‐ hour guideline of 65 μ g/m 3 was selected as the

indoor air contaminant concentration guideline for PM 2.5 (California Air Resources Board

2005).

The MDL concentration of 1.8 μ g/m 3 was determined by dividing the MDL mass of 5 μ g

with the typical air sample volume (i.e., 2.8 m 3 ). The ratio of the MDL concentration to the

indoor air contaminant concentration guideline is 0.03.

The percentage of the homes (i.e., Winter

‐ North homes only) with indoor concentrations

exceeding the MDL concentration was 100%. The percentage of the outdoor air samples

with concentrations exceeding the MDL concentration was 100%.

The indoor concentrations of PM 2.5 are summarized in Table 38 (page 181). The median

indoor concentration was 11 μ g/m 3

, with a range of 3.8 μ g/m 3 to 36 μ g/m 3

. The median

outdoor concentration was 8.7 μ g/m 3

, with a range of 4.3 μ g/m 3 to 12 μ g/m 3

.

### 80 None of the indoor or outdoor concentrations of PM 2.5 particulate matter exceeded the

65 μ g/m 3 ARB 24

‐ hour average indoor air guideline.

The EPA recently established a lower PM 2.5 24

‐ hour requirement of 35 μ g/m 3 (EPA 2007)

for outdoor air. Only one of the homes exceeded this concentration—Home 116, which had

an indoor concentration of 36 μ g/m 3

. The outdoor concentration was 8.9 μ g/m 3

, which

indicates a substantial indoor source of PM 2.5 particulate matter in this home.

The Occupant Source Activity Log was examined to see if there were any activities that

might have contributed to the elevated indoor concentrations of PM 2.5

. The only substantial

activity was 180 minutes of baking. While there was a fireplace and candles in the living

room where the air sampler was located, the occupant did not report any usage of the

fireplace or any candle burning. The occupancy of this home was relatively high and

included tw o adults, two children under 18 years old, two dogs, two hamsters, and one

goldfish. Contributing to the elevated indoor concentration of PM 2.5 is the relatively low

outdoor air exchange rate of 0.22 ach.



### 3.7.2 Real-Time IAQ Measurements

3.7.2.1 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Table 37 (page 18 0 ) contains the metho d detection limit concentration, the indoor air

contaminant concentration guidelines, the ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor air

contaminant concentration guidelines, and the percentage of homes with indoor and

outdoor concentrations above the MDL concentration.

For indoor air contaminant concentration guidelines for carbon monoxide, the California

Air Resources Board 8

‐ hour guideline of 9 ppm and the 1

‐ hour guideline of 20 ppm

(California Air Resources Board 2005) was selected. There is no 24

‐ hour exposure guideline

for carbon monoxide.

The ratio of the MDL concentration to the indoor air contaminant concentration guideline

is 0.09.

The percentage of the hom es with indoor concentrations exceeding the MDL concentration

was 100%. The percentage of the outdoor air samples wit h concentra tions exceeding the

MDL concentration was 100%.

The indoor concentrations of carbon monoxide are summarized in Table 38 (page 18 1 ). The

median maximum 8

‐ hour average indoor concentration was 1. 1 ppm, with a range of

0.4 ppm to 3.7 ppm. The median maximum 8

‐ hour average outdoor concentration was

1.9 ppm, wit h a range of 0.4 ppm to 4.4 ppm.

### 81 The median maximum 1

‐ hour average indoor concentration was 1.6 ppm, with a range of

0.4 ppm to 6.8 ppm. The median maximum 8

‐ hour average outdoor concentration was

2.4 ppm, with a range of 0.4 ppm to 4.9 ppm.

None of the indoor or outdoor concentrations of carbon monoxide exceeded eit her the

9 ppm 8

‐ hour guideline or the 20 ppm 1

‐ hour guideline.

3.7.2.2 Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 )

The indoor and outdoor concentrations of carbon dioxide are summarized in Table 39

(page 18 2 ). The median indoor conentration was 56 4 ppm, with a range of 33 4 ppm to

1,108 ppm. The median outdoor concentration was 323 ppm, with a range of 258 ppm to

369 ppm.

Note that measurements of the outdoor concentration of carbon dioxide less than

375 ppm are indicative of a measurement error, as the atmospheric concentration of carbon

dioxide measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii in 200 6–20 07 ranged from

375–385 ppm. These measurements are not influenced by urban sources of atmospheric

carbon dioxide, such as vehicle and industrial combusti on exhaust fumes, and thus

represent the minimum concentration of carbon dioxide in outdoor air.

The carbon dioxide sensors used, TSI IAQ

‐ Calcs, are non

‐ dispersive infrared

spectrophotometers and were cal i brated with certified calibration gasses before and after

each 24

‐ hour sampling period. It was first thought that changes in the outdoor air

temperature might be causing this error. To test this hypothesis, the research team

calibrated the instrument at room air temperature and then measured the instrument’s

response to 1,035 ppm calibration gas with the instrument and the calibration gas at 70 ° F

and then at 41 ° F. The response of the instrument decreased by 230 ppm (22%) at the 41 ° F

temperature.

A review of the minute

‐ by

‐ minute concentrations of outdoor carbon dioxide

concentrations and the outdoor air temperature from homes with very low outdoor air

24

‐ hour average concentrations (e.g., 260 ppm) suggest that the response of the sensor

decreases with the outdoor air temperature.

The impact of relative humidity on the respo nse of the sensor was also examined. The

instrument was calibrated at room air temperature and the research team measured its

response to 1,035 ppm cali bration gas directly from the compressed gas cylinder to the

sensor, and then with the calibration gas passed through a series of water filled bubblers

and then to the sensor. The relative humidity of the calibration gas was 1.6% directly from

the compressed gas cylinder and 87% after passing through the bubblers. The response of

the sensor to the 1,025 ppm calibration gas decreased by 40 ppm (3.8%) at 87% relative

humidity.

### 82 Thus, it appears that the major error associated with the outdoor carbon dioxide

measurements is associated with outdoor air temperature changes. No attempt has been

made to correct these data, nor have any data where this effect appears to be occurring

been deleted.

It is not anticipated that this type of error is associated with the indoor air measurements

since there are not large changes in the indoor air temperatures as there are with outdoor

air temperatures.

3.7.2.3 Temperature and Relative Humidity

The indoor and outdoor air temperatures and relative humidities are summarized in Table

39 (page 18 2 ). The median indoor air temperature was 72.3 ° F, with a range of 62

. 7 ° F to

82.8 ° F. The median outdoor air temperature was 63.8 ° F, with a range of 44.9 ° F to 82.4 ° F. The

median indoor air relative humidity was 45.2%, with a range of 19.5% to 63.5%. The

median outdoor air relative humidity was 57.9%, with a range of 25.1% to 93.3%.



### 3.7.3 Volatile Organic Compound Concentration Study Comparisons

Table 40 (page 18 3 ) compares the concentrations of VOCs measured in this study to those

measured in two other studies in new homes as summarized by Hodgson and Levin

(2003). In th e Hodgson and Levin paper they present the geometric mean and the

maximum concentrations observed in six experimental low

‐ emitting homes and three

conventional homes built in Denver, Colorado in 1992–1993 and four manufactured homes

and seven site

‐ bui lt homes built in the east and southeast United State in 1997–1998. The

measurements of VOCs were made within the first six moths after the homes were

completed. The four manufactured homes were unoccup ied but furnished, and the seven

site

‐ built homes were unoccupied and unfurnished, but finished, including cabinetry and

carpeting. One of the fo ur manufactured homes had a DOA outdoor air ventilation system

with a fan cycler. One of the seven site

‐ built homes had a DOA outdoor air ventilation

system with a fan cycle r, and one home had an HRV system. The six experimental homes

and three conventional homes were tested both during pre

‐ occupancy period without

furnishings and a post

‐ occupancy period wi th furnishings. Each of six experimental homes

had continuous outdoor air ventilation systems, of which three were HRVs.

The outdoor air exchange rates were lower in the new homes in this study, with a

geometric mean outdoor air exchange rate of 0.31 ach and a geometric mean outdoor air

exchange rate of 0.4 4 ach for the 20 new homes in the other studies.

There were 13 VOCs measured in this study that were all measured in the tw o other

studies. For comparison purposes, Table 40 presents the ratio of the geometric mean

concentrations observed in this study with the geometric mean conce ntration in the two

other studies. A total of 7 of the 13 compounds had a ratio of the geometric mean

concentrations between 0.5 and 2, with 8 of the 13 having ratios greater than 1.0. There

### 83 were two compounds in this study with a ratio of more than 2: benzene (4.4) and

trichloromethane (4.0).

There were also two compounds with a ratio of less than 0.5: alpha

‐ pinene (0.4) and

ethylene glycol (0.1).

Also included in Table 40 is a comparison of the maximum concentrations in this study

and th e other two studies. A total of 12 of the 13 compounds had a ratio of maximum

concentrations exceeding 1.0. There were 8 compounds in th is study with a ratio of more

than 2: trichloromethane (24), 2

‐ butoxyethanol (15), d

‐ limonene (13), m, p

– xylene (5.5),

o

‐ xylen e (4.5), benzene (2.5), acetaldehyde (2.4), and formaldehyde (2.2).

There was also one compound with a ratio of less than 0.5: et hylene glycol (0.2).



### 3.7.4 Volatile Organic Compound Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels

Table 41 (page 18 4 ) presents the percentage of homes wit h indoor concentrations that

exceed the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA 2008a). Table 41 contains

the calculated indoor concentrations associated with the No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL)

for carcinogens and the Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADL) for chemicals causing

reproductive toxicity. These calculated indoor concentrations assume a continuous 24

‐ hour

exposure with a total daily inhaled air vol ume of 20 m 3 and 100% absorption by the

respiratory system. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess

case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000. The MADL is the level at which

reproductive toxicity would have no observable effect, assuming exposure at 1,000 times

that level.

Of the 22 volatile organic compo unds measured in this study, there were eight with

California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. For each of the seven VOCs with NSRLs,

there were some homes that exceeded the cal culated indoor NSRL concentration. The

percentage of homes exceeding the calculated indoor NSRL concentration ranged from 8%

for trichloromethane (chloroform) and tetrachloroethene to 93% for acetaldehyde and

100% for formaldehyde.

For the two volatile organic compounds with MADLs, benzene and toluene, there were

homes that exceeded the calculated indoor MADL concentration only for benzene. The

percentage of homes e xceeding the calculated indoor MADL concentration for benzene

was 20 %.



## 3.8 Homeowner Source Activity Log

This section fulfills the potential sources requirements stated in Study Objective 2, Measure

and characterize indoor air quality (IAQ), ventilation, and the potential sources of indoor

### 84 air contaminants. Other potential sources have previously been summarized in the Home

and Site Characteristic Collection Section.

The indoor source activities were reported by the occupants for the 24

‐ hour Test Day and

are summarized in Tables 42 and 43 (page 18 5 an d 18 6 ).

The cooking and cleanin g activities logged by the homeown er during the 24

‐ hour Test Day

are summarized in Table 42. The median total cooking activity time was 35 minutes, and

ranged from a minimum of 0.3 minutes to a maximum of 295 minutes. The median cooking

activity tim es with the three highest times were: baking (45 minutes), warming/boiling

water soup etc. (20 minutes), and broiling (19 minutes). The median total cleaning activity

time was 83 minutes, and ranged from a minimum of 1 minute to a maximum of

800 minutes. The median cleaning activity times with the three highest times were:

dishwasher (68 minutes), use of clothes was her (59 minutes), and vacuuming (25 minutes).

The special, garage, and outdoor source activities logged by the homeowner during the

24

‐ hour Test Day are summarized in Table 43. The median total special activity time was

30 minutes, and ranged from a minimum of 0.3 minutes to a maximum of 1,440 minutes.

The median special activity times with the three highest times, other than “nobody at

home” were: candle burning (165 minutes), gas

‐ burning fireplace (140 minutes), an d other

activities that produce dust, smoke, or fumes (140 minutes). The median total garage

activity time was 1,037 minutes and ranged from a minimum of 0.3 minutes to a maximum

of 3,480 min utes. This maximum of 3,480 minutes reflects the storage of multiple cars in the

garage. The median vehicle operated in the garage time was 2 minutes, and ranged from a

minimum of 0.2 minute s to a maximum of 10 minutes. The median total outdoor activity

time was 29 minutes, with a minimum of 1 minute and a maximum of 360 minutes. The

median outdoor activity times with the three highest times were: painting (55 minutes),

use of gasoline

‐ powered equipment (25 minutes), and smoking outdoors (25 minutes).



## 3.9 Homeowner Reported IA Q Related Perceptions and

Observations

This section fulfills requirements stated in Study Objective 3, Determine occupant

perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the IAQ in their homes.

The homeowner self

‐ reported perceptions and satisfaction with the IAQ in their homes are

summarized in Table 44 (page 18 7 ) for the three

- week recall pe r iod. In the Occupant

Questionnaire there were a total of nine physical symptom questions where the occupants

were asked “During the past three weeks have you experienced any of the following

physical symptoms when in your home that you do not experience when you are away

from the home?”. A total of 30 of the 108 homeowners (28%) reported experiencing one or

more of the nine physical symptoms. The three most frequently reported symptoms were

nose/sinus congestion (19%), allergy symptoms (15%), and headache (13%).

### 85 This Occupant Questionnaire also included a total of seven home comfort questions where

the occupants were asked “During the past week

, please indicate if you have noticed a

significant period when your home has experienced each of the conditions listed below.”

The three most frequently reported conditions were “too cold” (19%), “too hot” (15%), and

“too stagnant (not enough air movement)” (12%).

In the 2005 UCB mail survey of new homes in California (Pr ice et al. 2007), 60% of the

homeowners in the summer reported at least one th e rmal comfort problem and 58%

reported the same in the winter. Those results are notably higher than the results in this

field study: 38% in the winter and 43% in the summer. The UCB mail survey also reported

that thermal comfort problems were higher in the summer in the winter (i.e., 60% and 58%,

respectively) than in the spring and fall swing seasons (i.e., 24% and 29%, respectively).

Also included were three question s regarding mold or m ildew. “During the past week

, please indicate if you have noticed, seen, or smelled mold or mildew in the following

locations?”. The most frequently reported location where the homeowners report mold or

mildew was the bathroom, which was reported by 13% of the occupants. Other locations

were also reported by between 0.9% and 2.8% of the occupants.

In the 20 05 UCB mail survey (Price et al. 2007), homeowners were asked if they “noticed,

saw or smelled mold or mildew” in the bathroom during the different seaso ns. The

percentage of homeowners reporting mold or mildew in the bathroom ranged from 4% in

the spring to 7% in the winter. The percentage of homeowners reporting mold in other

locations (i.e., basement/crawlspace, walls or ceilings, carpets, or closets), ranged from 0%

to 1% across the four seasons.

Thus, a higher percentage of the hom eowners in this study reported observing mold in the

bathroom (i.e., 13% in this study and 4%–7% in th e UCB mail survey).



## 3.10 Relationships Between Home and IAQ Characteristics

This section fulfills the requirements stated in Study Objective 4, Examine the relationships

among home ventilation characteristics, measured and perceived IAQ, and house and

household characteristics. Note that because of the low number of homeowners reporting

IAQ related perceptions and observations, there are insufficient data to prepare statistically

meaningful correlations with home an d IAQ characteristics.



### 3.10.1 Indoor Air Contam inant Emission Rates

The indoor emission rates of VOCs were calculated as the product of the indoor

concentration minus the outdoor concentration and the outdoor air exchange rate. This

calculation assumes that the penetration factor of VOCs in the outdoor air that is

infiltrating through the building envelope was 1.0 and that there was no removal of VOCs

### 86 from the indoor air unrelated to the outdoor air exchange rate (e.g., surface

deposition/surface reaction, indoor air reactions, air filtration). These are relatively valid

assumptions for the VOCs reported here.

Emission rates for PM 2.5 and NO 2 were not calculated, because these air contaminants can

have significant removal mechanisms unrelated to the outdoor air exchange rate (e.g.,

surface deposition/surface reaction, indoor air reactions, air filtration). The emission rates

for CO were also not calculated, because of the substantial uncertainty in the outdoor air

concentrations caused by high outdoor humidity levels.

Table 45 (p age 18 8 ) contains th e calculated indoor emission rates of volatile organic

compounds. The median indoor emission rates ranged from

‐ 0.0 3 μ g/m 3

‐ h for caprolactam

to 11 μ g/m 3

‐ h for formaldehyde. The six highest maximum emission rates observed were:

139 μ g/m 3

‐ h for 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene, 65 μ g/m 3

‐ h formaldehyde, 44 μ g/m 3

‐ h for ethylene

glycol, 32 μ g/m 3

‐ h for 2

‐ butoxyethanol, 24 μ g/m 3

‐ h for toluene, and 20 μ g/m 3

‐ h for

acetaldehyde and d

‐ limonene.

The results of these indoor emission rate calculations for VOCs will used in the discussion

of the variability observed in the multi

‐ day and multi

‐ season measurements.



### 3.10.2 Formaldehyde Emissions from Forced Air Units

Table 46 (page 1 8 9) contains the formaldehyde emission rate measurements from the FAUs

in two Northern California homes: 017 and 120. The FAU formaldehyde emissions for

Home 017 were measured in both the summer and winter. The FAU formaldehyde

emissions for Home 120 were measured in just the winter. The FAU formaldehyde

emissions were measured in a second summer session home, 033; however, a failure in the

sample collection resulted in these data being lost.

The FAU emission rate of formaldehyde in Home 017 in the summer was 3,423 μ g/h. This

emission rate represents 21% of the total home emission rate as determined from the

indoor and outdoor formaldehyde concentration measurements and the PFT measure of

the outdoor air exchange rate. The FAU emission rate of formaldehyde in Home 017 in the

winter was ‐ 3,38 1 μ g/h, which is

‐ 56% of the total home emission rate. The negative

emission rate measured in the winte r is believed to be primarily the result of duct leakage

associated with the return side of the FAU and the formaldehyde concentration in the attic

air, which was lower than the concentration in the return air. The measured duct leakage

for the FAU in this home was 4.8%. If the majority of this duct leakage were to be on the

return side of the system (e.g., the fan cabinet panel), then leakage of the attic air, which

has a much lower formaldehyde concentration than the return air (i.e., 2.0 μ g/m 3 in the

attic air and 15.3 μ g/m 3 in the return air) into the return air could explain much of the

lower formaldehyde concentration in the supply air, and hence the negative FAU emission

rate. Also, the lower attic temperature (i.e., 67.0 ° F in the winter and 88.1 ° F in the summer) is

expected to reduce the formaldehyde emissions from the fiberglass soundliner into the

### 87 FAU airstream and the formaldehyde emissions from materials in the attic (e.g., composite

wood materials) into the attic air.

The FAU emission rate of formaldehyde in Home 120 in the winter was ‐ 7,681 μ g/h, which

is

‐ 151% of the total home emission rate. The reasons for the negative emission rates are

believed to be similar to those for the Home 017 winter emission rate measureme nts. The

measured duct leakage of the FAU in this home was 5.7%. The supply air concentration

was also measured at a second location in this home. The supply air concentration at this

second location was subs tantially lower (i.e., 65.7 μ g/m 3 compared to 70.0 μ g/m 3 ). Thus, the

assumption in the emission rate calculation of perfect mixing of the air entering the FAU

from the return air and from attic air entering through return air duct leaks does not

appear to be a good assumption. Thus, the calculated emission rates of formaldehyde from

the FAUs have a subst antial amount of uncertainty. It does appear that in the summer,

when attic temperatures can become elevated, that the FAU can transport formaldehyde

into the home from either emissions of formaldehyde from fiberglass soundliner directly

into the FAU airstream or from leakage of attic air with elevated formaldehyde

concentrations into th e return air of the FAU.



### 3.10.3 Multi-day Home Measurement Comparisons

The outdoor air exchange rate and indoor and outdoor VOC and aldehyde concentrations

were measured in a total of four homes on three consecutive 24

‐ hour periods: Thursday–

Friday, Friday–Saturday, and Saturday–Sunday. The purpose of these multi

‐ day

consecutive measurements was to evaluate the day

‐ to

‐ day variations, including weekday

and weekends. The four mu lti

‐ day home measurements included one home in each

season

‐ region: Home 033 (Summer

‐ North), Home 041 (Winter

‐ South), Home 059

(Summer

‐ South), and Home 099 (Winter

‐ North). These four homes were each non

‐ mechanically ventilated homes. Tables 47–50 (pages 19 0 –19 3 ) contain th e i ndoor a nd

outdoor concentrations of VOCs, the outdoor air ex change rate, the indoor emission rates,

and the absolute and relative variation in the emission rates. Note that th e outdoor air

contaminant measurements were only measured on the first day, Thursday–Friday, and

thus to calculate the emission rates this measurement of the outdoor air contaminant

concentrations were used to compute the indoor air contaminant emission rates for Days 2

and 3. Also, the PFT measurement for Day 1 in Home 099 was lost due to a lab error and

thus there are no emission rates calculated for Day 1.

The variations in the indoor concentrations are expected to be largel y the result of the

variations in the outdoor air exchange rate and the emission rates of indoor sources,

especially those sources that are not continuous, such as those related to inter m ittent

activities such as cleaning, cooking, air fresheners, etc.

The relative standard deviations of the outdoor air exchange rates were 0.04 for Home 041,

0.05 for Home 099, 0.28 for Home 059, and 0.38 for Home 033, with an average of 0.19 for

the four ho mes. The average relative standard deviation of the indoor air contaminant

### 88 concentrations were 0.12 for Home 099, 0.30 for Home 041, 0.44 for Home 059, and 0.50 for

Home 033, with an average of 0.34 for the four homes. Thus, as the variation in the outdoor

air exchange rates increased, so did the variation in the indoor air contaminant

concentrations.

The average absolute variation of the indoor air contaminant emission rates were

0.6 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 099, 0.9 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 033, 1.0 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 041, and

2.5 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 059, with an average of 1.3 μ g/m 3

‐ h for the four homes.

By comparing the variations of the indoor air contaminant emission rates with the source

activity logs prepared by the homeowners, it is possible to develop hypotheses as to the

identity of the indoor sources. For each home the research team looked at the indoor air

contaminant emission rates with substantial variations (i.e., more than 2 μ g/m 3

‐ h absolute

variation and with more than a 0.50 relative standard deviation) and examined the

occupant source activity logs to see if there were any sources that might explain the

variation in the emission rates.

For Home 033, d

‐ limonene was the VOC with the most substantial variation in the indoor

emission rate, as defined above, with emission rates of 2.2 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Thursday–Friday,

1.8 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Friday–Saturday, and 4.9 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Saturday–Sunday. An examination of

the source activity logs did not reveal and activities that might explain this increase. Note

that d

‐ limonene is often found in deodorizers and household cleaning chemicals.

For Home 041, 2

‐ butoxyethanol was the VOC with the most substantial variation in the

indoor emission rate, with emission rates of 5.8 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Thursday–Friday, 0.8 μ g/m 3

‐ h

on Friday–Saturday, and 0.6 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Saturday–Sunday. An examination of the source

activity logs indicated that on Thursday–Friday, and not on the other two days, there was

20 minutes of sweeping/dusting with anti

‐ bacterial wipes, which is a potential source of

2

‐ butoxyethanol, a common ingredient in cleaning chemicals.

For Home 059, hexanal was the VOC with the most substantial variation in the indoor

emission rate, with emission rates of 4.7 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Thursday–Friday and 5.8 μ g/m 3

‐ h on

Friday–Saturday, and 1.2 μ g/m 3

‐ h on Saturday–Sunday. An examination of the source

activity logs did not reveal any activities that might explain this variation.

For Home 099, there were no volatile organic compounds with substantial variations in the

indoor emission rates.



### 3.10.4 Multi-Season Home Measurement Comparisons

The outdoor air exchange rate and indoor and outdoor air contaminant concentrations

were measured in a total of four homes for three 24

‐ hour periods, during three different

seasons; summer, fall, and winter. The purpose of these multi

‐ season measurements was to

evaluate the season

‐ to

‐ season variations. The four multi

‐ season home measurements

### 89 included four homes in the North region; Home 005, Home 006, Home 013, and Home 019.

These four homes were each non

‐ mechanically ventilated homes. Tables 51–54 (pages 19 4

–

19 7 ) contain the indoor and outdoor concentrations of VOCs, the outdoor air exchange

rate, the indoor emission rates, and the absolute and relative variation in the emission

rates. Note that for Home 013, the homeowners were unable to participate in the winter

field session, thus there are only measurements for two seasons, summer and fall. Als o

, the

PFT measurement for Day 1 in Home 019 resulted in an unrealistically low air exchange

rate (i.e., 0. 03 ach) and thus was deleted as an unreliable measurement. For this reason

there are no emission rates calculated for Day 1 in Home 019.

As with the multi

‐ day homes, the variations in the indoor concentrations of these multi

‐

season homes are expected to be largely the result of the variations in the outdoor air

exchange rate and the emission rates of indoor sources, especially those sources that are

not continuous, such as those related to intermit tent activitie s such as cleaning, cooking, air

fresheners, etc. The variations in the outdoor air exchange rates, and thus the indoor air

contaminant concentrations, are expected to be higher for the multi

‐ season homes t han the

multi

‐ day homes, with outdoor air exchange rates being lower and the indoor air

contaminant concentrations higher in the winter season whe n windo ws are more often

kept closed.

The relative standard deviations of the outdoor air exchange rate were 0.34 for Home 005,

0.64 for Home 019, 0.75 for Home 006, and 0.95 for Home 013, with an average of 0.67 for

the four homes. The avera g e relative standard deviation of the indoor air contaminant

concentrations were 0.45 for Home 006, 0.52 for Home 013, 0.59 for Home 005, and 0.82 for

Home 019, with an average of 0.60 for the four homes.

Thus, the variations of both the outd o or air exchange rate and indoor air contaminant

concentrations were much higher for these multi

‐ season homes then for the multi

‐ day

homes. The average relative standard deviation of the outdoor air ex change rates was 3.5

times higher for the multi

‐ season homes, and the average relative standard deviation of the

indoor air contaminant concentrations was 1.8 ti mes higher.

The average absolute variation of the indoor air contaminant emission rates were

0.50 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 019, 1.5 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 006, 4.1 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 013, and

6.3 μ g/m 3

‐ h for Home 005, with an average of 3.1 μ g/m 3

‐ h for the four homes, which is 2.6

times higher that the average of 1.2 μ g/m 3

‐ h for the four multi

‐ day homes.

Thus, the larger variations in the indoor air contaminant concentrations in the multi

‐ season

homes appears to be the combination of larger variations in the outdoor air exchange rates

and the indoor air contaminant emission rates.

For each home the research team looked at the indoor air contamina nt emission rates with

substantial variations (i.e., more than 2 μ g/m 3

‐ h absolute variation and with more than a

### 90 0.50 relative standard deviation) and examined the occupant source activity logs to see if

there were any sources that might explain the variation in the emission rates.

For Home 005, 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene, was the VOC with the most substantial variation in

the indoor emission rate, with emission rates of 72 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the summer, 1.9 μ g/m 3

‐ h in

the fall, and 0.8 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the winter. An examination of the source activity logs did not

reveal any activities that might explain this increase. Note that 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene is often

found in mothballs, although the homeowners did not report in the Occupant

Questionnaire any use of mothballs.

For Home 006, d

‐ limonene was the VOC with the most substantial variation in the indoor

emission rate, with emission rates of 1.6 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the summer,

0.9 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the fall, and 4.1 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the winter. An examination of the source activity

logs indicated that the occupants used furniture polish for 15 minutes and cleaning

chemicals for 30 minutes during the winter field session but not in either the summer or

fall field sessions. Note that d

‐ limonene is often found in deodorizers and household

cleaning chemicals.

For Home 013, toluene was the VOC with the most substantial variation in the indoor

emission rate, with emission rates of 18 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the summer, and 50 μ g/m 3

‐ h in the fall.

An examination of the source activity logs indicated that the occupants used two plug

‐ in

air fresheners for 24 hours during the fall field session but not in the summer field session.

Note that toluene is found in some air fresheners.

For Home 019, there were no VOCs with substantial variations in the indoor emission

rates.



### 3.10.5 Group Comparisons

Group comparisons were prepared for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations, outdoor air exchanges rates, and window usage. Formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde were selected for these analyses, as these were two air contaminants that

most frequently exceeded recommended indoor concentration guidelines. Note that

because of the small number of homes in the sample groups, these comparisons should

only be considered as suggestive of differences. Multivariate analyses need to be done to

further establish any differences between the groups.

The group comparisons consisted of homes in the North versus South regions, homes in

summer versus winter seasons, and homes without mechanical outdoor air systems versus

homes with either pure DOA or pure HR V outdoor air ventilation systems. For the

seasonal group comparison the research team used the 19 seasonal repeat homes with

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde measurements (one of the 20 seasonal repeat homes did

not have a formaldehyde or acetaldehyde measurement as a result of a sampler failure).

### 91 Homes with nighttime cooling systems, evaporative coolers, and window fans were

excluded from these analyses.

According to the K

‐ S statistic analyses, the distributions of indoor formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentrations, outdoor air exchange rates, and window usage were found to

be not normally distributed. The K

‐ S statistic was repeated with several functions applied

to the distributions. If the K

‐ S statistic returned a result with a probability greater than 0.05,

then the distribution was determined to be normal. The formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations were found to be lognormal; the inverse of the outdoor air exchange rate

was found to be norma l; and the squa re root of window opening, where different than

zero, was found to be normal. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 55

(page 19 8 ), along with the probab i lity that the dis t rib u t i on is normal. Figures 29–32 (pages

12 8

– 13 1 ) present th e cumulative fre q uency plots of the normalized data.

3.10.5.1 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde and Group Comparisons

Table 56 (page 199 ) cont ains the group analyses for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations. For the t

‐ test comparisons of differences in the group mean concentrations

the research team used the normalized data; the log of the indoor formaldehyde

concentrations and the log of the indoor acetaldehyde concentrations. If the probability of

no difference was less than 0.05, then the means were considered to be different. Note that

the number of homes with HRV systems in these group comp arisons was very small (i.e.,

n=4), and thus only very large differences in the group means can be identified.

North

‐ South Homes

. For this comparison only those homes without mechanical outdoor

air ventilation systems were compared. The mean log of the indoor formaldehyde

concentration was found to be significantly higher in North homes than in South homes

(p

= 0.001). The mean log of the indoor acetaldehyde concentration was not found to be

significantly different in North homes and South homes.

Summer

‐ Winter Homes

. The mean log of the indoor formaldehyde acetaldehyde

concentrations were not found to be significantly different in summer homes and winter

homes.

Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems

. The mean log of

the indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were found to be significantly

higher in homes with DOA mechanical outdoor air systems than in non

‐ mechanically

ventilated homes (p=0.0001 and p=0.005 respectively). The mean log of the indoor

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were not found to be significantly different

in homes wit h HRV mechanical outdoor air systems and in non

‐ mechanically ventilated

homes. The low number of HRVs (i.e., n=4) precluded identifying the substantially lower

mean indoor log concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the HRV homes as

being statistically significant.

### 92 Homes With DOA and HRV Outdoor Air Ventilation

. The mean log of the concentration of

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde was found to be significantly higher in homes with DOA

mechanical outdoor air systems than in homes with HRV mechanical outdoor air systems

(p=0.05 and p=0.02 respectively).

3.10.5.2 Outdoor Air Exchange Rate and Window Usage Group Comparisons

Table 57 (page 20 0 ) co ntains the group analyses for outdoor air exchange rates a nd

window usage. The outdoor air exchange rate consisted of the 24

‐ hour PFT measurement

and the window usage consisted of the 24

‐ hour log of the ft 2

‐ hrs of window/door usage.

For the t

‐ test comparisons of differences in the group mean outdoor air exchange rates and

window usage the research team used the normalized data; inverse air changes per hour

and the square root of the window usage. If the probability of no difference was less than

0.05, then the means were considered to be different.

North

‐ South Homes

. For this comparison only those homes without mechanical outdoor

air ventilation systems were compared. The mean inverse of the outdoor air exchange rate

and the mean square root of the window usage was found to not be significantly different

in North homes and South homes.

Summer

‐ Winter Homes

. The mean inverse of the outdoor air exchange rate was found to

not be significantly different in summer homes and winter homes. The mean square root of

the window usage was found to be significantly higher in summer homes than in winter

homes (p=0.02).

Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems

. The mean inverse

of the outdoor air exchange rate was found to not be significantly different in DOA

mechanical outdoor air systems and non

‐ mechanically ventilated homes. The mean inverse

of the outdoor air exchange rate was found to be significantly higher in homes with HRV

mechanical outdoor air systems th an in non

‐ mechanically ventilated homes (p

= 0.002). The

mean square root of the window usage was found to not be significantly different in either

DOA or HR V mechanical outdoo r air systems when compared to the non

‐ mechanically

ventilated homes.

Homes With DOA and HRV Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems

. The mean inverse of the

outdoor air exchange rate was found to be significantly lower in HRV than DOA

mechanical outdoor air systems (p=0.008). The mean square root of the window usage was

found to not be significantly different in HRV and DOA mechanical outdoor air systems.



## 3.11 Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Concentration Correlations

Correlation analyses were prepared for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations with home characteristics and indoor and outdoor environmental

conditions. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were selected for these analyses, because

### 93 these were the two air contaminants that most frequently exceeded recommended indoor

concentration guidelines.

The six home characteristics included:

• home age (years)

• composite wood loading (ft 2 per 1,000 ft 3 of indoor air volume)

• new cabinetry (within six months)

• new furniture (within six months)

• air fresheners (presence or absence)

• outdoor air exchange rate (ach)

The four environmental conditions included:

• indoor air temperature ( o F)

• indoor relative humidity (%)

• outdoor air temperature ( o F)

• outdoor relative humidity (%)

The composite wood loading includes the total composite wood area in square feet

observed to be associated with cabinetry/furniture and the finishes of walls, ceilings, and

floors divided by the indoor air volume (i.e., ft 2 of composite wood per 1,000 ft 3 of indoor

air volume).

The research team prepared both Pearson correlations for those variables that could be

normalized as well as Spearman correlations, which do not require the sample populations

be normally distributed.

Outdoor air temperature and relative humidity, indoor air temperature, and home age

data were found to be normally distributed. As previo usly discussed, according to the K

‐ S

statistic analyses, the distributions of indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations, outdoor air exchange rates, window usage, composite wood loading, and

indoor air relative humidity were found to be not normally distributed. The K

‐ S statistic

was repeated with several functions applied to the distributions. The formaldehyde and

acetaldehyd e concentrations were found to be lognormal; the inverse of the outdoor air

exchange rate (i.e., outdoor air resid e nce time) was found to be normal; and the square root

of window opening, where different than zero, was found to be normal. The log of the

composite wood loading was found to be log normal, and the indoor air relative humidity

### 94 squared was found to be log normal. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table

55 (page 19 8 ) along with the probability that the distribution is normal. Figures 33–38

(pages 13 2 –13 7 ) present the cumulative freuency of the normlized data.

Tables 58 an d 59 (pages 20 1 and 20 2 ) contain the correl a tions for formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentra tions, respectively, wit h the six home characteristics and four

environmental conditions. If the probabi lity of no cor relation was less the 0.05, then a

correlation was conclud e d to possibly exist. Note that since these are bivariate analyses, the

establishment of a possible correlation between two variables does not indicate that there is

a causal relationship. Other factors may be determined to be equally or more important

when analyzed together in a multivariate analyses, which is beyond the scope of this

study, but is recommended for future analyses.

Figures 39–45 (pages 13 8 –14 4 ) are scatter plots of the indoor formaldehyde a nd

acetaldehyd e concentrations and the three continuous home characteristic variables, home

age, composite wood loading, and outdoor air exchange rate, and the four environ mental

conditions.

For both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations, one home characteristic—

outdoor air ex change rate—was determined by both the Pearson and Spearman correlation

analyses to have a statistically significant correlation. This correlati on was relatively

strong, with probabilities of no correlation less than 0.0001, as determined by both Pearson

and Spearman correlation analyses. The correlation coefficients indicate that indoor

formaldehyde concentrations correlate negative ly with the outdoor air exchange rates (i.e.,

as outdoor air exchange rates increase the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde

decrease). Note since the Pearson cor relation coefficient uses the normalized inverse

outdoor air exchange rate (i.e., the outdoor air residence time), the positive correlation

coefficients represents a negative correlation with outdoor air exchange rate.

For formaldehyde conc entrations, one environmental condition, indoor air temperature,

was determined by both the Pear son and Spearman correlation analyses to have a

statistically significant correlation. The correlation coefficients indicate that indoor

formaldehyde concentrations correlate positively with the indoor air temperature (i.e., as

indoor air temperatures increase, the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde increase).

Not as ex pected, both the Pearson and Spearman correlations produced negative

correlations for composi te wood loading and acetaldehyde indoor concentrations, and no

significant correlation for composite wood loading and formaldehyde indoor

concentrations, despite the knowledge that composite wood is an indoor emitter of both

formaldehyde and acet aldehyde. This may be the result of incompleteness of the recovery

of this variable in the field from the visible inspection by the field team. Composite wood

could not always be accurately identified because of coverings by laminate or paint. In

addition, the inspectors only estimated the square footage of composite wood from

### 95 furniture and cabinetry. Other substantial amounts of composite wood loading that are

common in many of these homes, but are difficult to quantify in the limited time available

to the inspectors, include plywood and oriented strand board (OSB) in walls, subfloors,

and attics and medium density fiberboard in baseboards, window shades, interior doors,

and window and door trims. Also, the inspectors estimated the areas of composite wood

without separately distinguishing those areas that were ex posed and th ose areas that were

covered with laminate.

The variance introduced by the impact of outdoor air exchange rates upon the indoor

concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehy de may also be contributing to the lack of

an observed significant positive correlation between composite wood loading and the

indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.



## 3.12 Incentives and Barriers th at Influence People’s Use of

Ventilation

This section fulfills the requirements stated in Study Objective 5, Identify the incentives

and barriers that influence people’s use of windows, doors, and mechanical ventilation

devices for adequate air exchange.

The Occupant Questionnaire on mechanical ventilation systems focused exclusively on the

mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems. Tables 60 and 61 (pages 20 3 an d 20 4 )

summarize the responses to these ques tions from homes with either a DOA or HRV

mechanical outdoor air system and with completed responses to question s

, excluding

those with only nighttime cooling systems (e.g., WHF, RAD), evaporative cooling systems,

or window fans. The total of 26 homes with mechanical outdoor air systems included 17

DOA systems and 9 HRV systems.

A total of 78% stated that the operation of the system was ex plained to them when they

bought or moved into the house. In addition, 63% responded that they understood how the

system works, and 83% stated that they understood how to operate the system properly.

With respec t to questions how they typically operate the system, 32% reported conti n uous

operation in the summer, 36% in the fall, 18% in the winter, and 27% in the spring.

With respect to the question of “Why did you choose the system?,” 91% of the respondents

replied that the system “came with the house.”

With respect to the question of “What do you like about the system?,” the three most

frequent responses were, “Fresh air” (52%), “Quiet” (48%), and “Reduced concern about

indoor air quality” (26%).

### 96 The written descriptions accompanying the “Other” reasons that the homeowners did like

about the mechanical outdoor air systems, along with the system type and Home ID, were:

• “I can shut off one of the 2 zones for economy.” (DOA

‐ 2 systems, Home 043)

• “House does not feel/smell stuff or that it has been closed.” (DOA, Home 102)

• “Clears moisture from baths and laundry.” (HRV, Home 104)

With respect to the question “What don’t you like about the system ?, ” the four most

frequent responses were, “Not effective” (32%), “Too drafty” (26%), “Too noisy” (26%),

and “Other” (26%).

The written description s accompanying the “Not effective” and “Other” reasons that the

homeowners did not like about the mechanical outdoor air systems, alon g with the system

type and Home ID, were:

• “Needs to turn on with HVAC system, not every 45 mins. Automatically.” (DOA,

Home 001)

• “Need to go into attic to clean the filter.” (HRV, Home 017)

• “Unit is difficult to reach

, expensive yearly maintenance service.” (HRV, Home 018)

• “House is always stuffy, cannot feel fresh air, not able to shut off, always running if

air/heater is off.” (DOA, Home 021)

• “Never understood how to use it.” (DOA

, Home 021)

• “Brings in hot air in the summer and cold air in the winter.” (HRV, Home 022)

• “One zone does not shut off when it reaches its program.” (DOA

‐ 2 syst ems, Home

043)

• “It is on a 90 min auto matic cycle. It brings in hot air in summer, cold air in winter,

air w/smoke in it & air during aerial spraying for West Nile viruses.” (DOA, Home

102).

• “Dust seems to still get on the table tops.” (HRV, Home 104)

• “It does not heat & cool the house eve n ly. Half the house is fairly comfortable and

the other half is not.” (DOA, Home 109)

### 97 With respect to the question of “Please list any additional problems or provide additional

comments you have on the system,” the following are the written descriptions, along with

the system type and Home ID:

• “The thermostat works when it wants to not when he wants it to, it ʹ s like it has a

mind of its own. They already re placed it once and it didn ʹ t fix the problem.”

(DOA, Home 008)

• “I have no idea how the system works. The only controls that I am aware of are for

heating and cooling.” (DOA, Home 011)

• “Should be able to clean filters more easily, especially since this is a sen i or

development. More reason clean filters.” (HRV, Home 017).

• “Not able to shut off system, never feel fresh air coming from outside, always

hot/stuffy in house; cooler outside.” (DOA, Home 021)

• “It needs to have a switc h where the home owner can shut it off.” (DOA, Home

102).

• “Colder type air comes out of the vents during the winter along with the heated air,

thereby making it uncomfortable if you are positioned near the vents? Opposite in

the summer.” (DOA, Home 109)

• “Did not know one of my ducts was closed.” (DOA, Home 110).



## 3.13 Incentives and Barriers Rel ated to People’s Purchases and

Practices that Improve IAQ

This section fulfills the requirements stated in Study Objective 6, Identify the incentives

and barriers related to people’s purchases and practices that improve IAQ, such as the use

of low

‐ emitting building materials and improved air filters.

The Occupant Questionnaire contained a number of questions focused upon home IAQ

related improvement choices. Table 62 (page 20 5 ) summ arizes the responses to these

question s. A total of 24% of the 105 respondents to this question stat ed “none” in response

to the question “What special measures or choices have you or the builder taken to

improve the quality of the air in your home?”.

The four most frequent responses to improve ments undertaken were: “Hard flooring

instead of carpeting” (33%), “Carbon monoxide alarm” (28%), “High efficiency vacuum

cleaner with special features such as filters to trap more particles” (27%), and “Upgrade my

central air filter” (25%).

### 98 With respect to the question of “Other” Home IAQ Improvements, the following are the

written descriptions, along with the Home ID:

• “Ceramic tile and linoleum to replace all but bedroom carpeting.” (Home 002).

• “Hard flooring in kitchen entryway & part of hallway.” (Home 015).

• “24

‐ hr fans: 2 bathrooms/utility roo m to prevent mold.” (Home 016).

• “Smartvent.” (Home 018).

• “Smartvent.” (Home 019).

• “All bath fans are on 60

‐ min. timers; whole house fan on 12

‐ hr. timer.” (Home 034).

• “Changed original air filter.” (Home 048).

• “Methane gas mitigation system

‐ builder installed.” (Home 054).

• “Living Ai r portable cleaner system, Orek, Sharper Image air cleaners.” (Home

069).

• “Master cool evap cooler for fresh air.” (Home 070).

• “Switched to crystal (dustless) cat litter.” (Home 077).

• “We usually open windows and keep them open

. During the last week its been

cold so we ʹ ve not done so as usual.” (Home 079).

• “Whole house fan. ” (Home 088).

• “Hard flooring in downstairs.” (Home 092)

• “Air purifiers in bedrooms (4).” (Home 105).

• “Cleaning supplies natural/nontoxic, plant in most rooms.” (Home 121).



## 3.14 Recent Developments Related to Codes, Regulations, and

Guidelines

Recently there have been several changes to codes, regulations, and guidelines that are

noteworthy with respect to the data collected in this study.

### 99 The OEHHA RELs for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were revised in December 2008

(OEHHA 2008b). These revisions reflect scientific knowledge and techniques developed

since the previous guidelines were prepared, and in particular, explicitly include

consideration of possible differential effects on the health of infants, children and other

sensitive subpopulations. In addition to the previously defined Acute and Chronic RELs,

the revisions include establishment of 8

‐ hour RELs.

For formaldehyde, the Acute REL was reduced from 94 μ g/m 3 to 55 μ g/m 3

. The interim

8

‐ hour REL was reduced from 33 μ g/m 3 to 9 μ g/m 3 and is no longer an interim standard.

The Chronic REL was increased from 3 μ g/m 3 to 9 μ g/m 3

.

For formaldehyde, the percentage of homes exceeding the Acute REL increases from 6.7%

to 28% for the new REL. The percentage of homes exceeding the 8

‐ hour REL increases from

59% to 98%. The percentage of homes exceeding the Chronic REL decreases from 100% to

98%.

For acetaldehyde, the Acute REL, fo r which previously there was no established level, was

set at 470 μ g/m 3

, the 8

‐ hour REL, for which previously there was no established level, was

set at 300 μ g/m 3

, and the Chronic REL was increased from 9 μ g/m 3 to 140 μ g/m 3

.

For acetaldehyde the percentage of homes exceeding the Chronic REL decreases from 82%

to 0% for the new higher exposure levels, and 0% of the homes exceed the new 8

‐ hour REL

and the new Chronic REL.

In April 2007, the California Air Resources Board adopted an airborne toxics control

measure (ATCM) to reduce forma ldehyde emissions from composite wood products

including hardwood plywood (HWPW), particleboard (PB), medium density fib e rboard

(MDF), and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products

(California Air Resources Board 2007b). This ATCM established the most stringent,

production

‐ based, formaldehyde standards in the world. ARB ʹ s evaluation of

formaldehyde exposure in California found that one of the major sources is from

inhalation of formaldehyde emitted by composite wood products containing urea

‐ formaldehyde resin. Much of this HWPW, PB

, and MDF is used to make furniture,

cabinets, shelving, countertops, flooring and moldings.

This ATCM was approved by th e Office of Administrative Law on April 18, 2008

(California Code of Regulations 2008). The Phase 1 implementation da t e is scheduled for

January 1, 2009. A Phase 2 set of lower emissions rates is scheduled for implementation

January 1, 2010, for hardwood plywood with veneer core and January 1, 2011, for

particleboard and medium density fiberboard.

### 100 The California Energy Commission (2008a) adopted the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency

Standards on April 23, 2008, and these standards become effective August 1, 2009. The new

2008 standards require all low

‐ rise residential buildings to have a mechanical outdoor air

ventilation system. The mechanical outdoor air ventilation system requirements in the new

2008 standard are an adoption of ASHRAE Standard 62.2

‐ 2007, with the exception that use

of openable windows for outdoo r ventilati on in place of mechanical outdoor air

ventilation, while permitted by ASHRAE, is not an acceptable option. The ASHRAE

mechanical outdoor air ventilation rates discussed in this report, ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2 004, are

identical to the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2007 (ASHRAE 2007) rates and the new California 2008

Building Energy Efficien cy Standar ds.

In addition, the new 2008 California Title 24 Alternative Calculation Method (ACM)

Manual (California Energy Commission 2008b) no longer requires mechanical outdoor

ventilation of 0.047 cfm/ft 2 in homes that builders are taking credit for building a home

with an SLA less than 3.0. The new 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards now require

that all homes, regardless of the SLA, have mechanical outdoor air ventilation.

ASHRAE published addenda to ASHRAE Standard 62.2

‐ 2007 in 2008 ( ASHRAE 2008 ).

These 2008 addenda included Addendum b, which provides changes to Table 4.2,

“Ventilation Effectiveness for Intermittent Fans.” This addendum also changed the

requirement that intermittent mechanical outdoor air systems operate a minimum of

1 hour every 12 hours to a minimum operation of once per 24 hours and a minimum

fractional on

‐ time of 0. 10. The new California 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,

which cites ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2007, do not include this addendum.

For the three DOA systems in this study with operational fan cyclers, the new

Addendum b ventilatio n effectiveness factors result in decreased outdoor airflow rate

requirements. The measured outdo or airflow rates in these three homes were all still well

below the requirements, as calculated according to the new Addendum b. Previous ly these

three homes had mechanical outdoor airflow rates that were just 3%, 7%, and 8% of the

intermittent flow rate requirements, and using the calculations in Addendum b the

mechanical outdoor airflow rates are 9%, 10%, and 26% of the intermittent flow rate

requirements.

Ventilation rates and indoor air contaminant concentrations were re

‐ calculated using the

new Addendum b ventilation effectiveness factors for intermittent ventilation systems and

the modeling scenario utilized in Section 3.6.1. The ventilation effectiveness factor was

increased by Addendum b from 0.33 to 0. 65. This resulted in a reduction of the required

outdoor airflow rate for intermittent mechanical systems, and further increases in the

indoor air contaminant concentrations. The 24

‐ hour average indoor concentration was 34%

higher than that with a continuous system, up from the 29% higher concentration with the

pre

‐ Addendum b ventilation effectiveness factor. The maximum air contaminant

concentration was 222% higher than that with a continuous system, up from the 220%

### 101 higher concentration with the pre

‐ Addendum b ventilation effectiveness factor. Thus, for

the modeling scenario examined, the new Addendum b ventilation effectiveness factor

resulted in 4% higher 24

‐ hour average indoor air contaminant concentrations and similar

(i.e., less than 1% higher) maximum concentrations.

The intent of the changes to the intermittent ventilation effectiveness factors in

Addendum b was to correct these factors such that the resulting 24

‐ hour time

‐ weighted

average indoor contaminant concentrations are equivalent to those for a continuously

operated ventilation system. However, as the analyses above indicate, the Addendum b

intermittent ventilation effectiveness factors provided higher 24

‐ hour time

‐ weighted

average indoor contaminant concentrations. The ASHR AE 62.2 Standards Committee has

acknowledged this error with the Addendum b intermittent ventilation effectiveness

factors and is currently pursuing a correction.

### 102 Figure 3. Locations of homes for the summer and winter 2006

– 2007 field sessions in Northern

and Southern California.Figure 4. Forced air duct leakage cumulative frequency distribution - All Home Sample Frame.Forced Air Unit Duct Leakage Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 510 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75Forced Air Unit Duct Leakage (%)

Cumulative Frequency (%)N=138Median (50%) Forced Air Unit Duct Leakage = 10%86% of homes exceed the CBC 2005 requirement of < 6% leakage.



### 103Building Envelope Air Leakage Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910Building Envelope Leakage

Cumulative Frequency (%)ACH50, N=106SLA, N=107Median (50%) ACH50= 4.8Median (50%) SLA = 2.9Figure 5. Building envelope air leakage cumulativefrequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 104Window/Door Opening Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400Window/Door Opening (ft2-hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Test Day Average, N=108Test Week Average, N=108Median (50%) Window/Door Opening = 46 ft2-hrs forthe 24 hr Test Day average and 70 ft2-hrs for the TestWeek average.Figure 6. Window and door opening cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 105Mechanical Exhaust System Usage Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Mechanical Exhaust System Usage (hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Kitchen Exhaust, N=108Bathroom Exhaust, N=105Other Exhaust (i.e. clothes dryer, laundry, utility), N=108Median (50%) = 0.0, 0.05, and 0.3 hrs for kitchen,bathroom, and other exhaust usage repsectively.Figure 7. Mechanical exhaust system usage cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 106usage, respectively.Mechanical Outdoor Air System Usage Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26Mechanical Outdoor Air System Usage (hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)DOA Ventilation Systems, N=14HRV Systems, N=8Median (50%) = 2.5 and 24 hrs for DOA and HRV systemusage repsectively.5 homes have 24 hour usageFigure 8. Mechanical outdoor air system usage cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 107usage, respectively.Nighttime Cooling System Usage Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Nighttime Cooling System Usage (hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Whole House Fan Systems, N=5FAU with Return Air Damper Systems, N=6Median (50%) = 0.7 and 5.3 hrs usage for WHFand FAU with Return Air Damper repsectively.3 FAU with Return Air Samper System homes had zero usage and2 Whole House Fan homes had zero usage.Figure 9. Nighttime cooling system usage cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 108, respectively.Forced Air Unit System Usage Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26Forced Air Unit System Usage (hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Forced Air Unit, N=108Median (50%) = 1.1 hrs for forced air unit system usageFigure 10. Forced air unit system usage – All Home Sample Frame.



### 109Figure 11. ASHRAE 62.2-2004 Intermittent ventilation indoor air contaminant concentration plot.



### 110thanthanOutdoor Air Exchange Rate PFT (24-hour) Measurement Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0Outdoor Air Exchange Rate (ach)

Cumulative Frequency (%)N=106Median (50%) Outdoor Air Exchange Rate = 0.26 ach67% of homes are below the CBC Code Requirement of 0.35 achFigure 12. Outdoor air exchange rate PFT (24-hour) measurement cumulative frequency – All Home Sample Frame.



### 111Benzene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Benzene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 60 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 1.1 μg/m363% of indoor and 28% of outdoor samples above theProposition 65 Cancer NSRL of 0.7 μg/m320% of indoor and 0% ofoutdoor samples above theProposition 65 Reproductive Toxicity MADL of 2.5 μg/m3Figure 13. Benzene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 1121,4 Dichlorobenzene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 50 100 150 200 2501,4 Dichlorobenzene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 800 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.1 μg/m312% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theProposition 65 Cancer NSRL of 1.0 μg/m3Figure 14. 1,4 Dichlorobenzene concentration cumulative frequency distribution –All Home Sample Frame.



### 113Ethylene Glycol Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%020406080100120140Ethylene Glycol Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 400 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 3.2 μg/m3Figure 15. Ethylene glycol concentration cumulativefrequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 114n-Hexane Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40n-Hexane Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 7,000 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.8 μg/m3Figure 16. n-Hexane concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 115Naphthalene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910Naphthalene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 9 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.2μg/m327% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theProposition 65 Cancer NSRL of 0.3 μg/m3Figure 17. Naphthalene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 116Phenol Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%01234567Phenol Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 200 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 1.7 μg/m3Figure 18. Phenol concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 117Styrene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Styrene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 900 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.9 μg/m3Figure 19. Styrene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 118Tetrachloroethene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0510152025303540Tetrachloroethene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 35 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.2 μg/m38% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theProposition 65 Cancer NSRL of 0.7 μg/m3Figure 20. Tetrachloroethene concentration cumulativefrequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 119Toluene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%020406080100120140Toluene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 300 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 8.5 μg/m30% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theProposition 65 Reproductive Toxicity MADL of 350 μg/m3Figure 21. Toluene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 120Trichloromethane (Chloroform) Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Trichloromethane (Chloroform) Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 300 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.2 μg/m38% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theProposition 65 Cancer NSRL of 2.0 μg/m3Figure 22. Trichloromethane (chloroform) cumulativefrequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 121Vinyl Acetate Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.00.10.20.30.40.5Vinyl acetate Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 200 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 0.2 μg/m3Figure 23. Vinyl acetate concentration cumulativefrequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 122m,p-Xylene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65m,p-Xylene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 700 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration=4.2 μg/m3Figure 24. m,p-Xylene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 123o-Xylene Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22o-Xylene Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=107Outdoor, N=400% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 700 μg/m3Median (50%) IndoorConcentration = 1.2 μg/m3Figure 25. o-Xylene concentration cumulative frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 124Formaldehyde Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Formaldehyde Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=105Outdoor, N=39100% of indoor and 21% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 3 μg/m3(2.4 ppb)6% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above the OEHHAAcute Reference Exposure Level of 94 μg/m3(77 ppb)60% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theCARB IAQ Guideline of 33 μg/m3(27 ppb)Median (50%) Indoor Concentration =36 μg/m3(29.2 ppb)Figure 26. Formaldehyde concentration cumulativefrequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 125Acetaldehyde Concentration Cumulative Frequency DistributionAll Home Sample Frame0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Acetaldehyde Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Indoor, N=105Outdoor, N=3982% of indoor and 0% of outdoor samples above theOEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level of 9 μg/m3Median (50%) Indoor Concentration = 20 μg/m3Figure 27. Acetaldehyde concentration frequency distribution – All Home Sample Frame.



### 126Figure 28. Formaldehyde indoor concentrations and outdoor air exchange rates.



### 127MechanicalCumulative Frequency for the Logof FormaldehydeConcentrationAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901000 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5Log of Formaldehyde Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 29. Cumulative frequency distribution of the log offormaldehyde concentration – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 128Cumulative Frequency for the Log of Acetaldehyde ConcentrationAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901000 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5Log of Acetaldehyde Concentration (μg/m3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 30. Cumulative frequency distribution of the log ofacetaldehyde concentration – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 129Cumulative Frequency Distribution for the Inverse of the Air Exchange RateAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Inverse of the Air Exchange Rate (hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 31. Cumulative frequency distribution for the inverseof the air exchange rate – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 130Cumulative Frequency Distribution for the Square Root of Window UsageAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Square Root of Window Usage (ft2-hrs)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 32. Cumulative frequency distribution of the square root of window usage – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 131Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Indoor TemperatureAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901005055606570758085Indoor Temperature (oF)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 33. Cumulative frequency distribution for indoor temperature – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 132Cumulative Frequency Distribution forthe Indoor Relative Humidity SquaredAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901000500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500Indoor Relative Humidity (%) Squared

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 34. Cumulative frequency for the indoor relative humidity squared – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 133Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Outdoor TemperatureAll Homes Sample Frame010203040506070809010040455055606570758085Outdoor Temperature (oF)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 35. Cumulative frequency distribution for outdoor temperature – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 134Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Outdoor Relative HumidityAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901002030405060708090Oudoor Relative Humidity (%)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 36. Cumulative frequency distribution for outdoor relative humidity – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 135Cumulative Frequency Distribution for theLog of the Normalized Composite Wood LoadingAll Homes Sample Frame010203040506070809010022.533.544.55Log of Home Air Volume Normalized Composite Wood Loading (ft2/1000 ft3)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 37. Cumulative frequency distribution for the log of thenormalized composite wood loading – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 136Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Home AgeAll Homes Sample Frame01020304050607080901000123456Home Age (years)

Cumulative Frequency (%)Figure 38. Cumulative frequency distributionfor home age – All Homes Sample Frame.



### 137

### 138 Scatter Plot of Home Age and Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

1

. 522

. 533

. 544

. 555

. 5 6

Home age (yrs)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Home Age and Indoor Acetaldehyde Concentration

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

1

. 522

. 533

. 544

. 555

. 5 6

Home age (yrs)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Figure 39. Scatter plots of home age and indoor fo rmaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations – All

Homes Sample Frame.

### 139 Scatter Plot of Composite Wood Loading and Indoor Formaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0 20 40 60 80 100

Composite Wood Loading (ft 2 of composite wood per 1,000 ft 3 indoor air volume)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Composite Wood Loading and Indoor Acetaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0

Composite Wood Loading (ft 2 of composite wood per 1,000 ft 3 indoor air volume)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Figure 40. Scatter plots of composite wood loading and indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.

### 140 Scatter Plot of Outdoor Air Exchan ge Rates and Indoor Formaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Outdoor Air Exchange Rate (1/hr )Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Outdoor Air Exchan ge Rates and Indoor Acetaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Outdoor Air Exchange Rate (1/hr)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Figure 41. Scatter plots of outdoor air exchange rates and indoor formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.

### 141 Scatter Plot of Indoor Temperature and Indoor Formaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

60 65 70 75 80 85

Indoor Temperature ( o F )

.Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Indoor Temperature and Indoor Acetaldehyde

Concentrations

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

60 65 70 75 80 85

Indoor Temperature ( o F)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3) All Homes Sample Frame

Figure 42. Scatter plots of indoor temperature and indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.

### 142 Scatter Plot of Indoor Relative Humidity and Indoor

Formaldehyde Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Indoor Relative Humidity (%)Indoor Concentrations (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Indoor Relative Humidity and Indoor

Acetaldehyde Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Indoor Relative Humidity (%)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Figure 43. Scatter plots of indoor relative humid ity and indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.

### 143 Scatter Plot of Outdoor Temper ature and Indoor Formaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Outdoor Temperature ( o F)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Outdoor Temper ature and Indoor Acetaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Outdoor Temperature ( o F)

.Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Figure 44. Scatter plots of outdoor temperature and indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Home Sample Frame.

### 144 Scatter Plot of Outdoor Relative Humidity and Indoor

Formaldehyde Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Outdoor Relative Humidity (%)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Scatter Plot of Outdoor Relative Humidity and Indoor Acetaldehyde

Concentrations

All Homes Sample Frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Outdoor Relative Humidity (%)Indoor Concentration (μg/m3)

Figure 45. Scatter plots of outdoor relative humidity and indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations – All Homes Sample Frame.Table 2. Percentages of air contaminant and PFT field samples, blanks, and duplicates successfully collected and analyzed.Percentages of Air Contaminant and PFTField Samples, Blanks, and Duplicates Successfully Collected and AnalyzedFieldSamplesDeployedField SamplesaSuccessfullyCollected and Analyzed(%)Field Sample BlanksbSuccessfullyCollected and Analyzed(%)Field Sample DuplicatescSuccessfullyCollected and Analyzed(%)Volatile Organic Compounds208991010Formaldehyde/Acetaldehyde22196109Particulate Matter – PM2.544981210Nitrogen Dioxide451001210Carbon Monoxide20698NA9PFT CATS Samplers167991112QA/QC Goal981010a) Percentage of total number of samples excluding fieldsample blanks that were successfully collected and analyzed.b) Percentage of field sample blanks successfully collected and analyzed – based upon total successfully collected and analyzedsamples less duplicate and blank samples.c) Percentage of field sample duplicates successfully collected and analyzed – based upon total successfully collected and analyzedsamples less duplicate and blank samples.



### 145Table 3. Summer-North field session field blank analysesfor volatile organic compounds, including formaldehydeand acetaldehyde.Summer-North Field Session Field Blank Analyses (ng)CompoundMethod MassDetection LimitSample ID006-vb-080806Sample ID021-vb-081606Sample ID033-vb-082406Average BlankSample MassMassaMassaMassaMassaAcetaldehyde 9 MDLMDL 49 19Benzene 3.5 MDLMDL MDL1.82-Butoxyethanol 1.9 MDLMDL MDL0.9Caprolactam 3.4 MDLMDL MDL1.71,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.9 MDLMDL MDL1.5Ethylene glycol16MDLMDL MDL8.2Formaldehyde 9 MDLMDL 17 8.7Hexanal 1.4 MDLMDL MDL0.7n-Hexane 4.2 MDLMDL MDL2.1d-Limonene 4.2 MDLMDL MDL2.11-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 6.0MDLMDL MDL3.0Naphthalene 2.0 MDLMDL MDL1.0Phenol 2.8 3.7 MDLMDL2.2alpha-Pinene 3.0 MDLMDL MDL1.5Styrene 3.1 MDLMDL MDL1.6Tetrachloroethene 4.7 MDLMDL MDL2.3Toluene 4.9 MDLMDL MDL2.5Trichloromethane4.9MDLMDL MDL2.41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.3MDLMDL MDL1.6Vinyl acetate5.6MDLMDL MDL2.8m, p-Xylene3.8MDLMDL MDL1.9o-Xylene 3.2 MDLMDL MDL1.6a) Blanks with a mass below the method mass detection limit are designated as “MDL” and were assigned a value of one half themethod mass detection limit for calculating the average field blank sample mass.



### 146Table 4. Summer-South field session field blank analyses for volatile organic compounds including formaldehydeand acetaldehyde.Summer-South Field Session Field Blank Analyses (ng)CompoundMethod MassDetection LimitSample ID046-vb-090806Sample ID055-vb-091406Sample ID067-vb-092006Average BlankSample MassMassaMassaMassaMassaAcetaldehyde 9 MDL12.7 35 17Benzene 3.5 MDLMDL MDL1.82-Butoxyethanol 1.9 MDLMDL MDL0.9Caprolactam 3.4 MDLMDL MDL1.71,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.9 MDLMDL MDL1.5Ethylene glycol16MDLMDL MDL8.2Formaldehyde 9 MDL15.9 MDL8.3Hexanal1.4 MDLMDL MDL0.7n-Hexane 4.2 MDLMDL MDL2.1d-Limonene 4.2 MDLMDL MDL2.11-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 6.0MDLMDL MDL3.0Naphthalene 2.0 MDLMDL 3.2 1.7Phenol 2.8 MDLMDL 24 8.8alpha-Pinene 3.0 MDLMDL MDL1.5Styrene 3.1 MDLMDL 11 4.6Tetrachloroethene 4.7 MDLMDL MDL2.3Toluene 4.9 MDLMDL MDL2.5Trichloromethane4.9MDLMDL MDL2.41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.3MDLMDL 4.2 2.5Vinyl acetate5.6MDLMDL MDL2.8m, p-Xylene3.8MDLMDL MDL1.9o-Xylene 3.2 MDLMDL MDL1.6a) Blanks with a mass below the method mass detection limit are designated as “MDL” and were assigned a value of one half themethod mass detection limit for calculating the average field blank sample mass.



### 147Table 5. Winter-North field session field blank analyses for volatile organic compounds includingformaldehyde and acetaldehyde.Winter-North Field Session Field Blank Method Mass Detection Limit (ng)CompoundMethodMassDetectionLimitSample ID025-vb022107Sample ID101-vb022207Sample ID108-vb092006Sample ID002-vb030207Sample ID114-vb030607Sample ID117-vb030707Sample ID121-vb030807Sample ID119-fb030707AverageBlankSampleMassMassaMassaMassaMassaMassaMassaMassaMassaMassaAcetaldehyde 9 11 15 MDL22 9.4 MDLMDL2510Benzene 3.5 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLnab1.82-Butoxyethanol 1.9 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna0.9Caprolactam 3.4 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.71,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.9 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.5Ethylene glycol16 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna8.2Formaldehyde 9 10 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDL11 MDL6.3Hexanal 1.4 MDLMDLMDLMDL3.1 MDLMDLna1.1n-Hexane4.2 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.1d-Limonene 4.2 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.11-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 6.0 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna3.0Naphthalene 2.0 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.0Phenol 2.83.9 5.2 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.3alpha-Pinene 3.0 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.5Styrene 3.1 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.6Tetrachloroethene 4.7 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.3Toluene 4.9 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.5Trichloromethane 4.9 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.3 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.6Vinyl acetate5.6 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna2.8m,p-Xylene 3.8 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.9o-Xylene 3.2 MDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLMDLna1.6a) Blanks with a mass below the method mass detection limit are designated as “MDL” and were assigned a value of one half the method massdetection limit for calculating the average field blank sample mass.b) na: Sample 119-fb-030707 is an additional formaldehyde and acetaldehyde blank, no additional volatile organic compound blank.



### 148Table 6. Winter-South field session field blank analyses for volatile organic compounds includingformaldehyde and acetaldehyde.Winter-South Field SessionField Blank Analyses (ng)CompoundMethod MassDetectionLimitSample ID039-vb012407Sample ID058-vb013107Sample ID080-vb013007Sample ID088-vb020507Sample ID091-vb030607Average BlankSample Mass(ng)MassaMassaMassaMassaMassaMassaAcetaldehyde 9 MDL9.4 MDL 11 MDL6.8Benzene 3.5 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.82-Butoxyethanol 1.9 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL0.9Caprolactam 3.4 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.71,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.9 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.5Ethylene glycol16MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL8.2Formaldehyde 9 MDLMDLMDL 22 MDL8.0Hexanal1.4 MDLMDL6.8 MDLMDL1.9n-Hexane 4.2 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL2.1d-Limonene 4.2 MDLMDL9.2 MDLMDL3.51-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 6.0 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL3.0Naphthalene 2.0 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.0Phenol 2.8 MDLMDL4.5 3.3 MDL2.4alpha-Pinene 3.0 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.5Styrene 3.1 4.2 MDL4.0 MDLMDL2.6Tetrachloroethene 4.7 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL2.3Toluene 4.9 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL2.5Trichloromethane 4.9MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL2.41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.3 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.6Vinyl acetate5.6MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL2.8m,p-Xylene 3.8 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.9o-Xylene 3.2 MDLMDLMDL MDLMDL1.6a) Blanks with a mass below the method mass detection limit are designated as “MDL” and were assigned a value of one half themethod mass detection limit for calculating the average field blank sample mass.



### 149Table 7. Precision of volatile organic compound measurements over a 24-hour period.Precision of Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations (μg/m3)AbsolutePrecisionaRelative PrecisionbCompoundN Min Max Mean StandardDeviationRelativeStandardDeviationMin Max Mean StandardDeviationRelativeStandardDeviationAcetaldehyde 17 0.1 7.2 1.72.2 1.3 0.01 0.33 0.12 0.12 0.98Benzene 130.010.90.2 0.31.4 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.752-Butoxyethanol 12 1E-4 8.4 1.32.3 1.7 3E-4 1.03 0.19 0.27 1.46Caprolactam 0 na na na na na na na na na na1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 0.003 0.003 0.003 - - 0.01 0.01 0.01 - -Ethylene glycol6 0.4 8.1 3 2.9 0.9 0.07 0.35 0.15 0.11 0.72Formaldehyde 17 0.05 18 4.0 5.0 1.2 0.01 0.37 0.11 0.12 0.93Hexanal13 0.002 2.9 0.7 0.7 1.03E-4 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.88n-Hexane 130.011.1 0.3 0.31.0 0.01 0.40 0.10 0.10 1.01d-Limonene 13 0.03 3.7 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.003 0.27 0.07 0.08 1.141-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 4 0.01 0.1 0.10.03 0.6 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.53Naphthalene 15 0.002 0.1 0.02 0.03 1.2 0.003 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.86Phenol 180.020.70.20.10.7 0.01 0.60 0.16 0.15 0.94alpha-Pinene 13 0.004 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.001 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.73Styrene 150.0011.20.30.31.1 2E-4 0.67 0.27 0.24 0.90Tetrachloroethene 4 5E-4 0.1 0.040.04 0.8 5E-4 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.84Toluene 180.0230.70.81.2 0.01 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.99Trichloromethane 6 0.02 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.02 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.671,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 16 0.00 0.80.2 0.2 1.3 0.00 0.37 0.08 0.10 1.25Vinyl acetate 0 na na na na na na na na na nam,p-Xylene 17 0.01 2.9 0.5 0.81.5 5E-4 0.37 0.07 0.09 1.22o-Xylene 150.010.80.2 0.31.4 0.002 0.36 0.07 0.09 1.27a) Absolute precision is the absolute difference between the results of the sample pair.b) Relative precision is the relative standarddeviation of the results of the sample pair.



### 150

### 151 Table 8. Winter-North field session field blank analyses for nitrogen dioxide and PM 2.5 particulate matter.

Winter-North Field Session Field Blank Analyses (μg)

Week Sample ID

(Nitrogen Dioxide) Method Mass

Detection

Limit NO 2 a

mass Sample ID

(PM 2.5 Particulate Matter) Method Mass

Detection Limit PM 2.5 a

mass

1 025-NB-022107 0.8 MDL 025-PB-022107 1 -3

1 101-NB-022207 0.8 MDL 101-PB-022207 1 -1

Week 1 Average

Blank Sample Mass 0.0 Week 1 Average Blank

Sample Mass -2

2 002-NB-030107 0.8 MDL 002-PB-030107 1 -1

2 108-NB-022807 0.8 MDL 108-PB-022807 1 -3

Week 2 Average

Blank Sample Mass 0.0 Week 2 Average Blank

Sample Mass -2

3 114-NB-030607 0.8 MDL 114-PB-030607 1 -3

Week 3 Average

Blank Sample Mass 0.0 Week 3 Average Blank

Sample Mass -3

a) Nitrogen dioxide blanks with a mass below the me thod mass detection limit are designated as “MDL” and

were assigned a value of zero for calculating the average field blank sample mass. The average mass for the

PM 2.5 field blanks was calculated directly from the measured masses of the field blanks.

### 152 Table 9. Precision for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 measurements over a 24-hour period.

Precision Of Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and PM 2.5 Measurements

Absolute Precision a Relative Precision b

Compound N Min Max Mean Standard

Deviation Relative

Standard

Deviation Min Max Mean Standard

Deviation Relative

Standard

Deviation

Carbon Dioxide

(ppm) 17 1.7 69 16 17 1.1 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.04 1.46

Carbon

Monoxide

(ppm) 17 0.0 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.01 1.39 0.53 0.50 0.93

Nitrogen Dioxide

(μg/m 3 ) 4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.25

Particulate

Matter PM 2.5 (μg/m 3 ) 4 0.6 3.4 2.0 1.2 0.6 0.04 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.99

a) Absolute precision is the absolute difference between the results of the sample pair.

b) Relative precision is the relative standard deviation of the results of the sample pair.

### 153 Table 10. Summer and field session field blank analyses for PFT measurements.

Summer and Winter Field Session Field Blank Analyses (pL)

Group Method Volume

Detection Limit Sample ID Blank Volume (pL) d

Summer –1 a 0.001 006-tb-080806 0.021

Summer-1 Blank

Average Volume 0.021

Summer –2 b 0.001 067-TB-092006 MDL

Summer -2 0.001 055-TB-091406 MDL

Summer -2 0.001 046-TB-090806 0.022

Summer -2 0.001 033-TB-082406 MDL

Summer -2 0.001 021-TB-081606 0.043

Summer-2 Blank

Volume Average 0.013

Winter c 0.001 002-tb-030107 0.014

Winter 0.001 025-tb-022107 0.024

Winter 0.001 039-tb-012407 0.022

Winter 0.001 058-tb-013107 0.010

Winter 0.001 080-tb-013007 0.010

Winter 0.001 088-tb-020507 0.029

Winter 0.001 091-tb-020607 0.019

Winter 0.001 101-tb-022207 0.009

Winter 0.001 108-tb-022807 0.009

Winter 0.001 114-tb-030607 0.028

Winter Blank

Volume Average 0.017

a) Summer-1: This blank sample was used with the first 12 home of the Summer-North field

session.

b) Summer-2: These blank samples were used with homes 13

– 72 of the Summer-North and

Summer-South field sessions.

c) Winter: These blank samples were used with all of Winter homes, Winter-North and WinterSouth field sessions.

d) Blanks with a volume below the method volume detection limit are designated as “MDL” and

were assigned a value of one half the method volume detection limit for calculating the

average field blank sample volume.

### 154 Table 11. Precision of PFT outdoor air exchange rates measured over the 24-hour Test Day and the following

two-week period.

Precision of PFT Outdoor Exchange Rate Measurement

Absolute Precision (ach) a Relative Precision (ach) b

N Min Max Mean Standard

Deviation Relative

Standard

Deviation Min Max Mean Standard

Deviation Relative

Standard

Deviation

24-Hour

Measurement 11 0.002 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.76 0.003 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.60

2-Week

Measurement 4 0.002 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.42

a) Absolute precision is the absolute difference between the results of the sample pair.

b) Relative precision is the relative standard deviation of the results of the sample pair.

### 155 Table 12. Comparison of PFT measurements in the first and second zones of the home.

PFT Measurements in Two Zones

PFT Sample #1 PFT Sample #2 Difference

Home

ID Season FAU

Hours

On Window

ft 2 /hrs Sample

Period Location ACH Location ACH Absolute b

(ach) Relative c

019 Winter 5.5 0 24 hr 1st Floor

Family

Room 0.11 2nd Floor

Loft 0.10 0.01 0.07

099 Winter na a na a 2 week 1st Floor

Family

Room 0.15 2nd Floor

Master

Bed 0.14 0.01 0.05

116 Winter 0 50.5 24 hr 1st Floor

Family

Room 0.22 2nd Floor

Bonus

Room 0.16 0.06 0.22

a) na: No data were collected over the two-week period.

b) Absolute precision is the absolute difference between the results of the sample pair.

c) Relative precision is the relative standard deviation of the results of the sample pair.Table 13. Home recruitment results for each region-season.Home Recruitment ResultsSummerNorthSummerSouthFallNorthWinterSouthWinterNorthTotalHomes that received mailer1,358 1,408 15 1,486 1,500 5,764Homes from UCB Mail Survey25% 23% 53% 21% 12% 20%Called to express interest in study954110 62 71 279Interest rate7% 3% 67% 4% 5% 5%Homes contacted by phone471 201 10 264 73 1,019Disconnected phone number204018 0 42Not qualified for study183032 26Refused/hung up/not interested8118031 4 134Wrong address3 8 0 7 22 40Language barrier420208Homes recruited3231433 32 132Homes recruited with mechanical outdooraair ventilation systems18 4 0 4 17 43Homes recruited from UCB Mail Survey53% 55% 50% 36% 31% 44%Recruitment rate for mailers2% 2% 27% 2% 2% 2%Recruitment rate for calls7% 15% 40% 13% 44% 13%a) Includes homes with nighttime ventilation cooling systems.Note: Not all homes that received a mailer also received a phone call. The number of homes recruited in the winter includes 10homes recruited for a seasonal repeat test inboth the North and South regions and the four homes recruited for the fall were allrepeats from the summer session. Total homes recruited was 108 with 24 seasonal repeat recruits.



### 156Table 14. Home sample comparison for the field studyto the UCB mail survey sample by geographical strata.Comparison of Field Study Sample to UCB Mail Survey SampleaUCB Mail SurveyTotal HomesUCB Mail Survey% of TotalField StudyTotal HomesField Study% of TotalSacramento/Delta Region177214239Southern California Coastal175211716Rest-of-State 489 58 49 45Total841 100 108 100a) Total homes and percentage of total homes for the UCB mail survey sample three geographical strata and those recruited forthis field study.



### 157Table 15. Home characteristics-1.Home Characteristic VariablesVariableNaMeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min10%25%50%75%90%MaxAge of House (years) 105 3.5 0.8 2.2 12 1.7 2.4 3.0 3.4 4.0 4.3 5.5Area (ft2) 1082,6697422,566 1.31,2831,718 2,166 2,703 3,152 3,647 5,064Volume (ft3) 10824,3437,484 23,240 1.4 10,667 16,01019,06323,35528,37434,194 55,613Openable WindowArea/Floor Area108 0.06 0.01 0.06 1.2 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.1Garage Outdoor AirVenting (ft2)93 0.6 0.7 - - 0.0 0.00.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 4.0Possible Fungal Growth(ft2) 1070.010.1--0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0Moisture Staining (ft2) 107 0.2 0.9 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0Interior Finish Materials (ft2)Floor - vinyl & linoleum 107 141 194 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 42 240 462 715Floor - stone & ceramictile107 393 342 - - 0.0 0.0 82 349 650 857 1,421Floor - real wood 107 174 308 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 270 718 1,156Floor - concrete & brick 107 6.565 - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 675Floor – rug107 40 66 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56 152 254Floor - carpet 107 1,326 511 996 7.9 210 695 975 1,311 1,683 2,021 2,624Floor - composite wood 107 39 167 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 979Wall - composite wood 107 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ceiling - composite wood 107 0.0 0.0- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Furniture/cabinetrycomposite wood 107 990 512 721 7.7 263 422 607 898 1,239 1,749 2,925Total composite wood 107 1,030 532 746 7.8 263 422 615 925 1,306 1,758 2,925a) The number of homes with completed data.



### 158

### 159 Table 16. Home characteristics-2.

Home Characteristic Variables

Variable

N a % Variable N a %

Number of Stories Range(s)

- 1 Story 108 34 - Gas fuel 108 2

- 2 Story 108 66 - Electric fuel 108 98

Number of Bedrooms - Range exhaust ducted outdoor 108 85

- 2 Bedrooms 108 8 Oven(s)

- 3 Bedrooms 108 20 - Gas fuel 108 27

- 4 Bedrooms 108 46 - Electric fuel 108 73

- 5 Bedrooms 108 19 - Oven exhaust ducted outdoor 108 2

- 6 Bedrooms 108 6 Clothes Dryer

Number of Bath and Toilette Rooms - Gas Fuel 103 76

- 2 Rooms 108 26 - Electric Fuel 103 24

- 3 Rooms 108 55 - Exhaust ducted outdoor 103 98

- 4 Rooms 108 14 - Exhaust Leaks 103 11

- 5 Rooms 108 6 FAU System

Attic Present 107 99 - Gas fuel 81 100

Garage Present 108 100 - Electric fuel 81 0

- Attached 108 99 - T-Stat fan mode – Auto 99 100

- Detached 108 1 - T-Stat fan mode – On 99 0

- Attached door 108 99 Water Heater

- Weather-stripped attached door 108 100 - Gas fuel 106 98

- Self closing attached door 108 98 - Electric fuel 106 2

- Outdoor air venting 108 97 Po rtable Air Cleaners Present 101 14

- Used for vehicle parking 108 92 Window Fan Present 108 4

- Living space above 108 60 Window Air Conditioner Present 108 0

- Solvent smell 108 7 - Has Outdoor Air Supply 108 0

- Moisture staining 108 2 Odor Upon Entry 108 27

- Musty smell 108 9 HEPA Filtered Vacuum Cleaner

Present 108 39

Foundation Type Air Fresheners Present 99 20

- Slab 107 97 Fireplaces Present 107 85

- Crawlspace 107 1 - Decorative gas log vented 108 61

- Basement 107 1 - Sealed combustion vented 108 31

- Unvented gas logs 107 0

a) Number of homes with completed data.

### 160 Table 17. Home characteristics-3.

Home Characteristic Variables

Variable

N a % Variable

N a %

Primary Kitchen Cabinetry Overall Home Clutter

- Composite wood - no interior laminate 108 2 - 1 No clutter 108 49

- Composite wood - interior laminate 108 97 - 2 Some clutter 108 41

- Solid wood 108 1 - 3 Moderately cluttered 108 8

- Metal 108 0 - 4 Very cluttered 108 2

Bathroom Cabinetry Outdoor Contaminant Sources b

- Composite wood - no interior laminate 108 1 - Busy street or freeway 108 7

- Composite wood - interior laminate 108 99 - Construction or road work 108 3

- Solid wood 108 0 - Dirt or gravel road 108 7

- metal 108 0 - Restaurant 108 8

Overall Cleanliness - Industrial activity 108 4

- 1 Very clean 108 72 - Open field or crops 108 8

- 2 A bit dirty 108 26 - Gas station 108 13

- 3 Moderately dirty 108 1 - Dry cleaners 108 5

- 4 Very dirty 108 1 - Bus or truck activity 108 0

- No sources 108 45

a) Number of homes with completed data.

b) Outdoor sources within 500 feet.

### 161 Table 18. Homeowner reported home characteri stics, renovations, maintenance, and other IAQ

related activities-1.

Home Characteristics, Renovations, Maintenance and

Other IAQ Related Activities

Variable N a %

How many adults live in the home

- 1 108 8

- 2 108 73

- 3 108 14

- 4 108 4

- 5 108 1

How many children under 18 live in the home

- 0 108 46

- 1 108 17

- 2 108 25

- 3 108 8

- 4 108 3

- 5 108 1

How many occupants who live in the home are smokers b

- 0 107 97

- 1 107 2

- 2 107 0

- 3 107 1

Do pets live in the home? 106 56

Are shoes worn in the home? 108 57

Are there cloths or drapes that have been dry-cleaned within the

last week 104 16

a) Number of homes with completed data.

b) Homes that reported occupants that smoke insi de the home were excluded from this study,

thus the occupants who live in the home and smoke are ones that report only smoking

outside of the home.

### 162 Table 19. Homeowner reported home characteristics, renovations, main tenance, and other IAQ related

activities-2.

Home Characteristics, Renovations, Maintenance

and Other IAQ Related Activities

Variable N a %

Have there been any of the following in the home within the past 6 months:

(Note: 3 months for repeat)

Painting 108 32

Caulking 107 12

Carpet installation 108 7

New cabinetry 105 3

New furniture 106 22

Other 82 10

Duct cleaning 107 1

Duct sealing 105 1

Pesticide applications 104 42

Fire/smoke damage 108 0

Mold or moisture remediation 107 6

Are any of the following used in the home:

Portable air cleaners 103 17

Vacuum cleaners 107 100

Window fans 102 6

Window air conditioners 103 3

Plug-in air fresheners 102 33

Candles 101 58

Incense 101 11

Mothballs 101 7

Hobbies and crafts 95 28

Are any of the following stored in your home or garage:

Paints, varnishes, paint thinners 107 94

Kerosene, gasoline, propane, lighter fluid, self lighting charcoal 106 70

Pesticides, insecticides, lawn/garden chemicals 108 89

Cleaning supplies, e.g., bleach, detergents 108 100

Latex products 105 61

Are motor vehicles stored in the garage: 108 92

a) Number of homes with completed data.

### 163 Table 20. Homeowner reported home characteristics, renovations, ma intenance and other IAQ related

activities-3.

Home Characteristics, Renovations, Maintenance and

Other IAQ Related Activities

Variable N a %

How often are the carpets and rugs in th e most heavily used rooms vacuumed:

Twice per week or more often 108 13

About once per week 108 45

About every two weeks 108 26

About every 3 to 4 weeks 108 11

Less often 108 5

What methods, other than sweeping or vacuuming, have been used in the

home to clean the carpets?

Steam cleaning 92 37

Professionally dry cleaned 92 16

Spot cleaned or dry cleaned by homeowner 92 63

Since you have lived in this home, has it had any of the following conditions?

Significant condensation on windows or other indoor surfaces 108 4

Roof leaks 108 4

Plumbing leaks 108 10

Wall or window leaks 108 13

Flooding 108 3

Poor site drainage 108 6

Bothersome carpet odors 108 2

Bothersome cabinetry odors 108 6

Other unpleasant odors 108 7

Other moisture problems 108 7

a) Number of homes with completed data.

### 164 Table 21. Mechanical outdoor air system types and controls.

Mechanical Outdoor Air System Types And Control Variables

Variable N a %

Homes with one or more Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems 108 33

Homes with Multiple Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems 108 4

Homes with only a Ducted Outdoor Air Systems (DOA) 108 16

Homes with only a Heat Recovery Ventilator Systems (HRV) 108 6

Homes with Nighttime Cooling Systems (WHF or RAD) 108 11

Homes with Evaporative Cooling Systems 108 1

System Characteristics:

System Type N b %

• FAU with Ducted Outdoor Air (DOA) 40 43

• Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) 40 23

• Nighttime Cooling FAU Return Air Damper (RAD) 40 15

• Nighttime Cooling Whole House Fan (WHF) 40 13

• Evaporative Cooler (EC) 40 3

• Window Fan (WF) 40 3

Damper Type

• Manual 40 30

• Automatic 40 33

• Gravity 40 13

• No damper 40 25

Operation Control Type

• With the FAU Thermostat 40 45

• On/Off Switch 40 33

• FAU Fan Cycler 40 18

• Timer 40 5

Control Location

• Home 40 75

• Attic 40 25

a) N represents the number of homes with complete data.

b) N represents the total numbe r of mechanical outdoor air systems.Table 22. Forced air unit (FAU) heating/cooling system duct leakage measurements.Forced Air Unit Heating/Cooling System Duct LeakageVariableNMeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min10%25%50%75%90%MaxFAU Ducta, bLeakage (%)13811.98.76.521.11.95.27.410131773FAU Duct LeakagecRatio1192.21.50.110511.01.21.51.72.32.912.3% Homes Fail to Meet CBC RequirementCBC – 2005RequirementFAU Duct Leakage13886< 6%a) Measured by sealing all supply registers and pressurizing the FAU system to 25 pascals at the return air grille.b) Measured duct leakage flowrate / total system flow rate, multiplied by 100 (%).c) Measured duct leakage percentage/6% for homes with duct leakage exceeding 6%.



### 165Table 23. Building envelope air leakage measurements.Building Envelope Air LeakageVariableNMeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min10%25%50%75%90%MaxAverage WindaSpeed (mph) 108 5.8 2.8 5.2 1.71.4 2.3 3.9 5.7 7.2 9.5 16Indoor/OutdoorTemperatureDifference (0F) 108 5.4 3.9 - - -2.3 0.3 2.2 5.3 8.2 11 14Effective LeakagebArea (in2)106 110 36 68 23 56 72 85 104 125 148 261SLAc1072.9 0.7 2.0 14 1.42.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 5.6ACH50d(ach)106 4.9 0.9 4.0 6.9 2.8 3.8 4.3 4.8 5.4 6.2 8.4a) Collected from local weather station data and averaged over the 24-hour Test Day.b) Calculated from a multi-point depressurization (0–50 pascals) test using a blower door.c) SLA calculated by ELA/ft2of floor area x 69.44.d) Measured while the home is depressurized to 50 pascals using a blower door.



### 166Table 24. Home-to-garage air leakage measurements.Home-to-Garage Air Leakage MeasurementsVariableNMeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min10%25%50%75%90%MaxHome-to-Garage LeakageaArea EqLA (in2)105 22 19 6.3 94 0 6.4 11 16 24 42 97Garage-to-Outdoor LeakageaArea EqLA (in2)105 191 135 82 51 38 62 107 156. 243 336 959Home-to-Garage Pressureb(pascals)107 -48 -2.9 -39 -8.5 -34 -44 -47 -49 -49 -50 -55Coupling Factorb, c107 0.05 0.05 - - 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.26Leakage Ratiod(%)105 5.5 3.5 -- 01.9 3.1 4.9 7.1 9.6 18a) Calculated from two multi-point depressurization tests (0–50 pascals), one with the home-garage door closed and one with the dooropen. Leakage areas are calculated using a reference pressure of 10 pascals.b) Measured with the home depressurized to 50 pascals to outdoor air.c) Calculated from garage-to-outdoor differential pressure / home-to-outdoor differential pressure, 0= no coupling, 1= total coupling.d) Calculated from home-to-garage leakage area / (home-to-outdoor leakage area + garage-to-outdoor leakage area) x 100. Leakageareas are calculated using a reference pressure of 10 pascals.



### 167Table 25. Window and door opening usage during the 24-hour air testing day and the preceding one-week.Window and Door Usage for the 24-Hour Test Day and the Preceding One-WeekNMeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStandardDev.Min 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% MaxWindows/DoorsTest Day 24 hr Usagea(ft2-hrs)108 209 366 - - 0 0 0 46 300 623 2,448Week Average Usageb(ft2-hrs)108 186 268 - - 0 0 4.5 70 248 535 1,260Test Day / Week AverageUsage Ratio108 1.1 1.0 - - 0 0 0.4 1.0 1.3 2.0 7.0Log/Logger RatioWeek Average136 1.7 6.6 0.9 2.3 0.04 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 74Garage DoorTest Day 24 hr Usagea(ft2-hrs) 1050.310.90.074.40.0030.02 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.57 6.2Week Average Usageb(ft2-hrs)105 0.39 1.1 0.10 4.3 0.0040.02 0.04 0.07 0.22 0.62 8.0Test Day / Week AverageUsage Ratio105 1.1 1.0 0.8 2.70.01 0.22 0.52 0.85 1.3 2.5 6.1No Window/Door Usage N Number of Homes with No Window/Door Usage% No Window/Door UsageTest Daya108 3432Preceding Weekb108 1615a) Test day usage: is measured during the 24-hour air testing day.b) Preceding week usage: measured during the one-week usage preceding the 24-hour Test Day.



### 168

### 169 Table 26. Percentage comparisons of actual measured home window/door usage and

the homeowner’s estimated seasona l usage in the UCB mail survey.

Percentage Comparisons of Measured and Estimated Window/Door Usage

Home-Dates a N Percentage of

Homes

(%)

Zero measured usage and

zero estimated usage 48 7 15

Measured usage and zero

estimated 48 5 10

Measured usage within b

estimated usage range 48 7 15

Measured usage higher c

than high end estimated

usage 48 25 52

Measured usage lower d

than low end estimated

usage 48 4 8.3

a) Home-Dates: Total of 48 home seasonal measurement dates in 26 homes.

b) The actual measured week average usage is within the range of the homeowner estimated

usage from the UCB mail survey for that season and homes with non-zero usage.

c) The actual measured week average usage is larger than the high end of the homeowner

estimated usage from the UCB mail survey for that season.

d) The actual measured week average usage is lower than the low end of the homeowner

estimated usage from the UCB mail survey for that season.

### 170 Table 27. Differences between the actual measured ho me window/door usage and the homeowner’s estimated

seasonal usage in the UCB mail survey.

Differences Between Measured and Estimated Window/Door Usage

Compound N Mean Standard

Deviation Geometric

Mean Geometric

Standard

Deviation Min 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Max

Measured

usage in

homes with

zero

estimated

usage

(ft 2 -hrs) 5 33 67 4.4 10.5 0.3 0.3 1.1 3.1 9.6 153 153

Measured a

usage

above high

end

estimated

usage ratio 25 48 209 4.1 4.7 1.0 1. 2 1.5 3.1 6.3 18 1,050

Measured b

usage

below low end

estimated

usage ratio 4 0.2 0.2 - - 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.04 0.3 0.5 0.5

a) Ratio of the actual measured week average usage to the high end estimated usage in homes with higher actual

usage than estimated usage for that season.

b) Ratio of the actual measured week average usage to t he low end estimated usage in homes with lower actual

usage than estimated usage for that season.Table 28. Mechanical system usage for the 24-hour Test Day periodand the ratio of the Test Day usage to the week average usage.Mechanical System Usage (hours)VariableNMeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min10%25%50%75%90%MaxTest Day UsageaKitchen Exhaust108 0.2 0.5 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 3.6Bathroom Exhaust105 0.7 1.4- - 0 0 0 0.05 0.7 1.9 7.5Other Exhaust (i.e., dryer,laundry) 1081.22.2- -0000.31.53.517Ducted Outdoor Air (DOA) 14 4.3 4.82.2 3.9 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.5 6.1 9.7 18Heat Recovery Ventilator(HRV)8 21 6.1 20 1.5 7.8 13 22 24 24 24 24Whole House Fan (WHF) 5 3.44.9 - - 0 0 0 0.7 4.8 11 11FAU with Return AirDamper (RAD)6 6.5 7.3 - - 0 0 0 5.3 12.8 16 16Forced Air Unit #1108 3.2 5.6 -- 0 0 0 1.1 3.6 9.7 24Test Day/Week AveragebUsage RatioKitchen Exhaust108 1.4 1.9 -- 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0Bathroom Exhaust105 1.4 1.9- - 0 0 0.3 1.0 1.3 4.0 7.0Other Exhaust (i.e., dryer,laundry) 1081.31.6- -0 0 0 0.9 1.8 3.4 7.0Ducted Outdoor Air (DOA) 14 1.7 1.8 1.0 3.1 0.090.130.9 1.1 1.7 3.6 7.0Heat Recovery Ventilator(HRV) 81.00.041.01.00.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Whole House Fan (WHF) 5 0.6 0.4 - - 0 0 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0FAU with Return AirDamper (RAD)6 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2Forced Air Unit #1108 1.2 1.5- - 0 0 0.1 0.9 1.2 2.5 7.0a) Hours of usage during the 24-hour Test Day period.b) Ratio of the hours of usage during the 24-hour Test Day to the average 24-hour usage measured during the previous week.



### 171Table 29. Mechanical outdoor air ventilation system characteristics and code requirements.Outdoor Air Exchange Rate Code Requirement VariablesVariableNMin10%25%50%75%90%Max% Homes FaildASHRAE 62.2 -2004 Guidelines% Homes FaileTitle 24 ACM -2001RequirementsDucted Outdoor AirSystems (DOA)a- 24 hr average outdoorairflow rate (ach)b14 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.08- 24 hr average fan ONtime (%)b14 0.6 1.6 6.4 10 25 35 74- Outdoor airflow rate(cfm)14 8.8 14 27 38 51 68 355Title 24 ACM - 2001requirements (cfm) 14 60 64 79 90 102 152 172ASHRAE 62.2 guidelines(cfm)14 35 36 40 49 55 75 8264 86Heat Recovery Ventilators,(HRV)c- 24 hr average outdoorairflow rate (ach)b8 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.30 0.44 0.45 0.47- 24 hr average fan ONtime (%)b8 32 55 90 100 100 100 100- Outdoor airflow rate(cfm)8 66 83 113 128 150 155 159Title 24 ACM - 2001requirements (cfm)8 81 83 93 107 116 124 134ASHRAE 62.2 guidelines(cfm)8 40 45 50 54 61 64 660 22a) DOA systems not disabled during the 24-hour Test Day.b) Mechanically provided outdoor air exchange rate measured during the 24-hour Test Day.c) HRV systems not disabled during the 24-hour Test Day.d) ASHRAE 62.2-2004 requirement: 0.01 cfm/ft2floor area + 15 cfm times (#bedrooms +1)e) California Title 24 ACM-2001 requirement: 0.047 cfm/ft2floor area for homes built with an intended envelope air tightness of SLA lessthan 3.0.



### 172Table 30. PFT measurements of outdoor air exchange rates for the 24-hour Test Day and the following two-week period.PFT Measurement of Outdoor Air Exchange RatesN Mean StandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min 10% 25% 50% 75%90% Max CBC CodeaRequirement24-HourMeasurement(ach) 107b0.48 0.78 0.31 2.24 0.09 0.130.18 0.26 0.45 0.85 5.3 0.352-WeekMeasurement(ach) 21b0.45 0.54 0.31 2.23 0.11 0.140.19 0.24 0.42 0.83 2.3 0.3524-Hour vs.2-Week- Absolutedifferencec35b0.49 1.13 0.08 6.99 0.0010.01 0.03 0.07 0.30 1.7 5.1 na- RelativeDifferenced35b0.32 0.31 0.16 3.92 0.01 0.020.06 0.19 0.58 0.84 1.1 naa) 2001 California Building Code (CBC), Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1-Ventilation, Table A-12-A, Outdoor Airrequirements for Ventilation, Living Areas.b) 107 homes, in the All Homes Sample Frame, with 24-hour PFT measurements. 21 homes in the All Homes Sample Frame with2-week measurements and 35 homes for all homes tested with both 24-hour and 2-week measurements.c) Absolute difference is calculated as the absolutedifference between the 24-hour and two-week samples.d) Relative difference is calculated as the relative standard deviation of a24-hour and two-week samples.



### 173Table 31. Comparison of outdoor air exchange rate PFTmeasurements to CBC 2001 minimum code requirements.Comparison of Outdoor Exchange Rate PFT Measurements to CBC 2001 Minimum Code RequirementsRatio of outdoor air exchange rate to CBC 2001 minimum codes requirementsfor homes below code requirementsNMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStandardDeviationMin10%25%50%75%90%Max% < CBCCodeRequirementCBC CodeaRequirement24-HourMeasurement(ach)720.610.210.571.50.250.310.460.580.750.921.0670.35a) 2001 California Building Code (CBC), Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1-Ventilation, Table A-12-A, Outdoor AirRequirements for Ventilation, Living Areas.



### 174Table 32. Percentage of samples with concentrations of volatile organic compounds greater than the method detectionlimit concentration.Percent of Samples with Concentrations of Volatile Organic CompoundsGreater than the Method Detection Limit ConcentrationCompoundNIndoor/OutdoorMDL Massa(ng)MDLConcentrationb(ug/m3)Indoor AirGuideline(ug/m3)Ratio of MDLConcentrationto Guideline%> MDLConcentrationIndoor Air%> MDLConcentrationOutdoor AirAcetaldehyde 105/39 9.0 0.30 9c3E-2 100 97Benzene 107/403.5 0.25 60c4E-3 73 552-Butoxyethanol 107/40 1.9 0.13 3,000d4E-5 86 10Caprolactam 107/40 3.4 0.24 500d5E-4 0 31,4-Dichlorobenzene 107/ 40 2.9 0.21 800c3E-4 29 8Ethylene glycol107/ 40 16.4 1.17 400c3E-3 56 0Formaldehyde 105/39 9.0 0.30 33e9E-3 100 97Hexanal107/ 40 1.40.10nana9960n-Hexane 107/40 4.2 0.30 7,000c4E-5 80 40d-Limonene 107/40 4.2 0.30 na na 93 151-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 107/ 40 6.0 0.43 2,000d2E-4 13 0Naphthalene 107/40 2.0 0.14 9c2E-2 82 25Phenol 107/402.8 0.20 200c1E-3 100 98alpha-Pinene 107/40 3.0 0.22 2,800d1E-4 99 8Styrene 107/403.1 0.22 900c2E-4 93 38Tetrachloroethene 107/ 40 4.7 0.33 35c1E-2 27 10Toluene 107/404.9 0.35 300c1E-3 100 88Trichloromethane 107/ 40 4.90.35 300c1E-3 42 01,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 107/ 40 3.3 0.24 3,125d1E-4 87 63Vinyl acetate107/ 40 5.60.40 200c2E-3 2 0m,p-Xylene 107/40 3.8 0.27 700c4E-4 97 90o-Xylene 107/403.2 0.23 700c3E-4 91 63a) MDL mass = Method mass detection limit for GS/MS VOC analysis and HPLC formaldehyde and acetaldehyde analyses.b) MDL concentration = Method concentration detection limit for typical air sample volumes; 14 L for VOCs and 30 L for formaldehyde andacetaldehyde.c) OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2003).d) 1/40th of the 8-hour occupational health guideline in μg/m3(e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, DFG MAKs).e) Formaldehyde – California Air Resources Board Indoor AirQuality Guideline, 2005. na = no available guideline.



### 175Table 33. Concentrations of individual volatile organiccompounds measured indoors over the 24-hour Test Day.Indoor Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3)CompoundN MeanStandardDev.GeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min 10% 25% 50% 75% 90%Max IndoorGuidelineAcetaldehyde10525 20 19 2.3 1.9 6.3 12 20 32 55 102 9aBenzene1071.6 2.2 0.8 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 2.0 4.3 15 60a2-Butoxyethanol1077.3 19 2.0 6.0 0.1 0.20.9 2.8 6.0 14 180 3,000bCaprolactam1070.1 0.01 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 500b1,4-Dichlorobenzene1075.2 27 0.2 5.0 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.2 1.7 219 800aEthylene glycol10712 20 3.2 5.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 3.2 16 36 120 400aFormaldehyde10543 27 36 1.9 4.8 14 25 36 58 86 136 33cHexanal10710 7.9 7.0 2.7 0.1 2.3 4.1 7.6 14 22 35 nan-Hexane1072.3 3.9 0.9 3.8 0.1 0.20.3 0.8 2.5 5.2 24 7,000ad-Limonene 10718 25 7.6 5.0 0.1 0.9 3.5 11 21 37 152 na1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone1070.4 0.8 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 8.3 2,000bNaphthalene1070.3 0.5 0.2 2.3 0.1 0.10.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 4.9 9aPhenol1072.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 0.2 0.61.1 1.7 2.6 3.9 6.5 200aalpha-Pinene10715 13 9.3 3.3 0.1 1.9 6.6 11 20 33 65 2,800bStyrene1071.8 6.0 0.9 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.8 2.8 62 900aTetrachloroethene1070.6 2.3 0.3 2.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 23 35aToluene10717 22 9.5 2.9 0.3 3.0 4.8 8.5 18 42 115 300aTrichloromethane1070.7 1.4 0.4 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.8 12 300a1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1071.8 2.0 1.0 3.2 0.1 0.10.6 1.1 2.3 3.8 13 3,125bVinyl acetate1070.2 0.02 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 200am,p-Xylene1077.1 8.4 4.2 3.1 0.1 1.4 2.3 4.2 9.2 15 60 700ao-Xylene1072.1 2.7 1.1 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.2 2.7 4.7 20 700aa) OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2003).b) 1/40th of the 8-hour occupational health guideline in μg/m3(e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, DFG MAKs).c) Formaldehyde – California Air Resources Board Indoor AirQuality Guideline, 2005. na = no available guideline.



### 176Table 34. Concentration of individual volatile organic compounds measured outdoors over the 24-hour Test Day.Outdoor Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3)CompoundN Mean StandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Max IndoorGuidelineAcetaldehyde392.1 1.4 1.5 2.6 0.2 0.31.0 2.2 3.3 4.0 5.0 9aBenzene 40 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.1 60a2-Butoxyethanol400.1 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 3,000bCaprolactam400.1 0.04 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 500b1,4-Dichlorobenzene400.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 800aEthylene glycol400.6 0.03 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.60.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 400aFormaldehyde392.2 1.4 1.8 2.1 0.2 0.71.2 2.1 2.9 3.5 8.0 33cHexanal400.2 0.2 0.2 2.7 0.1 0.10.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 nan-Hexane400.3 0.3 0.2 2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.1 7,000ad-Limonene400.2 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.10.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.5 na1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone40 0.2 0.01 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2,000bNaphthalene400.1 0.03 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 9aPhenol400.6 0.3 0.5 2.1 0.02 0.20.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.6 200aalpha-Pinene400.1 0.04 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2,800bStyrene400.2 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.03 0.10.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 900aTetrachloroethene400.2 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 35aToluene401.7 1.4 1.2 2.6 0.2 0.20.8 1.2 2.2 4.0 6.3 300aTrichloromethane400.2 0.01 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 300a1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene400.4 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.10.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 3,125bVinyl acetate400.2 0.01 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 200am,p-Xylene401.2 0.9 0.9 2.5 0.1 0.20.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 3.3 700ao-Xylene400.3 0.3 0.2 2.2 0.1 0.10.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.1 700aa) OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2003).b) 1/40th of the 8-hour occupational health guideline in μg/m3(e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, DFG MAKs).c) Formaldehyde – California Air Resources Board Indoor AirQuality Guideline, 2005. na = no available guideline.



### 177

### 178 Table 35. Maximum indoor concentrations of the volatile organic compounds comparison to

indoor air contaminant guidelines.

Maximum Indoor Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds

Comparison to the Indoor Guidelines (μg/m 3 )

Compound Maximum Concentration

(μg/m 3 ) Indoor Guideline

(μg/m 3 ) Maximum

Concentration to

Indoor Guideline Ratio

Tetrachloroethene 22.6 35 a 0.646

Naphthalene 4.9 9 a 0.544

Toluene 115.2 300 a 0.384

Ethylene glycol 119.5 400 a 0.299

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 219 800 a 0.274

Benzene 15.1 60 a 0.252

m,p-Xylene 60.3 700 a 0.086

Styrene 62 900 a 0.069

2-Butoxyethanol 179.7 3,000 b 0.060

Trichloromethane 11.8 300 a 0.039

Phenol 6.5 200 a 0.033

o-Xylene 19.9 700 a 0.028

alpha-Pinene 65.1 2,800 b 0.023

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 13.2 3,125 b 0.004

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 8.3 2,000 b 0.004

n-Hexane 24 7,000 a 0.003

Vinyl acetate 0.3 200 a 0.002

Caprolactam 0.1 500 b <0.0001

Hexanal 35.1 na na

d-Limonene 152.3 na na

a) OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2003).

b) 1/40th of the 8-hour occupational health guideline in μg/m 3 (e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH

TLVs, DFG MAKs). na = no available guideline.Table 36. Comparison of indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde to indoor air contaminant guidelines.Comparison of Indoor Concentrations of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde to Indoor Air Contaminant GuidelinesaCompound N Mean StandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStandardDeviationMin 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Max % >Indoor AirGuidelineIndoor AirGuideline(μg/m3)AcetaldehydeChronicReferenceExposure Level 86 3.3 2.2 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.5 4.0 6.5 11 82 9bFormaldehydeChronicReferenceExposure Level105 15 9.2 12 1.9 1.6 4.8 8.2 12 19 29 45 100 3bARB Indoor AirGuideline621.8 0.8 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.11.2 1.5 2.1 2.9 4.1 59 33cAcute ReferenceExposure Level7 1.2 0.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.01.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 6.7 94da) Ratio of indoor concentration to indoor air contaminant guidelines for homes exceeding the guideline.b) OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2003).c) Formaldehyde – California Air Resources Board Indoor Air Quality Guideline, 2005; OEHHA Interim 8-hour Reference Exposure Level.d) OEHHA Acute Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2000).



### 179Table 37. Percentage of homes with indoor and concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM2.5particulatematter greater than the method detection limit.Percent of Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and PM2.5Particulate MatterGreater than the Method Detection Limit (μg/m3)CompoundNIndoor/OutdoorMDL Massa(μg)MDLbConcentrationIndoorcGuidelineRatio ofMDL/Guideline% > MDL forIndoor Air%> MDL forOutdoor AirCarbon Monoxide(ppm)107/ 40 na0.890.09100100Nitrogen Dioxide(μg/m3) 29/11 0.85.7150 0.04 48 9PM2.5ParticulateMatter (μg/m3) 29/ 115 1.865 0.03 100 100a) MDL Mass = Method mass detection limit fornitrogen dioxide spectrophotometer analysis and PM2.5particulate mattergravimetrical analysis. Not applicable for real-time carbon monoxide measurements.b) MDL Concentration = Method detection limit for a typical volume; NO2= 0.14 m3and PM2.5= 2.8 m3; CO MDL concentrationdetermined from analyses of the variance of the averageconcentration from 8 co-located IAQ-Calc instruments.c) California Air Resources Board IndoorAir Quality Guideline, 2005: Carbon monoxide (8-hr), Nitrogen dioxide (24-hr), PM2.5Particulate matter (24 hr).



### 180Table 38. Concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5particulate matter measured indoor and outdoor overthe 24-hour Test Day.Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and PM2.5Particulate MatterCompound NMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStandardDeviationMin 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Max IndooraGuidelineIndoorCarbon Monoxide (ppm)- 24-hour average105 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.8 2.4 na- 8 hour averagemaximum105 1.2 0.7 0.7 7.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.8 2.1 3.7 9- 1 hour averagemaximum105 1.6 1.1 1.0 7.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.6 2.3 2.8 6.8 20Nitrogen Dioxide (μg/m3)29 9.8 11 6.2 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 13 23 50 150Particulate Matter PM2.5(μg/m3)28 13 9.0 11 1.8 3.8 6.0 8.2 11 14 31 36 65OutdoorCarbon Monoxide (ppm)- 24-hour average39 1.4 0.9 1.1 2.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 2.1 2.8 3.6 na- 8 hour averagemaximum 391.91.2 1.5 2.30.4 0.4 0.4 1.9 2.7 3.6 4.4 9- 1 hour averagemaximum 392.31.2 1.9 2.10.4 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.2 3.8 4.9 20Nitrogen Dioxide (μg/m3)11 3.9 3.4 3.4 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 14 150Particulate Matter PM2.5(μg/m3)11 7.9 2.5 7.5 1.4 4.35.0 5.3 8.7 9.5 10 12 65a) California Air Resources Board Indoor Air Quality Guidelines, 2005: Carbon monoxide (1-hr and 8-hr), Nitrogen dioxide (24-hr), PM2.5Particulate Matter (24-hr). There is no 24-hour exposure guideline for carbon monoxide.



### 181Table 39. Temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide concentrations measured indoors and outdoors over the24-hour Test Day.Temperature, Relative Humidity and Carbon Dioxide ConcentrationsCompound NMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStandardDev.Min 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% MaxIndoorCarbon Dioxide (ppm)a- 24-hour average107 610 177 587 1.3334405 469 564 723 890 1108Temperature (°F)- 24-hour average 103 72.4 5.0 72.2 1.1 62.7 65.7 68.1 72.3 76.6 78.7 82.8Relative Humidity (%)- 24-hour average 103 43.4 9.642.2 1.3 19.5 29.7 37.5 45.2 49.7 54.0 63.5OutdoorCarbon Dioxide (ppm)b- 24-hour average39 326 23 325 1.1 258 298 315 323 339 354 369Temperature (°F)- 24-hour average 39 62.4 10.461.6 1.2 44.9 48.1 52.5 63.8 71.1 75.6 82.4Relative Humidity (%)- 24-hour average 39 57.0 18.653.8 1.4 25.1 31.7 39.2 57.9 72.8 80.6 93.3a) Carbon dioxide concentration guideline; ASHRAE 62.1-2004,700 ppm greater than outdoors – for acceptable body odor.b) There appears to be a temperature induced error associated with the outdoor carbon dioxide measurements that results in themeasured concentration being substantially lower than the true concentration.



### 182Table 40. Comparison of volatile organic compound concentrations measured in new residences in this study andtwo other studies.Comparison of IndoorConcentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in New HomesThis StudyaGM MeanOther StudiesbGM MeanRatiocThis StudyaMaximumOther StudiesbMaximumRatiodAcetaldehyde 19141.4102432.4Benzene 2.20.54.4156.12.52-Butoxyethanol 22.90.71801215Ethylene glycol3.248 0.1 120490 0.2Formaldehyde 36321.1136622.2Hexanal7 15 0.5 35 36 1.0d-Limonene 7.64.31.81521213Phenol 1.61.80.96.55.81.1alpha-Pinene 9.3230.465601.1Toluene 9.58.51.1115681.7Trichloromethane 0.40.14.0120.524m,p-Xylene 4.22.12.060115.5o-Xylene 1.10.61.8204.44.5a) Geometric mean and maximum indoor concentrations in the new Californian homes in this study (n=107 except forformaldehyde and acetaldehyde with n=105)b) Geometric mean and maximum concentrations of 20 new homes in two other studies as reported in Volatile OrganicCompounds in Indoor Air: A Review of Concentrations Measured Since 1990 (Hodgson and Levin 2003). 6 experimentallow-emitting and 3 conventional homes, Denver, Colorado, 1992–1993, and 4 manufactured and 7 site-built homes, east andsoutheast United States, 1997–1998.c) Ratio of geometric mean in this study to geometric mean in two other studies.d) Ratio of maximum in this study to maximum in two other studies.



### 183Table 41. Percentage of homes with concentrations exceeding California Proposition 65 Safe HarborDose concentrations.California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Dose Indoor ConcentrationsaCompoundNumber ofHomeMeasurementsNSRLConcentration(μg/m3)Percentage of HomesExceeding the NSRLConcentration(%)MADLConcentration(μg/m3)Percentage of HomesExceeding the MADLConcentration(%)Acetaldehyde 105 4.5 93 NANABenzene 107 0.7 63 2.5 201,4-Dichlorobenzene 107 1.0 12NANAFormaldehyde 105 2.0 100 NANANaphthalene 107 0.3 27 NANATetrachloroethene 107 0.7 8NANAToluene107 NANA 3500Trichloromethane 1072.08NANAa) California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Dose indoor concentrations calculated from the No Significant Risk Level(NSRL) for carcinogens and the Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) assuming continuous 24-hour exposurewith a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3and 100% absorption by the respiratory system.NA = no available Safe Harbor Dose.



### 184Table 42. Occupant cooking and cleaning source activities conducted during the 24-hour Test Day.Cooking and Cleaning Source Activities (minutes)ActivityNMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.min10%25%50%75%90%MaxToasting506.45.24.92.1123581524Frying or Sautéing362425162.7151017307790Baking334634362.0101521456090180Broiling113945223.2566196580150Warming/BoilingWater Soup, etc.473030192.6368203570135Microwave796.76.14.13.10.2124101523Other82219172.3441116326060Total CookingActivities975256293.50.35163565126295CookingActivitiesVacuuming164976253.079102548145300Sweeping orDusting162433133.1336122075120Use of Dishwasher387651562.7220406890180240Use of ClothesWasher449588692.215304159118210390Use of FurniturePolish52736163.0551010209090Use of cleaningchemicals24213993.5125101540180Other110-10-10101010101010CleaningActivitiesTotal CleaningActivities74120126663.81104583152260800



### 185Table 43. Occupant special activities, garage and outdoorsource activities conducted during the 24-hour Test Day.Occupant Special, Garage, and Outdoor Source Activities (minutes)Activity NMeanStandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStd. Dev.Min 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% MaxGas burning fireplace 1 140 - 140 - 140 140 140 140 140 140 140Candle burning 4 203 108 185 1.6 120 120 135 165 270 360 360Painting1 28 - 28 - 28 28 28 28 28 28 28Pesticide application 3 482 829 24 35 2 2 2 5 1,4401,4401,440Nail polish application orremoval3 3.3 1.5 3.1 1.6 2 2 2 3 5 5 5Aerosol air fresheners 6 0.6 0.5 0.3 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1 1 1Aerosol personal careproducts24 1.9 4.0 0.7 4.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1 2 3 20Showering or bathing 80 33 18 28 1.8 5 13 20 30 42 58 85Large party/dinnergatherings3 90 52 76 2.2 30 30 30 120 120 120 120Nobody at home 44 347 255 251 2.5 10 90 150 308 460 645 1,170Other activities: dust,smoke, or fumes3 28 18 24 2.2 10 10 10 30 45 45 45Total Special Activities –excluding “nobody athome”84 65 169 32 2.9 0.3 13 20 30 49 90 1,450OccupantSpecialActivitiesVehicle operated in garage(vehicle-minutes)39 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.5 0.20.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 10Vehicle storage in garage(vehicle-minutes)62 1,338 767 994 3.0 5.0 360 730 1,4401,8602,4003,480Total Vehicle Activities72 1,134 860 381 12.3 0.3 3 447 1,0371,5622,4003,480GarageActivitiesUse of gasoline poweredequipment4 31 20 27 1.8 15 15 18 25 45 60 60Painting1 55 - 55 - 55 55 55 55 55 55 55Barbecuing8 32 18 28 1.7 15 15 20 24 48 60 60Smoking outdoors7 78 106 36 4.0 5 5 14 25 120 300 300Other activities: dust,smoke, or fumes1 1.0 - 1.0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1OutdoorActivitiesTotal Outdoor Activities 18 53 81 28 3.5 1 5 19 29 60 120 360



### 186

### 187 Table 44. Homeowner reported IAQ related perceptions and observations.

Homeowner Reported IAQ Related Perceptions and Observations

Variable N a %

During the past three weeks have you experienced any of the following physical

symptoms when in your home that you do not experience when you are away from the

home?

One or more of the symptoms below 108 28

Eye irritation 108 11

Nose/sinus congestion 108 19

Nose irritation 108 12

Allergy symptoms 108 15

Headache 108 13

Skin irritation 108 5.6

Difficulty concentrating 108 6.5

Asthma symptoms 108 4.6

Other 108 3.7

During the past week , please indicate if you have noticed a significant period when your

home has experienced each of the conditions listed below.

Too hot 108 19

Too cold 108 15

Too dry 108 8.3

Too humid 108 1.9

Too drafty 108 0.0

Too stagnant (not enough air movement) 108 12

Too dusty 108 11

During the past week , please indicate if you have noticed, seen, or smelled mold or

mildew in the following locations?

Bathrooms 108 13

Basement or crawlspace 108 0.9

Walls or ceilings 108 1.9

Carpets 108 0.9

Closets 108 0.9

Cabinetry 108 1.9

Other 108 2.8

Has anyone in your household had a medical diagnosis of any of the following?

Allergies 108 36

Asthma 108 16

Chemical sensitivity 108 3.7

Other activity-limiting conditions 108 4.6

a) Number of homes with completed questionnaires.Table 45. Indoor emission rates of volatile organic compounds over the 24-hour Test Day.Indoor Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3-h)aCompoundN Mean StandardDeviationGeometricMeanGeometricStandardDeviationMin 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% MaxAcetaldehyde 99 5.7 3.2 4.9 1.8 1.2 2.1 3.7 5.3 7.0 9.1 20Benzene 770.40.6 - --0.40.01 0.06 0.2 0.5 1.0 4.32-Butoxyethanol 91 2.0 3.7 1.03.5 0.03 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.4 4.0 32Caprolactam 3-0.03 0.02 - - -0.06-0.06-0.06-0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.011,4-Dichlorobenzene 35 7.4 26 - --0.3 -0.09 0.01 0.1 0.6 15 139Ethylene glycol59 6.7 8.5 3.73.4 0.05 1.0 1.8 3.9 7.8 14 44Formaldehyde 99 13 10 10 2.0 2.3 4.0 5.8 11 16 23 65Hexanal105 2.5 1.4 2.1 1.8 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.2 3.3 4.6 6.6n-Hexane 870.61.1 - - -0.20.02 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.9 7.0d-Limonene 1003.9 4.1 - - -4.20.61.42.64.8 10 201-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 13 0.3 0.5 0.1 5.2 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.7Naphthalene 870.07 0.2 - - -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.1 1.5Phenol 1050.40.5 - --0.50.02 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 2.5alpha-Pinene 104 3.6 2.2 2.9 2.3 0.01 1.3 2.2 2.9 4.5 6.5 10Styrene 990.41.1 - --0.40.07 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 10Tetrachloroethene 31 0.4 1.0 - - -0.05 -0.02 0.01 0.06 0.2 0.7 5.7Toluene 1053.74.7 - --1.20.71.32.14.18.424Trichloromethane 44 0.3 0.3 0.14.0 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.51,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 92 0.4 0.5 -- -0.1 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 3.2Vinyl acetate2 0.01 0.00 0.01 1.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01m,p-Xylene 1041.6 2.3 - - -0.4 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.0 4.0 15o-Xylene 960.50.8 - --0.20.03 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 4.8a) Emission rates calculated as the difference between the indoor and outdoor concentrations, multiplied by the outdoor air exchangerate. No emission rate was calculated when both the indoor and outdoor concentrations were below the MDL concentration. Whenonly the indoor or outdoor concentration was below the MDLconcentration, then the emission rate was calculated using aconcentration equal to one-half the MDL concentration.



### 188Table 46. Formaldehyde concentration and emission rates from FAU systems.Formaldehyde Emission Rates from Forced Air Units (FAU)Attic FormaldehydeConcentrations(μg/m3)FormaldehydeEmission Ratea(μg/h)HomeIDSeason Temperature(°F)RelativeHumidity(%)FAUFlowrate(m3/h)SupplyAirReturnAirAtticAirFAU Home FAUPercent ofHome017Summer88.141.32,10610.2 8.6 9.23,423 16,028 21017Winter67.048.02,10613.7 15.3 2.0-3,381 6,018 -56120Winter64.556.31,88570.0 74.1 10.4-7,681 5,093 -151120Winter64.5 56.3 1,885 65.7b74.1 10.4 -15,656 5,093 -307a) The FAU emission rate is calculated as the difference between the concentrations measured at the supplyair diffuser and the return air inlet multiplied by the forced air handling unit return airflow rate. The homeemission rate is calculated as the difference betweenthe indoor air and outdoor air concentrations times thehome outdoor airflow rate as determined from thePFT measurement and the home indoor air volume.b) Second supply air concentration measurement.



### 189Table 47. Multi-day home concentration and emission rates over three 24-hour periods for Home 033.Home 033 Multi-Day (Summer-North)Concentration(μg/m3)Emission Ratesd(μg/m3-h)Emission RateeVariation (μg/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraDay 1 Outdoor Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = 0.23 ACH = 0.29 ACH= 0.13 0.16 0.38Acetaldehyde75 55 109 3.2 17 15 13 3.4 0.11Benzene 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.1c0.1 0.01 0.2 0.2 1.192-Butoxyethanol 2.9 2.5 5.7 0.1c0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.05Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cnabna na na na1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cna na na na naEthylene glycol0.50.60.60.6cna na na na naFormaldehyde 58 50 64 2.3 13 14 7.8 6.1 0.29Hexanal13 12 21 0.2 3.1 3.4 2.7 0.8 0.12n-Hexane 1.0 0.8 3.0 0.2c0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.37d-Limonene9.4 6.4 39 0.2c2.2 1.8 4.9 3.1 0.571-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1c0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.21Phenol 1.81.82.4 0.40.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.22alpha-Pinene 16 11 26 0.1c3.7 3.3 3.3 0.4 0.07Styrene 0.90.2 0.8 0.1c0.2 0.03 0.1 0.2 0.77Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.3 0.2cna na 0.01 0.01 1.73Toluene 9.88.1 17 0.2c2.3 2.3 2.1 0.2 0.04Trichloromethane2.20.75.40.2c0.5 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.621,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.8 0.4 1.1 0.1c0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.27Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene 4.1 2.6 5.4 0.1c0.9 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.18o-Xylene 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.1c0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.58a) Day 1 is Thursday–Friday, Day 2 is Friday–Saturday, Day 3 is Saturday–Sundayb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rates calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and Day 1 outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Variation:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates;relative variationis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rates.



### 190Table 48. Multi-day home concentration and emission rates over three 24-hour periods for Home 041.Home 041 Multi-Day (Winter-South)Concentration(ug/m3)Emission Ratesd(ug/m3-h)Emission RateeVariation (ug/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraDay 1 OutdooraDay 1 Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = 0.18 ACH = 0.19 ACH = 0.200.01 0.04Acetaldehyde 15 19 23 1.7 2.4 3.2 4.2 1.8 0.28Benzene 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.04 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.132-Butoxyethanol 32 4.4 3.2 0.1c5.8 0.8 0.6 5.2 1.21Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cnabna na nabna1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cna na na na naEthylene glycol8.512160.6c1.4 2.2 2.9 1.5 0.34Formaldehyde 14 17 23 1.2 2.33.04.2 1.9 0.31Hexanal 7.5 8.7 11 0.31.3 1.6 2.0 0.7 0.21n-Hexane 0.2c1.2 0.9 1.0 na 0.04 -0.03 0.07 12.02d-Limonene7.7 5.8 7.3 0.4 1.3 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.141-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cna na na na naPhenol 2.41.72.4 1.00.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.37alpha-Pinene 16 18 20 0.1c3.0 3.5 3.9 0.9 0.13Styrene 2.21.2 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.43Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na naToluene 8.5 21 14 2.91.03.52.22.50.56Trichloromethane0.30.17c0.2 0.2c0.02 na 3E-4 0.02 1.41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.0 0.91.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.17Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene 3.1 2.9 3.2 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.06 0.10o-Xylene 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.26a) Day 1 is Thursday–Friday, Day 2 is Friday–Saturday, Day 3 is Saturday–Sundayb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rates calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and Day 1 outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Variation:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates;relative variationis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rates.



### 191Table 49. Multi-day home concentration and emission rates over three 24-hour periods for Home 059.Home 059 Multi-Day (Summer-South)Concentration(ug/m3)Emission Ratesd(ug/m3-h)Emission RateeVariation (ug/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraDay 1 OutdooraDay 1 Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = 2.25 ACH = 1.79 ACH = 1.251.00 0.28Acetaldehyde 4.0 5.8 6.70.7 7.5 9.2 7.5 1.7 0.12Benzene 0.1c0.1c0.3 0.1cnabna 0.2 nabna2-Butoxyethanol 0.9 1.11.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.10Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cna na na na na1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cna na na na naEthylene glycol0.6c0.7c1.7c0.6cna na na na naFormaldehyde 11 14 14 3.1 17 20 13 6.9 0.21Hexanal 2.3 3.4 1.2 0.24.7 5.8 1.2 4.5 0.610n-Hexane 0.3 1.0 1.9 0.2c0.4 1.6 2.1 1.8 0.67d-Limonene 0.1c0.3 0.2c0.2cna 0.2 na na na1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone0.2c0.2c0.3c0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.1 0.3 0.40.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.53Phenol 0.3 1.1 1.0 0.20.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.67alpha-Pinene 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1c0.5 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.24Styrene 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.1c0.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.79Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na naToluene 2.9 7.0 8.9 0.2c6.1 12 10 6.1 0.33Trichloromethane0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na na1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.8 2.02.2 0.2 1.4 3.1 2.5 1.8 0.38Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.3c0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene 2.3 5.7 6.60.2 4.7 10 8.1 5.1 0.35o-Xylene 0.7 2.0 2.2 0.1c1.4 3.4 2.6 2.0 0.40a) Day 1 is Thursday–Friday, Day 2 is Friday–Saturday, Day 3 is Saturday–Sundayb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rates calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and Day 1 outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Precision:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates;relative variationis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rates.



### 192Table 50. Multi-day home concentrations and emission rates for three 24-hour periods for Home 099.Home 099 Multi-Day (Winter-North)Concentration(ug/m3)Emission Ratesd(ug/m3-h)Emission RateeVariation (ug/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraDay 1 OutdooraDay 1Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompound ACH=nabACH = 0.17 ACH = 0.160.01 0.05Acetaldehyde 57 86 57 1.8 nab14.7 9.0 5.7 0.34Benzene 2.4 3.0 2.8 0.8na 0.4 0.3 0.07 0.132-Butoxyethanol 6.3 4.7 4.8 0.1cna 0.8 0.8 0.04 0.04Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cna na na nabna1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1cna 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ethyleneglycol 14 11 13 0.6cna 1.8 2.0 0.2 0.09Formaldehyde 86 94 86 3.1 na 15.913.6 2.4 0.11Hexanal 30 28 29 0.05cna 4.8 4.7 0.2 0.02n-Hexane 3.0 4.4 4.5 0.2na 0.7 0.7 0.03 0.03d-Limonene 24 29 29 0.1cna 5.0 4.7 0.4 0.061-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.60.6 0.6 0.1cna 0.1 0.1 0.004 0.03Phenol 2.2 2.5 2.4 0.4 na 0.4 0.3 0.04 0.09alpha-Pinene 15 15 15 0.1cna 2.6 2.4 0.3 0.08Styrene 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.1cna 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.07Tetrachloroethene 0.2 0.2 0.2c0.2cna 0.008 na na naToluene 16 21 19 1.1na 3.4 2.9 0.5 0.11Trichloromethane4.34.53.60.2cna 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.211,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4.2 4.3 5.6 0.2 na 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.15Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene 9.0 10 12 0.7na 1.7 1.9 0.2 0.08o-Xylene 3.5 3.9 5.0 0.2na 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.12a) Day 1 is Thursday–Friday, Day 2 is Friday–Saturday, Day 3 is Saturday–Sundayb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rates calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and Day 1 outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Precision:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates,relative precisionis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rate.



### 193Table 51. Multi-season home concentration and emission rates over 24-hour periods in three seasons for Home 005.Home 005 Multi-seasonConcentration(ug/m3)Emission Ratesd(ug/m3-h)Emission Rate Variatione(ug/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraOutdooraDay 1 Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = 0.16 ACH = 0.15 ACH = 0.270.12 0.34Acetaldehyde 64 49 21 3.3/4.5 / 0.2 9.7 6.6 5.6 4.2 0.30Benzene 3.1 7.4 4.90.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.412-Butoxyethanol 5.7 11 1.5 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1c0.9 1.6 0.4 1.2 0.63Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1cnabna na nabna1,4-Dichlorobenzene 451131.8 0.8 / 0.1c/ 0.1c72 1.9 0.5 72 1.65Ethylene glycol207.20.5c0.6c/ 0.6c/ 0.6c3.2 1.0 na 3.2 1.17Formaldehyde1117244 6.6 / 3.0 / 2.3 17 10 11 6.5 0.27Hexanal 37 27 150.0c/ 0.0c/ 0.7 5.9 4.0 4.0 1.9 0.24n-Hexane4.5 15 11 0.1c/ 0.5 / 0.2c0.7 2.1 2.8 2.1 0.58d-Limonene 9.9 12 21 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.9 1.6 1.8 5.3 3.8 0.731-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1c/ 0.2 / 0.1c0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.11Phenol6.44.42.9 0.8 / 0.5/ 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.29alpha-Pinene 43 38 13 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1c6.8 5.6 3.6 3.2 0.30Styrene 3.7 3.4 1.30.1c/ 0.5 / 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.36Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na naToluene316425 1.3 / 3.2 / 1.8 4.7 9.2 6.0 4.5 0.35Trichloromethane0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na na1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5.3 10 3.7 0.1c/ 0.8 / 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.30Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene173814 0.8 / 2.3/ 1.1 2.6 5.4 3.5 2.8 0.37o-Xylene 6.4 12 4.50.1c/ 0.7 / 0.3 1.0 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.28a) Day 1 is Summer North, Day 2 is Fall North, Day 3 is Winter North field sessionb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detectionlimit.d) Emission rate is calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and the outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Variation:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates,relative variationis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rates.



### 194Table 52. Multi-season home concentration and emission rates over 24-hour periods in three seasons for Home 006.Home 006 Multi-seasonConcentration(ug/m3)Emission Ratesd(ug/m3-h)Emission RateeVariation (ug/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraOutdooraDay 1 Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = 0.16 ACH = 0.63 ACH = 0.230.47 0.75Acetaldehyde431422 3.3 / 4.5 / 0.2 6.4 6.1 5.0 1.4 0.13Benzene 1.0 0.3 1.30.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.04 0.152-Butoxyethanol 3.7 1.2 7.2 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1c0.6 0.7 1.6 1.1 0.59Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1cnabna na nabna1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.8 / 0.1c/ 0.1c-0.1 na na na naEthylene glycol7.00.5c0.6c0.6c/ 0.6c/ 0.6c1.0 na na na naFormaldehyde612333 6.6 / 3.0/ 2.3 8.8 12.5 7.0 5.5 0.30Hexanal 28 2.8 150.0c/ 0.0c/ 0.7 4.4 1.7 3.3 2.7 0.43n-Hexane 1.8 1.2 1.30.1c/ 0.5 / 0.2c0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.35d-Limonene9.9 1.6 19 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.9 1.6 0.9 4.1 3.2 0.771-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1c/ 0.2 / 0.1c0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.78Phenol3.71.51.9 0.8 / 0.5/ 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.45alpha-Pinene 32 10 11 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1c5.1 6.4 2.5 3.9 0.42Styrene 1.9 1.6 1.10.1c/ 0.5 / 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.70Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na naToluene131111 1.3 / 3.2 / 1.8 1.8 4.7 2.1 2.9 0.56Trichloromethane0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na na1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.1 1.6 1.6 0.1c/ 0.8 / 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.53Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene5.15.24.6 0.8 / 2.3 / 1.1 0.7 1.8 0.8 1.1 0.56o-Xylene 1.3 1.6 1.10.1c/ 0.7 / 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.67a) Day 1 is Summer North, Day 2 is Fall North, Day 3 is Winter North field sessionb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rate is calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and the outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Variation:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates,relative variationis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rates.



### 195Table 53. Multi-season home concentration and emission rates over 24-hour periods in three seasons for Home 013.Home 013 Multi-seasonConcentration(ug/m3)Emission Ratesd(ug/m3-h)Emission RateeVariation (ug/m3-h)Day 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 1 OutdooraDay 2 OutdooraDay 1 Day 2 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = 0.16 ACH = 0.810.65 0.95Acetaldehyde 73 15 1.4 3.1 11 9.9 1.5 0.10Benzene 2.2 2.1 0.1c0.2 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.922-Butoxyethanol 5.2 1.5 0.1c0.1c0.8 1.2 0.4 0.27Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1cnabna na na1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.4 0.4 0.1c0.2 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.80Ethylene glycol307.80.6c0.6c4.7 5.8 1.2 0.16Formaldehyde 100 45 0.7 0.2 16 35 21 0.55Hexanal 22 1.0 0.0c0.0c3.5 0.7 2.8 0.92n-Hexane 4.3 4.2 0.1c0.7 0.7 2.8 2.1 0.87d-Limonene19 2.6 0.1c0.1c3.1 2.0 1.0 0.291-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone0.6 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.1 na 0.08 naNaphthalene 0.4 0.4 0.1c0.2 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.60Phenol 3.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.17alpha-Pinene 58 17 0.1c0.1c9.3 13 4.1 0.25Styrene 2.8 1.0 0.1c0.1c0.4 0.7 0.3 0.35Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na naToluene 114 66 0.6 5.0185031 0.65Trichloromethane1.30.40.2c0.2c0.2 0.2 0.01 0.021,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2.5 3.3 0.1c1.1 0.4 1.7 1.4 0.91Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2cna na na nam,p-Xylene 21 16 0.1c3.2 3.2 11 7.4 0.75o-Xylene 5.8 5.1 0.1c1.0 0.9 3.3 2.4 0.80a) Day 1 is Summer North, Day 2 is Fall Northb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated; na: whenfewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rate is calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and the outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Variation:Absolute variationis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates,relative variationis the relative standarddeviation of the emission rates.



### 196Table 54. Multi-season home concentration and emission rates over 24-hour periods in three seasons for Home 019.Home 019 Multi-seasonConcentration(ug/m3)Emission Rates (ug/m3-h)dEmission Rate VariationeDay 1 IndooraDay 2 IndooraDay 3 IndooraOutdooraDay 1 Day 2 Day 3 Absolute RelativeCompoundACH = na ACH = 0.29 ACH = 0.110.18 0.64Acetaldehyde2.71522 3.1 / 3.1 / 0.7 nab3.5 2.4 1.1 0.27Benzene 0.1c0.9 1.7 0.1c/ 0.2 / 0.7 na 0.2 0.1 0.09 0.392-Butoxyethanol 0.1c3.6 9.9 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1cna 1.0 1.1 0.04 0.03Caprolactam 0.1c0.1c0.1c0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1cna na na nabna1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1c0.1c0.1 0.1c/ 0.2 / 0.1cna -0.03 0.005 0.03 -2.0Ethylene glycol0.7c0.5c0.6c0.6c/ 0.6c/ 0.6cna na na na naFormaldehyde4.72436 2.2 / 2.0 / 2.9 na 6.4 3.6 2.8 0.40Hexanal 0.1c1.1 14 0.1c/ 0.0c/ 0.1cna 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.94n-Hexane 0.2c2.0 1.9 0.2c/ 0.7 / 0.2cna 0.4 0.2 0.18 0.45d-Limonene 0.2c3.9 12.7 0.2c/ 0.1c/ 0.2cna 1.1 1.4 0.31 0.181-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 0.7 0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na naNaphthalene 0.1c0.3 0.2 0.1c/ 0.2 / 0.1cna 0.02 0.02 0 0.07Phenol0.90.92.1 0.5 / 0.4 / 0.4 na 0.1 0.2 0.06 0.25alpha-Pinene 0.5 8.8 12 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1cna 2.5 1.3 1.2 0.44Styrene 0.1c0.3 1.4 0.1c/ 0.1c/ 0.1cna 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.54Tetrachloroethene 0.2c0.2c0.7 0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na 0.1 na naToluene1.01312 1.1 / 5.0 / 1.0 na 2.3 1.2 1.1 0.46Trichloromethane0.2c0.2c0.4 0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na 0.03 na na1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.1c1.8 2.1 0.1c/ 1.1 / 0.1 na 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.05Vinyl acetate0.2c0.2c0.2c0.2c/ 0.2c/ 0.2cna na na na nam,p-Xylene 0.6c6.06.4 1.5 / 3.2 / 0.6 na 0.8 0.7 0.17 0.16o-Xylene 0.1c1.9 2.3 0.1c/ 1.0 / 0.1 na 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.03a) Day 1 is Summer North, Day 2 is Fall North, Day 3 is Winter North field sessionb) na: indoor and outdoor concentrations both below the concentration method detectionlimit thus, no emission rate was calculated or Day 1 withno PFT measurement; na: when fewer than two emission rates were calculated then no variations were calculated.c) The sample was below the mass method detection limit and the concentration was calculated using one-half the method mass detection limit.d) Emission rate is calculated as the difference of the indoor concentration and the outdoor concentration multiplied by the air exchange rate.e) Variation:Absoluteis the absolute difference between the min and max emission rates,relativeis the relative standard deviation of the emissionrates.



### 197

### 198 Table 55. Normality test results for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentration, air exchange

rate, indoor and outdoor temperature and relative humidity, composite wood loading, home age,

and window usage.

Normality Test Results

Normalized Variable N Kolmogorov-Smirnov

D p

Log of the formaldehyde concentration

( μ g/m 3 ) 105 0.062 >0.15

Log of the acetaldehyde concentration

( μ g/m 3 ) 105 0.074 >0.15

Inverse of the air exchange rate

(hours) 106 0.085 0.06

Indoor temperature

( ° F) 103 0.080 0.10

Indoor relative humidity squared

(%) 103 0.062 >0.15

Outdoor temperature

( ° F) 39 0.125 0.12

Outdoor relative humidity

(%) 39 0.144 0.06

Log of composite wood loading

(ft 2 /1,000 ft 3 ) a 107 0.082 0.08

Home age

(years) 105 0.060 >0.15

Square root of non-zero window usage

(ft 2 -hrs) 74 0.094 0.10

a) Log of composite wood loading (i.e., ft 2 of composite wood per 1,000 ft 3 of indoor air volume).

### 199 Table 56. Group comparisons for formalde hyde and acetaldehyde concentrations.

Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Concentrations Group Comparisons a

North vs. South Non-Mechanical Homes

Formaldehyde N Mean Standard

Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of b

no Difference

North 25 3.88 0.11

South 47 3.40 0.08 3.412 50 0.001

Acetaldehyde

North 25 3.36 0.16

South 47 2.78 0.10 0.996 43 0.32

Summer vs. Winter Seasonal Repeat Homes

Formaldehyde N Mean Standard

Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of no

Difference

Summer 19 3.42 0.23

Winter 19 3.42 0.11 0.001 36 0.50

Acetaldehyde

Summer 19 2.68 0.27

Winter 19 2.98 0.14 0.996 36 0.16

Mechanical vs. Non-Mechanical

Formaldehyde N Mean Standard

Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of no

Difference

DOA 13 4.17 0.11

NonMechanical 72 3.57 0.07 4.710 25 0.0001

HRV 5 3.08 0.37

NonMechanical 72 3.57 0.07 1.287 4 0.27

Acetaldehyde

DOA 13 3.63 0.18

NonMechanical 72 2.98 0.09 3.167 18 0.005

HRV 5 2.09 0.34

NonMechanical 72 2.98 0.09 2.524 4 0.07

DOA vs. HRV

Formaldehyde N Mean Standard

Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of no

Difference

DOA 13 4.17 0.11

HRV 5 3.08 0.37 2.811 4 0.05

Acetaldehyde

DOA 13 3.63 0.18

HRV 5 2.09 0.34 3.979 4 0.02

a) The log of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations (μg/m 3 ) were used to normalize the data.

b) Probability that there is a differ ence between the two population means, p ≤ 0.05, are bolded

.

### 200 Table 57. Group comparison for outdoor air exchange rates and window usage.

Outdoor Exchange Rate and Window Usage Group Comparisons

North vs. South; Non-Mechanical Homes

ACH a N Mean Standard Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of d

no Difference

North 25 4.52 0.48

South 48 4.15 0.31 0.649 44 0.52

Window Usage b,c

North 16 12.7 2.50

South 38 13.7 1.53 0.322 26 0.75

Summer vs. Winter; Seasonal Repeat Homes

ACH a N Mean Standard Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of

no Difference

Summer 19 3.53 0.65

Winter 19 4.77 0.57 1.433 36 0.08

Window Usage b,c

Summer 7 17.2 4.21

Winter 7 6.1 2.19 2.341 12 0.02

Mechanical vs. Non-Mechanical

ACH a N Mean Standard Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of

no Difference

DOA 13 5.07 0.80

Non-Mechanical 73 4.28 0.26 0.931 14 0.37

HRV 5 1.41 0.48

Non-Mechanical 73 4.28 0.26 5.248 6 0.002

Window Usage b,c

DOA 10 14.6 3.40

Non-Mechanical 54 13.4 1.30 0.340 11 0.74

HRV 3 24.24 4.81

Non-Mechanical 54 13.4 1.30 2.181 2 0.16

DOA vs. HRV

ACH a N Mean Standard Error t Degrees of

Freedom Probability of

no Difference

DOA 13 5.07 0.80

HRV 5 1.41 0.48 3.906 6 0.008

Window Usage b,c

DOA 10 14.6 3.40

HRV 3 24.2 4.81 1.636 2 0.24

a) The inverse of air changes per hour (ach), resi dence time (hrs), was used to normalize the data.

b) The square root of window usage (ft 2 -hrs) was utilized to normalize the data.

c) Window usage was measured during the 24-hour air sampling period.

d) Probability that there is a differ ence between the two population means, p ≤ 0.05, are bolded.

### 201 Table 58. Correlations of indoor formaldehyde concentrations with home characteristics and with indoor and

outdoor environmental conditions.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration Correlations

Pearson Correlation a Spearman Correlation

N Correlation

Coefficient Probability of d

No Correlation N Correlation

Coefficient Probability of d

No Correlation

Home Characteristics

Home age

(years) 102 -0.155 0.121 102 -0.148 0.137

Composite wood loading c

(ft 2 /1,000 ft 3 ) 104 -0.068 0.495 104 -0.052 0.600

New cabinetry b

(Y/N within 6 months) 102 -0.105 0.292 102 -0.120 0.230

New Furniture b

(Y/N within 6 months) 103 0.132 0.185 103 0.090 0.365

Air fresheners present b

(Y/N during Test Day) 88 -0.063 0.559 88 -0.031 0.775

Outdoor air exchange rate c

(Outdoor air residence time - h) 103 0.496 < 0.0001 103 -0.494 < 0.0001

Environmental Conditions

Indoor temperature

(°F) 100 0.236 0.018 100 0.228 0.022

Indoor relative humidity c

(%) 100 0.027 0.791 100 0.125 0.215

Outdoor temperature

(°F) 92 0.051 0.628 92 0.091 0.386

Outdoor relative humidity

(%) 92 0.164 0.119 92 0.163 0.120

a) Pearson correlations use the normalized lo g of the indoor formaldehyde concentrations.

b) Present or absent responses.

c) Pearson correlations use the normalized variables: log of composite wood loading (i.e., ft 2 of composite

wood per 1,000 ft 3 of indoor air volume), inverse of the outdoor air exchange rate (i.e., outdoor air

residence time), and indoor relative humidity squared.

d) Probability that there is no correlation, p ≤ 0.05, are bolded.

### 202 Table 59. Correlation of indoor acetaldehyde concentrat ions with home characteristics and with indoor and

outdoor environmental conditions.

Indoor Acetaldehyde Concentration Correlations

Pearson Correlation a Spearman Correlation

N Correlation

Coefficient Probability of d

No Correlation N Correlation

Coefficient Probability of d

No Correlation

Home Characteristics

Home age

(years) 102 -0.091 0.363 102 -0.063 0.527

Composite wood loading c

(ft 2 /1,000 ft 3 ) 104 -0.301 0.002 104 -0.289 0.003

New cabinetry b

(Y/N within 6 months) 102 -0.009 0.925 102 -0.019 0.853

New Furniture b

(Y/N within 6 months) 103 0.094 0.343 103 0.089 0.374

Air fresheners present b

(Y/N during Test Day) 88 -0.089 0.366 88 -0.084 0.394

Outdoor air exchange rate c

(Outdoor air residence time - h) 103 0.651 < 0.0001 103 -0.710 < 0.0001

Environmental Conditions

Indoor temperature

(°F) 100 -0.093 0.355 100 -0.091 0.367

Indoor relative humidity c

(%) 100 -0.109 0.281 100 0.071 0.484

Outdoor temperature

(°F) 92 -0.179 0.089 92 -0.139 0.188

Outdoor relative humidity

(%) 92 -0.006 0.954 92 0.022 0.832

a) Pearson correlations use the normalized lo g of the indoor formaldehyde concentrations.

b) Present or absent responses.

c) Pearson correlations use the normalized variables: log of composite wood loading (i.e., ft 2 of composite

wood per 1,000 ft 3 of indoor air volume), inverse of the outdoor air exchange rate (i.e., outdoor air residence

time), and indoor relative humidity squared.

d) Probability that there is no correlation, p< 0.05, are bolded.

### 203 Table 60. Homeowner reported mechanical ve ntilation system operation and choices-1.

Mechanical Ventilation System Operation and Choices

Variable N a %

Was the operation of the system explai ned to you when you bought or moved

into the house? – Answered Yes 24 78

Do you feel you understand how the system works? – Answered Yes 24 63

Do you feel you understand how to oper ate it properly? – Answered Yes 24 83

How is the system typically used in each season?

- Summer Continuous 22 32

- Summer Frequent 22 45

- Summer Infrequent 22 14

- Summer Never 22 9.1

- Fall Continuous 21 36

- Fall Frequent 21 9.1

- Fall Infrequent 21 36

- Fall Never 21 14

- Winter Continuous 22 18

- Winter Frequent 22 23

- Winter Infrequent 22 32

- Winter Never 22 27

- Spring Continuous 22 27

- Spring Frequent 22 27

- Spring Infrequent 22 36

- Spring Never 22 14

Why did you choose the system?

- Came with the house 22 91

- A household member has health condition 22 0

- Wanted filtered fresh outdoor air 22 5

- Affordable cost 22 0

- Good reliability 22 5

- Reduced energy costs 22 5

- Other: 22 5

a) Number of homes with either a DOA or HRV mechan ical outdoor air system and with completed responses

to questions. Does not include nighttime cooling system s (e.g., WHF, RAD), evaporat ive cooling systems, or

window fans. Total of 26 homes with mechanical outdoor air systems (i.e., 17 DOA systems and 9 HRV

systems).

### 204 Table 61. Homeowner reported mechanical ve ntilation system operation and choices-2.

Mechanical Ventilation System Operation and Choices

Variable N a %

What do you like about the system?

- Fresh air 21 52

- Quiet 21 48

- Reduced odors 21 14

- Reduced energy costs 21 19

- Reduced allergies 21 10

- Reduced concern about indoor air quality 21 24

- Other 21 14

- None of the above 21 10

What don’t you like about the system?

- Too noisy 19 26

- Too drafty 19 26

- Increases odors 19 0

- Hard to operate 19 0

- Hard to maintain 19 11

- Too expensive 19 11

- Too quiet 19 0

- Not Effective 19 32

- Other 19 26

- None of the above 19 21

Please list any additional problems or provide any additional comments

you have

- None 14 64

- Do have problems or comments 14 36

a) Number of homes with either a DOA or HRV mechan ical outdoor air system and with completed responses

to questions. Does not include nighttime cooling syst ems (e.g., WHF, RAD), eva porative cooling systems,

or window fans. Total of 26 homes with mechanic al outdoor air systems (i.e., 17 DOA systems and 9 HRV

systems).

### 205 Table 62. Homeowner reported IAQ related improvement choices.



### Home IAQ Related Improvement Choices

Variable N a %

What special measures or choices have you or the builder taken to improve

the quality of the air in your home?

None 105 24

Upgrade my central air filter 105 25

High efficiency vacuum cleaner with special features such as filters to trap

more particles 105 27

Whole house vacuum 105 6.7

Low-emission carpets, furniture, paint, or cabinets 105 2.9

Hard flooring instead of carpeting 105 33

Carbon monoxide alarm 105 28

Special kitchen range hood 105 7.6

Extra exhaust fans 105 2.9

Whole house ventilation system 105 14

Other (Specify): 105 11

a) Number of homes with completed data.

### 206 

## 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Summary

In setting previous building energy design standards, the Energy Commission had

assumed a certain level of outdoor air ventilation from occupant use of windows and

mechanical devices. However, because homes built within the last few years were

designed to be relatively airtight in order to provide comfort and avoid wasting energy,

concerns were raised that the occupant use of windows, doors, and mechanical ventilation

devices may not provide adequate ventilation with outdoor air, and may contribute to

unacceptable indoor air quality. Information on household ventilation practices of

occupants was needed by the Energy Commission. A 2005 mail survey on occupants’ use

of windows and mechanical ventilation equipment in 1,515 new homes in California

indicated that many homeowners never use their windows for ventilation. From this mail

survey, a concern emerged that the cur rent California residential building codes, where

simply providing openable windows is currently a design option, may result in homes that

do not receive adequate ventilation to control indoor air contaminants to acceptable levels.

For this reason a large field study was initiated to measure window and mechanical

ventilation system usage, outdoor air ventilation rates, sources and concentrations of

indoor air contaminan ts

, and occupant perceptions.

This project had the following six specific study objectives:

1. Determine how residents use wind ows, doors, and mechanical ventilation devices

such as exhaust fans and central heating and air

‐ conditioning systems.

2. Measure and characterize indoor air quality (IAQ), ventilation, and the potential

sources of indoor pollutants.

3. Determine occupant perceptions of, and sa tisfaction with, the IAQ in the ir homes.

4. Examine the relationships among home ventilation characteristics, measured and

perceived IAQ, and house and household characteristics.

5. Identify the incentives and barriers that influence people’s use of wind ows, doors,

and mecha nical ventilation devices for adequate air exchange.

6. Identify the incentives and barriers related to people’s purchases and pra ctices that

improve IAQ, such as the use of low

‐ emitting building materials and improved air

filters.

### 207 This study provides, for the first time, statewide, accurate and current information on both

ventilation and IAQ in new California homes. Indoor air quality and household ventilation

practices were obtained from multiple seasons and regions of the state, which will help

characterize the full range of indoor air contaminant exposure in such homes. Measured

levels of ventilation and IAQ were compared to current guidelines and standards.

Information on the use of windows, fans, and cen t ral systems collected in this field study

will help establish realistic values for developing state standards for building energy

efficiency.

The Energy Commission may use the study results as a scientific basis to revise the sta te’s

building energy efficiency standards in order to provide more healthful, energy

‐ efficient

homes in California. The study results will improve AR B’s ability to identify current

sources of indoor air contaminants, to assess Californians current exposure to measured

toxic air contaminants, and to recommend ef fective strategies for reducing indoor air

pollution.



## 4.2 Conclusions

Objective 1. Determine how residents use windows, doors, and mechanical ventilation

devices, such as exhaust fans and central heating and air

‐ conditioning systems.

This study’s field measurements consisted of measurements during both the 24

‐ hour Test

Day and the preceding week. Generally, the results of measurements during the 24

‐ hour

Test Day reflected the average observed during the preceding week.

Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilation

. According to the UCB mail survey

preceding this field study, many homeowners never open their windows or doors for

ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns.

In this field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24

‐ hour Test

Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.

Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus

, a

substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter

season.

Occupant Use of Mechanical Ex haust Air Systems

. A total of 78% of the homes during the

24

‐ hour Test Day, and 15% during the entire preceding week, never used the kitchen

exhaust fan. A total of 47% never used the bathroom fans during the 24

‐ hour Test Day and

27% never used the fans during the entire preceding week. Thus, very few homeowners

utilize their kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans.

Occupant Use of Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems

. For the two types of mechanical

outdoor air systems encountered in the field study—ducted outdoor air (DOA) systems

and heat recovery ventilator systems (HRV)—the median Test Day usage was 2.5 hours for

### 208 the DOA systems (n=14) and 24 hours for HRV systems (n=8). These data indicate that the

DOA systems, which typically are operated intermittently and in conjunction with the

operation of the FAU fan, operate for only a small portion of the day, while the HRV

systems are typically operated continuously. To ensure adequate delivery of outdoor air to

the home, DOA systems should have a fan cycler, so that even if the thermostat fan switch

does not operate the FAU fan, the fan is operated for a minimum percentage of time. Few

of the homes in this study with operational DOA systems had fan cyclers; just 4 of the 14

homes. Three of these four homes met the 2008 Building Energy Eff i ciency Standards

operational time requirements for intermittently operated residential outdoor air

mechanical ventilation systems. The 10 operational DOA systems, which do not have fan

cyclers and were operated by the thermostat fan switch in the “auto” mode, do not meet

the 2 008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards operational time requirements.

It is important to note that while the thermostat fa n switch could be set to the “on”

position, and thus overcome the low operational times of some of these DOA systems, this

would not be a very energy

‐ efficient means of providing outdoor air to the home. The FAU

fan system is a large fan designed to provide the large supply airflow rates required for

heating or cooling the air in the home and operating the FAU fan continuously would be a

large and costl y consumption of electric ity. The flow rates of outdoor air required for

ventilating homes is just a fraction (e.g., 5%–10%) of the total supply airflow rate delivered

by the FAU fan. Thus, to ensure adequate and energy efficient delivery of outdoor air to

the home, DOA systems should include a fan cycler with fan cycle times and outdoor

airflow rates set to provide sufficient outdoor air ventilation.

Occupant Use of Mechanical Nighttime Cooling Systems

. For the two types of nighttime

cooling systems encountered in the field study—whole house fan (WHF) systems and FAU

Return Air Damper (RAD) systems—the median Test Day usage was 0.7 hours for WHF

systems and 5.3 hours for RAD systems. Use of these systems is confined primarily to the

summer months. Thus, the nighttime cooling systems were operated for relatively few

hours each day, with the RAD systems having longer operating times.

Occupant Use of Forced Ai r Unit (FAU) Systems. The median Test Day usage for FAUs

was 1.1 hours. A total of 32% of the homes had zero usage of the FAU during the 24

‐ hour

Test Day, and 11% had zero usage during the entire preceding week. Thus, the FAU

systems were operated for relatively few hours each day. As discussed above, this low

operational time of the FAU fan limits the capability of DOA systems, which depend upon

the operation of the FAU fan to deliver the required outdoor air.

Objective 2. Measure and characterize indoor air quality, ventilation, and the potential

sources of indoor pollutants.

### 209 Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage

. A total of 86% of the homes had duct

leakage exceeding the California Title 24 maximum of 6%. Thus, new homes in California

have relatively leaky ducts.

Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area

. The median ACH 50 for the homes in this study

was 4.8 ach, which compares to a median of 5.2 ach for a group of homes built since 1992,

and 8.6 ach for a group of homes built before 1987. Thus, new Californian homes are

generally being built tighter, but not exceptionally tight, as are found in colder climate

regions.

Home

‐ to

‐ Garage Air Leakage

. A total of 65% of the homes did not meet the American

Lung Association guideline for a home

‐ to

‐ garage negative pressure of at least

‐ 49 pascals

(Pa) when the home is depressurized to

‐ 50 Pa with respect to the outdoors. In the three

‐

home Pilot Study, tracer gas measurements indicated that between 4% and 11% of the

garage sources entered the home. Thus, a substantial amount of air from attached garages,

which often contain air contaminant sources such as vehicle fuel, exhaust fumes, gasoline

‐ powered lawn equipment, solvent s, oils, paints, and pesticides can enter the indoor air of

the home.

Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Ai rflow Rates. A total of 64% of DOA systems failed to

meet the requirements of the Energy Commission’s new 2008 Building Energy Efficiency

Standards. The very low outdoor air exchange rates for the DOA systems are a result of the

combination of low outdoor airflow rates and short operating times. HRV systems

performed much better. None of the HRV systems failed to meet the new 2008 Building

Energy Efficiency Standards. These results show that, as encounte re d in this field study,

HRV systems are a more effective outdoor air supply strategy than the DOA systems.

Intermittent mechanical outdoor air systems, such as DOA systems, cannot pe rform

equivalently to continuous systems such as HRV systems with respect to contr o lling the

short

‐ term exposures to indoor air contaminants, especially if the cycle times are long (e.g.,

greater than two hours). The 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were

adopted after this study was completed, require a minimum operation time of one hour

every 12 hours. During extended outdoor air ventilation off

‐ times, intermittent ventilation

systems allow for air contaminants with indoor sources to increase substantially, as

compared to the increases that would occur with a continuous ventilation system. For

some indoor air contaminants, such as those that cause irritation and/or odor, the effects

are initiated by the immediate exposure to the in door concentration rather than prolonged

exposure to a concentration over a period of time. For such compounds, intermittent

ventilation systems may not be sufficient for reducing indoor concentrations to acceptable

levels.

Provided that DOA systems are equipped with fan cyclers with fan cycle times and

outdoor airflow rates set to provide the requi r ed outdoor air ventilation, there is no reason

### 210 that these systems cannot perform equivalently to continuous systems, such as HRV

systems, with respect to controlling the long

‐ term exposures to indoor air contaminants.

However, as noted above, intermittent mechanical outdoor air systems, such as DOA

systems, cannot perform equivalently to continuous systems such as HRV systems with

respect to controlling the short

‐ term exposures to indoor air contaminants.

In addition, the increased outdoor air ventilation for intermittent ventilation systems, as

required by the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and adopted from AS HR AE

62.2

‐ 2007, does not always provide equivalent long

‐ term average indoor concentrations,

especially for systems with long cy cle times (e.g., 12 hours). The long

‐ term average air

contaminant concentrations can be substantially higher (e.g., 30%), which is important for

health effects such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. The recent ASHRAE 62.2 2008

Addendum b, which has not been adopted by the California Building Energy Efficiency

Standards, further reduces the outdoor air ventilation rates for intermittent residential

mechanical systems, which translates into higher exposures to indoor air contaminants.

Tracer Gas Measurements of Home Outdoor Air Exchange Rates

. The median 24

‐ hour

measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes

had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum CBC code requirement of 0.35 ach.

Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people

never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange

rates. The median two

‐ week measurement of outdoor air exchange rates was generally

close to the 24

‐ hour median value.

Indoor Air Contaminant Concentrations

. This study measured the 24

‐ hour average

concentration of 22 individual volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde, and the 1

‐ hour and 8

‐ hour maximum average carbon monoxide

concentrations. Also measured were the 24

‐ hour average concentration of PM 2.5 particulate

matter and nitrogen dioxide in the 29 homes of the Winter

‐ North field session. The only

indoor air contaminants that exceeded recommended non

‐ cancer and non

‐ reproductive

toxicity guidelines were formaldehyde and PM 2.5

. For formaldehyde, 98% of the homes

exceeded the Chronic and 8

‐ hour RELs of 9 μ g/m 3

, 59% exceeded the ARB indoor air

guideline of 33 μ g/m 3

, and 28% exceeded the OEHHA Acute REL of 55 μ g/m 3

. For PM 2.5

, only one home, with an indoor concentration of 36 μ g/m 3

, exceeded the EPA PM 2.5 24

‐ hour

ambient air quality standard of 35 μ g/m 3

. Thus, most new homes had indoor

concentrations of formaldehyde that exceeded recommended guidelines

Volatile Organic Compound Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels

. For each of the seven

volatile organic compounds with NSRLs for cancer, there were some homes that exceeded

the indoor NSRL concentration. For formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, the percentage of

homes exceeding the NSRL concentration were 100% and 92% respectively.

### 211 For the five other VOCs, the percentage of homes exceeding the NSRL concentration

ranged from 8% for trichloromethane (chloroform) and tetrachloroethene to 63% for

benzene. For the two volatile organic compounds with MADLs for reproductive toxicity,

only the benzene MADL was exceeded. A total of 20% of the homes had indoor benzene

concentrations that exceeded the calculated indoor MADL concentration. Thus, a

substantial percentage of new homes have indoor concentrations that exceed

recommended guidelines for cancer and/or reproductive toxicity.

Potential Sources of Indoor Ai r Contaminants

. The primary source of the indoor

concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, which were the two air contaminants

that most frequently exceed recommended guidelines, is believed to be composite wood

products. While this study was not able to determine the extent to which

formaldehyde

‐ based resins were used in the composite wood ident ified in the homes,

formaldehyde

‐ based resins are the most common resins used in the production of

composite wood products. The composite wood identified in these hom es includ e

particleboard that was used in 99% of the kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, as well as many

pieces of furniture. Other sources of composite wood incl ude plywood and oriented strand

board in walls, subfloors, and attics, and medium density fiberboard in baseboards,

window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

While composite wood products are believed to be the major indoor source of both

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, other indoor sources of both formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde include combustion sources (e.g., tobacco smoking, cooking fireplaces,

woodstoves), cellulose

‐ based products such as acoustic cei ling tiles, and paints. Additional

sources of formaldehyde include permanent

‐ pressed fabrics and insulation made with urea

formaldehyde resins.

In the few measurements that were made in this study of the emission rates of

formaldehyde from FAUs, it does appear that in the summ er, when attic temperatures can

become elevated, that the FAU can transport formaldehyde into the home from either

emissions of formaldehyde from fiberglass soundliner directly into the FAU airs t ream or

from leakage of attic air with elevated formaldehyde concentrations into the return air of

the FAU.

Potential sources of some VOCs were identified for homes with elevated indoor VOC

concentrations. The following potential sources of indoor air contaminants are suggested

from a comparison of the occupant activity logs and house characteristics with the indoor

contaminant concentrations an d emission rates; 1,4

‐ dichlorobenzene an d naphthalene from

mothballs, d

‐ limonene from furniture polish and cleaning chemicals, 2

‐ butoxyethanol from

anti

‐ bacterial wipes, toluene from air fresheners, and t e trachloroethene from dry

‐ cleaned

clothes or drapes.

### 212 Objective 3. Determine occupant perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the IAQ in their

homes.

A total of 28% of the households reported experiencing one or more of nine physical

symptoms during the previous three weeks that they did not experience when they were

away from the home. The three most frequently reported symptoms were nose/sinus

congestion (19%), allergy symptoms (15%), and headache (13%). The three most frequently

reported thermal comfort perceptions were “too cold” (19%), “too hot” (15%), and “too

stagnant (not enough air movement)” (12%).Thus, a substantial percentage of occupants in

new homes report experiencing physical symptoms or thermal discomfort.

The most frequently reported location where th e homeowners reported mold or mildew

was the bathroom, which was reported by 13% of the homeowners. The percentage of

homeowners reporting mold or mildew at other locations ranged from 0.9 % and 2.8%.

Objective 4. Examine the relationships among home ventilation characteristics, measured

and perceived IAQ, and house and household characteristics.

Because of the low number of homeowners reporting IAQ related perceptions and

observations, there are insufficient data to prepare statistically meaningful correlations

with home and IAQ characteristics.

Statistical comparisons were conducted for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations, outdoor air exchanges rates, an d window usage. Formaldehyde and

acetaldehyd e were selected for these analyses, as these were the two air contaminants that

most frequently exceeded recommended indoor concentration guidelines. The group

comparisons consisted of homes in the north versus south regions, homes in summer

versus winter seasons, and home s without mechanical outdoor air systems versus homes

with either pure DOA or pure HR V outdoor air ventilation systems. Because of the small

number of homes in the sample groups and the important seasonal and house

‐ specific

differences, these comparisons should only be considered as suggestive of differences.

Multivariate analyses need to be conducted to further establish any differences between

the groups.

Formaldehyde concentrations were found to be significantly higher in the following group

comparisons:

• Non

‐ mechanically ventilated North homes higher than South homes

• DOA homes higher than homes without mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems

• DOA homes higher than HRV homes

Acetaldehyde concentrations were found to be significantly higher in the followin g group

comparisons:

### 213 • DOA homes higher than homes without mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems

• DOA homes higher than HRV homes

Window usage was found to be significantly higher in the following group comparisons:

• Summer homes higher than winter homes

Outdoor air exchange rates were found to be significantly higher in the following group

comparisons:

• HRV homes higher than homes without mechanical outdoor air ventilati on systems

• HRV homes higher than DOA homes

While the DOA homes generally had lower outdoor air exchange rates, and therefore

higher indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations, as note d above, the poor

performance of the DOA systems is a result of a lack of cont rols (e.g., fan cyclers) to ensure

adequate fractional on

‐ time of the FAU fan and a lack of proper sizing and balancing of the

outdoor air duct to ensure sufficie n t outdoor airflow rate into the system when the FAU

fan was operated.

Correlation analyses were also prepared for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

concentrations with six home characteristics and four environmental conditions. For both

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations, the outdoor air exchange rate was

determined to have a significant inverse correlation. For formaldehyde concentrations,

indoor air temperature was determined to have a signif icant correlation. These results

indicate that as outdoor air exchange rates decrease or the indoo r temperate increases, th e

indoor concentrations of formaldehyde increase.

An unexpected result was that there was a negative correlation for composite wood

loading and acetaldehyde indoor concentrations and no significant correlation for

composite wood loading and formaldehyde indoor concentrations, despite the knowledge

that composite wood is an indoor emitter of both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. This

may be the result of incompleteness of the recovery of this variable in the field from the

visib l e inspection by the field team. Composite wood could not always be accurately

identified because of coverings by laminate or paint. In addition, the inspectors only

estimated th e square footage of composite wood from furniture and cabinetry. Other

substantial amounts of composite wood loadi n g that are common in many of these homes,

but are difficult to quantify in the limited time available to the inspectors, include plywood

and oriented strand board in walls, subfloors, and attics, and medium density fiberboard

in baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. Also, the

inspectors estimated the areas of composite wood without separately distinguishing those

areas that were exposed and tho se areas that were covered with laminate.

### 214 The variance introduced by the impact of outdoor air exchange rates upon the indoor

concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde may also be contributing to the lack of

an observed significant positive correlation between composite wood loading and the

indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

Our multi

‐ day measurements in four homes indicated a modes t variation in the outdoor

air exchange rates (i.e., an average relative standard deviation of 0.19) and indoor air

contaminant concentrations (i.e., an average relative standard deviation of 0.34). Our multi

‐

season measurements in four homes indicated a substantially larger variation in the

outdoor air exchange rates (i.e., an avera ge relative standard deviation of 0.67, which is 3.5

times higher than the multi

‐ day variation) and indoor air contaminant concentrations (i.e.,

an average rel a tive standard deviation of 0.60, which is 1.8 times higher than the multi

‐ day

variation).

Thus, the larger variations in the indoor air contaminant concentrations in the multi

‐ season

homes appears to be the combination of larger variations in the outdoor air exchange rates

and the indoor air contaminant emission rates.

Objective 5. Identify the incentives and barriers that influence people’s use of windows,

doors, and mechanical ventilation devices for adequate air exchange.

Of the hom e owners with mechanical outdoor air systems (i.e., DOA or HRV systems, not

nighttime cooling systems, evaporative cooling systems, or window fans):

• 78% stated that the op eration of the system was explained to them when they

bought or moved into the house

• 63% responded that they understood how the sys tem works

• 83% stated that they felt that they understood how to operate the system properly

A total of 91% stated they chose the system because it came with the house and the things

they liked most about the system were: “Fresh air” (52%), “Quiet” (48%), and “Reduced

concern about indoor air quality” (26%). The things they liked least about the system were:

“Not effective” (32%), ”Too drafty” (26%), and “Too noisy” (26%).

Objective 6. Identify the incentives and barriers related to people’s purchases and practices

that improve IAQ, such as the use of low

‐ emitting building materials and improved air

filters.

A total of 24% of the 105 respondents stated “none” in response to the question “What

special measures or choices have you or the buil der taken to improve the quality of the air

### 215 in your home?”. The four most frequent responses to improvements undertaken were:

“Hard flooring instead of carpeting” (33%), “Carbon monoxide alarm” (28%), “High

efficiency vacuum cleaner with special features such as filters to trap more particles” (27%),

and “Upgrade my central air filter” (25%).

The following summarizes the main conclusions from this study of new single family

homes built in California between 2002–2004.

1. Many homeowners never open their windows or doors especially in the winter

months.

2. New homes in California are built re latively tight, such that natural air infiltration

rates through the building envelope can be very low (e.g., 0. 1 ach).

3. In new homes with low outdoor air exchange rates, indoor concentrations of air

contaminants with indoor sources, such as formaldehyde and some other volatile

organic comp ounds, can become substantially elevated and exceed recommended

exposure guidelines.

4. DOA mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems generally did not perform well as

a result of the low outdo or airflow rates and short operating times. A total of 64% of

DOA systems failed to meet the ASHRAE 62.2

‐ 2007 guideline for residential

ventilation, which is referenced in the Energy Commission’s new 2008 Building

Energy Efficiency Standards.

5. HRV mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems performed much better than DOA

systems

. All of HRV systems met the Energy Commission’s new 2008 Buildin g

Energy Efficiency Standards



## 4.3 Recommendations

The research team recommends the following, based on the study results:

1. Consideration should be given to installing mechanical outdoor air ventilation

systems in new single

‐ family residences to provide a dependable and continuous

supply of outdoor air to the residence for the purpose of controlling indoor sources

of air contaminants. The reason for this recommendation is that new homes are

built relatively tight, and many people do not use their windows for outdoor

ventilation, which results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates an d

elevated concentrations of contaminants with indoor sources. To this end, the

Energy Commission adopted the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which

will requi re all new low

‐ rise residential buildings to have a mechanical outdoor air

ventilation system.

### 216 2. Consideration should be given to regulating the emissions of air contaminants from

building materials. The Air Resources Board approved a regulation in 2007 to limit

formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, “Airborne Toxic Control

Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products,”

which was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on April 18, 2008, with

an implementation date of January 1, 2009.

3. Given the relatively high frequency that indoor formaldehyde concentrations

exceeded recommended exposure guidelines, and the fact that formaldehyde is a

known hu man carcinogen, consideration should be given to conducting studies

focused on quantifying the emission rates of formaldehyde from all potential

indoor sources (e.g., bui lding materials, furnishings, consumer products) and based

on this research, developing regulations to reduce indoor formaldehyde emissions.

4. Outreach to public and professional groups should be increased regarding the need

to reduce indoor formaldehyde concentrations in existing homes by sealing

exposed composite wo od surfaces, selecting low

‐ emission furniture, improving

outdoor air ventilation in the home, and controlling indoor humidity.

5. Multivariate analyses of the data collected in this study should be conducted to

further develop the understanding of the relationships between i ndoor air

contaminant concentrations (e.g., homes with unusually high or low

concentrations), indoor sources, ve ntilation, season, and other major sources of

variance. The analyses conducted as part of this report were bivariate analyses,

which established statistical associations but not necessarily caus e

‐ and

‐ effect

relations, as other factors may be found to be equally or more important when

analyzed together in multivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses of indoor

contaminant concentrations are needed in order to adjust the preliminary estimate s

from this st udy by accounting for home volume, outdoor air exchange rate, and

other major sources of variance. Additional sources of indoor formaldehyde

emissions should be considered, such as the presence of new furniture, duct

leakage for potential attic sources, gas stove or fireplace usage, and the presence of

alkenes in the outdoor ozone season.

6. Construction of a stat e wide population

‐ weighted exposure assessment from the

data collected in this field study should be performed to better understand the air

contaminant source and ventilation characteristics of new h omes. While the UCB

mail survey sample, upon which this study’s sample selection was largely but not

entirely based, was a stratified random sample, the results in this stud y have not

been weighted to adjust for that stratification or other selection factors.

### 217 7. Additional studies of indoor air quality and ventilation with diurnal wind speed

and temperature swings should be conducted to examine the significance of

nighttime cooling by natural or mechanical means.

8. Further studies in additional homes with mechanical outdoor air ventilation

systems should be conducted to confirm the findings identified in this study and

with consideration for other building factors. Both installation and field

performance of the mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems should be

evaluated.

9. Consideration should be given to revising the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency

Standards and the companion Residential Compliance Manual, which refer to

ASHRAE Standard 62.2

‐ 200 7, to fix the error in the tabulated ventilation

effectiveness values for mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems with

intermittent fan operation. The ventilation eff ectiveness values currently do not

provide intermittent ventilation systems enough additional ventilation to provide

long

‐ term average concentrations of air contaminants with indoor sources that are

equivalent to those for constant ventilation systems. In addition, consider reducing

the maximum cycle time of intermittent ventilation systems from the current

12

‐ hour maximum to 1

– 2 hours so that the short

‐ term exposures to air

contaminants with indoor sources are not substantially higher than those with

constant ventilation systems.

10. Research sh ould be conducted on exhaust

‐ only ventilation systems, which were not

encountered in this study. These systems are rel atively low in cost and likely to be

used in many homes to meet the new 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards

requirements in California. However, exhaust

‐ only systems may not provide good

distribution of the outdoor air and may increase the infiltration of some air

contaminants as a result of depressurization of the air in the home

.

11. Home bu ilders should be educated about the importance of conveying to

homeowners the need for outdoor air ventilation in homes and how the ventilation

systems operate, as well as the importance of designing systems that are easy for

homeowners to maintain. In addition, consideration should be given to creating an

easy

‐ to

‐ read short fact sheet that can be distributed to the public regarding

residential ventilation systems and the importance of the operation and

maintena nce of these systems to indoor air quality.



### 12. Research should be conducted to investigate residential exposures to ozone

‐

initiated reaction products (e.g., formaldehyde and other aldehydes and ultrafine

particles) that are formed when ozone reacts with contaminants, such as

d

‐ limonene, which is emitted by many air freshener and cleaning products as well

as by some orange oil termite treatments. The database for this project contains

### 218 important information for such research, including d

‐ limonene concentrations,

outdoor air exchange rates, air cleaners that generate ozone, and formaldehyde and

other aldehyde concentrations.



## 4.4 Benefits to California

This was the first large field study of window use, outdoor air ventilation rates, and indoor

air contaminants in new California homes. The data from this study were immediately

useful for the California Energy Commission in guiding the development of building

design standards that protect indoor air quality and comfort in California homes, and for

the California Air Resources Board to impro v e exposure assessments of indoor and

outdoor air contaminants. In particular, the Energy Commission used the study results as a

scientific basis to revise the state’s building energy efficiency standards in order to provide

more healthful, energy

‐ efficient homes in California. The study results will also improve

ARB’s ability to identify current sources of indoor air contaminants, to assess Californians

current exposure to measu r ed toxic air contaminants, and to recommend effective

strategies for reducing indoor air pollution.

### 219

### 220 

## 5.0 References

American Lung Association. 2006. American Lung Association Health House Builder

Guidelines. St. Paul, Minnesota. Available at: www.healthhouse.org/build/2007

‐ 2008HHbuilderguidelines.pdf

.

ASHRAE. 2004a. ASHRAE Standard 62.2

‐ 2004, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air

Quality in Low

‐ Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta, Georgia: American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2004b. ASHRAE Standard 62.1

‐ 2004, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air

Quality. Atlanta, Georgia: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASH RAE. 2005. 2005 ASHRAE Handbook

– Fundamentals, Chapter 27. Atlanta, Georgia:

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASH RAE. 2007. ASHRAE Standard 62.2

‐ 2007, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air

Quality in Low

‐ Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta, Georgia: American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Con ditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2008. ASHRAE Standard 62.2

‐ 2008, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air

Quality in Low

‐ Rise Resi dential Buildings

‐ Addenda a, b, c, and k. Atlanta,

Georgia: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Conditioning

Engineers, Inc.

ASTM. 2000. ASTM Standard E 741

‐ 00, Standard Test Method for Determining Air Chang e

in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution. West Conshohocken: American

Society for Testing and Materials Standards.

AST M

. 2002. ASTM Standard E 104, Standard Practice for Maintaining Constant Relative

Humidity by Means of Aqueous Solutions. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania:

American Society for Testing and Materials Standards.

AST M. 2003a. ASTM Standard E 1554

‐ 03, Standard Test Methods for Determining External

Air Leakage of Air Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization. West

Conshohock en, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials

Standards.

ASTM. 2003b. ASTM Standard E 779

‐ 03, Standard Test Method for Determining Air

Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American

Society for Testing and Materials Standards.

### 221 ASTM. 2003c. ASTM Standard D 5197

‐ 03, Standard Test Method for Determination of

Formaldehyde and Other Carbonyl Compounds in Air (Active Sampler

Methodology). West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing

and Materials Standards.

Batterman, S., G. Hatzivasilis, and J. Chunrong. 2005. “Concentrations and Emissions of

Gasoline and Other Vapors from Residential Vehic le Garages.” Atmospheric

Environment 11:1828–1844.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Report to the California Legislature: Indoor Air Pollution

in California. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California.

Available at www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/ab1173/ab1173.htm

.

California Air Resources Board. 2007a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California. Available at

www.arb.ca.gov/research/ aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm

.

California Air Resources Board. 2007b. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Proposed

Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood

Products, March 9, 2007. Stationary Source Division, Air Quality Measures Branch,

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California.

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/isor.pdf

.

California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1,

Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:

2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission.

Sacramento, California.

California Code of Regulations. 2008. Title 17, § 93120 to 93120.12: Airborne Toxic Control

Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products.

Sacramento, California. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm

.

California Energy Commission. 2001a. Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of

Regulations: 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential

Buildings. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

California Energy Commission. 2001b. Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of

Regulations: Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual for the 2001

Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.

California Energy Commission, Sacramento, Ca lifornia.

### 222 California Energy Commission. 2008a. Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of

Regulations: 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential

Buildings. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

California Energy Commission. 2008b. Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of

Regulations: 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential

Buildings. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, Calif ornia.

Chan, W. R., P. N. Price, M. D. Sohn, and A. J. Gadgil. 2003. Analysis of U.S. Residential Air

Leakage Database. Indoor Environment Department, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, Report LBNL

‐ 53367, Berkeley, California. Available at:

http://eetd.l b l.gov/ied/pdf/LBNL

‐ 53367.pdf

.

Davis, C. I. 2004. HVAC System Off

‐ Gassing at Elevated Temperatures in Residential

Houses. Regal Air Quality, Inc., 4732 E. Carob Drive, Gilbert, Arizona, 85297.

August 21.

Devine, J, R. Kunkle, and M. Lubliner. 1999. Washington State Residential Ventilation and

Indoor Air Quality Code Whole House Ventilation Systems Research Report. Washington

State Univer sity Extension Energy Program, Report WSUEEP99

‐ 003, Olympia,

Washington. Available at:

www.energ y.wsu.edu/documents /code/VIAQfinal_reportF.pdf

.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Compendium of Methods for the

Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air. Washington, D.C.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Washington, D.C. Available at: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Compendium Method TO

‐ 15. Washington,

D.C. www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to

‐ 15r.pdf.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. PM Standards Revision

‐ 2006. Washington,

D.C. Available at: www.epa.gov/oar/particlep ollution/naaqsrev2006.html

.

Hodgson, A. T., A. F Rudd, D. Beal, and S. Chandra. 2000. “Volatile Organic Compound

Concentrations and Emission Rates in New Manufactured and Site

‐ Built Houses.”

Indoor Air 3:178–192.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, and J. E. R. McIlvaine. 2002. “Sources of Formaldehyde, Other

Aldehydes and Terpenes in a New M anufactured House.” Indoor Air 12:235–242.

### 223 Hodgson, A. T., and H. Levin. 2003. Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Air: A review of

Concentrations Measured Since 1990. Indoor Environment Department, Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory. Report LBNL

‐ 51715. Berkeley, California.

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2004. IARC Classifies Formaldehyde

as Carcinogenic to Humans. Available at:



### www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2004/pr153.html

.

Nielson, G. D., L. F. Hansen, and P. Wolkoff. 1997. “Chemical and Biological Evaluation of

Building Material Emissions. II. Approaches for Setting Indoor Air Standards or

Guidelines for Chemicals.” Indoor Air 7:17–32.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1994a. Method 6014

‐ Nitric

Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 4th

Edition, Cincinnati, Ohio.

NIOSH (National Instit ute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1994b. Method 0500

‐

Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated, Total. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods

(NMAM), 4th Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2000. All Acute Reference

Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of May 2000

.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2003. All Chronic

Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of August 2003.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2008a. Proposition 65 Safe

Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum

Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproducti ve Toxicity. Available at:

www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/Feb2008StatusReport.pdf

.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2008b. All OEHHA Acute,

8

‐ hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (chRELs) Adopted by OEHHA as in

December 18, 2008. Available at: www.oehha.org/air/allrels.html

.

Phillips, T. J., E. J. Mulberg, and P. L. Jenkins. 1990. Activity Patterns of California Adults

and Adolescents: Appliance Use, Ventilation Practices, and Building Occupancy.

Environment, Vol. 4, 00 187–196, American Council for and Energy

‐ Efficient

Economy, Washington, D.C.

Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 20 07. Study of

Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. California

### 224 Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC

‐ 500

‐ 2007

‐ 033. Final Report, ARB Contract

03

‐ 326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03

‐ 326.pdf

.

Piazza, T., J. Hayes, and R. H. Lee. 2007. Survey of the Use of Ozone

‐ generating Air

Cleaners by the California Public. California Air Resources Board, Contract 05

‐ 301,

Sacramento, California. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/05

‐ 301.pdf

.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. Building America Program, Building Technologies

Program. Available at: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america

.

Wilson, A. L., and J. Bell. 2003. Infiltration, Blower Door and Air Exchange Measurements

in New California Homes. IAQ Problems and Engineering Solutions Specialty

Conference, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. AWMA. July 21, 2003.

### 225

### 226 

## 6.0 Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

A floor 

### Floor Area

ACH Air Changes per Hour

ACH 50 

### Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals

ALA American Lung Association

APT Automated Pressure Testing

ARB California Air Resources Board

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Re frigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure

C i 

### Indoor Concentration

C i-pdch 

### Concentration of PDCH garage tracer in the home Indoor air

C

o 

### Outdoor Concentration

C

ra 

### Concentration in the FAU Return Air at the return air inlet

C

sa 

### Concentration in the FAU Supply Air at the supply air diffuser

CATS Capillary Adsorption Tube Sampler

CBC California Building Code

CFI Central Fan Integrated mechanic al ventilation system (same as DOA)

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO 2 

### Carbon Dioxide

DNPH Dinitrophenylhydrazine

DOA Ducted Outdoor Air mechanical ventilation system (same as CFI)

DOE Department of Energy

E Emission Rate

E fau 

### Emission rate from the FAU

E g-pdch 

### emission of PDCH garage tracer into garage

E h/g 

### Percentage of Garage Emissions entering Home

E home 

### Emission rate into the home

E

v 

### Emission rate into home-volume specific

EC Evaporative Cooling mech anical ventilation system

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EqLA Equivalent Leakage Area

FAU Forced Air Unit

HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter

HRV Heat Recovery Ventilator mechanical ventilation system

HVAC Heating, Ventilati ng, and Air Conditioning

HWPW Hardwood Plywood

IAQ Indoor Air Quality

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

### 227 K-S Kolmogorov-Smirnov

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory

MADL Maximum Allowable Dose Levels

MDF Medium Density Fiberboard

MDL Method Detection Limit

MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value

MMDL Method Mass Detection Limit

MADL Maximum Allowable Dose Levels

MVDL Method Volume Detection Limit

N br 

### Number of Bedrooms

NDIR Non-Dispersive Infr ared Spectrophotometry

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and technology

NSRL No Significant Risk Levels

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OSB Oriented Strand Board

Pa Pascals

PB Particleboard

PFT Perfluorocarbon Tracer

PIER Public Interest Energy Research

PM 2.5 

### Particulate Matter Less Th an 2.5 μm Aerodynamic Diameter

p-PDCH para-Perfluo rodimethylcyclohexane

PMCH Perfluoromethylcyclohexane

PPB Parts per Million by volume

PPM Parts per Billion by volume

Q f 

### Required intermittent mechanical outdoor airflow rate

Q fau 

### Airflow rate of the FAU

Q

r 

### Required continuous mechanical outdoor airflow rate

QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plan

RD&D Research, Development, and Demonstration

RAD Return Air Damper nighttim e cooling ventilation system

REL Reference Exposure Level

SIP Structural Insulated Panels

SLA Specific Leakage Area

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

UCB University of California at Berkeley

V Volume of indoor air

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WDF Window Fan

WHF Whole House Fan nighttime cooling ventilation system

### 228 

## ε Ventilation effectiveness factor for intermittent ventilation

f 

### Fractional on-time of intermittent ventilation system

λ

pft 

### Outdoor air exchange rate determined from PFT measurement

### 229

### A-i 

## APPENDIX A

Pilot Study Report

### A-ii

### A-iii 

# VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY

IN NEW HOMES

PILOT STUDY REPORT

Submitted in Response to

California Air Resources Bo ard Research Division

Agreement #04-310

Submitted by :

Indoor Environmental Engineering

1448 Pine Street, Suite 103

San Francisco, CA 94109

April 12, 2006

Principal Investigator

Francis J. Offermann III PE CIH

President

Indoor Environmental Engineering

San Francisco, CA

Phone: 415-567-7700

Fax: 415-567-7763

### A-iv Legal Notice

This report was prepared as a re sult of work sponsored by the Air Resources Board (ARB) and the

California Energy Commission (Commission, Energy Comm ission). It does not nece ssarily represent the

views of ARB, the Commission, their employees, or th e State of California. The mention of commercial

products, their source, or their use in connection with reported material herein is not to be construed as

actual or implied endorsement of such products. The ARB, the Commi ssion, the State of California, its

employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or imp lied, and assume no legal

liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that th e use of this information

will not infringe upon the privately owned rights. Th is report has not been approved or disapproved by

the ARB or the Commission, nor has the ARB or th e Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy

of this information in this report.

### A-v Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of the field team subcontractors, Davis Energy Associates and

Amaro Construction, for their work. We would also lik e to thank the laboratories: Berkeley Analytical

Associates for volatile organi c compounds, DataChem for nitr ogen dioxide, Brookhaven National

Laboratory for the PFT analyses, and Chester LabNet for PM 2.5 

### . In addition we would like to thank Iain

Walker of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for assisting with the Delta-Q duct leakage analyses

and Collin Olson of the Energy Conservatory for assisting with the garage-home zone pressure

diagnostics.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of ARB Agreement #04-310 by Indoor Environmental

Engineering under the sponsorship of the California Air Resources Board an d the California Energy

Commission.

### A-vi

### A-vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1

HOME SELECTION/RECRUITMENT................................................. 3

FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS.......................................... 4

FIELD WORK TEAMS AND WORK ASSIGNMENTS................................ 5

HOME & SITE CHARACTERISTI CS COLLECTION................................. 5

HOMEOWNER SOURCE ACTIVITY.................................................... 7

HOMEOWNER IAQ/VENTILATION PERCE PTIONS & DECISION FACTORS 7

VENTILATION MEASUREMENTS...................................................... 8

Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilation ........................... 9

Exhaust Fans ........................................................................... 9

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System ................................................ 11

Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Air Flow Rates .................................. 11

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage .............................. 12

Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area ....................................... 12

Home to Garage Air Leakage ....................................................... 13

Tracer Gas Measurements of Ho me Outdoor Air Exchange Rate ............... 13

Tracer Gas Measurements of Garage Air Contaminants Entering the Home .. 14

INDOOR AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS............................................. 15

Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements (24 hour)

• Volatile Organic Compounds........................................................ 17

• Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde................................................... 17

• Nitrogen Dioxide..................................................................... 18

• Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### )........................................................... 18

Real-Time IAQ Measurements

• Carbon Monoxide.................................................................... 18

• Carbon Dioxide...................................................................... 19

• Temperature and Relative Humidity.............................................. 19

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL................................... 20

DATA MANAGEMENT...................................................................... 20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................. 21

### A-viii HOME SELECTION/RECRUITMENT..................................................... 21

HOME & SITE CHARACTERISTI CS COLLECTION................................... 22

HOMEOWNER SOURCE ACTIVITY...................................................... 23

HOMEOWNER IAQ/VENTILATION PERCE PTIONS & DECISION FACTORS 23

VENTILATION MEASUREMENTS........................................................ 23

Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilation ............................ 23

Exhaust Fans ............................................................................ 24

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System ................................................. 25

Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Air Flow Rates .................................... 25

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage ................................ 25

Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area ........................................ 26

Home to Garage Air Leakage ......................................................... 26

Tracer Gas Measurements of Ho me Outdoor Air Exchange Rate ................. 27

Tracer Gas Measurements of Garage Air Contaminants Entering the Home ... 27

Ventilation Calculations ................................................................ 27

INDOOR AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS............................................. 28

Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements (24 hour)

• Volatile Organic Compounds........................................................ 28

• Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde................................................... 29

• Nitrogen Dioxide...................................................................... 30

• Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### )............................................................ 30

Real-Time IAQ Measurements

• Carbon Monoxide..................................................................... 30

• Carbon Dioxide........................................................................ 30

• Temperature and Relative Humidity................................................ 31

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL....................................31

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN THE PILOT STUDY............................. 34

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................. 36

TABLES.......................................................................................... 37

FIGURES........................................................................................ 69

APPENDICES................................................................................ . 82

### A-1 INTRODUCTION

This report contains a descriptio n of the recruiting, field measuremen t methods, laboratory analyses, and

data analyses used in a three-home pilot study whic h was recently conducted as part of the research

project “Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes,” which is sponsored by the California Air

Resources Board and the Ca lifornia Energy Commission.

This study’s primary goal is to obtain information on ventilation characteristic s and indoor air quality

(IAQ) in new single-family detached homes in California through a field study.

Concerns have been raised regarding whether hous eholds in new California homes use windows, doors,

exhaust fans, and other mechanical ventilation devices enough to remove indoor air pollutants and

excess moisture. Various building materials, heating and cooking appliances, and other products used in

new homes can emit substantial amounts of formal dehyde, other toxic air contaminants, combustion

pollutants, and/or water vapor. Build ing practices and building standard s for energy efficiency have led

to more tightly sealed homes that rely on occupants to open windows fo r ventilation. However, there is

very little information on current ventilation pr actices, IAQ, or indoor po llutant sources in new

California homes.

We plan to study 100 new, single-fa mily homes from two climatic re gions of the State, including a

subset of 12 homes with mechanical fresh-air ve ntilation systems. The field teams will measure and

record ventilation character istics, indoor pollut ant concentrations, resident s’ ventilation practices,

residents’ IAQ perceptions, and re sidents’ decision factors for ven tilation and IAQ-related actions.

Measurements of indoor and outdoor air quality and ventilation parameters w ill be made in the summer

and winter. Indoor air le vels of volatile organic compounds, aldehydes, PM 2.5 

### , and nitrogen dioxide will

be measured over one day. Home ventilation will be determined through tracer gas measurements,

building leakage measurements, window use measuremen t, air flow measurements of fan systems, and

occupant diaries. Some homes will have addi tional measurements, including spring or fall

measurements, multiple-day sampling (especially fo r weekday-weekend differences), and formaldehyde

sampling in the attic and heating, ventila ting, and air-conditioni ng (HVAC) systems.

### A-2 This project has the following specific objectives:

1. Determine how residents use windows, doors, a nd mechanical ventilation devices, such as

exhaust fans and central heati ng and air-conditioning systems.

2. Measure and characterize indoor air quality (IAQ), ventilation, and the potential sources of

indoor pollutants.

3. Determine occupant perceptions of, and sa tisfaction with, the IAQ in their homes.

4. Examine the relationships among home ventilati on characteristics, measured and perceived

IAQ, and house and household characteristics.

5. Identify the incentives and barriers that influence people’s use of windows, doors, and

mechanical ventilation devices for adequate air exchange.

6. Identify the incentives and barriers related to people’s purchases and practices that improve

IAQ, such as the use of low-emitting bu ilding materials and improved air filters.

This study will provide, for the first time, repres entative, accurate and current information on both

ventilation and IAQ in new Califor nia homes. IAQ and household ventilation practices will be obtained

from multiple seasons and regions of the State, whic h will help characterize the full range of indoor

pollutant exposure in such homes. Measured levels of ventilation and IAQ will be compared to current

guidelines and standards. Information on the use of windows, fans, and central systems will help

establish realistic values for developing State standards for building energy efficiency.

The Commission will use the study re sults as a scientific basis to revise the State’s building energy

efficiency standards in order to provide more health ful, energy-efficient homes in California. The study

results will improve ARB’s ability to identify current sources of indoor air pollutants, to assess

Californians current exposure to m easured toxic air contaminants, and to recommend effective strategies

for reducing indoor air pollution.

### A-3 Indoor Environmental Engineering was awarded th is project in June 2005 and has completed the

preparations of the equipment, pr otocols, questionnaires, home charac teristics checklists, and detailed

protocols for the field measurements, data management, and quality control.

This report describes the results of the three-home pilot study that was conducted in

November/December 2005. The focus of this report is the presentation and evaluation of the

measurement methods and data analyses. Correlations between house characterist ics and ventilation and

indoor air quality parameters , while not included in this pilot report which contains data from just three

homes, will be an important discussion contained in the final report of the 100-home study. Based upon

the results of the pilot study presen ted in this report, feedback from the field teams, the Science

Advisory Committee, the ARB, and the Commission will be collected and reviewed to refine the field

protocols and data analyses for the main field study.

The main field study is scheduled for the summer of 2006 and the winter of 2007. A final report is

expected in late 2007.

HOME SELECTION/RECRUITMENT

To recruit the three homes for the pilot study we util ized the database from th e UC Berkeley Ventilation

Practices and Indoor Air quality Survey that was administered in 2004

– 

### 2005. This mail survey to 4,972

new single family detached homeowners, resulte d in 1,448 completed questionnaires (i.e., 31.2%

response rate) of which 971 respondents (i.e., 67.1 % of the respondents) indicate d their willingness to

participate in the second part of the study involving measurements of ventilation and indoor air quality

in their homes. In addition to this sample of 971 homeowners we purch ased an additional sample of new

single-family detached homeowners from the neighboring areas.

From this database we mailed out recruitment letters. This letter asks for the homeowners that are still

interested in participatin g in the field study to call the project pa rticipant recruiters at their toll-free

number. This letter also offers a $100 incentive to t hose homeowners that partic ipate in the field study

which is in addition to providing the estimated $7,000 of indoor air qu ality testing free of charge.

### A-4 Upon making contact with th e interested homeowners we administer ed a recruiting scri pt and collected

information on the home, occupancy, and ventilation sy stems and described the de tails of the three field

visits required by the field teams. In addition, if the homeowners we re interested in participating

following the description of the thr ee field visits and answering any of their questions , this script

collected information regarding the participants prefer ences for dates and times of the three field visits.

In addition, three time periods were offered with th e understanding that the same time periods would be

required for each of the three field visits. These were:

Time Period 1: 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Time Period 2: 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Time Period 3: 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM

The homeowners were informed by the recruiters that those that indicat ed flexibility in the field visit

dates and times would have a much hi gher probability of being selected.

Upon completion of the administration of these recruiting scripts to interested homeowners, we then

selected the homes for the field study within the constraints of the field study design, which required

one-half of the homes to be in Northern California climate regions, one-half to be in Southern California

climate regions, and a minimum of 20 homes to have mechanical outdoor air ventilation.

Also, to minimize the number of outdoor air contaminant measuremen t locations, and to provide for

reasonable logistics, the study design for this research project also required te sting clusters of one to

three homes (e.g., within the same zip c ode or within one to two miles).

FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS

The following is a description of the field measurem ents and methods utilized in the three-home pilot

study.

### A-5 FIELD WORK TEAMS AND WORK ASSIGNMENTS

The field work is divided amongst three field teams, each consisting of two field technicians. All field

work will be conducted according to the specific standard operating procedures (SOPs) developed for

each of the three field teams. These SOPs are de tailed in our October 10, 2005, Quality Assurance /

Quality Control Plan (QA/QC Plan).

Field Team 1 will install perfl uorocarbon tracer (PFT) sources, data loggers on windows and fans,

administer the occupant fan and window logs and the Indoor Contaminant Source Activity Sheet and

Occupant Questionnaire one week in advance of th e field work performed by Field teams 2 and 3. The

SOPs for Field Team 1, along with the associated data entry forms and checklists, can be found in

Appendix A of the QA/QC Plan.

Field Team 2 will follow Field Team 1, 7–10 days later to allow for the PFT sources to equilibrate, and

install and start the air contaminan t sampling equipment at indoor and outdoor locations, install and start

the PFT samplers, collect informat ion on home construction characteri stics, and inventory indoor air

contaminant sources. The SOPs for Field Team 2, along with the associated data entry forms and

checklists, can be found in A ppendix B of the QA/QC Plan.

Field Team 3 will follow Field Team 2 (22–26 hours later). This field team is responsible for the

removal of the air sampling equipment, the PFT sa mplers, and window/door and fan logs and loggers,

and collecting detailed information on building air leakage, duct air leak age, and ventilation system air

flow rates. The SOPs for Field Team 3, along with the associated data entry form s and checklists, can be

found in Appendix C of the QA/QC Plan.

HOME AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS COLLECTION

Characteristics of each home were collected using fo rms that were filled out by the field team members

during the home inspections. The forms utilized to reco rd these data are the Home Characteristics Form

1, PFT Form, Home Floor Plan Sketch or floor pl an provided by the homeowner , Home Characteristics

Form 2, and Room Tally Form, which are in the T eam 1 and Team 2 SOPs. A selection of the home

### A-6 characteristics that were recorded have been included in this repor t based upon their relevance to indoor

air quality and ventilation.

General Characteristics

• number of occupants

• number of stories

• foundation type

• conditioned floor area and volume and envelope area

• windows and doors

Mechanical Characteristics

• heating/cooling system - general descri ption, location, filter type, duct locations

• mechanically supplied outdoor air system

• exhaust fans - number and controls

• appliances - fuel type, venting, location

• other ventilation/condit ioning equipment - use and typical usage pattern

• air cleaning devices - m odel number and how used

Site Characteristics

• outdoor air contaminant sources (e.g., busy roadways, nearby gaso line stations, etc.)

• site drainage conditions

• site shielding

Home Contaminant Source Characteristics

• vacuum system - type and typical usage frequency

• number of occupants and pets

• mechanical system fuels

• composite pressed wood

• carpeting

• moisture staining/damage

### A-7 We calculated the conditioned floor area, envelope area, and air volume from on site dimension

measurements. We were able to obt ain floor plans from the developers homeowner packages for each of

the three pilot homes. Field Team 1 collected on-sit e measurements of the home exterior dimensions,

indoor ceiling heights, and select ed indoor wall dimensions. These di mensions were then used to

calculate a scale factor for the floor plans, and th en this scale factor was used to calculate the

conditioned floor areas, enve lope areas and air volumes on a room -by-room basis and for the entire

home.

HOMEOWNER SOURCE ACTIVITY

Homeowner activities potentially rela ted to release of contaminants in to the indoor air were recorded by

the homeowner during the 24-hour IAQ measurement period using a indoor source activity log which

was administered by Team 1 and collected by Team 3. The form utilized to record these data is the

Home Owner Questionnaire, which is in the Team 1 SOP. The homeowner was asked to record the

activity start times, duration, and activity type (e.g., cooki ng, cleaning, candle bur ning, dinner parties,

barbecuing, leaf blowing, grass cutting) starting at 7:00 PM on the day before the 24-hour IAQ

measurements and ending when Team 3 retrieved the forms. This results in up to a 48-hour time period

when the homeowner records their source activities , with the first 12–20 hour s being practice and the

last 28–36 hours being the time period during which th e 24-hour IAQ measurements will be collected.

HOMEOWNER IAQ/VENTILATION PERCE PTIONS AND DECISION FACTORS

Perceptions and decision factors re garding IAQ and ventilation were co llected using a questionnaire that

was administered to the homeowner by Team 1 and co llected by Team 3. The form utilized to record

these data is the Home Owner Questionnaire, whic h is in the Team 1 SOP. The questionnaire was

adapted from the one in the UCB mail survey study. Th is questionnaire collected information regarding

the homeowners’ perceptions activ ities that may effect IAQ in the home and key decision factors

regarding home ventilation and purchasing ventilating equipment, building materials, air cleaners, and

other products and materials that effect IAQ. The requested recall period was three weeks.

### A-8 VENTILATION MEASUREMENTS

The approach for measuring ventilat ion applies a combination of one-t ime tests and weekly monitoring.

Collection methods are summarized in this se ction for the following ventilation parameters:

• windows and doors

• mechanical exhaust fans and appliances

• forced air heating/cooling system

• mechanically supplied outdoor air system

• other ventilation fans

• forced air heating/cooling system duct leakage

• building leakage area

• infiltration parameters

The use of select windows and d oor and operation of mechanical systems were monitored for an

approximate one-week period by occupant logs and/or HOBO data logging instruments. Below are listed

the measurement parameter and corresponding type of log device:

Parameter Device Sampling Frequency

Window/Door Status HOBO, state logger, two most commonly used.

Occupant logs, all that are used. Event, time recorded

Bathroom, Laundry Exhaust

Fan Status HOBO, ac-field logger, up to four most

commonly used. Occupant logs, all others. Event, time recorded

Cloths Drier Status HOBO, vibration or ac-field logger. Event, time recorded

Range Hood Exhaust Fan

Status Occupant log Event, time recorded

HVAC System Fan Status HOBO, ac-field l ogger, each furnace Event, time recorded

Outdoor Air Ventilation

System Status HOBO, motor loggers, System fan status,

outdoor air damper status, or ventilation system

fan status (depending on system type). Event, time recorded

Indoor-Outdoor Temp/RH HOBO, Temp/RH, 1 Indoor Temp/RH at the

thermostat for every home and one outdoor

Temp/RH for every ten house regional group. Quantity, 15 minute

intervals



### The following is a description of the methods used to collect data on each of the ventilation parameters.

### A-9 Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilation . Homeowners were asked to identify the two most

used windows or doors for natural ventilation. HOBO state loggers were taped to these windows (or

doors) to capture the time and duration that the wi ndow or door was opened. The amount of time that

windows were open and the opening ar eas are reported in 24-hour time periods counting back from the

time that Team 3 entered the home and stopped the IAQ contaminant and PFT measurements. The

occupants were asked which windows and doors, if a ny, they use for ventilation. Occupant logs and a

writing utensil were placed on th e glass or panel near where th e window or door was opened The

occupants used these to record the time, durati on, and distance of the window or door opening. The

windows or doors that were verified as never being us ed were not equipped with window occupant logs.

The Window/Door Logs and Instructions Sheets are in the Team 1 SOP.

Measurements of all window and d oor openings were collected by Te am 1. The width and length were

noted by opening each window or door and using a tape measure. The forms utilized to record these data

are the Window/Door Log Form, wh ich is in the Team 1 SOP.

The location, ID and installation/removal times of a ll loggers were recorded in the Logger Form, which

is in the Team 1 SOP.

Exhaust Fans . Data loggers and/or written logs were de ployed for all exhaust fans, including bathroom,

laundry, clothes dryer, and kitchen exhaust fans.

For bathroom exhaust fans, two HOBO ac-field loggers were placed above the exhaust grille and just

beneath the motors on the two bathroom fans th at the occupants identified as used the most

. For these

bathroom exhaust fans with HOBO loggers, no occupant written logs were instal led. The reason for this

was to minimize the effort required by the homeowne rs, a concern that was identified during the home

practice exercise by the beleaguered homeowner. Fo r any additional bathroom exhaust fans beyond the

two exhaust fans equipped with data loggers, occupant logs and a writing utens il were placed near the

fan switch for the occupants to log the usage of the fans.

For clothes dryer exhaust fans, ou r plan was to position the ac-field or electromagnetic field (EMF)

HOBO loggers directly on the power cords of the dryer considering electrical dryer fields should be

### A-10 easily captured. Modified extension chords that allowed the HOBO logge rs to capture th e ac-field by

isolating one of the live wires and taping the logger directly on the wire to be used. Due to difficulty

experienced during the home practice exercise with co mpatibility of the modified extension cords with

the various outlet/plug configurations for clothes dryers, an alternat e method utilizing a vibration HOBO

logger installed on the back of the control panel wa s use for Pilot Homes P1 and P2 and an ac-field

logger applied behind the plate of the appliance outlet, inside the outlet box, was used for Pilot Home

P3.

For kitchen exhaust fans, our original plan was to utilize a HOBO ac-field logger placed above the

exhaust grille and just beneath the motor. However, during the home practice exercise we experienced

difficulty in receiving an EMF signal from the exhaust fan motor. Appa rently, the fan motors for kitchen

exhaust fans are not close enough to the exhaust grille and are shielded by metal partitions to allow for a

strong enough EMF signal to be sensed by the loggers. Also, since kitchen exhaust fans typically have

multiple fan speeds, and since the HOBO ac-field l oggers can only sense operation and not fan speed,

our original plans also included in stallation of an occupant log sheet to log the time, duration, and fan

speed associated with the usage of kitchen exhaust fans. Based upon the above experienced difficulties

with HOBO ac-field loggers for logging kitchen exha ust fan operation, we decided for the pilot study,

and most likely the main field study, to just utilize occupant logs for kitchen fans.

All exhaust fan airflow rates were measured in the home (e.g., bathroom, laundry room, and kitchen

hood fans) using a balometer flow hood. Due to difficulty experienced dur ing the practice home exercise

accessing an acceptable location to measure the dryer exha ust airflow rate, the flow rate was determined

by collecting the dryer make and model information onsite and obtaining the information from the

manufacturer. While onsite th e number of bends (e.g., 90 ° 

### , 45 ° 

### ) and the length of the ductwork were

estimated. The manufacturers airflow rate and duct charact eristics were then used to calculate the actual

dryer airflow rate.

The forms utilized to record these data are the Fa n Logs and Instruction Sheets, Exhaust / Outdoor Air

Fan Log Form, Logger Form, and the Fan Flow Form , which are in the Team 1 and Team 3 SOPs.

### A-11 Forced Air Heating/Cooling System . HOBO ac-field loggers were used to measure forced air

heating/cooling system operation. They were installe d magnetically to the e nd of the furnace blower

motor. The access panel to the furna ce was removed in all cases to reach the optimum spot on the motor

for logging.

Airflow rates were measured at the return grill( s) using a balometer flow hood equipped with a 2 x 4

foot capture hood. One of the homes (i.e., P3) is a single-fan dual-zoned system with two fan speeds.

The flow rate for this system was measured with one thermostat in the ”fan-on” position and again with

both thermostats in the ”fan-on” position.

The forms utilized to record these data are the Logger Form and the Building Ventilation Form, which

are in the Team 1 and Team 3 SOPs.

Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Air Flow Rates . Two types of mechanica lly supplied outdoor air

systems were encountered in the pilot study homes. The two types can be classified as a mechanical

exhaust and supply system with a heat/energy recovery ventilator (HRV) system and a night ventilation

cooling system. The HRV systems in these homes operate continuously, while the night ventilation

cooling systems operate intermittently. Pilot Home P1 had both an HRV and night ventilation system,

Pilot Home P2 only had an HRV system, and Pilot Ho me P3 had no mechanical outdoor air system. The

approach used to measure airflow rates for both types of systems was a balometer flow hood. The HRV

flow rates were measured at the si ngle outdoor air supply air diffuser as well as at the two exhaust air

grilles (e.g., laundry room and master bathroom). The night ventilation co oling system in Pilot Home P1

is integrated with the forced air system. A motorized damper switches the air drawn into the forced air

system between home air (i.e., from the central return air grille) and outdoors air (i.e., from an outdoor

air intake on the roof).

The ventilation damper for the ni ght ventilation cooling system was monitored using a relay and HOBO

state logger combination. We used ma gnetic tape or a zip-tie to secu re the logger with relay to the

damper and fastened lead wires with alligator c lips to the damper 24 VDC motor wiring connections.

The HRVs operate continuously and were not logged with a HOBO logger of occupant log.

### A-12 The forms utilized to record thes e data were the Logger Form, Exhaus t/Outdoor Air Fan Rate Form, and

the Building Ventilation Form, which are in the Team 1 and Team 3 SOPs.

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage . For the pilot study we used two different methods to

measure duct leakage of the forced air system. Testing for both met hods was conducted in accordance

with ASTM E1554-03, Standard Test Method for Determ ining External Air Leakage of Air Distribution

Systems by Fan Pressurization.

The first method uses a fan flow meter device (e.g., DuctBlaster) attached to the return ai r grill to

pressurize the ducts to 25 pascals (Pa). Figure 4 is a photograph of the DuctBlaster installed at the forced

air heating/cooling system return air inlet of home P2. In add ition, we conducted three different

variations of this duct pressurizat ion method. The first vari ation, and standard app lication of this method

is to pressurize the ducts to 25 Pa while the supply ducts are seale d. The second variation we employed

is to pressurize the ducts to 25 Pa while the house is maintained at a positive 25 Pa by a blower door fan

flow meter and the supply ducts are sealed. The third va riation we employed is to pressurize the ducts to

25 Pa while the house is maintained at a positive 25 Pa by a blower door fan fl ow meter and the supply

ducts are not sealed.

The second method is the Delta-Q method, which uses a combination of four multipoint home blower

door tests (i.e., a home pressurizati on and depressurization test with the forced air heating/cooling

system off and again with the system on).

The form utilized to record these data is the Buil ding Ventilation Form, which is in the Team 3 SOP.

Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area . The building envelope air leak age area was determined at

each house using both depressurization and pressuriza tion multipoint blower door tests with Automated

Pressure Testing (APT) instrume ntation. Figure 5 is a photogra ph of the blower door and APT

instrumentation installed at pilot home P2. For these test s the homes were configured with all windows

and exterior door closed, all interior doors open (ex cept doors to attached garages), fireplace dampers

closed, and all exhaust fans off. The continuously operating mechanical outdoor air delivery fans (i.e.,

the HRVs in Pilot Homes P1 and P2) were left operating. Testing was conducted in accordance with

### A-13 ASTM E779-99, Standard Test Method for Determin ing Air Leakage by Fan Pressurization. The form

utilized to record these data is the Building Ventilation Form, which is in the Team 3 SOP.

Home-to-Garage Air Leakage . We used two methods for measuri ng the potential air leakage between

the home and the garage. The first method consisted of conducting a zone pressure diagnostic test of the

garage to home connection. This test consis t of conducting two multi-point blower door home

depressurization tests as described above; one with the home door to the garage closed and one with the

door open. From these data we ca lculated the Equivalent Leakag e Area (EqLA @ 10 pa) in square

inches between the garage and the home and between the garage and outdoor. The second test method

consisted of using a blower door with the Automate d Pressure Testing (APT) instrumentation operating

in “cruise control” to maintain a constant –50 Pa in the home with respect to outdoors. A digital micromanometer was used then used to measure the diff erential pressure between the home and the garage.

Tracer Gas Measurements of Home Outdoor Air Exchange Rate . The outdoor air exchange rate in the

homes was measured with a tracer gas technique during the 24-hour air contaminant measurements and

during a subsequent two-week perio d. This technique uses a passive constant injection perfluorocarbon

tracer (PFT). The tracer gas s ources were placed by Field Team 1 at locations in each home for

approximately one week in advance of the tracer ga s sampling to allow for the emission rates of the

sources to equilibrate. The number of sources and placement locations were determined for each home

based on room volumes and layout to approximate a uniform indoor con centration. Since the emission

rates from the PFT sources are temperature depe ndent, we deployed a HOB O air temperature data

logger, located at the heating/c ooling system thermostat, to log the air temperature at 15-minute

intervals. This temperature data wa s then input into an equation of the emission rate as a function of

time that was supplied by Brookhaven National Laboratory, the supplier of the PFT sources, to calculate

the temperature corrected PFT emission rates. The PFT used for these tests was para-methylcyclohexane

(p-PMCH). The PFT samplers used for these tests were capillary adsorption tube sampler (CATS).

These are small passive samplers that were co-located at the indoor air contaminant site (e.g.,

family/living room). A pair of these samplers, along with duplicate samplers, were deployed for the

24-hour and two-week samplers by Field Team 2. Th e outdoor air exchange rate was calculated as

described in ASTM E741.

### A-14 A deviation from the above measurement plan that we needed to make rela ted to the two-week longterm PFT measurements. Since th e blower door measurements conduc ted by Team 3 the day after the

deployment of the PFT samplers would have a si gnificant and atypical impact on the home ventilation

rate, we decided to cap the long-term PFT sample rs when we shut down the indoor air sampler and

capped the short-term PFT samplers before the blower door tests. We then asked the homeowners if they

would uncap the long-term PFT sampler 48 hours late r. We called each of the homeowners to confirm

that the samplers were uncapped and then Field Team three collected the long- term PFT samplers from

the pilot homes on a second visit to each house approximately two weeks later.

The form utilized to record these data is the PFT Form, which is in the Team 1 SOP.

Tracer Gas Measurements of Garage Air Contaminants Entering the Home . The transport of garage air

contaminants into the indoor air of the home was measured with a tracer gas technique during the

24-hour air contaminant measurements and during a s ubsequent two-week period. This technique uses a

passive constant injection perfluorocarbon tracer ( PFT). The tracer gas sources were placed by Field

Team 1 at a location in the garage, approximately one week in advance of the tracer gas sampling to

allow for the emission rates of the sources to equilibra te. A total of two sources were placed at a central

location in the garage. Since the emission rates from the PFT sources are temperature dependent, we

deployed a HOBO air temperature data logger, co-located with the tw o PFT sources, to log the air

temperature at 15-minute intervals. These temperature data were then input in to an equation of the

emission rate as a function of time that was s upplied by Brookhaven National Laboratory, the supplier

of the PFT sources, to calculate the temperature co rrected PFT emission rates. The PFT used for these

tests, para-dimethylcyclohexane (p -PDCH), was a different PFT than was used to measure the outdoor

air exchange rate of the home. The same PFT samp lers that were used to measure the outdoor air

exchange rate of the home were used to sample the garage-located PFT entering the home. The form

utilized to record these data is the PFT Form, which is in the Team 1 SOP.

The percent of the garage air contaminant sources en tering the home was determined from the ratio of

the calculated source of garage PFT entering the home to the calculated source of garage PFT emitted

into the garage. The emission rate of garage PFT entering the home was calculated from the average

concentration of the PFT in the ho me, which was determined from the laboratory analysis of the indoor

### A-15 PFT sampler multiplied by the outdoor air flow rate entering the home, which was determined from the

tracer gas measurements of the out door air exchange rate and the indoor air volume of the home. For the

emission rate of garage PFT into th e garage, we used the temperature co rrected calculati on of the garage

PFT emission rates.

INDOOR AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS

The following is a summary of the indoor air qualit y parameters that were measured in each home:

Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

• Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde

• Nitrogen Dioxide

• Particles (PM 2.5 

### )

Real-Time IAQ Measurements

• Carbon Monoxide

• Carbon Dioxide

• Temperature and Humidity

These IAQ parameters were measured for 22- to 26- hour period at one indoor br eathing height location

in the family/living room area of each of the three p ilot study homes. In addition, these IAQ parameters

were also measured over the same time period at an outdoor location. For pilot homes P1 and P2, which

represented a sampler cluster of two homes located less than 0.1 miles apart in Elk Grove, California,

IAQ parameters were collected at a single outdoor location in the back yard of P1. For pilot home P3,

which was located in Sacrament o, California, IAQ parameters we re collected at a single outdoor

location in the backyard of P3. D uplicate air samples were collecte d at the P1 home at the indoor

location. Integrated sample flow rates were measur ed at the beginning and e nd of the sampling period

using calibrated rotameters.

### A-16 A special air sampler was developed to collect the integrated and real-time air contaminant

concentrations. Figure 1 is a photogra ph of the air sampler located at th e P3 indoor site and Figure 2 is

close-up photograph of the air sampler. For the integrated air samp les, this air sampler consisted of a

pair of air sampling pumps contained in an acoustically shielded fiberglass lock box mounted to a tripod.

The air sampling pumps are SKC AirCheck 2000 air sampling pumps that include an internal flow

sensor that provides automatic electr onic air flow control such that the sample airflow rate is maintained

to within ± 5%, and 115 VAC battery eliminators to allow operation over the proposed 24-hour

sampling periods. One of these pumps provide s the air sampling flow rate for the PM 2.5 

### measurement.

The second pump, through the use of a four-port manifo ld with low flow contro l valves, provides the air

sampling flow rate for the volatile orga nic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, and

formaldehyde/acetaldehyde measurements. An power on-time meter provides a measurement of the time

that 110 VAC power is supplied to the air sampler so that if there is a power interrupti on the duration of

the interruption is known. The air sampling pumps au tomatically restart upon restoration of the power

following a power interruption. In add ition, a power cord restra int cover is installed at the connection of

the power cord to the power rece ptacle to guard against inadvertent disconnectio n of the power cord

plug from the receptacle. For the real-time measuremen ts, a TSI IAQ-Calc is mounted on the tripod next

to the integrated air sampler manifold. The AC adapto r for the TSI IAQ-Calc is connected to a source of

AC power inside of the fiberglass lock box. In addition, the TSI IAQ-Ca lc contains a parallel battery

pack power supply that allows the instrument to continue operation upon a power interruption. For the

outdoor air sampler a special rain/rad iation shield was fabricated from galvanized sheet metal to enclose

and protect the air samplers. This rain/radiation shield has screened and louvered vents on two sides to

allow circulation of outdoor air within the enclos ed area. Figure 3 is a photograph of the air sampler

with the rain/radiation shield installed.

The following is a detailed description of the air samp ling and analytical techniques for each of the IAQ

parameters.

Integrated Time Averaged IAQ Measurements (24-hour)

• Volatile Organic Compounds. Volatile organic co mpounds other than formaldehyde and acetaldehyde

were measured following U.S. EPA Methods TO-1, TO-15, and TO-17 from the Compendium of

### A-17 Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air (EPA 1999). This method

involves drawing air at a constant rate with a pump through a multi-sorbent tube (i.e., Berkeley

Analytical Associates sorb ent tubes containing Tenax-TA ® 

### backed up with a carbonaceous material to

prevent breakthrough of the most volatile compounds). Samples were collected at a flow rate of

approximately 10 cubic centimeters per minute (cc/ min), which will provide a detection limit of

0.4 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 

### ) for most compounds. The samples were split 1:5 to prevent

overloading of the analytical instrumentation and thermally de sorbed and analyzed by gas

chromatograph/mass spectrometry. For the pilot st udy, indoor and outdoor samples were be fully

analyzed to identify all of the compounds detected above 4 μg/m 3 

### and to quantify abundant air

contaminant compounds that appear on the Toxic Ai r Contaminant List (CARB 1999), the California

Proposition 65 Substance List and the Chronic Refe rence Exposure List (OE HHA 2003), and any other

compounds that were detected w ith concentrations above 3 μg/m 3 

### . Laboratory results for each sampler

were corrected using a field blank, which was submitted to the lab.

• Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde was measured according to ASTM

Standard D 5197-03 (ASTM 2003). This method involves drawing air at a constant rate with a pump

through a solid sorbent cartridge (i.e., Waters Asso ciates Sep-PAK, silica gel impregnated with

dinitrophenylhydrazine, DNP H). In addition, since ozone is known to interfere with this sample

analyses, an ozone scrubber was inst alled directly upstream of the solid sorbent cartridge. This scrubber

consists of a solid sorbent cartridge filled with granular potassium iodide (i.e., Waters Associates SepPAK Ozone Scrubber). Additionally a scrubber (i.e., Anasorb CSC, coconut charcoal sorbent tube) for

DNPH was placed downstream of the sampler because this compound would be collected and analyzed

for in the VOC sampling protocol. The samplers are extracted with acetonitrile and analyzed using

HPLC. Samples were collected at a flow rate of a pproximately 70 cc/min, which will provide a detection

limit of 0.4 μg/m 3 

### for acetaldehyde and 0.3 μg/m 3 

### for formaldehyde. This concentration detection limit is

well below both the California Envi ronmental Protection Agency/Off ice of Environmental Health

Hazard Assessment (Cal/EPA OEHHA) chronic i nhalation Reference Exposure Levels (OEHHA 2003)

of 3 μg/m 3 

### and 9 μg/m 3 

### for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, respec tively, as well as the ARB Indoor Air

Quality Guidelines (California Ai r Resources Board 2004) of 33 μg/m 3 

### for formaldehyde for an 8-hour

exposure. Laboratory results for each sampler were co rrected using a field blank which was submitted to

the lab.

### A-18 • Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide was meas ured following NIOSH 6014 (NIOSH 1994a). This

method involves drawing air at a c onstant rate with a pump through a two stage solid sorbent tube (i.e.,

SKC 226-40-02 molecular sieve impre gnated with triethanolamine). The samplers were extracted with a

triethanolamine solution and analyzed using spect rophotometry at a wavelength of 540 nanometers

(nm). Both the front tube section and backup tube sect ion were be separately analyzed to verify that

there was no significant breakthr ough. Samples were collected at a flow rate of approximately

100 cc/min, which will provide a detection limit of 9 μg/m 3 

### . This concentration detection limit is well

below both the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA) Nationa l Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) (EPA 1990) standard of 100 μg/m 3 

### for an annual exposure, as well as the ARB Indoor Air

Quality Guidelines (California Ai r Resources Board 2004) of 150 μg/m 3 

### for a 24-hour exposure.

Laboratory results for each sampler were corrected using a field blank, which was submitted to the lab.

• Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ). PM 2.5 

### particles were collected followi ng EPA IP-10A, (EPA 1989) with

gravimetric analyses according to NIOSH 500 (NIO SH 1994b). This method i nvolves drawing air at a

constant rate with a pump through a PM 2.5 

### -size selective inlet (i.e., SKC 761-203 Personal

Environmental Monitor) containing a 37 millimeter (m m) PVC filter with a 0.8 micron (μm) pore size.

After sampling, the filters were equilibrated in a climate controlled weighing room and analyzed

gravimetrically. Samples were collected at a flow ra te of 2 liters per minute (L/min) which represents

the design flow rate of this impactor and which will provide a detection limit of 3.5 μg/m 3 

### . This

concentration detection limit is well below bot h the EPA NAAQS (EPA 1990) ambient air quality

standard and the ARB Indoor Air Quality Guidel ines (California Air Re sources Board 2004) of

65 μg/m 3 

### for 24-hour exposures. Laboratory results for each sampler were corrected using a field blank,

which was submitted to the lab.

Real-Time IAQ Measurements

• Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide was measured with real-time instrumentation following EPA

method IP-3A (EPA 1989) using an electrochemical sensor. A TSI IAQ-Calc, which incorporates a

passive diffusive sample element and has built in data-logging capabilities was used. The data logger

was programmed to record carbon monoxide concentratio ns at one-minute intervals. The sensor has an

### A-19 accuracy of ± 3% or ± 3 parts per million (ppm), whichever is greater, a precision of ± 2% of reading, a

resolution of 1 ppm, and a range of 0

– 

### 500 ppm. This concentration detect ion limit is well below both the

EPA NAAQS (EPA 1990) and the ARB Indoor Air Qua lity Guidelines (California Air Resources Board

2004) of 9 ppm for 8-hour exposures. The instrument was ca librated immediately prior to the start of

sampling and checked following the sampling period, using zero and span (35 ppm) calibration gases.

The sample data logged over the 24-hour period was co rrected using a fit to the calibration points that

was assumed to be linear over time.

• Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide was measured with real-time instrumentation following EPA method

IP-3A (EPA 1989) using a sensor that utilizes non-dispersive infrar ed spectrophotometry (NDIR). A TSI

Q-Trak, which incorporates a pass ive diffusive sample element and has built in data -logging capabilities

was used. The data logger was pr ogrammed to record carbon dioxid e concentrations at one-minute

intervals. The sensor has an accuracy of ± 3% or ± 50 ppm, whichever is great er, a resolution of 1 ppm,

and a range of 0

– 

### 5000 ppm. This concentration detectio n limit is well below both the ASHRAE

(ASHRAE 2004) body odor standard of 700 ppm over the outdoor con centration, which for typical

outdoor concentrations of 350 to 450 ppm represen ts an indoor concentration of 1,050 to 1,150 ppm.

The instrument was calibrated immediately prior to the start of sampling and checked following the

sampling period, using zero and span (1000 ppm) calib ration gases. The sample data logged over the

24-hour period was corrected using a fit to the calibration points that was assumed to be linear over

time.

• Temperature and Relative Humidity. Temperature a nd relative humidity were measured with real-time

instrumentation using a thermistor sensor for air temperature and a thin-film capacitive sensor for

relative humidity. A TSI IAQ-Calc with built-in data logging capabilities was use d. The data logger was

programmed to record temperature and relative humidity at one-mi nute intervals. The temperature

sensor has an accuracy of 1 ° 

### F, a resolution of 0.1 ° 

### F, and a range of 32 ° 

### F

– 

### 122 ° 

### F. Prior to the field effort,

the instruments’ temperature sensors were compared to a certified mercury thermometer, and the sample

data logged over the 24-hour period was corrected using single point correction. The relative humidity

(RH) sensor has an accuracy of 3 % RH, a resolution of 0.1 %RH, and a range of 5%

– 

### 95% RH. Prior to

the field effort, the instruments’ relative humidity sensors were compared with a laboratory probe that

### A-20 was calibrated with salt solutions according to ASTM E104-02 (AST M 2002). The sample data points

logged over the 24-hour period were correct ed using a single point correction.

We obtained meteorological data from the Sacramento Mather Air port weather station for the period of

the pilot study. We obtained hourly wind speed and out door air dry bulb temper ature. The airport is

12 miles northeast from the Elk Grove site for P1 and P2 and 15 miles southeast from the Sacramento

site for P3.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

For this pilot study of three homes we followe d our October 10, 2005, Quality Assurance / Quality

Control Plan (QA/QC Plan). For each of the in tegrated air contaminant measurements, VOCs, NO 2 

### ,

formaldehyde/acetaldehyde, and PM 2.5 

### , we collected and analyzed a single field blank and a single

duplicate, with the exception for PM 2.5 

### , for which we collected four field blanks. For the PFT

measurements we collected and analyzed a single field blank and two 24-hour duplicate samples and

one two-week duplicate sample. As per our QA/QC pla n, the PFT sources and PFT samplers were stored

and shipped separately.

We also evaluated the air sampling flow rate stabili ties by comparing the rotameter measurements of the

air sampling flow rates at the beginning and end of the 24-hour air sampling period for each of the

integrated air samples. We calculated the relative st andard deviation for each of the beginning and end

pairs of flow rate measurements.

DATA MANAGEMENT

For this pilot study we created in Excel all of the fi eld data sheets contained in the SOPs that are detailed

in our October 10, 2005, Quality Assurance / Quality C ontrol Plan (QA/QC Plan). Hard copies of these

field data sheets were taken into th e field and used to record the data . The data on these hard copy field

data sheets were then entered into identical electronic copy field data sheets. These Excel sheets contain

all of the calibrations and calculations for converting the collected fi eld data into the various ventilation

and indoor air quality parameters.

### A-21 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

HOME SELECTION/RECRUITMENT

We mailed a total 64 recruitment le tters to new single-family homes to each of the addresses in the

Sacramento and Elk Grove communities that were in the University of California (UC) Berkeley

database. A total of two letters we re returned with notes of “no su ch name” suggesting the original

homeowner had moved. During the next two weeks we received a total of seven responses for an 11%

response rate from the mailing. The following are th e results of the follow-up call to these seven

respondents:

• 2 were interested, but not qualifi ed because they were moving soon.

• 5 were interested in partic ipating in the pilot study.

As indicated in the Methods sec tion there were no phone numbers contained in the UC Berkeley

database. We went to the library and looked up phone numbers for the 57 homes that did not respond,

and we were able to find 25 phone numbers with a name or address match (a 44% find rate). We

attempted a minimum of three calls to each number. The following are the results of the follow-up call

to these 25 phone calls:

• 12 were left messages that newer returned the call

• 4 were bad phone numbers

• 4 were interested in par ticipating in the pilot study

• 3 were not interested (one with an infant)

• 1 was interested, but not qualified because they were moving soon

• 1 was interested but at a later date

Thus the mailing to 64 homes netted 5 interested p ilot study participants, and the 25 phone calls netted

an additional 4, for a total of 9 homes.

### A-22 We then established clusters for those homes base d on their relative clusters and based upon which of

the two sets of measurement dates and three inspection times each of the homes noted as being required

or preferred. From these potential clusters we then looked for two clusters that satisfied the requirements

of having one home with mechan ical outdoor air vent ilation and having homes from two different

developments.

For this pilot study of th ree homes we selected a two-home cluste r in Elk Grove and a one-home cluster

in Sacramento. The two homes we selected from Elk Grove are in the same development and are

approximately 0.1 miles apart. They are both single- story wood frame structures with a slab-on-grade

foundation and attached garages. The both have forced air ventilation sy stems installed in the attic, and

they both have a separate dedicated outdoor air heat r ecovery ventilator systems (H RV), also installed in

the attic. We selected a single home from Sacramen to. This home is a two-story wood frame structure

with a slab-on-grade founda tion and an attached gara ge, and it has a forced air ventilation system

installed in the attic and no mechanical outdoor air system.

Figures 6

– 

### 8 are photographs of the three pilot homes, and Figures 9

– 

### 12 are floor plans.

HOME AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS COLLECTION

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of each of the three pilot homes, including general

characteristics, contaminant source characteristics, and ventilation and air cleaning characteristics. These

are average-sized homes w ith low occupancies. During the field study the occupancy of pilot home P3

increased from two to three with birth of a daughter. Table 2 is a summary of the homeowner reported

home renovations, maintenance, and other IAQ rela ted activities. Table 3 is a summary of the

homeowner-reported building system failures and hom e IAQ improvements. Ho me P2 had a reported

plumbing leak, and homes P1 and P2 noted the installati on of upgraded filters (these filters turned out to

have a lower efficiency than typi cal residential furnace filters).

### A-23 HOMEOWNER SOURCE ACTIVITY LOG

Table 4 summarizes the indoor source activities re ported by the homeowners for the 24-hour period

during which the indoor air contaminant measurements occurred. As can be seen, there was little source

activity occurring in these three homes. Homes P1 a nd P2 have retired occupants who apparently eat out

a lot. Home P3, had some cooking activity, but this was also not much, perhaps because the mother was

about to give birth.

HOMEOWNER IAQ/VENTILATION PERCE PTIONS AND DECISION FACTORS

Table 5 summarizes the homeowner reported perceptions and physical symptoms over a three-week

recall period. P2 reported environm ental conditions “too drafty” and “t oo dusty,” and P3 reported “too

cold.” P1 reported odors from cabinetry. P1, whose occupants have diagnosed allergies and asthma,

reported the following physical symptoms: nose/sinus congestion, allergy symp toms, and headache. P2,

whose occupants have no diagnosed allergy or asthma conditions, repor ted allergy symptoms.

VENTILATION MEASUREMENTS

The following is a description of the results of our ventilation measurements in the three pilot homes.

Occupant Use of Windows and Doors for Ventilation . Table 6 summarizes for each of the three pilot

study homes, one week of daily openings and closings of doors expressed as square foot-hours (ft 2 

### -hrs).

As can be seen from these data, P1 and P2 hardly used their windows or doors at all—they were all 0

except 0.1 ft 2 

### -hr for P2 on Day 7 ( i.e., the air sampling da y). P3 had window usage ranging from 0 to

163 ft 2 

### -hr with 51 ft 2 

### -hr on Day 7 ( i.e., the air sampling day). For the two windows in each home with

dataloggers monitoring the openings and closings, we compared the data logger records of window

openings and the occupant written logs. In P1 the occupants logged 0 of 1 opening events. In P2 the

occupants logged 0 of 3 opening events. In P3 the occupants logged 1 of 3 opening events. Thus the

accuracy of the occupant logs does not appear to be very good.

### A-24 Exhaust Fans and Appliances . The exhaust air flow rates and asso ciated building guid elines and codes

are summarized in Table 7. P1 and P2 have con tinuous exhaust air from th e master bathroom and

laundry room that is associated with the HRV syst ems in these two homes. All other bathroom and

laundry room exhaust fans operate intermittently with a user-controlled wall switch.

For the 4 bathrooms with continuous exhaust ventila tion from the HRVs, all 4 exceeded the minimum

ASHRAE 62.2-2003 guideline of 20 c ubic feet per minute (cfm).

For the 9 bathrooms with intermittent exhaust ven tilation, 7 of the 9 failed the minimum ASHRAE 62.2-

2003 guideline of 50 cfm.

For the 13 bathrooms with continuous or intermitte nt exhaust ventilation, 6 of the 13 failed the

minimum California Building Code 2001 require ment of 5 air changes per hour (ach).

For the 6 bathrooms with openable windows, 1of 6 failed the minimum California Building Code 2001

requirement of an openable area equal to 5% of the fl oor area for bathrooms and 4% of the floor area for

toilet rooms. The one bathroom with window openi ngs less than the guideline also had mechanical

exhaust systems, which were also under one or more of the recommended guidelines.

For the 6 bathrooms with openable windows, all 6 met the minimum Califor nia Building Code 2001

requirement of an openable area equal to 1.5 ft 2



### .

Overall, 7 of the 13 bathrooms either met the ope nable window or mechanical exhaust requirements;

3 of 4 in P1 and P2, and 1 of 5 in P3.

Table 8 summarizes the kitchen exhaust air flow rate measurements. All three pilot homes had

intermittent kitchen exhaust fan systems that we re ducted to outdoor and met the ASHRAE 62.2.

guideline of 100 cfm.

Table 9 summarizes all of the exhaust fan operation in each home for a seven- day period. Day seven is

the 24-hour test period during which the outdoor air excha nge rate and indoor ai r quality parameters

### A-25 were measured. The daily operation time for each of the fans as determined from the HOBO data

loggers and/or written occupant logs was multiplied by the measured air flow rates to produce the cfmhours of operation for each fan systems. Pilot homes P1 and P2 have exhaust air operations dominated

by the continuously operating HRVs.

For the other intermittent exhaust fans, averaged over the one-week monitoring period, the exhaust

ventilation was dominated by the cl othes drier exhaust ( 88%–221% of 252 cfm) in P1, by the clothes

drier in P2 ( 75%–80% of 107 cfm), and by the kitche n (50%–48% of 97 cfm) and the master bathroom

toilet exhaust (40%–40% of 97 cfm) in P3.

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System . The return air flow rates and percent on-times for the forced air

heating/cooling systems are summarized in Ta ble 10. The percent on-times for the forced air

heating/cooling systems during the one-week period of monitoring ranged from 7%–20% in P1, and 0%

in P2, and 2%–23% in P3. We examined the indoor ai r temperature data for P1 and while the data logger

indicated no operation during the wee k, the air temperatures suggested that there was some heating. In

addition, the data logger appeared to be working, as it registered the ope ration of the forced air

heating/cooling systems during the time that Field Team 3 operated the system to measure the system air

flow rate.

Mechanically Supplied Outdoor Air Flow Rates. Table 11 contains the measurements of the mechanical

outdoor air ventilation rate s in pilot homes P1 and P2, which both had con tinuously operating HRVs. In

P2, the measured flowrates of outdoor air excee ded the recommendations of both ASHRAE 62.2. and

the Energy Commission in P2, but in P1 the meas ured flow rates, while exceeding the ASHRAE 62.2.

guideline, were below the Energy Commission guideline.

Forced Air Heating/Cooling System Duct Leakage . We note that we were not able to measure the duct

leakage in P3 as a result of the homeowners request to end the testing because of noise/disruption to a

new baby. Table 12 contains the duct pressurization m easurements of air leakage for homes P1 and P2.

These tests were conducted with thre e different configurations, as disc ussed in the methods section. The

standard duct leakage method of pr essurizing the ducts to 25 Pa while the supply ducts are sealed

resulted in 4.9% air leakage for both homes P1 and P2. This air leakage was reduced to 4.6% in P1 and

### A-26 3.0% in P2, when the house was pressu rized to 25 Pa with th e supply air registers still sealed. This air

leakage was further reduced to 2.5% in P1 and 0. 2% in P2 when the house was pressurized to 25 Pa with

the supply air registers unsealed.

The results of the Delta-Q test method are summarized in Table 13. The supply air leakage and return air

leakage were 61 cfm and 42 cfm, respectively, for P 1, and they were 20 cfm and 43 cfm, respectively,

for P2. We note that the estimated measurement un certainty is ± 20 cfm for this measurement method.

Table 14 summarizes the of the home indoor differen tial pressure with respect to outdoors with the

forced air heating/cooling system fan on and off. In the California Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001

Residential ACM approval Manual, if the Standard Leakage Area is le ss than 1.5 mechanically supplied

outdoor air is required and the home differential air pressure with resp ect to outdoors must be

maintained greater than -5 Pa with all continu ous ventilation fans operating. Both P1 and P2 had

differential pressures greater than –5 Pa. In a ddition there was no signifi cant difference between

differential pressures with the furnace fan on or off.

Home Building Envelope Air Leakage Area . The building envelope leakage area measurements of the

three homes are summarized in Table 15. We note that we were only able to measure the building air

leakage area with depressurization in P3 as a result of the homeowners request to end the testing because

of noise/disruption to a new baby. The ACH50 from the depressurization measurements were 4.31 ach

in P1, 6.26 ach in P2, and 3.97 ach in P3. The specifi c leakage area (SLA), as defined by the California

Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001 Residential ACM Ap proval Manual, with depressurization ranged

from 2.74 in P1, 3.97 in P2, and 2.05 in P3. Thus, both P1 and P3 have SLAs less than 3.0 and greater

than 1.5, and thus are required to have a mechani cal supply of outdoor air of no less than 0.047 cfm/ft 2



### .

In Table 11, our calculations indicate that in P1 th e measured outdoor air flow rates, while exceeding the

ASHRAE 62.2 guideline, were below the Energy Co mmission guideline. There was no mechanical

outdoor air delivery system in P3.

House-to-Garage Air Leakage . The results of the zone pressure diagnostics of the garage to home

connection are summarized in Table 16. We note th at all three homes had self-closing and weatherstripped doors to the garages. The house-to -garage leakage areas (EqLA – 10 Pa, inches 2 

### ) ranged from

### A-27 4 square inches (in 2 

### ) in P3 to 8.5 in 2 

### in P2 to 20 in 2 

### in P3. There are no guidelines for garage-to-house air

leakage areas; however, as a perhap s more meaningful metric with re spect to potential contamination of

the house air with garage air, we have calculated the per centage of the house-to-g arage leakage to the

total leakage area of the house-to-outdoor and the gara ge-to-outdoor. This percen tage ranged from 1% in

P1 to 2% in P2 to 3% in P3. We also measured the house-to-garage pressure with the house-to-outdoor

air pressure held at 50 Pa. The garage pressures ranged from –049.8 Pa for P3 to –49.4 Pa for P1 to

–49.4 Pa for P3. These house-to-garage pressures are all meet the American Lung Association (ALA)

guideline of a minimum of –49 Pa.

Tracer Gas Measurements of Home Outdoor Air Exchange Rate . The results of the tracer gas

measurements of outdoor air exchan ge rates are summarized in Ta ble 17. The locations of the PFT

sources and samplers are depicted in Figures 9

– 

### 12. The 24-hour measurements ranged from 0.26 ach in

P3 to 0.37 (0.37 ach duplicate) ach in P1 to 0.73 ach (0.71 ach duplicate) in P2. The long-term two week

samples resulted in 0.29 ach in P1, 0.57 ach in P2, and 0.30 (0.34 ach duplicate) in P3.

These air exchange rates may be compared to the ASHRAE 62-1989 and th e Energy Commission ACM

recommendations of 0.35 air changes per hour.

Tracer Gas Measurements of Garage Air Contaminants Entering the Home . The results of the

measurement of garage source emissions entering the house are summarized in Table 18. The locations

of the PFT sources and samplers are depicted in Figures 9

– 

### 12. For the 24-hour measurement period the

percentage of the garage sources entering the home ranged from 2.6% (1.9% duplicate) for P1 to 9.8%

for P3 to 10.1% (11.9% duplicate) for P2. For the tw o-week measurement period, the percentage of the

garage sources entering the home ranged from 4.0% for P1 to 7.2% for P2 to 11.3% (11.4% duplicate)

for P3.

Ventilation Calculations . In Table 19 we calculate the combined outdoor air exchange rate resulting

from the natural infiltration rate and the mechanical ventilation rates and compare this calculated total

rate to the PFT measurements of th e outdoor air exchange rate. We have used to models to calculate the

combination of the natural and mechanical outdoor air ventilation rates. Th e first calculation is

according to ASHRAE 136, which calculates the total out door airflow rate as the square root of the sum

### A-28 of the squares of the natural and mechanical airflow rates. The s econd calculation is according to the

Palmiter/Bond 0.5 Rule, which calculat es the total outdoor air flow rate as either (1) the sum of the

balanced mechanical flowrates, the natural infiltration rate, and one-half the unbalanced mechanical

flow rates if the unbalanced mechani cal air flow rates are less than tw ice the natural infiltration air flow

rates, or (2) if the unbalanced mech anical air flow rates are greater th an twice the natura l infiltration air

flow rates, as the maximum of the total mechanical exhaust or total mechanic al outdoor air flowrates.

We note that neither of these models nor any other simple models can incorporate the outdoor air

exchange rate resulting from openable windows and door s. In addition, we note that these calculations

were performed using 24-hour averages for the e xhaust and outdoor air mechanical flow rates and

because of the non-linearities in combining mechanic al air flow rates and ai r flow rates through the

building envelope, a more accurate calculation is to perform the calculations using hourly averaged data.

We note that an hourly calculation, while beyond the sc ope and resources of this study, could be done as

there is hourly data available for all of the parameters.

The calculated outdoor air exchange rates from the ASHRAE 136 and Palmiter/Bond, respectively,

ranged from 0.35 ach / 0.36 ach for P1 to 0.66 ach / 0.66 ach for P2 to 0.12 ach / 0.12 ach in P3 using

the P2 Delta-Q duct leakage da ta and to 0.10 ach / 0.11 ach in P3 assuming no duct leakage.

These calculations of total outdoo r air exchange rates for the 24- hour measurement period agree

reasonable well with the PFT measurements for P1 and P2, which both had continuous mechanical

outdoor air ventilation and none to little reported use of openable wi ndows and doors. The calculated

outdoor air exchange rate for P3, 0.10

– 

### 0.12 ach, was less than half of the measured value of 0.26 ach.

Part of this discrepancy may be th e result of the use of openable wi ndows and doors to ventilate this

residence, as there were a total of 50.8 ft 2 

### -hrs of openings in P3.

INDOOR AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS

The locations of the indoor and outdoor air samplers are depi cted in Figures 9

– 

### 12.

### A-29 Integrated Time-Averaged IAQ Measurements (24-hour)

• Volatile Organic Compounds. The indoor and outdoor concentrations of volatile organic compounds

are summarized along with recommende d indoor guidelines in Tables 20

– 

### 23. The first basis for our

selection of non-industrial irritant guidelines is the Calif ornia Air Resources Boar d, Indoor Air Pollution

in California, Table 4.1 ARB Indoor Air Quality Guidelines, July 2005 (CARB 2005). Our second basis

for selection, for those compounds without ARB indoor air guidelines is th e California Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Chroni c Reference Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA CRELs).

Our final basis of selection, for those compounds , with neither ARB indoor guidelines or OEHHA

CRELs, is 2.5% of the occupationa l standard. This recommendation is based upon the different exposure

periods (40-hour per week for an industrial worker versus a 168-hour per week for a full-time occupant)

and to provide a safety factor of ten for mo re sensitive populations (Nielsen et al. 1997).

The percent of the indoor guideline for the maximum indoor concentrations obser ved in the three pilot

homes ranged from 9.3% for toluene in P1 and P2 to 6.3% for benzene in P1 to 3.5% for ethylene glycol

in P1 to 2.5% for ethanol in P1 to 2.1% for propanol in P1. All other compounds were less than 2% of

the indoor guidelines.

• Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde. The indoor and outdoor concen trations of formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde are summarized along with recommende d indoor guidelines in Table 24. For formaldehyde

we utilized the 33 μg/m 3 

### guideline recommended by the ARB (CARB 2005). For acetaldehyde we

utilized the Chronic Reference Exposure Guidelines of 9 μg/m 3 

### recommended by OEHHA (OEHHA

2003).

For formaldehyde, homes P1 and P2 were below the recommended guideline of 33 μg/m 3 

### , however P3,

with a concentration of 45 μg/m 3 

### was above this guideline.

For acetaldehyde, home P2 was below the recommended guideline of 9 μg/m 3 

### , however homes P1 and

P3, with indoor concentrations of 10 μg/m 3 

### (11 μg/m 3 

### duplicate) an 17 μg/m 3 

### , respectively, were above

this guideline.

### A-30 • Nitrogen Dioxide. The indoor and outdoor concentra tions of nitrogen dioxide are summarized along

with recommended indoor guidelines in Table 25. The basis for our sel ection of non-industrial irritant

guidelines for nitrogen dioxide is the CARB 2001 (Table 4.1) recommendation of 150 μg/m 3 

### for a 24-

hour exposure. The indoor concentr ations, which ranged from < 9 μg/m 3 

### in P1 and P3 to 10 μg/m 3 

### in P2,

were all well below this guideline.

• Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ). The indoor and outdoor concentrations of PM 2.5 

### are summarized along with

recommended indoor guidelines in Table 25. The ba sis for our selection of non-industrial irritant

guidelines for nitrogen dioxide is the CARB 2001 (Table 4.1) recommendation of 65 μg/m 3 

### for a

24-hour exposure. The indoor concentr ations which ranged from 11 μg/m 3 

### in P2 and P3 to 12 μg/m 3



### (17 μg/m 3 

### duplicate) in P1, were all well below this guideline.

Real-Time IAQ Measurements

• Carbon Monoxide (CO). The indoor and outdoor con centrations of CO are summarized along with

recommended indoor guidelines in Table 25. The ba sis for our selection of non-industrial irritant

guidelines for CO is the CARB 2001 (Table 4.1) reco mmendation of 9 ppm for an 8-hour exposure and

20 ppm for a 1-hour exposure. For the 8-hour maximum exposures th e indoor concentrations, which

ranged from less than 0.5 ppm in P2 to 1.0 ppm (<0.5 ppm duplicate) in P1 to 1.4 ppm in P3, were all

well below the 8-hour guideline of 9 ppm. For the 1-hour ma ximum exposures the indoor

concentrations, which ranged from less than 0.5 pp m in P2 to 1.6 ppm (<0.5 ppm duplicate) in P1 to

1.8 ppm in P3, were all well below the 1-hour guideline of 20 ppm.

• Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 

### ). The indoor and outdoor concentrations of CO 2 

### are summarized along with

recommended indoor guidelines in Table 26. The ba sis for our selection of non-industrial irritant

guidelines for CO 2 

### is the ASHRAE 62.1-2004 guideline of a ma ximum indoor concentration of less than

700 ppm above the outdoor concentration. We note th at this guideline is established for body odor and

not health concerns.

The maximum CO 2 

### concentration ranged from 2,251 ppm (2,236 ppm duplicate) in P1 to 1,228 ppm in

P2 to 1,343 ppm in P3. Thus th e maximum concentration of CO 2 

### exceeded the ASHRAE recommended

### A-31 maximum of 700 ppm over outdoors in P1 and P 3. We also note that the maximum indoor CO 2



### concentrations in all three homes occurred during the time that the fiel d teams were either deploying or

retrieving the air sampling equipment. Figure 13 is a plot of the CO 2 

### indoor concentrati on as a function

of time for the 24-hour sampling period. In this home, there were a large number of observers and field

technicians present (e.g., 6

– 

### 8) at the start of the air samp ling contributing to the indoor CO 2 

### air

concentrations. In the main field study, there will be only two field technicians present at any one time.

• Temperature and Relative Humidity. The indoor and outdoor temperature and relative humidity

measurements are summarized in Table 26. The 24-hour average indoor air temp eratures ranged from

67 ° 

### F (67 ° 

### F duplicate) at P1 to 68 ° 

### F at P2 to 64 ° 

### F at P3. The average outdoor temperature averaged 45 ° 

### F at

the P1/P2 outdoor site and 49 ° 

### F at the P3 outdoor site. The 24-hour average indoor relative humidity

ranged from 42% (41% duplicate) at P1 to 35% at P2 to 52% at P3. The average outdoor relative

humidity averaged 70% at the P1/P2 outdoor site and 90% at the P3 outdoor site.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

The results of the air sampling flow rate stability analyses are summarized in Table 27. This table

summarizes the minimum, maximum, and average of th e standard deviations in the recorded start and

stop sample flow rates.

For the VOC measurements, a total of two samplers were deployed at each sampling site. The second

sample was collected as a back-up sample to the fi rst, should the sample be overloaded. Of the 12 VOC

air samples (i.e., 6 pairs of 2 samp les) the average relative standard deviation was 0.08 with a minimum

of 0.0 and a maximum of 0.23. From each pair of VOC sa mplers at each site the sampler with the more

stable flow rate was submitted for analyses. For th e 6 VOC air samples submitted, the average relative

standard deviation was 0.03, with a mi nimum of 0.0 and a maximum of 0.07.

For the NO 2 

### measurements, the average relative standa rd deviation was 0.03, with a minimum of 0.01

and a maximum of 0.05.

### A-32 For the formaldehyde/acetaldehyde measurements, the av erage relative standard deviation was 0.11 with

a minimum of 0.02 and a maximum of 0.54. We note that the outdoor sample for P3 had an atypically

high relative standard deviation associated with the st art and stop flow rates. Th e sample start flow rate

was 101 cc/min, and the sample stop flow rate was 45 cc /min. If we eliminate this one sample, then the

average relative standard devia tion was 0.03 with a minimum of 0.02 and a maximum of 0.05. We note

that there was very heavy rain during the start of this air sampling, and we suspect that the DNPH

sampler swallowed a drop of rain water during the star tup of the sampler. The field technician reports

that he did not have an umbrella to protect the air samplers during the time that the radiation/rain shield

was off and the sample start flow rates were bei ng measured. For the main field study the field teams

will make sure to pack umbrellas.

For the PM 2.5 

### measurements, the average relative standard deviation was 0.03 with a minimum of 0.01

and a maximum of 0.04.

The results of the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide calibration stability analyses are summarized in

Table 28. This table summarizes the minimum, maximum, and average difference between the

post-calibration check reported by the instrument and the actual calibration concentration.

For carbon monoxide the six zero calibration checks averaged a 0 ppm difference with a minimum

difference of 0 ppm and a maximum difference of 0 ppm. For carbon monoxide th e six span calibration

checks averaged a 1 ppm difference with a minimum difference of -3 ppm and a maximum difference of

1 ppm.

For carbon dioxide the six zero-ca libration checks averaged a 21 ppm difference with a minimum

difference of 0 ppm and a maximum difference of 63 ppm. For carbon dioxide th e six span calibration

checks averaged a 39 ppm difference with a minimu m difference of -16 ppm and a maximum difference

of 120 ppm. We note that the outdoor sample for P3 had an atypically large di fference associated with

the stop calibration. If we eliminate this one sample , then the calibrations av eraged a 22 ppm difference

with a minimum difference of -16 ppm a nd a maximum difference of 60 ppm.

### A-33 The results of the VOC sample duplicate analyses are summarized in Tables 29 and 30. This table

summarizes for each VOC the relative standard de viation between the pair of duplicate samples

collected in P1 where both samples were above the qua ntification limit. The re lative standard deviation

ranged from 0.00 to 0.19. Only two compounds had relati ve standard deviations greater than 0.09: 0.15

for 2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanedio l momoisobutyl ether, isomer 3, and 0.19 for d-limonene.

The results of the sample duplicate analyses for acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM 2.5 

### are summarized in Table 31. Th is table summarizes, for each

compound, the relative standard deviation between th e pair of duplicate samples collected where both

samples were above the quantification limit.

The results of the sample duplicate analyses for th e PFT measurements are summarized in Tables 32.

This table summarizes the relative standard devia tion between the pair of duplicate samples. For the

24-hour short-term PFT measurements of outdoor air exchange rate the relati ve standard deviation

ranged from 0.00 for the P1 pair of samples to 0.03 fo r the P2 pair of samples. For the two-week longterm PFT measurements of outdoor ai r exchange rate the re lative standard deviation was 0.09 for the P3

pair of samples. For the 24-hour short-term PFT meas urements of garage source entry into the home the

relative standard deviation ranged from 0.20 for the P1 pair of samples to 0.11 for the P2 pair of

samples. For the two-week long-term PFT measurem ents of garage source entry into the home the

relative standard deviation was 0.01 the P3 pair of samples.

The single VOC field blank sample analyzed contained only one compound above the minimum mass

quantification limit, ethanol with a field blank mass of 129 ng and a minimum quantification limit of

75 ng. A total of seven additional co mpounds had detectable concentrati ons in the field blank but with

masses all below the quantification limit. These compounds were:

Acetephenone: 1 ng blank – 5 ng minimum quantification limit

Benzaldehyde: 4.4 ng blank – 5 ng minimum quantification limit

Butanol: 16.8 ng blank – 25 ng minimum quantification limit

Decanal: 10 ng blank – 5 ng minimum quantification limit

Limonene: 3.2 ng blank – 5 ng minimum quantification limit

### A-34 Nonanal: 6.8 ng blank – 50 ng minimum quantification limit

Octanal: 1.3 ng blank – 25 ng minimum quantification limit

For acetaldehyde, the single field blank sample analyzed contained a detectable mass of 34 ng, which is

below the minimum mass quantification limit of 40 ng.

For formaldehyde, the single field blank sample analyzed contained no detectable mass.

For nitrogen dioxide the single field blank sample analyzed contained no detectable mass.

For PM 2.5 

### . the four field blank samples analyzed contained detectable masses averaging -3.25 μg, and

ranging from -1 μg to -6 μg. These sample bla nk masses are below the minimum mass quantification

limit of 10 μg.

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN THE PILOT STUDY

The following are difficulties that we encountered during the pilot study, followed by the corrective

action that that will be in corporated onto the main study.

1.) During inspection of the pilot homes we had problems with dust and debris from the attic falling out

of the access onto surfaces in the occupied space of the home.

Future action: Field teams that access the attic will be equipped with por table HEPA vacuums to

clean up the dust and debris at the end of their inspection.

2.) Following installation of loggers on the surfaces of windows or doors that are most commonly used,

we experienced difficulty with the logger tape lo sing its adhesion properties over time, resulting in

loggers falling to the floor. Homeowners were quick to report that the loggers had fallen off resulting

in minimal data loss.

Future action: The field team has selected and util ized with success a tape adhesive that keeps the

loggers attached to these surfaces for the required duration of time.

### A-35 3.) Following collection of HOBO loggers by Team 3 and during shipping of the loggers back to Team

1, one of the loggers was broken.

Future action: Special shipping boxes will be empl oyed to ensure that logge rs are protected during

shipping to prevent damage to the inst rument and loss of the contained data.

4.) The comparison of the data logge r records of window openings an d the occupant written logs

indicate that the occupants logged only one of the data logger recorded openings.

Future action: Consider improving the communicat ion and occupant written logging methods to

increase the accuracy with which the occupants log their window openings.

5.) During setup and launching of loggers the logging interval on a single logger wa s incorrectly set so

that the logger became full before th e end of the required sampling duration.

Future action: The protocol for setup and launchi ng of loggers will be evaluated to see if the

standard operating procedures can be m odified to prevent this from happening.

6.) Following installation of a the logg er on the heating/cooling mechani cal system of one pilot home,

the homeowner called to report that their heating/cooling mechanical system no longer worked. It

was discovered by field staff that heating/cooling mechanical syst em door had not been replaced

correctly.

Future action: The protocol for instillation of the heating/cooling mechanical system logger will be

evaluated to see if the standard operating procedures can be m odified to prevent this from

happening.

7.) The fifth and final blower door test failed three times in the fiel d due to pressure fluctuations

experienced during the collection of the last and lo west pressure data point . Since the blower door

software we were using (Tectite 1.0) does not save any of the data from failed tests, we lost all of the

data from this test.

Future action: We have since upgrad ed to Tectite 3.1, which allows the user to save the data from

interrupted failed tests.

### A-36 8.) The large change in the air sa mpling rate for the outdoor formal dehyde sample at P3 has been

attributed to entrainment of rain drops into the DNPH sampler during the time that the field

technician had the radiation/rain shield off and was calibrating the starting sample flow rates.

Future action: We will include um brellas with each of the field teams to protect the outdoor air

samples during the start and stop calibrations.

9.) Not enough time to complete all of the pilot field measurements w ith two-man field crews in the

three-hour allotted time periods. This is especial ly true for Field Team 3, which conducted five

blower door tests, and three pre ssurization duct leakage tests in a ddition to the shutting down the air

samplers and PFTs and measuring all of the mechanical ventilation system flow rates.

Future action: We will work with the ARB, the Energy Commission, and the Science Advisory

Board to streamline the field protoc ols for each of the three field times so that quality work can be

performed within the th ree hours of field time allocated to each of the three field teams.

CONCLUSIONS

The field SOPs and laboratory anal yses developed for the pilot stud y appear to be acceptable for

deployment in the main field study, which begins this summer in July and August 2006. Based upon the

results from the three-home p ilot study, we look forward to work ing with the ARB, the Energy

Commission, and the Science Advisory Board to make refinements and improvements in the field SOPs

and laboratory analyses that can improve the quality of th e collected data.

### A-37 Table 1. Home characteristics collected in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

House Characteristics

House ID P1 P2 P3

General

Age of house 2.5 yrs. 2.75 yrs. 2.5 yrs.

Number of stories 1 1 2

Foundation type (slab, basement, crawl-space) Slab Slab Slab

Conditioned floor area (ft 2 ) 2,500 1,670 2,580

Conditioned envelope area (ft 2 ) 5,450 3,834 5,200

Conditioned air volume (ft 3 ) 24,990 16,670 21,700

Sources

Number of occupants (Adults/Children) 2/0 2/0 2/0

Attached garage – Self closing / gasketed door Yes / Yes Yes / Yes Yes / Yes

Cooking Fuel G/E G G

Hot Water Fuel G G G

Heating Fuel G G G

Clothes Drying Fuel E E E

Unvented Combustion Heaters 0 0 0

Carpeting (ft 2 ) 1,512 923 1,862

Composite Pressed Wood (ft 2 ) 421 555 598

Moisture Staining/Damage (ft 2 ) 0 0 0

Visible Potential Fungal Growth (ft 2 ) 0 0 0

Outdoor Sources (within 50 0 feet) None None Yes a

Ventilation and Air Cleaning

Exterior Window/Door Openings (% of floor area) 5.6 5.7 5.5

Forced Air System (Heating, Cooling) Attic / H/C Attic / H/C Attic / H/C

Forced Air Filter Efficiency (MERV) ~ 6 b ~ 6 b 8

Forced Air Fan Control Auto Auto Auto

Mechanical Outdoor Air Delivery System Attic / Yes Attic / Yes No

Mechanical Outdoor Air Delivery System Control Continuous Continuous NA

Mechanical OA System Filter Efficiency (MERV) ~ 6 b ~ 6 b NA

Night Cooling System Yes No No

Night Cooling System Controls Auto NA NA

a.) Construction road work and open fields.

b.) No ASHRAE 52.2 MERV rating. ASHRAE 52.1 average atmospheric dust spot

efficiency is 3%.

### A-38 Table 2. Homeowner reported home renovations , maintenance, and other IAQ-related

activities collected in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Renovations, Maintenance, and Other IAQ-Related Activities

House ID P1 P2 P3

Construction Completion Date 05/2003 03/31/03 08/2003

Move-in Date 05/2003 04/01/03 08/2003

Are You the First Owner Yes Yes Yes

Number of Occupants 2 2 2

Number of Cigarette/Cigar

Smokers 0 0 0

Number of Pets 0 0 0

Are Shoes Worn in Home Yes No No

Renovations No No Yes a

Duct Cleaning No No No

Pesticide Applications Yes b No Yes b Construction,

Occupancy,

Renovations, and

Other IAQ-Related

Activities

Fire/Smoke Damage No No No

Twice per Week, or More

Once per Week X X

Once per Fortnight

Once Every Three to Four

Weeks

Less that Once per Month X

Last Vacuuming Date 12/04/05 11/26/05 09/01/05 Carpet

Cleaning

Last Spot Cleaning Date 11/20/05 11/26/05 12/03/05

Portable Air Cleaners No No No

Vacuum Cleaners Yes c Yes c Yes c

Window Fans No No No Air Cleaners and

Ventilation Fans

Window Air Conditioners No No No

Air Fresheners (manual,

continuous) 1-manual No No

Candles Yes d Yes d Yes d

Incense No No No

Mothballs No No No Air Fresheners and

Other Sources

Hobbies/Crafts No No No

Paints, Thinners, Varnishes Yes e Yes e Yes f

Gasoline, Fertilizers, etc. Yes g No Yes e

Detergents, Bleach, Chlorine,

etc. Yes f Yes f Yes g Chemical Storage

Items

Pesticides, Insect icides, etc. Yes g No Yes e

a.) Garage Painting 11/23/05.

b.) P1 exterior application on 11/1/05; P3 exterior application – no date

c.) P1 – B & D Dirt Buster/Orek XL 2Ceo-Hypo Allergenic Plus; P2 – Dirt

Devil/Kenmore Whisper; P3 – Dirt Devil.

d.) P1 – 4; P2 – 7; P3 – 5.

e.) Garage

f.) Kitchen

g.) Shed/Storage Room

### A-39 Table 3. Homeowner reported building system failures and home IAQ improvements

collected in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Building System Failures and Home IAQ Improvements

House ID P1 P2 P3

Building System Failures

Condensation (includes windows/interior walls) No No No

Roof Leaks No No No

Plumbing Leaks No Yes No

Window or Wall Leaks No No No

Flooding No No No

Poor Site Drainage No No No

Bothersome Carpet Odors No No No

Bothersome Cabinetry Odors No No No

Other Moisture Problems No No No

Home IAQ Improvements

None (As Built Equipment/Configuration) No No Yes

Upgrade Central Air Filter Yes Yes No

High Efficiency Vacuum Cleaner (includes HEPA) No No No

Entire House Vacuum System No No No

Low-Emission Carpets, Cabinets, Furniture, etc. No Yes a No

Carbon Monoxide Alarm No No No

Special Range Hood No No No

Extra Exhaust Fans No No No

Entire House Ventilation System Yes No No

Other Yes b No No

a.) Furniture

b.) Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV)

### A-40 Table 4. Homeowner reported source activitie s during the 24-hour ventilation and IAQ

contaminant measurement period collected in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

IAQ Source Activities

House ID P1 P2 P3

Activities Duration in Minutes

Toasting

Frying

Sautéing

Baking

Broiling

Warming/Boiling Water, Soups,

etc. 7 10

Microwave 1 14 Cooking

Activities

Other

Total Minutes 7 1 24

Vacuuming

Sweeping

Dusting

Floor Stripping

Floor Waxing Cleaning

Activities

Use of Cleaners or Furniture

Polish

Total Minutes 0 0 0

Smoking

Wood Burning

Candle Burning

Incense Burning

Painting

Nail Polish Application/Removal

Spray Air Fresheners Occupant

Special

Activities

Large Party/Dinner Gatherings

Total Minutes 0 0 0

Grass Cutting

Leaf Blowing/Sweeping

Painting

Barbecuing Outdoor

Activities

Pesticide Application

Total Minutes 0 0 0

a.) If no entry, then no minutes of activity.

### A-41 Table 5. Homeowner-reported occupant perceptions and physical symptoms collected in

P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Occupant Perceptions and Physical Symptoms

House ID P1 P2 P3

Environmental Conditions

Too Hot No No No

Too Cold No No Yes

Too Dry No No No

Too Humid No No No

Too Drafty No Yes No

Too Stagnant No No No

Too Dusty No Yes No

Mold, Mildew, or Other Odors

Bathroom No No No

Basement/Crawlspace NA NA NA

Walls or Ceilings No No No

Carpets No No No

Cabinetry No No No

Other Yes a No No

Physical Symptoms

Eye Irritation No No No

Nose/Sinus Congestion Yes No No

Nose Irritation No No No

Allergy Symptoms Yes Yes No

Headache Yes No No

Skin Irritation No No No

Difficulty Concentrating No No No

Asthma Symptoms No No No

Other No No No

Diagnosed Conditions

Allergies Yes No No

Asthma Yes No No

Chemical Sensitivity No No No

a.) Tap Water

### A-42Table 6. Occupant use of windows and doors collected by occupant logs in P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.LocationDay 1(ft2*hr)Day 2(ft2*hr)Day 3(ft2*hr)Day 4(ft2*hr)Day 5(ft2*hr)Day 6(ft2*hr)Day 7a(ft2*hr)Pilot Home 1Window & Door OpeningArea*Hours Open0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Pilot Home 2Window & Door OpeningArea*Hours Open0.00.00.00.00.00.00.1Pilot Home 3Window & Door OpeningArea*Hours Open0.037.70.00.00.6163.150.8a.)Day 7 is the 24-hour test period during which indoor air quality contaminant parameters weremeasured.

### A-43Table 7. Bathroom and laundry exhaust flow rate measurements in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationExhaust(CFM)Exhaust(ACH)Ventilation by ExteriorOpenings(% floor area)Area of ExteriorOpenings(ft2)Pilot Home 1 – 2,499 sq ftContinuousaIntermittentaMaster BathroomMaster Bathroom Toilet RoomBathroom #2Laundry46nana41na4119na2.2162.14.7244.05.505.03.73.10Pilot Home 2 – 1,667 sq ftMaster BathroomMaster Bathroom Toilet RoomBathroom #2Laundry68nana62na4937na6.7194.28.15.707.403.403.90Pilot Home 3 – 2,583 sq ftMaster BathroomMaster Bathroom Toilet RoomBathroom #2Bathroom #3Laundrynanananana86513942383.77.16.04.68.33.700006.40000ASHRAE 62.2-2003 Guidelinesb2050na4c1.5California Building Code 2001bnana55 (4 for toilet rooms)1.5 – bath, toilet &laundry roomsa.)na indicates that the value was not reported becausethe mechanical fan was not operated in this mode.b.)na indicates no applicable guidelines reported.c.)ASHRAE 63.2-2004 guideline of ventilation openings not lessthan 4% of the floor area with a minimum of 1.5 ft2. Exception:Utility rooms with dryerexhaust duct and toilet rooms within bathrooms.

### A-44Table 8. Kitchen exhaust flow rate measurements in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationIntermittent ExhaustMinimum / Maximum CFMContinuous ExhaustMinimum / Maximum ACHPilot Home 1Kitchen213 / 249naPilot Home 2Kitchen298 / 392naPilot Home 3Kitchen175 / 305naASHRAE 62.2 RecommendedGuidelines1005a.)na indicates that the value was not reported because the mechanical fan was intermittentlyoperated.

### A-45Table 9. Exhaust fan flow rate operation measurements in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationFlow rate(cfm)Day 1(cfm*hr)Day 2(cfm*hr)Day 3(cfm*hr)Day 4(cfm*hr)Day 5(cfm*hr)Day 6(cfm*hr)Day 7b(cfm*hr)Pilot Home 1Kitchen213/249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Master Bath Rooma46 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104Master Bath Room Toilet 41 0 0 0 1 8 46 0Bath Room #2 19 12 10 36 44 26 6 28Laundrya41 984 984 984 984 984 984 984Cloths Dryer136 374 580 256 0 165 117 57Totals2473 2678 2380 2133 2286 2257 2173Pilot Home 2Kitchen298/392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Master Bath Rooma68 1,632 1,632 1,632 1,632 1,632 1,632 1,632Master Bath Room Toilet 49 2 55 16 25 0 22 21Bath Room #237 9 12 13 12 0 0 0Laundrya62 1,488 1,488 1,488 1,488 1,488 1,488 1,488Cloths Dryer118 0 197 <1 303 <1 56 4Totals3,131 3,384 3,149 3,461 3,120 3,198 3,145Pilot Home 3Kitchen175/305 0 0 66 0 178 92 0Master Bath Room 86 26 0 31 0 0 0 7Master Bath Toilet Room 51 69 77 11 32 11 2 74Bath Room #2 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Bath Room #3 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Laundry Room 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cloths Dryer 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Totals96 77 107 32 189 94 82a.)Mechanical heat recovery ventilation (HRV) system exhaust air flowrates – continuous.b.)Day 7 is the 24-hour test period during which the tracer gas air exchange rate and indoor air quality contaminantparameters were measured.

### A-46Table 10. Return air flow rates and forcedair heating/cooling system percent on-time in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test home.LocationDay 1Day 2Day 3Day 4Day 5Day 6Day 7aPilot Home 1Forced air heating/cooling system on-time (%)Return air flow rate – 1,180 cfm138720141915Pilot Home 2Forced air heating/cooling system on-time (%)bReturn air flow rate – 928 cfm0000000Pilot Home 3Forced air heating/cooling system on-time (%)Return air flow rate–1,010/1,160 cfmb261523131817a.)Day 7 is the 24-hour test period during which indoor air quality contaminant parameters were measured.b.)Dual zone system: cfm on low speed – one zone / cfm on high speed – two zones.

### A-47Table 11. Mechanical outdoor air ventilation measurements in P1,P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationFloor Area(ft2)# BedroomsPercentOn-time(%)Outdoor AirFlow Rate(cfm)Air Changesper HourASHRAEGuidelinesa(cfm / ach)EnergyCommissionGuidelinesb(cfm / ach)100d880.21Pilot Home 12,50030e1,180055 / 0.14118 / 0.28Pilot Home 21,6702100d1320.4839 / 0.1578 / 0.28Pilot Home 3c2,5803nanana56 / 0.16121 / 0.33a.)ASHRAE 62.2 Recommended Guidelines for ventilation requirementson a cubic feet per minute (cfm) / air changes per hour(ach) basis.b.)California Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001 Residential ACM Approval Manual. If Standard Leakage Area is:> 3.0 - no mechanically supplied outdoor air (OA) required.1.5 < 3.0 - mechanically supplied OArequired, minimum of 0.047 cfm/ft2conditioned floor area.< 1.5 - mechanically supplied OA required, house maintained greaterthan -5 Pa with all continuous ventilation fans operating.c.)na indicates no mechanical whole building ventilation provided.d.)Operation of heat recoveryventilation system (HRV).e.)Operation of night timecooling ventilation system.

### A-48Table 12. Forced air heating/coolingsystem fan pressurization duct leakage areas measurements in P1, P2,and P3 pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3cGuidelinesa, bForced air heating/cooling systemreturn air flow rate (cfm)b1,1809281,010/1,160naForced Air System at 25 pascals, registers sealed withtapePercent leakage of total system flow rate (%)4.94.9na<15%Forced Air System at 25 pascals, registers sealed, homeat 25 pascalsPercent leakage of total system flow rate (%)4.63.0na<15%Forced Air System at 25 pascals, registers unsealed,home at 25 pascalsPercent leakage of total system flow rate (%)2.50.2na<15%a.)California Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and NonresidentialBuildings.b.)dual zone system: cfm on low speed – onezone / cfm on high speed – two zones.c.)na indicates data was not collected due to occupant request to end testing because of noise/disruption to a newbaby.

### A-49Table 13. Forced air heating/cooling system Delta-Qduct leakage areas measurements in P1, P2, andP3 pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3aDelta-QSupply leakage (cfm)b61 20 naReturn leakage (cfm)b42 43 naTotal (cfm)10363naa.)na indicates data was not collected due to occupant request to end testing because of noise/disruptionto a new baby.b.)Uncertainty of the measurement is +/- 20 cfm.Table 14. Home differential pressure measurements withthe forced air system on and off in P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3GuidelineaHome Air Pressure with Respect to OutdoorsForced air heating/cooling system off (Pa)-1.2 -1.0 -1.1 -5Forced air heating/cooling system on (Pa)-1.0 -0.8 -1.5a.)California Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001 Residential ACM Approval Manual. If the Standard Leakage Area isless than 1.5, then mechanically supplied OA is required,and the house air pressure with respect to outdoors mustbe greater than -5 Pa with all continuous ventilation fans operating.

### A-50Table 15. Building air leakage area measurements in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3aGuidelinesb, cIndoor Temperature (°F) - HOBO/Q-TrakOutdoor Temp. (°F) - HOBO/weather data68 / 6747 / 4468 / 684468 / 6451naWind Speed (mph)0.51.45.8naEffective Leakage Area@4 Pa (in2)Depressurization 98.895.376.3naPressurization 95.491.0nanaAverage 97.193.2nanaAir Changes Per Hour at 50 PaDepressurization 4.316.263.97naPressurization 3.805.85nanaAverage 4.066.06nanaStandard Leakage AreaDepressurization 2.743.972.05Pressurization 2.653.79naAverage 2.703.88na>3.01.5 < 3.0< 1.5a.)na indicates measurements not availabledue to unstable pressure measurement.b.)California Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001 Residential ACM approval Manual.> 3.0 - no mechanically supplied outdoor air (OA) required.1.5 < 3.0 - mechanically supplied OArequired, minimum of 0.047 cfm/ft2conditioned floor area.< 1.5 - mechanically supplied OA required, house maintainedgreater than -5 Pa with all continuous ventilation fansoperating.c.)na indicates no applicable guidelines reported.

### A-51Table 16. House to garage air leakage measurements in P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3Guidelinesa, bHouse to garage pressure with house at -50 Pa tooutdoor air (pascals)-49.5-49.4-49.8>-49House to garage leakage area, EqLA at 10Pa(inches2)20 (+/- 15)8.5 (+/- 8.5)4 (+/- 4)naGarage to outdoors leakage area, EqLA at 10Pa(inches2)433 (+/- 14)193 (+/- 19)141 (+/- 8)naHouse to garage leakage area / (house to outdoorsleakage area + garage to outdoors leakage area) *100 (%)321naa.)American Lung Association. Healthy House Builder Guidelines 2004.b.)na indicates that no applicable guidelines were reported.

### A-52Table 17. PFT tracer measurements ofthe outdoor air exchange rate inP1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3Short TermDuration (Days)0.930.990.96Sample 1 (Outdoor air changes per hour)0.370.730.26Sample 1 Duplicate (Outdoor air changes per hour)0.370.71naLong TermDuration (Days)13.97 13.98 21.97Sample 1 (Outdoor air changes per hour)0.290.570.30Sample 1 Duplicate (Outdoor air changes per hour)nana0.34a.)na indicates that there was no sample collected.

### A-53Table 18. Short- and long-term measurements of home to garage zone airleakage using PFT tracer in P1, P2,and P3 pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3Short TermDuration (Days)0.930.99 0.96Sample 1 (% garage source into home)2.610.19.8Sample 1 Duplicate (% garage source into home)1.911.9naLong TermDuration (Days)13.97 13.98 21.97Sample 1 (% garage source into home)4.07.211.3Sample 1 Duplicate (% garage source into home)nana11.4a.)na indicates that there was no sample collected.

### A-54Table 19. Outdoor air ventilation rates calculations for P1, P2, and P3 Pilot test homes.LocationPilot Home 1Pilot Home 2Pilot Home 3Natural outdoor air exchange ratea0.120.180.10Balanced mechanical outdoor air exchange rateb0.230.480.00Unbalanced mechanical outdoor air exchange ratec0.010.020.01Natural + mechanical outdoor air exchange rate(ASHRAE 136)d0.350.660.12/0.10fNatural + mechanical outdoor air exchange rate(Palmiter/Bond 0.5 Rule)e0.360.660.12/0.11fPFT Measurement0.370.720.26Window / Door Opening (ft2-hr)0.00.150.8Energy Commission Guidelineg0.350.350.35a.)Calculated using the “Enhanced Method” in ASHRAE Fundamentals, Chapter 27.b.)Smaller of the total 24-hour average exhaust air or outdoor airflow rate.c.)Larger – smaller of the total 24-hour average exhaust air or outdoor airflow rate.d.)Calculated according to ASHRAE 136-1993 (RA2001). The total outdoor air ventilation rate equals the smaller of thetotal supply and total exhaust airflow + the square root of(the absolute value of the difference between the total supplyand total exhaust airflow) squared + the infiltration airflow squared).e.)Palmiter/Bond 0.5 Rule. If the unbalanced mechanical ventilationflow rate < 2 * the natural infiltration rate, then thetotal outdoor air ventilation rate is calculated by the balance portion of the mechanical ventilation flow rate + the naturalinfiltration rate + 1/2 the unbalanced portion of the mechanical ventilation flow rate. If the unbalanced mechanicalventilation flow rate > 2 * the natural infiltration rate, thenthe total outdoor air ventilation rate is calculated by takingthegreater of the exhaust or outdoor air flow rate.f.)Calculated using P2 supply air and return air forced air heating/cooling system duct air leakage / Calculated withoutany supply air and return air forced air heating/cooling system duct air leakage.g.)California Energy Commission, Title 24, 2001 Residential ACM Approval Manual guideline for natural + mechanicaloutdoor air exchange rate.

### A-55Table 20. Concentrations of individualvolatile organic compounds measuredindoors and outdoors at P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3)Compound DetectionLimitP1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorGuidelineAcetic acidest. 0. 4625cAcetonitrile est.0.4 1,750cAcetophenone 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.4 1,225cBenzaldehyde 0.4 3.2 3.6 2.6 0.3 4.4 2.0 naBenzene 0.43.73.83.12.83.12.060b1-Butanol 23.43.64.65.33,750c2-Butanone 0.814,750c2-Butoxyethanol 0.4 4.0 4.1 1.3 36 3,000ctert-Butyl methyl ether0.4 4.4 4.5 8,000bCaprolactam 0.8 500cCarbon tetrachloride0.440bChloroform 0.4300bCresol mix0.4600bCyclohexane est. 2 7.0 7.3 26,250cDecanal 47.7nan-Decane 0.4naa.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, 2003. na = no available guideline.c.)1/40th the 8-hour occupational health guideline (e.g., theCalifornia Division of Occupational Safety and Health(Cal/OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits(PELs), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAKs) .na = no available guideline.Note: Samples with no values reported are below the detection limit.

### A-56Table 21. Concentrations of individualvolatile organic compounds measuredindoors and outdoors at P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3)Compound DetectionLimitP1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorGuidelineDi(ethylene glycol)butylether est.23.7na1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.4 800b1,1-Dichloroethene 2 70bn-Dodecane 0.4 naEthanol 61,1731,18122116247,500cEthoxyethanol 0.4 450c2-Ethoxyethyl acetate0.4675cEthyl acetateest. 0.4 2.2 2.1 2.8 5.2 35,000c2-Ethyl-1-hexanol 0.8 0.9 1.2 6,750cEthylbenzene 0.4 2.11.9 1.2 1.2 4.3 2,000bEthylene glycolest. 2 14 14 8.0 400b2-Furancarboxaldehyde 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 4.4 naHeptanal 0.40.60.61.9nan-Heptane 0.440,000cHexanal 2109.82.933naa.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, 2003. na = no available guideline.c.)1/40th the 8-hour occupational health guideline (e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, DFG MAKs). na = no availableguideline.Note: Samples with no values reported are below the detection limit.

### A-57Table 22. Concentrations of individualvolatile organic compounds measuredindoors and outdoors at P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3)Compound DetectionLimitP1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorGuidelinen-Hexane 0.43.83.93.02.53.37,000bd-Limonene 0.4 24193.10.5221.7 na1-Methoxy-2-propanol 0.4 9,225c2-Methoxyethanol est.2 400c2-Methoxyethyl acetate 0.4600c4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 0.40.50.50.617,500c1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 0.4 0.9 2,000cNaphthalene 0.4 9bNonanal 44.73.69.63.7naOctanal 22.5naPentanal 28.27.93.721.3naPhenol 4200balpha-Pinene 0.4 13 14 10 0.9 29 2,800cbeta-Pinene 0.4 3.03.11.1 4.22,800c2-Propanol 0.8146149186.57,000ba.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, 2003. na = no available guideline.c.)1/40th the 8-hour occupational health guideline (e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, DFG MAKs). na = no availableguideline.Note: Samples with no values reported are below the detection limit.

### A-58Table 23. Concentrations of individualvolatile organic compounds measuredindoors and outdoors at P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (μg/m3)Compound DetectionLimitP1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorGuideline2-Propanone 4 7274366544,500c2-Propoxyethanolest. 22,150cStyrene 0.41.00.90.64.4900bTetrachloroethene 0.4 0.5 35bToluene 0.42728286.4133.1300b1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.4 1,000bTrichloroethene 0.4 600b2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyl ether2 na2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutylether, isomer 10.4 1.3 1.6 2.1 9.7 na2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutylether, isomer 30.4 1.5 1.4 1.7 7.3 na1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.42.5 2.4 1.1 1.3 16.6 3,125cn-Undecane 0.4 naVinyl acetate 0.4 200bm-,p-xylene 0.44.74.5 3.1 3.1 10.1 1.0 700bo-xylene0.4 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.5 8.2 0.5 700ba.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, 2003. na = no available guideline.c.)1/40th the 8-hour occupational health guideline (e.g., Cal/OSHA PELs, ACGIH TLVs, DFG MAKs). na = no availableguideline.Note: Samples with no values reported are below the detection limit.

### A-59Table 24. Concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde measured indoors and outdoors at P1, P2, and P3 pilot testhomes.Concentrations of Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Compounds (μg/m3)Compound DetectionLimitP1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorbGuidelineAcetaldehyde0.4 10 11 6.8 3.3 17 2.2 9Formaldehyde0.3 26 27 28 1.9 45 0.8 33a.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)Acetaldehyde - OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level,2003. Formaldehyde – California Air Resources BoardIndoor Air Quality Guideline, 2005. na = no available guideline.

### A-60Table 25. Concentrations of carbonmonoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM2.5particulate matter measured indoors andoutdoors at P1, P2, and P3pilot test homes.Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and PM2.5Particulate MatterCompound DetectionLimitP1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorbGuidelineCarbon Monoxide (ppm)- 24-hour average0.50.8 2.0 1.3 3.2 na- maximum eight-hour average 0.5 1.0 2.9 1.4 3.8 9- maximum one-hour average 0.5 1.6 3.3 1.8 3.9 20Nitrogen Dioxide (μg/m3) – 24-houraverage9 10 12 150PM2.5Particulate Matter (μg/m3) –24-hour average3.5 12 17 11 24 11 30 65a.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)California Air Resources Board Indoor Air Quality Guideline, 2005. na = no available guideline.Note: Samples with no values reported are below the detection limit.

### A-61Table 26. Temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide concentrations measured indoors and outdoors at P1, P2,and P3 pilot test homes over a 24-hour period.Temperature, Relative Humidity and Carbon Dioxide ConcentrationsCompound P1IndoorsP1IndoorDuplicateP2IndoorsP1 (P2)aOutdoorsP3IndoorsP3OutdoorsIndoorbGuidelineCarbon Dioxide (ppm)- 24-hour average656 678 532 407 620 386na- maximum2,251 2,236 1,228 495 1354 445700 overoutdoors- minimum491 516 421 352 465 373naTemperature (°F)- 24-hour average67 67 68 45 64 49na- maximum70 70 73 67 71 63na- minimum62 62 67 36 60 44naRelative Humidity (%)- 24-hour average42 41 35 70 52 90na- maximum48 44 40 28 55 102na- minimum40 39 34 93 45 56naa.)Outdoor air sampled at one location, P1, for the two-home cluster of P1 and P2.b.)Carbon dioxide; ASHRAE 62.1-2004, na = no available guideline.

### A-62 Table 27. Pilot study air sampling flow rate stability for P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Air Sampling Flowrate Stability – Relative Standard Deviations a

Minimum Maximum Average

VOCs

(all 12 samples) 0.00 0.23 0.08

VOCs

(6 analyzed samples- with most stable flow rates) 0.00 0.07 0.03

Nitrogen Dioxide

(all 6 samples) 0.01 0.05 0.03

Formaldehyde/Acetaldehyde

(all 6 samples) 0.02 0.54 0.11

Formaldehyde/Acetaldehyde

(5 samples w/o sample P3-F2) 0.02 0.05 0.03

Particulate Matter – PM 2.5 (all 6 samples) 0.01 0.04 0.03

a.) Relative standard deviations, calculated as the standard deviation divided by the

average of each pair of air sampling flow rate measurements (i.e., start and stop flow

rate measurements).

### A-63 Table 28. Pilot study carbon dioxi de and carbon monoxide calibra tion stability for P1, P2,

and P3 pilot test homes.

Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide Calibration Stability (ppm) a

Minimum Maximum Average

Carbon Monoxide Zero - 0 ppm

(all 6 samples – 24-hour collection periods) 0 0 0

Carbon Monoxide Span - 35 ppm

(six 24-hour collection periods) -3 1 -1

Carbon Dioxide Zero - 0 ppm

(six 24-hour collection periods) 0 63 21

Carbon Dioxide Span - 1000 ppm

(six 24-hour collection periods) -16 120 39

Carbon Dioxide Span - 1000 ppm

(5 samples w/o sample P3-C2) -16 60 22

a.) Calibration stability calculated as the difference between the post-calibration

concentration check and the calibration gas concentration.

### A-64 Table 29. Pilot study air contaminant meas urement precision for volatile organic

compounds at P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Air Contaminant Measurement Precision

Sample 1

(μg/m 3 ) Sample 2

Duplicate

Sample

(μg/m 3 ) Relative a

Standard

Deviation

Acetic acid 0.8 0.7 0.09

Acetonitrile 3.6 4.0 0.07

Acetophenone 3.7 3.8 0.02

Benzaldehyde 4.6 4.9 0.04

Benzene bql bql na

1-Butanol 4.0 4.1 0.02

2-Butanone 4.4 4.5 0.02

2-Butoxyethanol bql bql na

tert-Butyl methyl ether bql bql na

Caprolactam bql bql na

Carbon tetrachloride bql bql na

Chloroform 7.0 7.3 0.03

Cresol mix bql bql na

Cyclohexane bql bql na

Decanal bql bql na

n-Decane bql bql na

Di(ethylene glycol)butyl ether bql bql na

1,4-Dichlorobenzene bql bql na

1,1-Dichloroethene 1,173 1,181 0.00

n-Dodecane bql bql na

Ethanol bql bql na

Ethoxyethanol 2.2 2.1 0.03

2-Ethoxyethyl acetate bql 0.9 na

Ethyl acetate 2.1 1.9 0.07

2-Ethyl-1-hexanol 14 14 0.00

Ethylbenzene 1.4 1.4 0.00

Ethylene glycol 0.6 0.6 0.00

2-Furancarboxaldehyde bql bql na

Heptanal 10 9.8 0.01

n-Heptane 0.8 0.7 0.09

Hexanal 3.6 4.0 0.07

a.) Relative standard deviation calculated as the standard deviation divided by the

average for each pair of duplicate 24-hour samples. na = not applicable for sample

pairs with one of samples below quantification limit (bql).

### A-65 Table 30. Pilot study air contaminant meas urement precision for volatile organic

compounds at P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Air Contaminant Measurement Precision

Sample 1

(μg/m 3 ) Sample 2

Duplicate

Sample

(μg/m 3 ) Relative a

Standard

Deviation

n-Hexane 3.8 3.9 0.02

d-Limonene 25 19 0.19

1-Methoxy-2-propanol bql bql na

2-Methoxyethanol bql bql na

2-Methoxyethyl acetate bql bql na

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.5 0.5 0.00

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone bql bql na

Naphthalene bql bql na

Nonanal bql 5.2 na

Octanal bql bql na

Pentanal 8.2 7.9 0.03

Phenol bql bql na

alpha-Pinene 13 14 0.05

beta-Pinene 3.0 3.1 0.02

2-Propanol 146 149 0.01

2-Propanone 72 74 0.02

2-Propoxyethanol bql bql na

Styrene 1.0 0.9 0.07

Tetrachloroethene bql bql na

Toluene 27 28 0.03

1,1,1-Trichloroethane bql bql na

Trichloroethene bql bql na

2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyl ether bql bql na

2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyl

ether, isomer 1 1.3 1.6 0.15

2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol monoisobutyl

ether, isomer 3 1.5 1.4 0.05

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2.5 2.4 0.03

n-Undecane bql bql na

Vinyl acetate bql bql na

m-,p-xylene 4.7 4.5 0.03

o-xylene 2.2 2.0 0.07

a.) Relative standard deviation calculated as the standard deviation divided by the

average for each pair of duplicate 24-hour samples. na = not applicable for sample

pairs with one of samples below quantification limit (bql).

### A-66 Table 31. Pilot study air contaminant meas urement precision for acetaldehyde, carbon

dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, nitr ogen dioxide, and particulate matter PM 2.5 

### at P1, P2, and P3 pilot test homes.

Air Contaminant Measurement Precision

Sample 1 Sample 1

Duplicate Relative a

Standard

Deviation

Acetaldehyde (μg/m 3 ) 10 11 0.07

Formaldehyde (μg/m 3 ) 26 27 0.03

Carbon Dioxide (ppm) 626 678 0.06

Carbon Monoxide (ppm) 0.8 bql na

Nitrogen Dioxide (μg/m 3 ) bql bql na

Particulate Matter – PM 2.5 (μg/m 3 ) 12 17 0.24

a.) Relative standard deviation calculated as the standard deviation divided by the average

for each pair of duplicate 24-hour samples. na = not applicable for sample pairs with

one of samples below quantification limit (bql).

### A-67 Table 32. PFT measurement precision for P1, P2, and P3 Pilot test homes.

PFT Measurement Precision

Sample 1 Sample 1

Duplicate

Sample Relative a

Standard

Deviation

Pilot Home 1

Indoor Tracer short term, PMCH (ach) 0.37 0.37 0.00

Garage Tracer, short term, p-PDCH (%) 2.6 1.9 0.20

Pilot Home 2

Indoor Tracer short term, PMCH (ach) 0.73 0.71 0.03

Garage Tracer, short term, p-PDCH (%) 10.1 11.9 0.11

Pilot Home 3

Indoor Tracer long term, PMCH (ach) 0.30 0.34 0.09

Garage Tracer, long term, p-PDCH (%) 11.3 11.4 0.01

a.) Relative standard deviation calculated as the standard deviation divided by the

average for each pair of duplicate 24-hour samples.

### A-68 Figure 1. Pilot Home P3, photograph of ai r sampling rig in the family room.

### A-69 Figure 2. Close-up of air sampling rig.

### A-70 Figure 3. Close-up of air sampling rig w ith outdoor radiation/rain shield.

### A-71 Figure 4. Pilot Home P2, Duct Blaster instal led at return air inlet of forced air

heating/cooling system.

### A-72 Figure 5. Pilot Home P2, Blower Door and APT installed.

### A-73 Figure 6. Pilot Home P1, phot ograph of front elevation.

### A-74 Figure 7. Pilot Home P2, phot ograph of front elevation.

### A-75 Figure 8. Pilot Home P3, phot ograph of front elevation.

### A-76 Figure 9. Floor plan of Home P1 depicting th e locations of the air samplers and the PFT

sources.

### A-77 Figure 10. Floor plan of P2 depicting the locations of the air samplers and the PFT sources.

### A-78 Figure 11. Floor plan of P3 first floor, depicti ng the locations of the air samplers and the

PFT sources.

### A-79 Figure 12. Floor plan of P3 second floor, depi cting the locations of the PFT sources.

### A-80 Carbon Dioxide

P1-C1-051206

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 160010:3111:1111:5112:3113:1113:5114:3115:1215:5216:3217:1217:5218:3219:1219:5320:3321:1321:5322:3323:1323:530:341:141:542:343:143:544:345:145:556:357:157:558:35

TimeCarbon Dioxide (ppm) Carbon Dioxide



### Figure 13. Concentration of carbon dioxide meas ured indoors at one-minute intervals in

pilot home P1 between 10:19 on December 6, 2005, and 9:22 on December 7, 2005.

### A-81 REFERENCES

ASHRAE. 2004. ASHRAE Standard 62.1

‐ 2004, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air

Quality. Atlanta, Georgia: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

‐ Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASTM. 2002. ASTM Standard E 104, Standard Practice for Maintaining Constant Relative

Humidity by Means of Aqueous Solutions. West Conshohocken: American Society

for Testing and Materials Standards.

California Air Resour ces Board. 1999. Final Staff Report

– Update to the Toxic Air

Contaminant (TAC) List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento,

California. Avai lable at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/finalstaffreport.htm

.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Report to the California Legislature: Indoor Air Pollution

in California. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California.

Available at www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/ab1173/ab1173.htm.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Compendium of Methods for the

Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air. Washington, D.C.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Washington, D.C. Avail able at: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Compendium Method TO

‐ 15. Washington,

D.C. www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to

‐ 15r.pdf.

Nielson, G. D., L. F. Hansen, and P. Wolkoff. 1997. “Chemical and Biological Evaluation of

Building Material Emissions. II. Approaches for Setting Indoor Air Standards or

Guidelines for Chemicals.” Indoor Air 7:17–32.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1994a. Method 6014

‐ Nitric

Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 4th

Edition, Cincinnati, Ohio.

NIOSH (Na tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1994b. Method 0500

‐

Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated, Total. NIOSH Manual of Analytical

Methods (NMAM), 4th Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2003. All Chronic

Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of August 200 3.

### A-82

### A-83 

# Appendix A

Pilot Study

Recruitment Letter

### A-84 <<Customer Name>>

<<Address>>

<<City>>, <<CA>>, <<Zip code>>

November 8, 2005

Dear <<Customer Name>>,

SUBJECT: Energy, Ventilation, a nd Indoor Air Quality Study

Thank you again for completing the UC Berkeley Ventilation Practices and Indoor Air Quality

Survey sent to you in 2004

– 

### 2005. As you may recall, this important research is sponsored by the

California Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to help improve

the energy efficiency and indoor air quality of newer homes in California. In the Survey, you

expressed interest in particip ating in the second part of th e study, which involves measuring

ventilation and indoor air quality in new homes.

We are contacting you to request your participation in the second part of the study, entitled

“Ventilation and Indoor Air Qualit y in New Homes.” Your home wa s randomly selected for this

study, and receipt of this letter does not mean th ere is a problem with ventilation or indoor air

quality in your home. Because your home was randomly selected to obtain a representative

group of homes, your participati on is critical to the success of this study. In addition, your

participation is very important to the State of Ca lifornia as it prepares to update building energy

design standards and strives to assure hea lthful indoor air quality in our new homes.

What Do I Receive for My Participation?

The ARB is offering to thoroughly measure the vent ilation and indoor air quality of your home at

no cost to you. This type of air quality testing would typically cost as much as $7,000 per home.

We recognize that your participation in this study may present an inconvenience to you, so we

are pleased to offer you $100 to thank you fo r your participation in this research.

All test results and personal information about yo ur home will be kept strictly confidential. You

will receive a summary of the final report for th e study and be notified when the final report is

available on the internet. The fina l report will include a descripti on of the measurements and the

collective results of the 100 homes tested. For your home, test results will be available upon your

request. This information can be used to improve the energy efficiency and air quality of your

home.

What Does the Study Involve?

9 We ask that you conduct your normal househol d activities during the testing period.

9 Field teams will visit your home on 3 days within an 8

– 

### 10 day period. 

# State of California

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Energy Commission

### A-85 o Each visit will last approximately 2

– 

### 3 hours. Each visit will be scheduled with

you and will occur between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. The teams may also need to inspect

your home’s attic or crawlspace.

o Team members will be fully bonded and will wear identification badges.

o If you would like to participate but be lieve you won’t be able to accommodate

each visit, a key lockbox can be provided.

9 A field team will place small data loggers (m atchbox sized) in a few windows and ventilation

fans to collect usage information (Days 1

– 

### 8). These data loggers wi ll not interfere with

opening, closing, or locking your windows.

9 You will be provided with forms to track your:

o Household window and fan usage for 1 week (Days 1

– 

### 8).

o Household activities such as cooking , painting, candle burning, smoking, and

vacuuming for a 2-day period (Days 7

– 

### 8).

9 You will be asked to complete a brief ven tilation and indoor air quality questionnaire.

9 A field team will install air qua lity testing equipment in your home’s main living area on

Day 7. The equipment will operate for a 22

– 

### 26 hour period (see the photo below); it is

very quiet and safe.

9 A field team will remove the data loggers and testing equipment on Day 8.

A more detailed description of the in-home vi sits will be provided when you schedule an

appointment.

How Do I Enroll in the Study?

We hope that you will agree to participate in this study. To enroll or obtain additional

information, please call Bud Offermann at this toll-free number, 1-888-567-7700, by

November 15, 2005.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Francis “Bud” Offermann

Under ARB Contract No. 04-310

Administrator of Research Recruitment

Indoor Environmental Engineering

1448 Pine St., Suite103

San Francisco, CA 94109

www.IEE-SF.com

1-888-567-7700 Thomas J. Phillips, Contract Manager

Indoor Exposure Assessment Section

Research Division

California Air Resources Board

1001 - I St., POB 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/indoor.htm



### 916-322-7145

Quiet indoor air sampler,

typically installed in the living

room for a 22 - 26 hour p eriod.

### A-86

### A-87 

# Appendix B

Pilot Study

Recruitment Script

### A-88 

## Air Resource Board Ventilation & Indoor Air Quality Study

Recruiting Instrument

Recruiting ID:________ Initial Maili ng: Pilot Mailing, November 9, 2005

Initial Contact Information (collect at start of call)

Participant Name (if different than database) :________________________________________

Home Address (if different than database) :___________________________________________

Phone-Home : __________________________

Additional Contact Information (collect at end of call)

Name and e-mail:_______________________ Name and e-mail:_______________________

_______________________ _______________________

Name and Phone-Work : _________________ Name and Phone-Work : _________________

_________________ _________________

Name and Phone-Cell:

__________________ Name and Phone-Cell : __________________

__________________ __________________

Circle best number and time to call: ____________________________________



### Call Log

Codes:

1=Completed and agrees to participate 2=Callback 3=Left Message

4=Busy 5=No Answer 6=Refusal

7=Termination 8=Wrong Number 9=Disconnected Number

10=Language Barrier

Date: Time: Outcome Notes



### Call 1

/ : 

### AM

PM

Call 2

/ : 

### AM

PM

Call 3

/ : 

### AM

PM

Call 4

/ : 

### AM

PM

Call 5

/ : 

### AM

PM

Call 6

/ : 

### AM

PM

Call 7

/ : 

### AM

PM

### A-89 Concerned Customers: Customers may call the California Air Resources Board to

confirm the validity of our study. Contact T homas J. Phillips, Contract Manager at

916.322.7145.

Additional information on indoor air quality is available on the web at

http://www.arb.ca.gov/res earch/indoor/indoor.htm and

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/research.htm

.

INTRODUCTION:

Hello this is Bud Offermann. I am the Prin ciple Investigator for the California Air

Resources Board Research Project “Ventilati on and Indoor Air Qual ity in New Homes”.

Are you interested in finding more ab out this research project and perhaps

participating ??

Yes. Great ! First let me confir m your name, address, and phone number. Enter

information on page 1, Initial Contact Information.

No. Well then how can I help you ?

Notes from homeowner :

Or (if Bud is not in)

Hello, Mr. Offermann is not ava ilable at this time. My name is Jonathan Robertson and I

am the field team manager for the Califor nia Air Resources Board Research Project

“Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”. Are you interested in finding

more about this research project and perhaps participating ?

Yes. Great ! First let me confir m your name, address, and phone number. Enter

information on page 1, Initial Contact Information.

No. Well then how can I help you ?

Notes from homeowner :

LOG in call start time:___________ LOG in call stop time:_____________

I first need to ask you a few questions to confirm that your home qualifies for the

study.

### A-90 QUALIFIER QUESTIONS

1. Are you the original owner?

1. Yes

2. No I am the 2 nd 

### , 3 rd 

### , 4 th 

### owner. (Circle, which one applies)

3. No, I am a renter. Thank and terminate ca ll (explain that this study is only open

to owner occupied homes)

2. How long have you lived at this house ?

Months______ / Years_______

If less than one year by the time that th e field study is to be scheduled then

terminate call (this study is only open to owners who have lived in there house for

more than one year).

3. Is this your primary residence?

1. Yes

2 No. Thank and terminate call (this study is only open to the primary residences

of owner occupied homes)

4. Can you tell me if your home was constructed before or after 2002?

1. Yes, built before 2002. (Thank and terminat e call, this study is only open to the

new homes built after 2002)

2. No, built after 2002. (Proceed)

98. Don’t Know. Ask who might know; _____________________________

5. Do you recall the month and year your home was completed?

Month/Year: ____________________

Not sure, estimate: _______________

6. Has your home had any major fire, smoke, or water damage?

1. Describe what and when:____________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

2. No.

7. I need to find out if your home has a fr esh air ventilation sy stem. Typically these

system have an air duct connected to your forced air heating and cooling system

to bring in outdoor air. Or some fresh air systems have a separate fan and

ductwork that distributes air continu ously throughout the house. A whole house

exhaust fan that is used to cool the house at night does not qualify. Does your

home have a fresh air ventilation system ?

### A-91 1. Yes

2. Not sure

3. No

98. Don’t Know

8. If yes, is the system operational ?

1. Yes

2. Not sure

3. No

98. Don’t Know

9. If yes, do you run the fan for this syst em continuously or most of the time

when the house is occupied?

1. Yes

2. Not sure

3. No

98. Don’t Know

Great! It appears that your home will qualify for the study.

I’d like to go over the details of our vi sits, and make sure you understand what

participants must do.

10. We are requesting permission to conduct ventilation and indoor air quality tests

in your home. There would be three home visits over an 8-day period (e.g., one

visit each on days 1, 7 and 8. Each visit would require approximately 2

– 

### 3 hours

and will be scheduled with you to occu r between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. (e.g., 9

– 

### 12, or

1

– 

### 4, or 4

– 

### 7). Would you be willing to accommodate us with this request?

1. Yes, (skip Q11)

2. Not sure, depends on the hours go to Q11.

3. Not sure, Have other concerns or questions. Go to Participant FAQ

. 

### 4. No, ask why and go to Q11 unle ss homeowner terminates call.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

11. To facilitate the scheduling of these thr ee home tests, we can offer you the option

of a lock box. By utilizing the lockbox, you don’t have to be home for the entire

visit or for all of the visits. Would you be interested in getting a lockbox?

1. Yes, (provide more information ask about getting a lock box)

2. Not sure, (provide more information on how it works)

3. No, thank and terminate call if also no to Q.10

### A-92 FIRST HOME VISIT

12. Each visit to your home has a unique pur pose. During the first visit we would

like to view a copy of the floor plan. Do you have a copy of the floor plan and

the homeowner’s package? It may have been included in the homeowner’s

package.

1. Yes, I have both a floorplan and a home owner’s package. (Ask for them to pull

it out for first visit and we’ll be borrowi ng it to be returned the following visit).

2. Yes, I have homeowners package but don’ t know if there is a floor plan, but I

will check and call you back. (Inform them if we don’t get your floor plan, then

we will need to make a sketch of the location and size of each room.)

3. No, I don’t have the homeowner’s package but I have a floor plan.

4. No, I don’t have either. (Inform them we will need to make a sketch of the

location and size of each room.)

13. The primary purpose of the first home visit is to install the small data loggers that

collect information on window and fan usage. The small matchbox sized

dataloggers are placed on selected wi ndows and will not inte rfere with your

opening, closing or locking your windows. A few dataloggers will also be placed

on ventilation system fan motors . Would you agree these data loggers to be

installed in your home?

1. Yes

2. Not Sure, (Describe in greater detail nature and location of loggers).

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

14. During this visit our technicians will also provide with a short questionnaire and

log sheets to log your window and fan usage and indoor ac tivities such as

cooking. We ask you to complete these befor5e the last visit on day 8. Will you

have time to complete the questionnaire and log sheets?

1. Yes

2. Not Sure, (Explain what to expect.)

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

SECOND HOME VISIT

A week later, we would make our second visi t. During this visit our technicians will

be installing an air sampler which quietly m easures the air quality in your home. The air

### A-93 sampler is quiet, childproof, and pet-proof. You may recall having seen a photo of the air

sampler in the letter. Would you agree to allow the air sampler(s) in your home for 24

hours?

1. Yes

2. Not Sure (Explain what to expect.)

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

15. During the second home visit, we will also need to access the ventilation system

and collect data on the house characteris tics. This work requires inspecting the

attic spaces and or crawlspaces. Would you agree to allo w us to inspect the

ventilation system, and attic and crawlspaces?

1. Yes

2. Not Sure (Explain what to expect.)

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

16. Is your ventilation equipment in the attic or the crawlspace?

1. Attic

2. Crawlspace

3. Garage

4. Indoor closet space

5. Not Sure

17. On a typical weekday, how many adults and children can be expected to be

in the home at sometime during daytime hours (9 a.m. - 5 p.m.) ?

Number of adults:

______ Number of children:

______

THIRD HOME VISIT

18. The third and last visit will need to occur approximately 24 hours after the

previous appointment. The purpose of this vi sit is to shut down and retrieve the

air sampler, and to collect the data lo ggers. Again, we can provide you with a

lock box to facilitate th is scheduling if you wish. Will you be able to

accommodate our request to return approximately 24 hours later?

1. Yes

2. Not Sure (Explain what to expect.)

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

### A-94 19. During the third visit, we need to de termine how airtight your home is by

conducting a building envelope leakag e test. All doors and windows will be

closed and a special fan will be temporaril y installed on one door that will remain

open. The fan runs for approximately 10

– 

### 15 minutes and is used to measure

airflow. Would you agree to allow the leakage testing of your building?

1. Yes

2. Not Sure (Explain what to expect.)

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

20. A similar test will be run on the home’s ve ntilation system to see how airtight the

ducts are. This test runs for about five to ten minutes. Would you agree to allow

the duct leakage testing?

1. Yes

2. Not sure (Explain what to expect).

3. No, terminate and inquire as to why.

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

Lastly, our technicians will collect the quest ionnaires and log sheets and provide you with

a $100 money order to thank you for participating.

21. Do you have any additional questions or concerns that we have not

addressed already?

1. Yes

2. No

Notes from homeowner Comments or concerns:

22. Would you like to participate?

1. Yes

2. No. Ask why not and terminate.

Notes from homeowner :

23. If yes on Q22 then “GREAT”. Can we take a minute to discuss the scheduling

of the three home inspections?

1. Yes

2. No. If no, then when, with whom, a nd at what number can we discuss the

scheduling.

Notes from homeowner

### A-95 

## SCHEDULING QUESTIONS

24. We currently are looking to schedule th ree homes for inspections to be conducted

between November 29 through December 8. Do either of the following sets of

three dates work for you, with or without a lock box ?

Set 1. Home Visit 1: Tuesday, November 29



### Home Visit 2: Tuesday, December 6

Home Visit 3: Wednesday, December 7

Set 2. Home Visit 1: Wednesday, November 30,

Home Visit 2: Wednesday, December 7

Home Visit 3: Thursday, December 8

1. Either Set ______

2. Set 1 Only______

3. Set 2 Only______

25. If yes to Q24 skip to Q26.

If no to Q24. Would you be interested in possibl y participating in any of the

future study periods ? Circle periods of interest.

• Spring, April, 2006

• Summer, July/August, 2006

• Winter, January/February, 2007

3. Is there a preference ? ________________________________________

26. If yes to Q24. Do any of the following 2–3 hour time periods for the three

home visits work for you, with or without a lock box ?

1. 9AM to 12PM

2. 1PM to 4PM

3. 4PM to 7PM

4. Is there a preference, 1 st 

### or 2 nd 

### ? ___________________________

### A-96 Notes from homeowner

Excellent. We will be calling you back very shortly to confirm the exact dates and

times of the inspections. Do you have any further questions at this time ?

Notes from homeowner :

Finally, since the ventilation a nd indoor air quality factors ca n vary from season to season

we will be asking a few residences to partic ipate in a second set of inspections in a

different season than the first set. These homeowners will receive an additional $100 for

participating in a sec ond set of inspections. Provided the first set of inspections went

smoothly for you, would you consider participating in a second set ?

1. Yes

2. No. If no ask why not.

Notes from homeowner

Can you please provide us with some additional contact information to

facilitate future communications ? Get additional contact information and

log in on page 1.

Thank you for taking this time to discuss your participation in the

important research project.



## !!!!! Log in on page 2 the time of the end of the call. !!!!!

### B-1 

## Appendix B

Volatile Organic Compound Analytical Method

### B-2 Analytical Methods

VOC Sorbent Tubes

The multi-sorbent samplers used in th is study contained Tenax®-TA 60/80 mesh

backed up by a section of a carbonac eous sorbent, CarbosieveTM S-III 60/80

mesh (Part No. 10184, Supelco, Inc.). T hese sorbents were packed in series

within a 10-centimeter (cm) long by 0.64-cm OD stai nless steel tube passivated

with a Silcosteel® coating (Custom order, Supelco, Inc.). The sorbent samplers

were conditioned in the laboratory prior to shipment. For conditioning, batches of

20 samplers were heated at 300 o 

### C for 30 or more minutes with helium purge

flow. One sampler out of every batch was analyzed. This analysis demonstrated

that the background levels of target VOCs in conditioned samplers were below

2 ng/sampler and the levels of summed VOCs were below 10 ng/sampler.

GC/MS Analysis of VOCs

The thermal desorption – gas chroma tography/mass spectr ometry (GC/MS)

method used for the analysis of VOCs is based on U.S. EPA Method TO-17,

"Determination of Volatile Organic Com pounds in Ambient Air Using Active

Sampling onto Sorbent Tubes" (U.S. EPA 1999).

Prior to analysis, the sorbent samplers were purged at room temperature for 30

minutes with helium flowing at 100 cubic centimeters per minute (cm 3 

### /min).

Then, a gaseous internal standard (ISTD) was added to each sampler using a

loading rig fitted with a calibrated samp ling loop and additional helium flow was

passed through the tube for three minutes. The ISTD was 191 nanograms (ng) of

1-bromo-4-fluorobenzene (BFB) supplied as a certified gas mixture (14.9 ppm

±2%, balance nitrogen; Scott Specialty Ga ses). The ISTD was used to check on

the operation of the system , to provide a retention- time marker, and to enable

quantitative analysis.

The sorbent samplers were thermally desorbed (UltrA TD-UNITY, Markes

International, Ltd.) and introduced into a GC/MS system (Models 6890 GC/5973

MSD, Agilent). The GC was fitted with a 30-m, 0.25- mill imeter (mm) ID, 1-micron

(μm) film moderately polar column (Model DB-1701, Part No. 122-0733; Agilent).

The MS detector was operated in the SCAN mode over a mass range of m/z 30–

450 amu. The samples were split during t he injection phase of the analysis. For

this study, the split ratio was 5:1. The thermal desorption, GC, and MS conditions

for the analyses are summarized in Tables 1–3, respectively.

Low-Molecular Weight Carbonyl Sampling and Analysis

The methods used for the sampli ng and analysis of formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde are based on ASTM D 5197- 03, “Standard Test Method for

Determination of Formaldehyde and Other Carbonyl Compounds in Air (Active

Sampler Methodology” (ASTM 2003).

### B-3 Sep-Pak XPoSure Aldehyde Samplers (Part number WAT047205, Waters,

Corp.) were used to collect air samples for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

When air is pulled through a sampler, t he acidified 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine

(DNPH) reagent in the sampler reacts with carbonyl compounds to form the

stable hydrazone derivatives that are retai ned by the sampler. In the laboratory,

the hydrazone derivatives were eluted fr om each sampler with 2 milliliter (mL)

acetonitrile. An aliquot of a sample was analyzed for the hydrazone derivatives of

formaldehyde and acetaldehyde using re verse-phase high-performance liquid

chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviole t (UV) detection (Model 1050, HewlettPackard). The absorbance of the derivatives was measured at 360 nm. The

HPLC conditions for the analyses are summarized in Table 4.

Sampler Storage

Upon arrival at the laboratory, all sample rs were logged, checked for integrity,

and transferred to a freezer dedicated to sample storage. VOC samples were

analyzed within one week of receipt. Aldehyde samples were analyzed within

approximately four weeks of receipt.

Calibrations

VOCs

Two custom calibration mixtures for the analysis of VOCs were prepared by

Absolute Standards, Inc. These mixtures were accompanied by certified weight

reports containing all of the necessa ry data for ISO-17025 compliance. One

calibration mixture contained 20 target VOCs. It was prepared in methanol. The

other mixture contained vinyl acetate only and was prepared in water. The

compounds and their assigned concentration s in the mixtures based on the

weight measurements are listed in Table 5. The unc ertainty for each compound

was less than 0.5%.

Calibration standards for VOCs were pr epared in the laboratory by diluting the

vinyl acetate mixture and the 20-co mponent mixture as described below.

Problems encountered with the analysis of vinyl acetate, n-hexane, and ethylene

glycol in the first VOC external profic iency test (see below) led us to prepare

additional standards. Subsequent ly, the standard for the

20-component mixture was prepared without the addition of vinyl acetate. A

standard for ethylene glycol was prepared individually in methanol, and a gas

standard containing viny l acetate and n-hexane also was prepared.

Two working standards of the 20-component mixtur e with and without vinyl

acetate were prepared by dilution of the stock solution(s) in methanol. The high

standard was a 1:20 dilution of the 20- component mixture (1 :200 of the vinyl

acetate mixture) resulti ng in VOC concentrations of 100 μg/mL (100 ng/μL). The

low standard was a 1:100 dilution of t he 20-component mixtur e (1:1000 of the

vinyl acetate mixture) resulting in conc entrations of 20 μg/mL (20 ng/μL). A single

### B-4 working standard of ethylene glycol in methanol was prepared in the laboratory

from the pure compound (Part. No. 32,455

– 

### 8, 99+%; Aldrich Chemical Co.). The

concentration was 111 μg/mL (111 ng/μL).

Aliquots of the working standards of the 20-componen t mixture with and without

vinyl acetate were spiked onto multi- sorbent tubes using an Adsorbent Tube

Injector System (ATIS, Supelco, Inc.). T he aliquots were transferred to the ATIS

with modified microliter syringes (7000 Se ries, Hamilton Co.). The ATIS flash

vaporized the compounds into a continuous flow of helium gas that swept the

compounds onto the tube. The ATIS parameters were 100 o 

### C with 50 cm 3 

### /min

flow rate. Multi-sorbent tubes spiked wit h the different levels of VOCs were

analyzed by the same method used for t he analysis of the field samples.

The ATIS spiking method did not work adequately for ethylene glycol. Instead,

microliter aliquots of the ethylene glycol work ing solution were spiked directly into

the inlet of sorbent tubes containing Tenax TA only.

A gas standard was prepared for n-hexane and vinyl acetate in a static dilution

bulb (SDB) following the method described in TO-1 (U.S. EPA 1984) using pure

compounds (Part No. 13,938

– 

### 6, 99+% and Part No. V150-3, 99+%, respectively;

Aldrich Chemical Co.). Five microliters of each chemical were added to a SDB,

producing gas concentrat ions of 1.66 and 2.35 ng/ μL for n-hexane and vinyl

acetate, respectively. Known volumes of gas (25 to 200 μL) were withdrawn from

the SDB using a gas-tight syringe wit h locking mechanism and injected onto

sorbent tubes to create the calibration levels.

Three full calibrations were produced for the multi-component mi xture. Each of

these consisted of six or more concentrati on levels. The masses of the individual

VOCs ranged from 20 to 500 ng. Two ca librations were generated during the

analysis of field samples collected from August to October 2006, and one

calibration was generated during the analysi s of samples collected from January

to March 2007. The variation in the linea r term over this period was 9% relative

standard deviation (RSD), or better, with th e exception of capr olactam, which had

a RSD of 15%.

Two calibrations were produced for ethy lene glycol, one for the analysis of

samples from each of the two field co llection periods. These contained three

concentration levels over a range of 78 to 222 ng. The linear terms were nearly

identical; however, the second calibration had a large negative intercept

equivalent to 57 ng of ethyl ene glycol. A single calibrat ion, consisting of five

concentration levels, was generated fo r n-hexane and vinyl acetate.

All calibrations were produced using t he internal standard method. For each

compound, one extracted ion served as t he quantitative ion and one to two other

extracted ions were used as qualifiers . The quantitative ion for the internal

standard (ISTD), 1-bromo-4- fluorobenzene, was m/z 95. The ISTD also served

as a time reference for each calibration. A ll retention times of the individual VOCs

relative to the retention time of the ISTD were st able throughout the study. Two

### B-5 xylene isomers, m-xylene and p-xylene, co-elute and were treated as a single

compound (termed m/p-xylene) . The calibration data for each VOC were fit to a

linear function. The coefficients of determinat ion for the fit of the data points were

0.98, or better. The calibration data are summarized in Table 6.

Aldehydes

A custom calibration mixture prepared by Absolute Standards, Inc. was used to

calibrate the HPLC for the analysis of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The

mixture contained the 2,4-dinitrophenylh ydrazine (DNPH) derivatives of

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and glutaralde hyde (not used for this study) with

acetonitrile as the solvent. The concentra tion of each target compounds as the

aldehyde was 100 μg/mL with an uncertainty of less than 0.5%. The aldehyde

mixture was diluted in acet onitrile to produce seven or eight calibration levels

ranging from 0.025 to 4.0 ng/μL. The calibration data were fi t to a linear function

with calculated intercept. The coefficients of determination for the fit of the data

points were >0.999.

For the August to October 2006 sampli ng period, a prior external standard

calibration created in March 2006 was verifi ed by the analysis of freshly prepared

check standards. The March 2006 calibration prepared using calibration mixture

Part No. 93594, Lot No. 21004. The formal dehyde linear term was 721 with an

intercept of 3.8; the acetaldehyde linear term was 565 with an intercept of 5.5. A

new calibration was created for the Januar y to March 2007 sampling period using

calibration mixture Part No. 93594, Lot No. 20107. The formaldehyde linear term

was 747 with an intercept of 11.4; the acetaldehyde linear term was 569 with an

intercept of 1.9.

Method Detection Limits

Method detection limits (MDLs) for the target VOCs were determined in

conjunction with the analysis of the samp les collected from August to October

2006. This was accomplished by making three replicate injections of a low mass

VOC calibration standard that ap proximately was within a fact or of five to ten of

the anticipated detection limit s. Ethylene glycol was analyzed separately using a

higher mass standard due to its higher MDL. For each VOC, the MDL was

defined as the product of the standard deviation of t he measurements and the

student’s t-value for a 95% confidence leve l (t = 2.92, p = 0.05, df = 2). The

results are shown in Table 7. Typically, the calculated MDLs were 5 ng or less.

Compounds with higher MDLs were ethyle ne glycol, 1-meth yl-2-pyrrolidinone,

and vinyl acetate. The MDL for ethylene glyc ol in the second calibration is equal

to the intercept of 57 ng plus the ca lculated value of 16 ng, or 71 ng.

MDLs for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde we re determined in May 2006. Seven

replicate cartridges were prepared by in jecting one microliter of the standard

(100 ng of each compound) onto the inlet of each cartridge and purging with

helium. The cartridges were extracted and analyzed in the sa me manner as the

### B-6 field samples. The MDLs defined as t he product of the standard deviation of the

measurements and the student’s t-value fo r a 95% confidence level (t = 1.94,

p = 0.05, df = 6) were about 9 ng for eac h compound. Using the t-value for a 99%

confidence level (t = 3.14, p = 0.01, df =6), the MDLs we re 13 to 15 ng.

External Proficiency Tests

External proficiency tests were conduc ted in October 2006 and March 2007 in

conjunction with the analyses of samples fo r the two collection periods (August to

October 2006 and January to March 2007). The proficiency test (PT) standards

were prepared by Absolute Standards, Inc. under thei r AbsoluteGrade PT

Program. There were three separ ate standards: one for formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde; one for vinyl acetate; and one for the 20-component VOC mixture

(19 components with m/p-xylene tr eated as a singl e component).

For the VOCs, the vinyl acetate PT mi xture and the multi- component VOC PT

mixture were diluted 1:100 in methanol. The combined diluted mixture was mixed

by sonication. One microliter (1 μL) of t he mixture was injected onto each of three

multi-sorbent tubes. The ISTD was added and the tubes were purged with

helium. The tubes were analyzed as described for samples and other standards.

The results for the three tubes we re averaged and reported to Absolute

Standards, Inc. as concentrations in μg/mL.

For the aldehydes, the PT mixture was diluted 1:100 in acetonitrile and

sonicated. Aliquots of the diluted mixture were anal yzed in triplicate. The average

values in μg/mL were reported to Absolute Standards, Inc.

The results for the first PT conducted in October 2006 are presented in Table 8.

For formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, the repo rted results were “Acceptable,” i.e.,

they were within less than ±20% of t he assigned value. For VOCs, the reported

results for vinyl acetate and ethylene glyco l were outside of the warning limits

(±20%), and the reported results for n- hexane and m/p-xylene were outside of

the acceptance limits (±40%). A check of the reported data rev ealed that the “Not

Acceptable” result for m/p- xylene was due to a factor of two error in setting up

the calibration for this compound. Corre ction of the error resulted in an

Acceptable result. All of the Acceptable re sults were within ±10% of the assigned

values, except alpha-pinene which was 11.7% high.

As described above, separate calibration s were prepared for ethylene glycol

using a one-component mixture and for vinyl acetate plus n-hexane using

different calibration technique. Recalcul ation of the PT sample results using

these new calibrations produced Acceptable results for all three compounds as

shown in Table 8.

The results for the second PT conduct ed in March 2007 are presented in Table

9. The results for all aldehyde and VO C target compounds were Acceptable.

With the exceptions of vinyl acetate, ethylene glycol, and phenol, the results were

### B-7 within ±12% of the assi gned values. Vinyl acetate was 14.4% low; ethylene

glycol was 15.5% high; and phenol was 13.5% high.

Analysis of Field Samples

Problems Encountered

A problem was encountered with the analysis of aldehyde samples collected in

the Winter-South sampling campaign. This problem was not discovered until after

all of the samples for this sampling ca mpaign had been processed. A review of

all of the data showed t hat the chromatographic peak representing the unreacted

DNPH was substantially lower in two samples, 084-f2-020107 and 086-f1d020507. The cartridges contain approximately sufficient DNPH to collect 70 μg of

formaldehyde or 2.3 μmol of total carbonyl, which is well in excess of the amount

required for most environmental samples. The DNPH peak areas in these two

samples were apparent low outliers. T hese areas fell below the lower 95%

confidence interval for the area responses of the DNPH peak in all of the other

samples. In addition, the summed areas of the carbonyl hydrazone derivatives in

these samples were low relative to t he other similar samples suggesting that

there was a problem either with the automated injection of the samples into the

HPLC instrument or that the extracts of these samples had not been properly

mixed during preparation. Results for t hese two samples were not reported due

to an assumed laboratory error.

References

ASTM. 2003. Standard Test Method for Determination of Formaldehyde and

Other Carbonyl Compounds in Ai r (Active Sampler Methodology) . ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

U.S. EPA. 1984. Method TO-1, Revision 1.0: Method for the Determination of

Volatile Organic Compounds in Ambient Air Using Tenax Adsorption and

Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) . Center for

Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development,

U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

U.S. EPA. 1999. Compendium Method TO-17; Determ ination of Volatile Organic

Compounds in Ambient Air Using Active Sampling Onto Sorbent Tubes

. Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and

Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

### B-8 Table 1 . Thermal desorption conditions.

Parameter Value

Instrument Markes Intn. Unity / Ultra TD

Purge time 1 min

Tube desorb time 10 min

Tube desorb temperature 285 o 

### C

Trap temperature -6 o 

### C

Trap hold time 3 min

Trap desorb temperature 300 o 

### C

Trap heating rate Maximum

Trap desorb split ratio 5:1

Flow path temperature 175 o 

### C

### B-9 Table 2 . GC conditions.

Parameter Value

Instrument Agilent 6890N GC

Column type Agilent DB-1701

Column dimensions 1 μm, 0.25 mm, 30 m

Initial pressure 13.5 psi

Initial pressure time 10 min

Pressure ramp rate 0.4 psi/min

Final pressure 18 psi

Initial temperature 1 o 

### C

Initial temperature time 6.5 min

Temperature ramp rate 1 5 o 

### C/min

Final temperature 1 100 o 

### C

Temperature ramp rate 2 12 o 

### C/min

Final temperature 2 225 o 

### C

Final temperature 2 time 2 min

Post run temperature 250 o 

### C

Post run temperature time 2 min

### B-10 Table 3 . MS conditions.

Parameter Value

Instrument Agilent 5973N MSD

Solvent delay 2.25 min

Low scan mass, m/z 30 amu

High scan mass, m/z 450 amu

Threshold 500

Scan rate 0.5 Hz

Table 4 . HPLC conditions.

Parameter Value

Instrument Hewlett-Packard 1050

Solvent A Acetonitrile (ACN)

Solvent B 65% H20 / 35% ACN

Flow rate 0.3 mL/min

Initial solvent time 2 min

Initial solvent 100% B

Solvent ramp 2–9 min

Final solvent 45% B

Solvent hold 9–6 min

Post run time 5 min

Injection volume 6 μL

Detector wavelength 360 nm

### B-11 Table 5 . VOC calibration mixtures prepared by Absolute Standards, Inc. Vinyl

acetate mixture Part No. 82477, Lot No . 070506 was prepared in water. Multicomponent VOC mixture Part No. 94336 , Lot No. 080206 was prepared in

methanol. Both mixtures were prepared using pure (98% purity or higher)

compounds. Compound amounts were determined by wei ghing. Uncertainty was

±0.2% (except caprolactam ±0.5%).

Compound CAS No. Conc

(μg/mL)

Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 20,010

Benzene 71-43-2 2,003

2-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 2,001

Caprolactam 105-60-2 2,003

Chloroform 67-66-3 2,003

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 2,001

Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 2,003

Hexanal 66-25-1 2,001

n-Hexane 110-54-3 2,002

R-(+)-Limonene 5989-27-5 2,001

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 872-50-4 2,003

Naphthalene 91-20-3 2,002

Phenol 108-95-2 2,002

(1R)-(+)-alpha-Pinene 7785-70-8 2,001

Styrene 100-42-5 2,004

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 2,002

Toluene 108-88-3 2,003

1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene 95-63-6 2,003

o-Xylene 95-47-6 2,002

m-Xylene 108-38-3 1,001

p-Xylene 106-42-3 1,002

### B-12 Table 6 . Summary of calibration data show ing for each individual VOC the

quantitative ion, the number of full mu lti-point calibrations performed, the

compound retention times relative to the re tention time of t he internal standard

(ISTD), and the average linear term (±1 st andard deviation) for the calibration.

Compound Quant Ion

(m/z) No.

Calib Relative RT

Avg ± 1 Stdev Linear Term

Avg ± 1 Stdev

1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 95 -- ISTD --

n-Hexane 57 1 0.311 ± 0.002 1.01

Vinyl acetate 43 1 0.424 ± 0.001 1.71

Ethylene glycol 31 2 0.867 ± 0.002 0.853 ± 0.006

Benzene 78 3 0.542 ± 0.002 2.62 ± 0.14

2-Butoxyethanol 57 3 1.007 ± 0.002 1.70 ± 0.12

Caprolactam 113 3 1.359 ± 0.021 0.716 ± 0.110

Chloroform 83 3 0.528 ± 0.002 1.13 ± 0.08

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 146 3 1. 094 ± 0.001 2.24 ± 0.20

Hexanal 44 3 0.835 ± 0.001 0.571 ± 0.015

R-(+)-Limonene 68 3 1.062 ± 0.001 1.32 ± 0.03

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 99 3 1.199 ± 0.003 1.26 ± 0.07

Naphthalene 128 3 1.242 ± 0.003 6.63 ± 0.25

Phenol 94 3 1.184 ± 0.002 2.43 ± 0.03

(1R)-(+)-alpha-Pinene 93 3 0.926 ± 0.001 1.91 ± 0.05

Styrene 104 3 0.942 ± 0.001 2.52 ± 0.09

Tetrachloroethene 166 3 0.754 ± 0.001 1.01 ± 0.03

Toluene 91 3 0.729 ± 0.001 3.03 ± 0.03

1,2,4-Trimethylbenz ene 105 3 1.056 ± 0.001 3.54 ± 0.12

o-Xylene 91 3 0.928 ± 0.001 3.03 ± 0.14

### B-13 Table 7 . Determination of VOC method detecti on limits (MDLs), Aug.–Oct. 2006

analysis period. Calculated as 95% confidence interval for three replicate

analyses of a low mass calibration standard.

Compound Avg ± 1 Sdev

(ng) RSD

(%) MDL

(ng)

Benzene 20.7 ± 1.2 5.8 3.5

2-Butoxyethanol 11.7 ± 0.6 5.5 1.9

Caprolactam 41.0 ± 1.2 2.8 3.4

Chloroform 18.3 ± 1.7 9.1 4.9

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 21. 9 ± 1.0 4.6 2.9

Ethylene glycol 69.0 ± 5.6 8.1 16.4

Hexanal 26.8 ± 0.5 1.8 1.4

n-Hexane 3.6 ± 1.5 40 4.2

R-(+)-Limonene 21.7 ± 1.5 6.7 4.2

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 28.0 ± 2.1 7.4 6.0

Naphthalene 24.5 ± 0.7 2.8 2.0

Phenol 24.5 ± 0.9 3.8 2.8

(1R)-(+)-alpha-Pinene 21.0 ± 1.0 4.9 3.0

Styrene 22.5 ± 1.1 4.8 3.1

Tetrachloroethene 20.3 ± 1.6 7.9 4.6

Toluene 21.5 ± 1.7 7.9 4.9

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzen e 19.9 ± 1.1 5.7 3.3

Vinyl acetate 19.1 ± 1.9 10.0 5.6

o-Xylene 21.1 ± 1.1 5.2 3.2

m/p-Xylene 21.9 ± 1.3 6.0 3.8

### B-14 Table 8 . External PT sample re sults for October 2006, Absolute Standards, Inc.

Formaldehyde-DNPH and Acetaldehyde-DNP H Part No. 38178, Lot No. 092106.

Vinyl Acetate Part No. 38198, Lot No. 092106. VOCs Part No. 38197, Lot No.

092106.

Compound Reported

(μg/mL) Assigned

(μg/mL) Deviation

(%) Performance

Evaluation

Formaldehyde 1.23 1.34 -8.2 Accept

Acetaldehyde 1.71 1.77 -3.4 Accept

Vinyl acetate 350 251 +39.4 Not Accept

Vinyl acetate – new calib (264)* 251 (+5.2) (Accept)

Benzene 343 314 +9.2 Accept

2-Butoxyethanol 349 335 +4.2 Accept

Caprolactam 332 307 +8.1 Accept

Chloroform 82.4 76.7 +7.4 Accept

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 312 295 +5.8 Accept

Ethylene glycol 617 482 +28.0 Not Accept

Ethylene glycol – new calib (393) 482 (-18.5) (Accept)

Hexanal 60.5 63.2 -3.6 Accept

n-Hexane 290 194 +49.5 Not Accept

n-Hexane – new calib ( 221) 194 (+13.9) Accept

R-(+)-Limonene 150 152 -1.3 Accept

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 416 395 +5.3 Accept

Naphthalene 105 111 -5.4 Accept

Phenol 126 133 -5.3 Accept

(1R)-(+)-alpha-Pinene 297 266 +11.7 Accept

Styrene 113 111 +1.8 Accept

Tetrachloroethene 138 136 +1.5 Accept

Toluene 154 150 +2.7 Accept

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzen e 455 452 +0.7 Accept

o-Xylene 186 182 +2.2 Accept

m/p-Xylene 634** 596 +6.4 Accept

*Values in parentheses were calculated us ing new calibrations for these target

compounds

**Originally reported as 1238 μg/mL

### B-15 Table 9 . External PT sample results for March 2007 analysis period, Absolute

Standards Inc. Formaldehyde-DNPH and Acetaldehyde-DNPH Part No. 38178,

Lot No. 020507. Vinyl Acetate Part No . 38198, Lot No. 020507. VOCs Part No.

38197, Lot No. 020507.

Compound Reported

(μg/mL) Assigned

(μg/mL) Deviation

(%) Performance

Evaluation

Formaldehyde 1.55 1.69 -8.3 Accept

Acetaldehyde 1.33 1.45 -8.3 Accept

Vinyl acetate 95.9 112 -14.4 Accept

Benzene 155 156 -.06 Accept

2-Butoxyethanol 77.2 69.4 +11.2 Accept

Caprolactam 88.2 87.8 +0.5 Accept

Chloroform 160 152 +5.3 Accept

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 210 189 +11.1 Accept

Ethylene glycol 216 187 +15.5 Accept

Hexanal 55.1 55.0 +0.2 Accept

n-Hexane 60.1 63.6 -5.5 Accept

R-(+)-Limonene 232 219 +5.9 Accept

1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone 382 367 +4.1 Accept

Naphthalene 113 103 +9.7 Accept

Phenol 89.1 78.5 +13.5 Accept

(1R)-(+)-alpha-Pinene 253 241 +5.0 Accept

Styrene 476 459 +3.7 Accept

Tetrachloroethene 281 263 +6.8 Accept

Toluene 61.1 57.2 +6.8 Accept

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzen e 453 457 -0.9 Accept

o-Xylene 54.5 53.2 +2.4 Accept

m/p-Xylene 312 297 +5.1 Accept

### B-16

### C-1APPENDIX C“All Homes” Sample Frame ListAppendix KeyLabelDescriptionDOADucted Outdoor Air MechanicalOutdoor Air Ventilation SystemWHFWhole House Fan Nighttime Cooling SystemHRVHeat Recovery Ventilator Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation SystemRADForced Air Unit Return Air Damper Nighttime Cooling SystemWDF WindowFanEC EvaporativeCooler

### C-2HomeIDUCBID Season Region CityZipCodeUCBStatewideUCBBuilderSupplementalMechanical001 210052 Summer North Brentwood 94513 XDOA002 Winter North Brentwood 94513X003 310030 Summer North Brentwood 94513 X004 Summer North Brentwood 94513XDOA005 110033 Winter North Discovery Bay 94514 X006 Winter North Discovery Bay 94514X008 610013 Summer North Brentwood 94513 XDOA009 Summer North Brentwood 94513XDOA010 Summer North Brentwood 94513XDOA011 Winter North Brentwood 94513XDOA012 Summer North Brentwood 94513XDOA013 Summer North Elk Grove 95624X014 Summer North Elk Grove 95624X015 210456 Summer North Elk Grove 95624 XWHF016 210518 Summer North Elk Grove 95758 XHRV017 110261 Winter North Elk Grove 95758 XHRV018 210512 Summer North Elk Grove 95758 XHRV, RAD019 110228 Summer North Elk Grove 95624 XRAD020 110225 Summer North Elk Grove 95624 X021 210482 Summer North Elk Grove 95624 XDOA022 Summer North Sacramento 95835XHRV023 110313 Summer North Sacramento 95835 X024 Summer North Sacramento 95835X WHF, HRV025 210516 Summer North Elk Grove 95758 XHRV, RAD026 Summer North Elk Grove 95758XHRV027 Summer North Elk Grove 95758X029 Summer North Manteca 95337X

### C-3HomeIDUCBID Season Region CityZipCodeUCBStatewideUCBBuilderSupplementalMechanical030 Summer North Manteca 95337X031 231940 Summer North Manteca 95337 X032 130965 Summer North Manteca 95337 X033 330997 Summer North Rancho Murrieta 95683 X034 231990 Summer North Rancho Murrieta 95683 XWHF037 631001 Summer South Valencia 91381 X038 Winter South Valencia 91381X039 631002 Winter South Valencia 91381 X040 Summer South Castaic 91384X041 330036 Winter South Castaic 91384 X042 330048 Summer South Castaic 91384 X043 Summer South Santa Clarita 91390X 2 x DOA044 220248 Summer South Santa Clarita 91390 XWD, WHF045 Summer South Santa Clarita 91390X046 Summer South Canyon Country 91387X047 620046 Summer South Canyon Country 91387 X048 620037 Summer South Canyon Country 91387 X049 130106 Winter South Chula Vista 91914 X050 230210 Summer South Chula Vista 91914 X053 220452 Summer South San Diego 92129 X054 220454 Summer South San Diego 92129 X055 220507 Summer South San Diego 92129 X056 220499 Summer South San Diego 92129 X058 230500 Winter South San Marcos 92078 XDOA, EC059 130200 Summer South San Marcos 92078 X061 Summer South Castaic 91384X062 230104 Summer South Castaic 91384 X064 Summer South Santa Clarita 91390X065 Summer South Santa Clarita 91390X066 Summer South Santa Clarita 91390X

### C-4HomeIDUCBID Season Region CityZipCodeUCBStatewideUCBBuilderSupplementalMechanical067 Summer South Palmdale 93551X068 Summer South Palmdale 93551X069 Summer South Palmdale 93551X070 330737 Summer South Palmdale 93551 X071 Summer South Palmdale 93551X072 Summer South Palmdale 93551X073 Winter South Santa Clarita 91390X074 120138 Winter South Santa Clarita 91390 X075 Winter South Valencia 91381X076 130051 Winter South Castaic 91384 X077 Winter South Santa Clarita 91390X078 Winter South San Marcos 92069X079 Winter South San Marcos 92069X080 230214 Winter South Chula Vista 91914 X081 Winter South San Marcos 92078X083 220423 Winter South San Diego 92129 XDOA084 Winter South San Diego 92129X085 Winter South San Diego 92129X086 Winter South Fontana 92336X087 Winter South Fontana 92336X088 Winter South Fontana 92336XWHF089 Winter South Fontana 92336X090 Winter South Fontana 92336X091 Winter South Fontana 92336X092 Winter South Fontana 92336X093 Winter South Fontana 92336X094 Winter South Riverside 92508X095 Winter South Riverside 92508X096 Winter South Riverside 92508X097 Winter North Elk Grove 95624XHRV098 Winter North Elk Grove 95624X099 Winter North Sacramento 95835XDOA

### C-5HomeIDUCBID Season Region CityZipCodeUCBStatewideUCBBuilderSupplementalMechanical101 Winter North Sacramento 95835X102 Winter North Sacramento 95835XDOA104 Winter North Sacramento 95835XHRV105 210066 Winter North Discovery Bay 94514 X106 Winter North Stockton 95219X107 Winter North Stockton 95219X108 Winter North Stockton 95219X109 510018 Winter North Brentwood 94513 XDOA110 510034 Winter North Brentwood 94513 XDOA112 Winter North El Dorado Hills 95762XRAD113 Winter North El Dorado Hills 95762X114 Winter North El Dorado Hills 95762X115 Winter North El Dorado Hills 95762X116 Winter North El Dorado Hills 95762XRAD117 Winter North Lincoln 95648XRAD118 Winter North Lincoln 95648XDOA119 530015 Winter North Lincoln Hills 95648 XDOA120 Winter North Folsom 95630X121 Winter North Folsom 95630X

### C-6

### D-1 

## APPENDIX D

Home-Season Test List

Appendix Key

Label Description

DOA Ducted Outdoor Air Mechani cal Outdoor Air Ventilation

System

WHF Whole House Fan Nighttime Cooling System

HRV Heat Recovery Ventilator Mechanical Outdoor Air

Ventilation System

RAD Forced Air Unit Return Ai r Damper Nighttime Cooling

System

WDF Window Fan

EC Evaporative Cooler

### D-2 Home ID Season Region City Mechanical

001 Summer North Brentwood DOA

002 Summer North Brentwood

002 Winter North Brentwood

003 Summer North Brentwood

004 Summer North Brentwood DOA

004 Winter North Brentwood DOA

005 Summer North Discovery Bay

005 Winter North Discovery Bay

005 Fall North Discovery Bay

006 Summer North Discovery Bay

006 Winter North Discovery Bay

006 Fall North Discovery Bay

008 Summer North Brentwood DOA

008 Winter North Brentwood DOA

009 Summer North Brentwood DOA

010 Summer North Brentwood DOA

011 Summer North Brentwood DOA

011 Winter North Brentwood DOA

012 Summer North Brentwood DOA

013 Summer North Elk Grove

013 Fall North Elk Grove

014 Summer North Elk Grove

015 Summer North Elk Grove WHF

016 Summer North Elk Grove HRV

017 Summer North Elk Grove HRV

017 Winter North Elk Grove HRV

018 Summer North Elk Grove HRV, RAD

018 Winter North Elk Grove HRV, RAD

019 Summer North Elk Grove RAD

019 Winter North Elk Grove RAD

019 Fall North Elk Grove RAD

020 Summer North Elk Grove

021 Summer North Elk Grove DOA

022 Summer North Sacramento HRV

023 Summer North Sacramento

024 Summer North Sacramento WHF, HRV

025 Summer North Elk Grove HRV, RAD

025 Winter North Elk Grove HRV, RAD

026 Summer North Elk Grove HRV

027 Summer North Elk Grove

029 Summer North Manteca

030 Summer North Manteca

031 Summer North Manteca

032 Summer North Manteca

033 Summer North Rancho Murrieta

034 Summer North Rancho Murrieta WHF

037 Summer South Valencia

### D-3 Home ID Season Region City Mechanical

038 Summer South Valencia

038 Winter South Valencia

039 Summer South Valencia

039 Winter South Valencia

040 Summer South Castaic

041 Summer South Castaic

041 Winter South Castaic

042 Summer South Castaic

043 Summer South Santa Clarita 2 x DOA

044 Summer South Santa Clarita WD, WHF

044 Winter South Santa Clarita WD, WHF

045 Summer South Santa Clarita

045 Winter South Santa Clarita

046 Summer South Canyon Country

047 Summer South Canyon Country

048 Summer South Canyon Country

049 Summer South Chula Vista

049 Winter South Chula Vista

050 Summer South Chula Vista

050 Winter South Chula Vista

053 Summer South San Diego

054 Summer South San Diego

055 Summer South San Diego

056 Summer South San Diego

058 Summer South San Marcos DOA, EC

058 Winter South San Marcos DOA, EC

059 Summer South San Marcos

059 Winter South San Marcos

061 Summer South Castaic

062 Summer South Castaic

062 Winter South Castaic

064 Summer South Santa Clarita

065 Summer South Santa Clarita

066 Summer South Santa Clarita

067 Summer South Palmdale

068 Summer South Palmdale

069 Summer South Palmdale

070 Summer South Palmdale

071 Summer South Palmdale

072 Summer South Palmdale

073 Winter South Santa Clarita

074 Winter South Santa Clarita

075 Winter South Valencia

076 Winter South Castaic

077 Winter South Santa Clarita

078 Winter South San Marcos

079 Winter South San Marcos

080 Winter South Chula Vista

081 Winter South San Marcos

083 Winter South San Diego DOA

### D-4 Home ID Season Region City Mechanical

084 Winter South San Diego

085 Winter South San Diego

086 Winter South Fontana

087 Winter South Fontana

088 Winter South Fontana WHF

089 Winter South Fontana

090 Winter South Fontana

091 Winter South Fontana

092 Winter South Fontana

093 Winter South Fontana

094 Winter South Riverside

095 Winter South Riverside

096 Winter South Riverside

097 Winter North Elk Grove HRV

098 Winter North Elk Grove

099 Winter North Sacramento DOA

101 Winter North Sacramento

102 Winter North Sacramento DOA

104 Winter North Sacramento HRV

105 Winter North Discovery Bay

106 Winter North Stockton

107 Winter North Stockton

108 Winter North Stockton

109 Winter North Brentwood DOA

110 Winter North Brentwood DOA

112 Winter North El Dorado Hills RAD

113 Winter North El Dorado Hills

114 Winter North El Dorado Hills

115 Winter North El Dorado Hills

116 Winter North El Dorado Hills RAD

117 Winter North Lincoln RAD

118 Winter North Lincoln DOA

119 Winter North Lincoln Hills DOA

120 Winter North Folsom

121 Winter North Folsom

### E-1 

## APPENDIX E

Air Contaminant and Outdoor Air Ex change Rate PFT Measurements

### E-2Appendix KeyCompound Abbreviation SampleID DescriptionAcetaldehydeAcethhh-sample type-location-dateSample IDBenzeneBenzhhh =Home ID2-Butoxethanol 2BtoSampletypeCaprolactamCaprV =Volatile Organic Compounds1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dchl F=Formaldehyde/AcetaldehydeEthylene glycolEthyN =Nitrogen DioxideFormaldehydeFormP =Particulate Matter PM2.5HexanalHxanB =Blank Samplen-HexaneNHexC/CC =CO, CO2, T, RHd-Limonene dLim T= PFT1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone MePySampleLocationNaphthaleneNaph1 =Indoor SamplePhenolPhen2 =Outdoor SampleAlpha-PineneAlP1D =Indoor duplicateStyreneStyr2D =Outdoor duplicateTetrachloroetheneTchlrFAA/AA =Attic AirTolueneToluFSA/SA/SA1/SA2 =Supply AirTrichloroethene (chloroform)Clr FRA/RA = Return Air1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene124TDatemmddyyVinyl acetateVinyBOLDconcentration or massConcentration or mass is≤MDLm,p-Xylene mpXyo-Xylene oXylND NoData

### E-3Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeID Sample IDBenz(μg/m3)2Bto(μg/m3)Capr(μg/m3)Dchl(μg/m3)Ethy(μg/m3)Hxan(μg/m3)nHex(μg/m3)dLim(μg/m3)Mepy(μg/m3)001001-v1a-0807060.2315.910.210.48 41.77 5.740.277.850.38002002-v1a-0807060.25 0.13 0.24 0.214.10 0.740.30 0.30 0.43002002-v2a-0807060.24 0.13 0.23 0.20 1.12 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.41002002-v1a-030107 0.72 1.160.26 0.23 1.276.84 0.92 30.670.47003003-v1b-0807060.184.440.17 0.1524.80 6.560.221.360.31004004-v1b-0808060.2511.280.24 0.2112.82 4.760.306.550.43004004-v1a-030107 3.51 6.020.25 0.22 1.2120.27 2.00 128.450.44005005-v1b-080806 3.13 5.670.23451.05 20.26 36.96 4.48 9.920.42005005-v2a-0808060.24 0.13 0.230.771.11 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.41005005-v1b-102306 7.44 10.870.2412.76 7.16 26.75 14.56 11.960.44005005-v1a-022707 4.90 1.540.221.781.0915.37 10.66 20.590.40006006-v1b-080806 1.02 3.670.22 0.206.95 27.56 1.75 9.940.40006006-v1a-102306 0.30 1.220.22 0.20 1.092.76 1.24 1.550.40006006-v2b-1023060.24 0.13 0.230.20 1.10 0.090.520.28 0.40006006-v2bd-1023060.24 0.13 0.230.20 1.12 0.100.530.29 0.41006006-v1a-022707 1.28 7.230.25 0.22 1.2114.89 1.26 18.560.45006006-v2a-022707 0.610.13 0.24 0.21 1.170.680.300.860.43008008-v1a-080906 1.06 5.580.2435.63 46.63 12.81 0.60 8.940.42008008-v2b-0809060.25 0.13 0.24 0.21 1.16 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.43008008-v1b-030107 1.67 1.290.2636.861.2568.09 0.56 9.710.46008008-v2a-030107 0.660.14 0.24 0.21 1.19 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.44009009-v1b-0809060.24 0.13 0.23 0.2051.67 17.380.2931.330.41009009-v1db-0809060.23 0.12 0.22 0.1947.09 16.23 0.38 29.660.40010010-v1a-081006 1.27 34.310.24 0.21119.48 35.05 1.45 41.900.44011011-v1a-0810060.27183.730.25 0.22101.89 38.59 1.02 17.190.45011011-v2b-0810060.25 0.13 0.23 0.20 1.140.230.290.370.42011011-v1a-030207 0.71 34.170.23 0.2016.80 18.24 0.67 8.160.41012012-v1a-081006 0.15 3.220.23 0.2015.72 3.530.280.89 0.53013013-v1a-081406 2.16 5.160.220.35 29.71 21.854.31 19.25 0.64013013-v1a-102406 2.11 1.550.220.36 7.79 0.95 4.17 2.640.39013013-v2b-102406 0.220.13 0.230.181.14 0.100.710.29 0.42

### E-4Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Naph(μg/m3)Phen(μg/m3)alP(μg/m3)Styr(μg/m3)TChlr(μg/m3)Tolu(μg/m3)Clr(μg/m3)124T(μg/m3)Viny(μg/m3)mpXy(μg/m3)oXyl(μg/m3)001 001.v1a.0807060.13 2.38 11.190.49 0.29 3.010.31 0.21 0.352.00 0.16002 002.v1a.0807060.140.420.21 0.22 0.330.780.34 0.23 0.390.130.23002 002.v2a.0807060.140.570.21 0.21 0.320.190.33 0.22 0.38 0.26 0.22002 002.v1a.0301070.08 0.75 5.05 1.080.3619.46 0.42 0.830.4310.93 3.28003 003.v1b.0807060.06 4.12 5.470.16 0.243.860.25 0.17 0.280.910.16004 004.v1b.0808060.54 2.55 15.290.22 0.334.430.340.330.391.750.23004 004.v1a.0301072.48 3.04 39.09 2.820.3427.20 0.34 2.960.417.68 2.89005 005.v1b.0808060.53 6.40 42.53 3.690.3230.840.345.260.3916.96 6.35005 005.v2a.0808060.140.800.20 0.21 0.311.340.33 0.22 0.380.760.22005 005.v1b.1023060.77 4.43 37.56 3.390.3464.440.3510.000.4038.20 11.95005 005.v1a.0227070.42 2.85 13.49 1.270.3124.160.323.650.3713.92 4.52006 006.v1b.0808060.13 3.73 32.21 1.880.3112.670.321.150.375.14 1.35006 006.v1a.1023060.27 1.49 10.26 1.580.3110.660.321.600.375.16 1.63006 006.v2a.1023060.20 0.460.200.470.313.180.330.840.372.26 0.72006 006.v2bd.1023060.21 0.500.210.410.323.070.330.790.382.03 0.65006 006.v1a.0227070.13 1.91 11.14 1.080.3410.790.361.570.414.57 1.13006 006.v2a.0227070.140.870.220.280.331.820.350.410.401.06 0.28008 008.v1a.0809070.11 2.68 30.00 1.420.3313.69 1.66 0.920.394.44 0.92008 008.v2b.0809070.140.680.21 0.22 0.331.360.34 0.23 0.390.490.23008 008.v1b.0301070.08 1.65 14.76 2.390.59 20.24 0.58 0.780.423.31 0.79008 008.v2a.0301070.140.56 0.22 0.23 0.340.600.350.140.400.320.23009 009.v1b.0809060.18 3.16 30.87 0.770.323.970.330.350.381.35 0.31009 009.v1bd.0809060.17 2.92 28.49 0.750.313.770.320.320.371.270.21010 010.v1a.0810060.49 4.50 65.10 4.650.3424.030.352.060.404.52 1.68011 011.v1a.0810060.74 9.62 100.59 4.970.3515.020.362.060.423.10 0.27011 011.v2b.0810060.140.91 0.130.22 0.321.530.34 0.23 0.390.960.22011 011.v1a.0302070.24 3.86 27.90 1.600.3147.530.331.22 0.29 14.61 1.81012 012.v1a.0810060.133.56 9.20 0.360.314.930.33 0.22 0.371.86 0.21013 013.v1a.0814060.40 3.48 58.34 2.810.31114.40 1.31 2.500.3720.68 5.79013 013.v1a.1024060.37 1.09 16.63 1.000.3066.11 0.40 3.290.3616.31 5.11013 013.v2b.1024060.21 0.390.21 0.22 0.325.030.341.140.393.18 1.04

### E-5Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample IDBenz(μg/m3)2Bto(μg/m3)Capr(μg/m3)Dchl(μg/m3)Ethy(μg/m3)Hxan(μg/m3)nHex(μg/m3)dLim(μg/m3)Mepy(μg/m3)014 014-v1b-0814060.25 0.13 0.23 0.20 1.141.160.29 0.29 0.42014 014-v2b-0814060.25 0.13 0.24 0.21 1.15 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.42015 015-v1a-0814060.25 0.13 0.230.86 3.31 0.930.29 0.29 0.42016 016-v1b-0815060.23 0.12 0.220.68 0.85 0.640.28 0.28 0.40017 017-v1a-0815060.261.000.24 0.21 1.190.450.311.870.44017 017-v2b-0815060.25 0.13 0.23 0.20 1.140.050.293.100.42017 017-v1a-022107 0.44 2.63 0.270.235.17 3.910.347.950.48017 017-v2a-022107 0.32 0.140.26 0.23 1.260.500.33 0.33 0.46018 018-v1a-0815060.222.200.21 0.193.04 1.310.270.860.38018 018-v1bd-0815060.231.840.22 0.193.43 1.660.280.58 0.79018 018-v1b-022107 0.42 4.880.25 0.228.69 3.040.3211.910.45019 019-v1a-0816060.28 0.15 0.27 0.24 1.31 0.11 0.34 0.340.72019 019-v1b-102406 0.94 3.640.22 0.19 1.071.15 1.97 3.860.39019 019-v1b-022007 1.74 9.890.240.151.1514.32 1.86 12.710.42019 019-v1bd-022007 1.85 1.550.250.151.2217.21 1.88 12.780.45020 020-v1b-081606 5.45 1.210.22 0.1935.69 15.38 12.67 7.64 8.25020 020-v2b-0816060.26 0.14 0.25 0.22 1.21 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.45021 021-v1a-081606 0.82 6.030.243.08 0.89 24.09 1.08 18.730.42022 022-v1b-0817060.280.900.27161.32 11.36 7.93 0.45 26.630.47023 023-v1b-0817060.27 0.14 0.26 0.2369.42 17.78 0.47 25.960.46023 023-v2a-0817060.26 0.14 0.24 0.21 1.19 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.44024 024-v1b-0817060.27 0.14 0.26 0.2299.53 5.810.323.500.46025 025-v1a-0821060.25 0.13 0.24 0.217.01 1.660.301.060.43025 025-v1b-022107 0.83 1.640.230.141.108.160.2832.670.40026 026-v1a-0821060.25 0.14 0.24 0.2133.83 5.030.311.570.43026 026-v2a-0821060.25 0.13 0.24 0.21 1.150.270.301.450.42027 027-v1a-082106 1.24 2.870.23 0.2034.04 5.02 1.86 1.650.41029 029-v1a-082206 0.40 5.440.23 0.206.29 18.21 0.76 10.910.41029 029-v2a-0822060.28 0.15 0.27 0.23 1.29 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.47030 030-v1a-082206 4.28 3.870.24 0.213.23 11.02 7.64 31.55 0.66030 030-v1ad-082206 3.96 4.760.23 0.205.37 10.73 7.11 29.85 0.59031 031-v1b-082306 2.0 3.20.2 0.2 1.211.3 4.5 4.0 0.4032 032-v1b-082306 1.00.1 0.2 0.234.8 2.2 2.3 7.10.4032 032-v2b-0823060.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5033 033-v1a-082406 0.3 2.90.2 0.2 1.113.4 1.0 9.40.4033 033-v1a-082506 0.1 2.50.2 0.2 1.112.0 0.8 6.40.4033 033-v1a-082606 1.4 5.70.2 0.2 1.221.3 3.0 38.90.4

### E-6Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Naph(μg/m3)Phen(μg/m3)alP(μg/m3)Styr(μg/m3)TChlr(μg/m3)Tolu(μg/m3)Clr(μg/m3)124T(μg/m3)Viny(μg/m3)mpXy(μg/m3)oXyl(μg/m3)014014-v1b-0814060.141.11 0.340.22 0.320.830.34 0.23 0.390.840.22014014-v2b-0814060.140.670.21 0.22 0.330.570.34 0.23 0.39 0.27 0.22015015-v1a-0814060.140.90 0.110.22 0.320.340.34 0.23 0.39 0.26 0.22016016-v1b-0815060.130.58 1.330.21 0.311.440.32 0.22 0.37 0.25 0.21017017-v1a-0815060.140.46 0.500.23 0.342.430.35 0.24 0.400.320.23017017-v2b-0815060.140.680.21 0.22 0.320.640.34 0.23 0.390.410.22017017-v1a-0221070.16 0.452.42 0.16 0.20 4.09 0.650.26 0.440.380.25017017-v2a-0221070.150.670.23 0.24 0.360.300.37 0.25 0.43 0.29 0.25018018-v1a-0815060.130.41 1.460.20 0.291.440.31 0.21 0.35 0.24 0.20018018-v1bd-0815060.130.72 1.660.20 0.302.020.32 0.21 0.360.600.21018018-v1b-0221070.150.31 2.12 0.68 27.93 1.86 1.30 0.170.410.310.24019019-v1a-0816060.160.91 0.500.25 0.371.040.39 0.26 0.440.330.26019019-v1b-102406 0.27 0.86 8.77 0.320.3012.890.321.830.366.03 1.87019019-v1b-022007 0.23 2.12 12.02 1.36 0.70 11.52 0.43 2.080.396.56 2.26019019-v1bd-022007 0.23 1.88 11.91 1.45 0.70 11.84 0.53 2.070.416.59 2.00020020-v1b-081606 0.57 5.32 25.18 4.470.3050.790.319.650.3627.93 10.33020020-v2b-0816060.150.540.22 0.23 0.341.070.36 0.24 0.411.510.24021021-v1a-081606 0.25 5.41 35.29 2.42 2.08 12.260.340.600.397.70 1.93022022-v1b-0817060.161.40 13.55 1.590.375.870.380.180.443.44 0.46023023-v1b-0817060.153.82 33.02 2.135.03 9.52 0.710.25 0.433.31 0.59023023-v2a-0817060.141.150.22 0.23 0.341.260.35 0.24 0.400.800.23024024-v1b-0817060.151.39 18.52 0.610.354.160.37 0.25 0.422.37 0.20025025-v1a-0821060.141.06 1.60 0.690.334.980.34 0.23 0.392.79 0.31025025-v1b-022107 0.13 1.39 6.30 0.610.3112.94 1.01 0.470.371.32 0.46026026-v1a-0821060.142.09 6.33 0.440.335.720.35 0.24 0.401.590.23026026-v2a-0821060.141.540.210.120.330.940.34 0.23 0.391.320.22027027-v1a-082106 0.09 2.41 7.18 1.280.328.010.330.570.385.78 1.49029029-v1a-082206 0.15 1.82 39.37 1.480.325.65 0.22 3.470.383.10 0.46029029-v2a-0822060.160.830.24 0.25 0.371.820.38 0.26 0.441.330.25030030-v1a-082206 0.39 2.26 19.45 0.860.3343.810.344.780.3921.71 6.87030030-v1ad-082206 0.37 2.04 18.60 1.220.3241.670.334.660.3821.60 6.95031031-v1b-082306 0.15 3.42 19.51 0.780.3321.110.342.420.3910.97 3.45032032-v1b-082306 0.09 1.33 3.52 0.630.3410.970.361.690.418.60 2.53032032-v2b-0823060.151.550.230.310.352.100.37 0.25 0.422.05 0.15033033-v1a-082406 0.13 1.77 15.92 0.920.309.78 2.17 0.820.364.14 0.95033033-v1a-082506 0.11 1.78 11.41 0.230.328.07 0.66 0.450.392.60 0.29033033-v1a-082606 0.18 2.40 26.21 0.79 0.28 16.81 5.40 1.150.415.43 1.20

### E-7Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample IDBenz(μg/m3)2Bto(μg/m3)Capr(μg/m3)Dchl(μg/m3)Ethy(μg/m3)Hxan(μg/m3)nHex(μg/m3)dLim(μg/m3)Mepy(μg/m3)034034-v1a-0824060.28 0.15 0.27 0.23 1.292.700.330.58 1.89034034-v2b-0824060.26 0.14 0.25 0.21 1.200.170.31 0.31 0.44037037-v1a-0905060.2624.610.250.23 6.87 6.65 0.80 4.97 0.39038038-v1a-0905060.258.460.240.23 24.74 49.18 0.82 13.420.43038038-v2a-0905060.24 0.130.16 0.131.120.19 0.350.29 0.41038038-v1b-012407 0.51 1.350.25 0.22 1.214.00 0.26 5.910.44039039-v1a-090506 0.28 7.460.24 0.2112.41 30.38 1.05 10.060.44039039-v1a-012407 1.19 5.600.23 0.20 1.146.210.2912.490.42040040-v1a-090606 2.05 7.000.240.41 17.51 5.85 0.73 9.150.43041041-v1b-0906060.232.450.220.10 26.85 13.26 0.96 7.500.39041041-v2a-0906060.260.670.240.121.190.37 0.680.31 0.44041041-v1a-012507 1.22 31.780.26 0.238.48 7.550.337.700.47041041-v2b-012507 1.000.14 0.26 0.221.25 0.33 1.05 0.450.46041041-v1a-012607 1.27 4.420.25 0.2111.77 8.72 1.24 5.830.44041041-v1a-012707 1.22 3.250.25 0.2215.49 10.54 0.90 7.250.45042042-v1a-090606 4.58 3.400.232.56 32.64 22.00 6.88 19.350.41043043-v1a-0907060.291.600.281.66 12.25 7.00 0.59 3.730.50044044-v1a-0907060.243.560.230.13 4.39 2.57 0.69 0.91 0.72044044-v2b-0907060.260.830.240.141.190.35 0.680.31 0.44044044-v1a-012607 1.68 2.820.24 0.21 1.188.30 0.72 20.740.43044044-v1ad-012607 1.63 2.550.26 0.23 1.267.79 0.68 20.230.46045045-v1a-090706 3.39 36.240.23 0.2041.39 26.96 2.50 15.04 0.63045045-v1ad-090706 3.76 34.220.23 0.2049.49 27.63 2.89 15.48 0.62045 045-v1b-012307 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA046046-v1a-090806 0.36 20.620.22 0.1944.70 23.47 1.01 10.930.40047047-v1b-090806 4.53 13.990.23 0.2021.00 20.41 5.23 7.780.41047047-v2b-0908060.27 0.14 0.26 0.23 1.260.28 0.380.33 0.46048048-v1b-090806 1.43 10.950.23 0.2017.16 10.85 1.72 3.350.42049049-v1a-0912060.2513.360.240.35 19.94 29.66 0.68 14.870.43049049-v1a-013007** 0.920.14 0.25 0.22 1.2112.31 0.55 23.360.44049049-v2a-013007 0.980.12 0.22 0.19 1.090.32 0.250.28 0.40050050-v1b-0912060.261.740.240.161.191.91 0.840.31 0.44050050-v2b-0912060.250.730.240.191.15 0.220.300.30 0.42050050-v1b-013007 3.88 1.480.23 0.206.11 11.84 6.72 40.200.42053053-v1a-0913060.252.510.24 0.21 1.182.550.31 0.30 0.43053053-v2b-091306 0.270.14 0.26 0.22 1.240.370.32 0.32 0.46054054-v1b-0913060.234.790.22 0.194.49 5.230.280.270.39054054-v1bd-0913060.225.450.21 0.183.55 5.240.270.380.38

### E-8Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Naph(μg/m3)Phen(μg/m3)alP(μg/m3)Styr(μg/m3)TChlr(μg/m3)Tolu(μg/m3)Clr(μg/m3)124T(μg/m3)Viny(μg/m3)mpXy(μg/m3)oXyl(μg/m3)034034-v1a-0824060.160.91 2.35 0.130.374.410.38 0.26 0.441.840.25034034-v2b-0824060.150.420.22 0.23 0.34 0.36 0.35 0.24 0.41 0.28 0.23037037-v1a-090506 0.49 1.83 14.81 2.86 0.56 8.440.361.500.413.63 1.22038038-v1a-090506 0.66 4.67 57.45 9.300.337.09 0.54 1.040.395.13 1.30038038-v2a-090506 0.16 1.340.210.510.322.250.330.600.381.56 0.47038038-v1b-012407 0.08 0.80 10.12 1.710.342.71 0.23 0.300.411.27 0.27039039-v1a-090506 0.30 2.44 25.63 3.72 3.64 8.240.351.120.409.52 2.11039039-v1a-012407 0.14 1.08 8.03 1.79 1.26 5.310.340.690.397.57 1.79040040-v1a-090606 0.26 2.26 12.65 1.960.336.92 0.43 0.960.404.77 1.44041041-v1b-090606 0.18 2.98 41.74 1.670.308.650.310.740.362.46 0.61041041-v2a-090606 0.17 0.870.220.750.343.130.350.750.402.22 0.66041041-v1a-0125070.162.42 16.31 2.210.368.46 0.30 0.950.433.07 0.71041041-v2b-0125070.150.960.230.270.362.930.370.420.421.36 0.40041041-v1a-0126070.151.65 18.37 1.170.3421.000.350.900.412.92 0.85041041-v1a-0127070.152.45 19.60 1.210.3513.87 0.19 1.050.413.20 0.68042042-v1a-090606 0.40 5.35 29.26 2.030.3270.43 0.44 4.480.3820.93 6.43043043-v1a-090706 0.25 1.35 10.31 0.470.385.320.400.640.461.69 0.54044044-v1a-090706 0.42 1.44 3.54 1.140.325.910.331.570.383.85 1.30044044-v2b-090706 0.19 0.680.220.180.343.590.350.900.402.33 0.76044044-v1a-012607 0.39 1.43 6.44 1.320.338.110.352.820.404.96 1.60044044-v1ad-012607 0.39 1.56 6.39 0.900.367.900.372.690.434.51 1.59045045-v1a-090706 2.51 6.46 49.26 4.420.3123.430.334.130.3813.14 3.73045045-v1ad-090706 2.40 6.38 51.61 4.420.3224.020.334.080.3813.14 3.74045 045-v1b-012307 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA046046-v1a-090806 0.30 4.70 35.35 2.910.3110.90 0.22 1.030.373.63 0.91047047-v1b-090806 0.77 5.14 47.83 2.530.3130.210.335.430.3821.84 6.71047047-v2b-090806 0.18 0.020.23 0.24 0.362.690.370.680.431.89 0.62048048-v1b-090806 0.50 1.54 19.74 1.850.3212.720.343.010.397.94 2.47049049-v1a-091206 0.40 3.93 31.24 2.830.3313.26 0.26 0.860.403.83 1.25049049-v1a-013007 0.13 0.48 12.44 1.080.348.120.360.700.412.79 0.86049049-v2a-0130070.130.53 0.20 0.170.313.750.320.610.372.22 0.75050050-v1b-091206 0.23 1.27 1.32 1.190.346.000.351.310.405.47 1.64050050-v2b-091206 0.18 0.540.210.620.332.170.340.680.392.17 0.61050050-v1b-013007 0.30 1.74 14.09 2.19 0.48 24.98 0.67 5.240.3815.96 5.24053053-v1a-091306 0.13 0.610.220.210.330.960.350.300.400.73 0.19053053-v2b-0913060.10 0.440.230.170.35 0.37 0.370.270.420.450.24054054-v1b-091306 0.16 0.80 1.91 0.760.304.150.320.480.362.02 0.57054054-v1bd-091306 0.15 1.03 1.92 0.44 0.29 4.360.300.480.351.95 0.58

### E-9Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample IDBenz(μg/m3)2Bto(μg/m3)Capr(μg/m3)Dchl(μg/m3)Ethy(μg/m3)Hxan(μg/m3)nHex(μg/m3)dLim(μg/m3)Mepy(μg/m3)055055-v1a-0914060.2511.370.24 0.212.48 4.340.301.450.42056056-v1b-0914060.273.650.26 0.220.85 8.110.323.080.46056056-v2a-0914060.24 0.13 0.23 0.20 1.120.400.29 0.29 0.41058058-v1a-0915060.2623.860.25 0.2211.61 6.12 0.26 2.410.32058058-v1a-013107 0.99 2.730.24 0.2110.60 12.82 2.24 29.70 0.43059059-v1a-0915060.250.940.23 0.20 1.142.26 0.320.29 0.42059059-v2b-0915060.260.530.24 0.21 1.190.160.31 0.31 0.44059059-v1a-0916060.291.120.27 0.24 1.333.40 1.03 0.280.49059059-v1b-091706 0.27 1.370.29 0.24 3.091.15 1.790.37 0.57059059-v1b-012907 3.85 0.980.25 0.21 1.204.12 3.48 5.210.44059059-v2b-012907 0.370.13 0.24 0.21 1.170.450.30 0.30 0.43061061-v1a-091806 1.55 4.900.270.81 36.06 13.13 1.77 14.790.54062062-v1b-091806 0.42 7.760.26 0.2343.74 3.65 1.30 12.350.46062062-v2a-0918060.26 0.14 0.25 0.22 1.21 0.100.900.31 0.44062062-v2ad-0918060.25 0.13 0.24 0.21 1.17 0.100.510.30 0.43062062-v1a-012507 1.35 1.270.20 0.1811.55 2.37 1.11 28.980.36064064-v1a-091906 1.79 1.610.26 0.23 1.274.40 4.73 2.530.47064064-v1ad-091906 1.77 2.200.27 0.24 1.314.80 5.21 2.560.48065065-v1a-091906 2.81 1.530.260.19 3.18 6.25 3.79 1.260.46065065-v2a-0919060.27 0.15 0.26 0.23 1.270.490.33 0.33 0.47066066-v1a-0919060.252.600.24 0.216.39 4.23 0.73 2.370.43067067-v1a-0920060.261.450.25 0.21 1.202.36 0.71 2.110.44068068-v1a-0920060.282.470.27 0.232.52 6.17 1.19 3.760.47068068-v2b-0920060.25 0.14 0.240.401.180.58 0.240.30 0.43069069-v1a-092006 5.34 23.480.24 0.2119.74 11.41 8.19 36.960.43070070-v1a-0921060.282.250.26 0.23 1.282.57 0.87 1.330.47071071-v1a-092106 0.21 3.070.2433.50 10.88 4.51 0.69 0.680.44071071-v2a-0921060.26 0.14 0.25 0.21 1.200.48 0.33 0.610.44072072-v1a-0921060.264.730.25 0.229.57 2.35 1.66 1.810.45073073-v1b-012307 0.69 0.600.24 0.21 1.192.34 0.66 21.890.44073073-v2a-012307 0.410.14 0.26 0.22 1.25 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.46074074-v1b-012307 2.41 0.250.24 0.21 1.153.42 4.09 10.080.42075075-v1a-012407 1.08 1.490.23 0.2015.70 5.19 0.83 21.150.40075075-v2b-012407 0.680.11 0.20 0.18 0.990.21 0.190.25 0.36076076-v1b-012507 0.43 10.600.261.651.272.84 0.22 6.340.47077077-v1a-012607 1.200.14 0.24 0.2112.43 8.49 1.09 16.610.43077077-v2b-0126070.72 0.14 0.24 0.21 1.19 0.100.210.31 0.44078078-v1b-012907 1.13 0.450.24 0.21 1.154.20 0.90 15.460.42078078-v1bd-012907 1.31 0.580.24 0.21 1.154.64 1.00 17.220.42

### E-10Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Naph(μg/m3)Phen(μg/m3)alP(μg/m3)Styr(μg/m3)TChlr(μg/m3)Tolu(μg/m3)Clr(μg/m3)124T(μg/m3)Viny(μg/m3)mpXy(μg/m3)oXyl(μg/m3)055055-v1a-091406 0.17 0.76 1.05 0.720.332.070.340.620.392.92 0.91056056-v1b-091406 0.20 1.30 6.35 0.590.361.810.370.570.421.62 0.56056056-v2a-091406 0.11 0.230.210.030.32 0.34 0.330.300.380.60 0.17058058-v1a-091506 0.26 2.39 7.52 1.28 0.88 2.330.360.520.412.82 0.91058058-v1a-013107 0.27 1.52 23.94 0.72 3.47 13.25 0.83 1.080.396.02 1.62059059-v1a-091506 0.15 0.32 0.33 0.140.322.910.340.850.392.41 0.74059059-v2b-091506 0.10 0.200.22 0.23 0.34 0.36 0.350.240.400.210.23059059-v1a-091606 0.28 1.06 0.41 0.600.387.020.392.000.455.83 2.01059059-v1b-091706 0.39 1.01 0.67 0.680.428.530.442.160.526.40 2.15059059-v1b-012907 1.06 0.72 1.64 1.210.3429.220.3517.920.4132.88 13.97059059-v2b-0129070.140.540.220.160.331.530.350.230.401.03 0.27061061-v1a-091806 0.59 4.49 25.65 3.510.408.280.421.890.496.16 1.80062062-v1b-091806 0.20 1.85 11.86 2.050.367.16 1.03 1.690.433.78 1.15062062-v2a-091806 0.15 0.310.220.71 0.34 2.300.361.010.412.52 0.66062062-v2ad-091806 0.14 0.390.220.330.332.000.350.590.401.49 0.39062062-v1a-012507 0.08 1.05 7.13 1.48 0.28 5.71 0.17 1.070.3341.74 8.99064064-v1a-091906 0.28 0.97 7.79 0.670.3616.850.383.130.4310.89 3.77064064-v1ad-091906 0.32 1.13 8.33 1.86 0.40 18.510.393.940.4413.82 4.42065065-v1a-091906 0.27 1.09 6.87 0.74 0.48 15.46 0.45 2.300.4310.90 2.92065065-v2a-091906 0.140.21 0.230.160.360.970.380.540.431.68 0.41066066-v1a-091906 0.21 1.32 6.40 0.66 0.63 3.020.351.110.402.23 0.66067067-v1a-092006 0.14 0.60 3.88 0.29 0.29 3.390.351.040.413.29 1.03068068-v1a-092006 0.15 0.74 10.57 1.180.373.730.380.790.442.72 0.69068068-v2b-092006 0.14 0.430.220.710.332.140.350.720.402.82 0.72069069-v1a-092006 0.31 2.64 14.62 2.54 0.45 115.15 1.22 6.110.4023.41 7.82070070-v1a-092106 0.16 1.17 4.03 0.570.366.680.381.310.435.48 1.57071071-v1a-0921060.142.17 5.14 0.330.344.590.350.520.401.09 0.28071071-v2a-0921060.150.420.22 0.23 0.340.890.350.550.410.77 0.22072072-v1a-092106 0.15 0.20 4.62 0.160.354.400.361.010.412.16 0.81073073-v1b-012307 0.07 1.41 7.58 0.26 3.61 4.800.350.380.401.76 0.52073073-v2a-0123070.150.500.23 0.24 0.360.600.37 0.25 0.420.370.24074074-v1b-0123070.140.59 8.04 61.95 0.39 13.980.340.720.393.56 1.14075075-v1a-012407 0.84 1.72 9.83 0.83 22.59 8.29 0.72 1.800.373.66 1.14075075-v2b-0124070.120.500.18 0.19 0.281.380.290.280.331.41 0.40076076-v1b-0125070.160.72 4.96 0.590.363.60 0.94 2.490.436.66 2.54077077-v1a-012607 0.65 1.74 22.33 2.150.336.340.352.110.403.19 0.48077077-v2b-0126070.140.410.22 0.23 0.341.660.350.210.400.88 0.24

### E-11Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample IDBenz(μg/m3)2Bto(μg/m3)Capr(μg/m3)Dchl(μg/m3)Ethy(μg/m3)Hxan(μg/m3)nHex(μg/m3)dLim(μg/m3)Mepy(μg/m3)079 079-v1b-012907 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA080080-v1a-013007 3.70 4.270.230.241.1311.63 2.96 29.030.42081081-v1a-013107 15.14 0.680.24 0.219.74 10.97 24.03 14.880.43081081-v2b-013107 0.300.14 0.25 0.22 1.23 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.45083083-v1b-020107 1.87 0.270.25 0.22 1.216.09 0.96 14.190.45083083-v1ad-020107 1.84 0.270.23 0.20 1.134.80 0.82 13.310.42084084-v1b-020107 1.31 2.210.26 0.227.04 9.53 0.58 15.760.46084084-v2a-020107 0.870.13 0.22 0.20 1.09 0.090.180.28 0.40085085-v1b-020107 2.04 0.870.24 0.2113.53 4.56 0.76 14.170.44086086-v1a-020507 4.66 10.030.25 0.22 1.2212.40 6.47 49.84 0.42086086-v1ad-020507 4.76 11.680.25 0.22 1.2213.10 7.54 51.77 0.38087087-v1a-020507 3.46 0.410.24 0.21 1.181.41 4.69 8.410.43087087-v2a-020507 1.400.14 0.25 0.22 1.21 0.100.920.31 0.44088088-v1a-020507 0.980.13 0.24 0.21 1.179.34 0.74 5.310.43089089-v1b-020607 1.23 0.210.247.91 7.31 1.44 1.07 5.140.44090090-v1b-020607 2.47 1.070.240.111.153.08 3.50 11.260.42090090-v2b-020607 2.060.14 0.25 0.21 1.200.31 1.030.31 0.44091091-v1b-020607 3.48 1.950.23 0.20 1.127.82 3.11 7.680.41092092-v1b-020707 2.71 3.590.240.22 16.01 7.86 2.50 60.590.42092092-v2b-020707 1.750.130.340.21 1.170.12 1.100.30 0.43092092-v2ad-020707 1.850.14 0.24 0.21 1.18 0.101.340.30 0.43093093-v1a-020707 7.20 1.830.26 0.2214.93 6.80 3.66 8.180.46093093-v1bd-020707 8.15 2.010.24 0.2117.03 7.15 3.98 9.050.43094094-v1b-020807 1.62 4.210.2475.601.184.05 1.11 11.320.43095095-v1a-020807 3.24 10.220.27 0.24 1.3111.38 4.03 39.290.48095095-v2b-020807 1.360.15 0.27 0.24 1.320.18 0.820.34 0.49096096-v1a-020807 5.32 0.450.24 0.21 1.1810.76 4.85 18.520.43097097-v1a-022007 0.80 1.240.24218.951.174.28 0.33 20.610.43098098-v1a-022007 1.06 5.790.240.37 26.42 15.58 1.23 23.160.43098098-v2b-022007 0.680.14 0.25 0.21 1.20 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.44099099-v1a-022207 2.45 6.330.230.26 14.16 29.89 2.97 24.100.41099099-v2a-022207 0.750.13 0.23 0.20 1.12 0.100.170.29 0.41099099-v1a-022307 3.03 4.750.200.12 10.73 27.65 4.38 29.100.35099099-v1a-022407 2.77 4.830.240.12 12.86 28.73 4.47 28.790.43101101-v1b-022207 0.80 1.560.26 0.23 1.2812.95 0.22 14.980.47102102-v1a-022307 1.37 2.820.23 0.20 1.1324.68 0.64 17.640.42104104-v1b-022307 1.10 1.130.24 0.218.80 3.54 0.80 6.260.43104104-v2b-022307 0.930.13 0.23 0.20 1.110.31 0.240.29 0.41

### E-12Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Naph(μg/m3)Phen(μg/m3)alP(μg/m3)Styr(μg/m3)TChlr(μg/m3)Tolu(μg/m3)Clr(μg/m3)124T(μg/m3)Viny(μg/m3)mpXy(μg/m3)oXyl(μg/m3)078078-v1b-012907 0.10 0.44 12.01 0.310.337.25 0.56 0.530.392.36 0.58078078-v1bd-012907 0.12 1.09 13.22 0.760.338.29 0.54 0.700.392.87 0.60079 079-v1b-012907 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA080080-v1a-013007 0.57 1.06 22.55 2.52 0.48 29.96 0.72 3.060.3811.96 4.14081081-v1a-013107 0.38 2.59 20.68 1.180.3353.780.358.360.4032.70 10.56081081-v2b-0131070.150.400.23 0.24 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.25 0.42 0.29 0.24083083-v1b-020107 0.14 0.84 10.79 1.480.348.20 1.78 1.320.414.55 1.19083083-v1ad-020107 0.13 0.58 10.95 0.770.328.28 2.09 1.180.384.06 1.17084084-v1b-020107 0.18 1.50 11.71 1.580.357.730.371.050.423.68 1.04084084-v2a-0201070.130.25 0.330.21 0.311.780.320.340.371.12 0.36085085-v1b-020107 0.20 1.63 11.59 0.940.348.45 0.30 1.340.406.15 1.88086086-v1a-020507 0.35 1.08 37.65 0.890.3543.88 1.17 6.620.4120.47 6.18086086-v1ad-020507 0.33 1.30 40.05 0.930.3544.78 1.21 6.860.4121.00 7.02087087-v1a-020507 0.18 0.59 6.99 0.87 0.28 26.840.351.950.409.16 2.72087087-v2a-0205070.150.25 0.180.23 0.344.510.360.690.412.41 0.83088088-v1a-0205070.181.47 22.57 0.870.338.340.351.440.402.58 0.55089089-v1b-020607 0.14 1.49 6.64 0.58 0.46 4.20 0.32 0.800.402.17 0.59090090-v1b-020607 0.18 0.52 7.18 0.60 0.32 18.640.342.110.397.98 2.68090090-v2b-0206070.150.37 0.15 0.05 0.41 5.060.350.810.412.68 0.90091091-v1b-020607 0.26 2.64 11.09 1.67 0.28 30.26 0.74 2.390.3811.09 3.75092092-v1b-020707 0.22 1.79 11.77 1.21 0.44 94.47 1.16 1.580.396.17 1.98092092-v2b-020707 0.11 0.400.220.25 0.44 6.330.350.950.403.26 1.12092092-v2ad-020707 0.11 0.250.220.10 0.47 6.570.350.990.403.29 1.14093093-v1a-020707 0.22 1.66 18.76 1.35 0.41 20.000.182.75 0.42 10.40 2.86093093-v1bd-020707 0.27 1.43 20.99 1.57 0.49 22.96 0.20 3.130.4011.88 3.58094094-v1b-020807 0.17 1.71 5.35 0.98 1.00 13.820.351.100.404.21 1.27095095-v1a-020807 0.10 0.88 12.49 1.520.3718.290.392.050.449.28 2.79095095-v2b-0208070.160.700.240.17 0.22 4.280.390.680.452.29 0.73096096-v1a-020807 0.32 1.76 43.15 1.78 0.27 19.62 0.89 2.280.409.79 2.45097097-v1a-022007 0.13 1.61 6.76 0.360.335.740.350.600.402.13 0.79098098-v1a-022007 0.28 2.00 11.21 0.840.3316.040.353.110.4012.61 3.97098098-v2b-0220070.150.360.22 0.23 0.340.990.350.140.410.60 0.14099099-v1a-022207 0.63 2.24 14.93 0.81 0.22 16.10 4.34 4.240.389.16 3.54099099-v2a-0222070.140.360.21 0.21 0.321.060.330.160.380.66 0.18099099-v1a-022307 0.60 2.49 15.21 1.09 0.21 20.58 4.51 4.310.3210.46 3.94099099-v1a-022407 0.62 2.38 14.61 1.060.3318.90 3.60 5.620.4012.42 4.96101101-v1b-022207 0.15 2.00 9.12 0.390.367.30 2.31 0.350.431.52 0.27102102-v1a-022307 0.64 1.95 39.13 2.460.3217.81 5.65 3.760.382.61 0.46104104-v1b-022307 0.09 0.76 6.62 0.570.3312.76 2.11 0.470.392.71 0.65

### E-13Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample IDBenz(μg/m3)2Bto(μg/m3)Capr(μg/m3)Dchl(μg/m3)Ethy(μg/m3)Hxan(μg/m3)nHex(μg/m3)dLim(μg/m3)Mepy(μg/m3)105105-v1b-022707 1.50 4.500.23 0.204.86 17.13 2.26 17.080.41106106-v1a-022807 1.77 9.830.230.48 6.65 10.93 1.77 19.410.41107107-v1b-022807 1.02 0.570.210.131.0413.98 0.52 29.640.38107107-v2b-022807 0.860.13 0.24 0.21 1.15 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.42107107-v2ad-022807 0.860.13 0.24 0.21 1.15 0.100.190.30 0.42108108-v1b-022807 11.94 14.320.25 0.21 1.2013.23 20.48 10.42 2.09109109-v1a-030207 1.37 4.280.24 0.2117.25 22.00 0.86 17.020.43110110-v1a-030207 2.22 0.760.211.631.045.16 0.74 15.530.38110110-v2b-030207 0.600.13 0.22 0.20 1.090.330.280.380.40112112-v1b-030507 0.79 2.200.231.031.125.47 0.42 57.160.41112112-v2b-0305070.460.14 0.25 0.22 1.220.610.320.160.45113113-v1a-030507 3.37 7.970.230.631.1214.03 6.32 152.250.41114114-v1b-030607 2.51 49.430.25 0.22 1.2132.80 1.56 37.310.45115115-v1b-030607 1.88 179.680.24 0.21 1.1620.03 0.70 73.010.43115115-v2b-030607 0.490.13 0.24 0.21 1.150.500.30 0.30 0.42116116-v1a-030607 0.93 3.340.23 0.20 1.1411.56 0.84 26.05 0.72116116-v1bd-030607 0.82 4.270.25 0.21 1.2011.22 0.73 22.33 0.64117117-v1a-030707 1.99 7.910.24 0.21 1.1527.88 18.90 105.400.42118118-v1b-030707 1.18 4.090.24 0.21 1.1823.94 1.31 24.480.43118118-v2b-030707 0.370.14 0.25 0.21 1.200.470.31 0.31 0.44119119-v1a-030707 1.65 4.970.26 0.22 1.2421.25 2.49 124.62 0.25120120-v1b-030807 0.79 14.170.25 0.21 1.2018.73 0.26 17.860.44121121-v1b-030807 0.690.14 0.25 0.22 1.2119.62 0.40 90.440.44121121-v2a-030807 0.550.13 0.23 0.20 1.10 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.40121121-v2ad-030807 0.490.14 0.25 0.22 1.21 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.44

### E-14Volatile organic compound, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Naph(μg/m3)Phen(μg/m3)alP(μg/m3)Styr(μg/m3)TChlr(μg/m3)Tolu(μg/m3)Clr(μg/m3)124T(μg/m3)Viny(μg/m3)mpXy(μg/m3)oXyl(μg/m3)104104-v2b-0223070.140.850.20 0.21 0.311.760.330.290.381.10 0.32105105-v1b-022707 0.13 2.74 10.35 0.600.3111.250.331.800.385.82 1.81106106-v1a-022807 0.47 2.72 7.99 0.85 2.26 13.82 1.46 2.380.3811.57 3.93107107-v1b-022807 0.24 2.25 6.86 0.900.2913.81 1.56 1.490.352.35 0.93107107-v2b-0228070.140.480.21 0.22 0.331.140.340.170.390.68 0.19107107-v2ad-0228070.140.350.21 0.22 0.331.130.340.170.390.67 0.20108108-v1b-022807 0.47 1.18 9.47 0.650.3499.92 0.82 13.160.4160.26 19.85109109-v1a-030207 1.06 2.49 20.33 1.33 0.59 33.890.352.22 0.26 11.79 3.35110110-v1a-030207 0.12 1.41 8.89 0.690.2916.170.310.790.354.47 1.23110110-v2b-0302070.130.340.20 0.21 0.311.130.320.140.370.59 0.15112112-v1b-030507 4.85 1.21 8.70 0.630.324.71 0.78 0.730.382.30 0.62112112-v2b-030507 0.150.730.23 0.23 0.350.960.36 0.25 0.410.450.24113113-v1a-030507 0.32 1.53 12.56 2.43 3.37 41.19 2.09 3.540.3815.03 4.66114114-v1b-030607 0.33 3.20 20.18 1.730.3422.55 1.56 1.680.415.65 1.20115115-v1b-030607 0.14 2.77 8.40 1.46 0.36 10.99 3.09 0.810.395.61 1.71115115-v2b-0306070.140.620.21 0.22 0.331.060.34 0.23 0.390.51 0.12116116-v1a-030607 0.10 2.47 13.31 1.89 0.59 4.78 1.22 0.610.395.55 1.36116116-v1bd-030607 0.08 2.59 12.58 1.78 0.53 4.26 1.39 0.510.415.23 1.14117117-v1a-030707 0.14 2.78 23.45 3.660.3341.62 2.44 2.820.3928.96 7.07118118-v1b-030707 0.14 1.87 23.89 3.640.3314.73 2.75 1.290.404.36 0.81118118-v2b-0307070.150.610.22 0.23 0.340.770.35 0.24 0.410.440.23119119-v1a-030707 0.18 1.26 10.01 3.240.3513.06 0.44 1.820.425.99 1.85120120-v1b-030807 0.26 4.87 16.36 1.230.349.74 11.82 0.680.413.73 0.97121121-v1b-030807 0.24 3.27 15.99 0.880.346.82 0.68 1.020.412.21 0.62121121-v2a-0308070.130.500.20 0.21 0.310.780.33 0.22 0.370.380.21121121-v2ad-0308070.150.520.22 0.23 0.340.690.36 0.24 0.410.320.23

### E-15Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Acetaldehyde(μg/m3)Formaldehyde(μg/m3)HomeIDSample ID Acetaldehyde(μg/m3)Formaldehyde(μg/m3)001 001-f1-080706 NA NA 017 017-f2-022107 0.19 2.00002 002-f1-080706 2.83 7.99018 018-f1-081506 3.86 11.73002 002-f2-080706 3.14 1.33 018018-f1d-081506 6.19 18.58002 002-f1-030107 27.56 52.78018 018-f1-022107 10.02 23.29003 003-f1-080706 11.46 35.94019 019-f1-081606 2.97 4.77004 004-f1-080806 16.61 39.04019 019-f1-102406 15.21 24.22004 004-f1-030107 62.05 62.83019 019-f1-022007 22.50 35.65005 005-f1-080806 64.13 111.28019 019-f1d-022007 21.57 33.26005 005-f2-080806 NA NA 020 020-f1-081606 27.07 92.69005 005-f1-102306 48.52 71.61020 020-f2-081606 3.31 2.23005 005-f1-022707 20.84 43.84021 021-f1-081606 58.98 45.42006 006-f1-080806 43.10 61.31022 022-f1-081706 23.16 58.46006 006-f1-102306 14.13 22.85023 023-f1-081706 44.15 92.46006 006-f2-102306 4.48 3.00023 023-f2-081706 3.59 2.40006 006-f2d-102306 4.57 3.17024 024-f1-081706 16.00 53.00006 006-f1-022707 21.83 32.58025 025-f1-082106 8.43 22.41006 006-f2-022707 0.25 2.31025 025-f1-022107 16.25 33.87008 008-f1-080906 63.43 108.55026 026-f1-082106 13.20 36.70008 008-f2-080906 4.95 3.90026 026-f2-082106 2.87 2.10008 008-f1-030107 67.82 79.20027 027-f1-082106 13.05 34.16008 008-f2-030107 0.86 0.71029 029-f1-082206 39.44 81.48009 009-f1-080906 24.23 58.56029 029-f2-082206 3.82 2.64009 009-f1d-080906 24.59 56.90030 030-f1-082206 25.27 56.66010 010-f1-081006 50.67 135.52030 030-f1d-082206 22.41 48.98011 011-f1-081006 51.08 102.00031 031-f1-082306 22.12 77.28011 011-f2-081006 3.13 2.28032 032-f1-082306 11.75 26.80011 011-f1-030207 21.60 45.40032 032-f2-082306 4.31 3.91012 012-f1-081006 NA NA 033 033-f1-082406 74.54 58.15013 013-f1-081406 72.61 100.13033 033-f1-082506 54.89 50.23013 013-f1-102406 15.29 45.17 034033-f1-082606 108.67 63.60013 013-f2-102406 3.12 53.26034 034-f1-082406 7.26 14.37014 014-f1-081406 1.90 7.72037 034-f2-082406 3.16 2.28014 014-f2-081406 1.38 0.72038 037-f1-090506 25.42 40.66015 015-f1-081406 2.52 10.49 038038-f1-090506 52.85 105.76016 016-f1-081506 4.51 10.07038 038-f2-090506 2.30 2.10017 017-f1-081506 2.90 7.80039 038-f1-012407 11.27 27.09017 017-f2-081506 2.32 1.04039 039-f1-090506 45.97 42.43017 017-f1-022107 6.29 18.55040 039-f1-012407 32.25 21.59040040-f1-090606 22.00 47.44

### E-16Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Acetaldehyde(μg/m3)Formaldehyde(μg/m3)HomeIDSample ID Acetaldehyde(μg/m3)Formaldehyde(μg/m3)041 041-f1-090606 31.30 35.94059 059-f1-012907 12.67 17.67041 041-f2-090606 4.82 4.08061 061-f1-091806 59.51 33.48041 041-f1-012507 14.62 13.65062 062-f1-091806 18.85 34.98041 041-f2-012507 1.73 1.20062 062-f2-091806 4.02 3.46041 041-f1-012607 18.49 16.68 062062-f2d-091806 4.17 3.50041 041-f1-012707 22.95 22.54062 062-f1-012507 9.92 15.46042 042-f1-090606 30.08 58.71064 064-f1-091906 14.05 48.84043 043-f1-090706 22.32 65.52 064064-f1d-091906 13.66 46.88044 044-f1-090706 10.99 20.07065 065-f1-091906 11.67 25.21044 044-f2-090706 4.55 3.22065 065-f2-091906 2.59 1.25044 044-f1-012607 15.04 18.96066 066-f1-091906 12.17 20.67044 044-f1d-012607 14.07 17.15067 067-f1-092006 8.72 12.41045 045-f1-090706 33.42 125.72068 068-f1-092006 14.54 15.99045 045-f1d-090706 39.18 143.70068 068-f2-092006 2.46 2.05045 045-f1-012307 NA NA 069 069-f1-092006 55.12 63.58046 046-f1-090806 28.59 105.13070 070-f1-092106 7.86 25.33047 047-f1-090806 34.70 96.48071 071-f1-092106 7.28 24.46047 047-f2-090806 3.50 2.89071 071-f2-092106 2.77 8.04048 048-f1-090806 20.96 62.48072 072-f1-092106 8.60 16.73049 049-f1-091206 36.26 77.44073 073-f1-012307 17.86 15.22049 049-f1-013007 14.18 31.17073 073-f2-012307 0.78 0.34049 049-f2-013007 1.16 1.11074 074-f1-012307 15.25 17.21050 050-f1-091206 4.59 21.55075 075-f1-012407 19.64 30.94050 050-f2-091206 1.71 1.00075 075-f2-012407 1.22 0.61050 050-f1-013007 30.83 38.90076 076-f1-012507 17.55 17.87053 053-f1-091306 3.59 13.40077 077-f1-012607 13.44 30.68053 053-f2-091306 0.16 1.01077 077-f2-012607 1.21 1.75054 054-f1-091306 6.76 29.97078 078-f1-012907 19.56 23.21054 054-f1d-091306 4.92 24.32078 078-f1d-012907 19.45 22.54055 055-f1-091406 4.40 17.94 079 079-f1-012907 NA NA056 056-f1-091406 7.59 25.72080 080-f1-013007 22.38 45.98056 056-f2-091406 1.00 1.68081 081-f1-013007 27.81 30.05058 058-f1-091506 10.08 34.62081 081-f2-013107 0.30 0.30058 058-f1-013107 33.75 35.90083 083-f1-020107 25.43 33.99059 059-f1-091506 4.02 10.68 083083-f1d-020107 18.24 25.24059 059-f2-091506 0.68 3.14084 084-f1-020107 12.44 39.56059 059-f1-091606 5.81 14.30 084 084-f2-020107 NA NA059 059-f1-091706 6.70 13.53085 085-f1-020107 16.80 34.11

### E-17Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample IDAcetaldehyde(μg/m3)Formaldehyde(μg/m3)HomeIDSample ID Acetaldehyde(μg/m3)Formaldehyde(μg/m3)086 086-f1-020507 27.17 47.52112 112-f1-030507 15.20 38.72086 086-f1d-020507 NA NA 112 112-f2-030507 2.29 1.58087 087-f1-020507 12.69 19.96113 113-f1-030507 36.29 40.28087 087-f2-020507 3.67 3.02114 114-f1-030607 96.70 59.61088 088-f1-020507 13.79 31.80115 115-f1-030607 49.91 45.72089 089-f1-020607 5.78 12.84115 115-f2-030607 2.16 2.02090 090-f1-020607 14.73 18.25116 116-f1-030607 37.72 44.65090 090-f2-020607 2.78 2.43 116116-f1d-030607 37.07 45.05091 091-f1-020607 15.46 40.65117 117-f1-030707 33.46 71.18092 092-f1-020707 31.04 39.51118 118-f1-030707 43.76 65.56092 092-f2-020707 3.41 2.88118 118-f2-030707 0.60 1.23092 092-f2d-020707 4.03 3.72119 119-f1-030707 53.27 56.21093 093-f1-020707 13.84 36.83 120120-f1-030807 38.62 118.67093 093-f1d-020707 9.49 25.98121 121-f1-030807 28.80 34.63094 094-f1-020807 21.39 28.48121 121-f2-030807 0.35 2.46095 095-f1-020807 16.94 28.54 121121-f2d-030807 0.57 2.94095 095-f2-020807 2.78 1.96017 017-AA-022107 1.62 1.95096 096-f1-020807 58.75 34.10017 017-FAA-081706 7.58 9.18097 097-f1-022007 11.62 48.55017 017-FRA-081706 6.66 8.57098 098-f1-022007 36.85 31.55017 017-FSA-081506 7.70 10.20098 098-f2-022007 0.69 2.87017 017-RA-022107 5.90 15.26099 099-f1-022207 56.53 85.97017 017-SA-022107 5.38 13.65099 099-f2-022207 1.83 3.06 033 033-FAA-082406 NA NA099 099-f1-022307 85.95 94.50 033 033-FRA-082406 NA NA099 099-f1-022407 57.25 86.43 033 033-FSA-082406 NA NA101 101-f1-022207 25.23 57.81120 120-AA-030807 10.42 4.65102 102-f1-022307 45.26 75.56120 120-RA-030807 74.05 22.76104 104-f1-022307 17.06 35.01120 120-SA1-030807 69.98 20.90104 104-f2-022307 2.18 1.68120 120-SA2-030807 65.75 21.36105 105-f1-022707 89.07 28.36106 106-f1-022807 28.49 69.85107 107-f1-022807 27.06 38.11107 107-f2-022807 1.22 0.70107 107-f2d-022807 1.50 1.19108 108-f1-022807 19.81 37.92109 109-f1-030207 101.48 85.71110 110-f1-030207 15.42 70.73110 110-f2-030207 1.37 3.21

### E-18Nitrogen dioxide sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Concentration(μg/m3)HomeIDSample ID Concentration(μg/m3)002 002-N1-030107 5.97 106 106-N1-022807 6.07004 004-N1-030107 9.41 107 107-N1-022807 5.66005 005-N1-022707 5.65 107 107-N2-022807 5.74006 006-N1-022707 5.57 107 107-N2D-022807 5.96006 006-N2-022707 5.49 108 108-N1-022807 5.55008 008-N1-030107 10.39 109 109-N1-030207 5.48008 008-N2-030107 6.2 110 110-N1-030207 9.27011 011-N1-030207 5.29 110 110-N2-030207 6.09017 017-N1-022107 6.09 112 112-N1-030507 22.95017 017-N2-022107 6.32 112 112-N2-030507 5.59018 018-N1-022107 12.74 113 113-N1-030507 9.28019 019-N1-022007 5.37 114 114-N1-030607 5.71019 019-N1D-022007 5.55 115 115-N1-030607 6.43025 025-N1-022107 5.63 115 115-N2-030607 5.66097 097-N1-022007 19.56 116 116-N1-030607 15.95098 098-N1-022007 5.34 116 116-N1D-030607 15.61098 098-N2-022007 5.70 120 120-N1-030807 22.05099 099-N1-022407 6.13 121 121-N1-030807 20.50099 099-N1-022307 5.24 121 121-N2-030807 5.87099 099-N1-022207 49.72 121 121-N2D-030807 6.03099 099-N2-022207 14.28101 101-N1-022207 5.93102 102-N1-022307 5.85104 104-N1-022307 26.34104 104-N2-022307 5.33105 105-N1-022707 5.70

### E-19PM2.5particulate matter sample IDs and concentrations.HomeIDSample ID Concentration(μg/m3)HomeIDSample ID Concentration(μg/m3)002 002-P1-030107 9.14 104 104-P1-022307 8.54004 004-P1-030107 11.40 104 104-P2-022307 150.04005 005-P1-022707 10.94 105 105-P1-022707 6.19006 006-P1-022707 33.99 106 106-P1-022807 21.75006 006-P2-022707 145.76 107 107-P1-022807 9.92008 008-P1-030107 8.30 107 107-P2-022807 139.41008 008-P2-030107 129.13 107 107-P2D-022807 9.38011 011-P1-030207 3.79 108 108-P1-022807 11.88017 017-P1-022107 5.88 109 109-P1-030207 7.87017 017-P2-022107 126.59 110 110-P1-030207 5.82018 018-P1-022107 NA 110 110-P2-030207 131.30019 019-P1-022007 10.15 112 112-P1-030507 8.57019 019-P1D-022007 6.76 112 112-P2-030507 143.15025 025-P1-022107 6.06 113 113-P1-030507 8.69097 097-P1-022007 32.35 114 114-P1-030607 6.06098 098-P1-022007 13.53 115 115-P1-030607 29.88098 098-P2-022007 140.46 115 115-P2-030607 141.39099 099-P1-022407 6.72 116 116-P1-030607 35.51099 099-P1-022307 17.09 116 116-P1D-030607 38.02099 099-P1-022207 16.12 120 120-P1-030807 11.55099 099-P2-022207 140.10 121 121-P1-030807 12.54101 101-P1-022207 12.43 121 121-P2D-030807 10.52102 102-P1-022307 15.81

### E-20 Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concen trations, and temperature and relative

humidity sample IDs.

Home

ID Sample

Type Date 24 Hr CO 2 (ppm) 24 Hr

CO

(ppm) 24 Hr

Temp

(F) 24 Hr

RH

(%) Max 1

Hr CO

(ppm) Max 8

Hr CO

(ppm)

1 CC1 8/7/06 764.55 0. 14 76.83 50.51 2.33 0.42

2 CC1 8/7/06 379.10 0. 29 72.84 50.39 0.49 0.35

2 CC2 8/7/06 298.85 1. 70 68.97 62.19 3.42 2.71

2 C1 3/1/07 745.15 0. 58 65.90 44.41 1.17 0.82

3 CC1 8/7/06 440.70 0. 02 76.78 46.70 0.44 0.06

4 CC1 8/8/06 504.45 0. 45 75.48 51.57 2.24 0.96

4 C1 3/1/07 1156.03 3. 92 67.29 52.18 7.28 5.40

5 CC1 8/8/06 795.82 1. 62 74.58 54.86 2.02 1.79

5 C1 10/23/06 1023.12 1.94 71.52 52. 22 2.17 2.09

5 CC2 8/8/06 349.59 0. 73 82.72 45.81 1.86 1.50

5 C1 2/27/07 664.99 0. 00 67.25 43.16 0.02 0.00

6 C2 2/27/07 319.94 2. 77 44.93 80.60 3.77 3.66

6 CC1 8/8/06 631.93 0. 83 75.04 53.21 1.04 0.92

6 C1 2/27/07 563.73 0. 54 63.65 47.05 1.12 0.66

6 C2D 10/23/06 390.70 1.53 64.50 52. 48 3.65 2.78

6 C2 10/23/06 383.90 1.50 64.63 53. 10 3.20 2.46

6 C1 10/23/06 453.79 0.26 73.09 39. 02 0.91 0.32

8 C1 3/1/07 832.66 0. 00 74.66 38.78 0.00 0.00

8 C2 3/1/07 316.92 2. 31 50.41 67.49 3.29 3.14

8 CC1 8/9/06 863.53 2. 32 81.67 50.90 6.75 2.61

8 CC2 8/9/06 337.50 1. 13 82.39 43.59 2.13 1.66

9 CC1 8/9/06 614.29 1. 72 78.88 46.46 3.22 2.01

9 CC1D 8/9/06 616.04 2. 12 78.83 46.25 3.44 2.43

10 CC1 8/10/06 753.49 0. 61 78.35 49.73 1.04 0.91

11 C1 3/2/07 431.74 0. 20 62.71 49.08 0.40 0.32

11 CC1 8/10/06 874.73 1. 25 77.28 54.26 1.96 1.52

11 CC2 8/10/06 343.22 0. 31 82.84 36.08 1.50 0.73

12 CC1 8/10/06 460.17 0. 52 80.51 41.36 1.71 0.73

13 CC1 8/14/06 1108.16 1. 84 73.91 54.03 3.03 2.44

13 C1 10/24/06 525.64 0.56 74.23 37. 03 1.64 1.41

13 C2 10/24/06 340.24 1.05 64.18 40. 05 3.40 2.49

14 CC2 8/14/06 318.39 1. 39 67.59 68.42 2.39 2.13

14 CC1 8/14/06 351.58 0. 85 71.72 55.43 1.28 1.00

15 CC1 8/14/06 334.20 0. 42 73.26 52.78 0.62 0.53

16 CC1 8/15/06 406.98 2. 00 69.08 62.32 2.34 2.31

17 CC1 8/15/06 386.85 0. 79 73.82 54.11 1.35 1.15

17 CC2 8/15/06 293.24 1. 74 70.58 63.59 2.82 2.56

17 C2 2/21/07 314.89 2. 49 52.50 78.52 3.80 3.44

17 C1 2/21/07 478.17 0. 01 72.26 40.09 0.06 0.02

18 CC1 8/15/06 430.06 0. 01 76.27 47.89 0.13 0.02

18 CC1D 8/15/06 443.13 1. 28 76.54 48.31 1.87 1.50

18 C1 2/21/07 541.10 0. 00 70.78 42.27 0.02 0.00

19 CC1 8/16/06 392.10 1. 08 71.93 46.91 1.99 1.49

19 C1D 2/20/07 572.85 1. 14 NA NA 2.71 1.84

19 C1 2/20/07 564.84 1. 22 67.08 44.87 1.79 1.54

19 C1 10/24/06 463.54 0.46 70.59 42. 29 0.78 0.63

20 CC1 8/16/06 459.73 0. 48 79.38 43.20 0.84 0.66

20 CC2 8/16/06 323.43 0. 13 73.04 48.27 1.13 0.38

21 CC1 8/16/06 639.20 0. 92 76.55 50.27 2.02 1.09

22 CC1 8/17/06 558.52 0. 20 78.37 44.01 0.38 0.26

23 CC1 8/17/06 720.85 0. 01 76.62 48.19 0.04 0.01

23 CC2 8/17/06 299.56 0. 35 78.77 46.32 1.00 0.70

### E-21 Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concen trations, and temperature and relative

humidity sample IDs.

Home

ID Sample

Type Date 24 Hr CO 2 (ppm) 24 Hr

CO

(ppm) 24 Hr

Temp

(F) 24 Hr

RH

(%) Max 1

Hr CO

(ppm) Max 8

Hr CO

(ppm)

24 CC1 8/17/06 395.57 0. 32 77.41 46.19 0.62 0.45

25 C1 2/21/07 501.90 0. 13 68.87 44.39 0.76 0.22

25 CC1 8/21/06 393.03 1. 29 73.98 52.60 1.62 1.52

26 CC2 8/21/06 314.00 0. 36 74.48 56.62 1.26 0.75

26 CC1 8/21/06 440.28 0. 32 74.36 51.12 0.64 0.57

27 CC1 8/21/06 393.72 0. 18 77.78 46.74 0.34 0.24

29 CC2 8/22/06 337.75 0. 01 79.35 38.83 0.21 0.03

29 CC1 8/22/06 555.82 1. 62 78.08 49.25 2.07 2.02

30 CC1D 8/22/06 613.08 1. 44 74.09 42.60 2.49 1.99

30 CC1 8/22/06 595.67 0. 73 73.72 42.68 2.29 1.53

31 CC1 8/23/06 541.44 1. 37 80.87 38.91 2.17 1.47

32 CC2 8/23/06 359.53 0. 55 75.63 45.33 2.14 1.43

32 CC1 8/23/06 468.78 0. 00 80.89 37.62 0.00 0.00

33 CC1 8/25/06 548.44 0. 96 74.71 48.12 1.36 1.11

33 CC1 8/24/06 616.43 1. 16 75.02 46.05 1.49 1.34

33 CC1 8/26/06 852.46 1. 19 74.61 48.09 1.61 1.45

34 CC1 8/24/06 452.96 0. 73 67.56 63.51 1.69 1.16

34 CC2 8/24/06 286.97 1. 47 71.09 57.82 3.08 2.40

37 CC1 9/5/06 577.59 1. 77 76.80 44.87 2.29 2.06

38 C1 1/24/07 487.08 0. 03 72.39 19.48 0.08 0.04

38 CC1 9/5/06 511.22 0. 04 76.40 44.63 0.32 0.12

38 CC2 9/5/06 304.35 -0 .31 84.37 35.85 2.14 1.43

39 C1 1/24/07 838.14 1. 57 67.47 31.85 3.13 2.01

39 CC1 9/5/06 723.77 2. 56 77.56 42.58 3.02 2.97

40 CC1 9/6/06 575.58 0. 64 82.80 37.61 1.23 0.98

41 C1 1/25/07 641.70 0. 82 67.98 25.50 1.12 0.85

41 C1 1/26/07 721.65 1. 00 66.45 28.14 1.57 1.04

41 C1 1/27/07 773.38 1. 08 66.15 32.92 1.81 1.27

41 C2 1/25/07 258.40 0. 40 52.84 33.62 1.33 0.92

41 CC2 9/6/06 301.08 -0 .05 81.57 36.57 2.10 1.28

41 CC1 9/6/06 750.76 0. 25 75.47 39.75 0.59 0.47

42 CC1 9/6/06 593.41 0. 29 79.25 39.21 0.58 0.34

43 CC1 9/7/06 402.85 0. 43 74.76 44.13 1.08 0.92

44 CC1 9/7/06 513.74 0. 21 78.19 45.75 0.39 0.28

44 CC2 9/7/06 317.53 2. 32 71.26 67.04 3.65 3.45

44 C1D 1/26/07 801.25 0. 75 67.20 28.20 1.88 1.51

44 C1 1/26/07 785.67 1. 55 67.25 27.96 2.09 1.96

45 C1 1/23/07 599.72 0. 12 70.44 21.67 1.76 0.36

45 CC1 9/7/06 773.83 1. 63 80.33 41.50 2.45 2.26

45 CC1D 9/7/06 789.00 0. 15 81.06 40.85 1.13 0.45

46 CC1 9/8/06 522.90 0. 28 78.68 40.95 0.62 0.56

47 CC1 9/8/06 549.76 1. 24 76.12 43.98 2.29 1.58

47 CC2 9/8/06 342.06 0. 96 70.28 66.67 1.80 1.62

48 CC1 9/8/06 515.75 0. 48 78.51 44.00 0.95 0.65

49 C2 1/30/07 320.36 3. 57 50.98 93.26 4.39 4.21

49 C1 1/30/07 772.59 1. 65 65.73 45.84 2.50 2.10

49 CC1 9/12/06 720.86 0. 24 75.62 79.80 0.77 0.54

50 CC1 9/12/06 384.43 1. 52 76.85 59.52 2.01 1.70

50 CC2 9/12/06 348.35 1. 21 72.71 72.82 2.28 1.90

50 C1 1/30/07 817.48 0. 34 69.88 42.21 1.19 0.45

53 CC1 9/13/06 365.48 0. 93 74.58 60.97 1.26 1.03

53 CC2 9/13/06 297.72 1. 13 69.49 72.21 1.81 1.62

54 CC1 9/13/06 404.58 0. 80 74.87 60.98 1.12 0.98

### E-22 Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concen trations, and temperature and relative

humidity sample IDs.

Home

ID Sample

Type Date 24 Hr CO 2 (ppm) 24 Hr

CO

(ppm) 24 Hr

Temp

(F) 24 Hr

RH

(%) Max 1

Hr CO

(ppm) Max 8

Hr CO

(ppm)

54 CC1D 9/13/06 397.28 1. 48 74.55 60.72 1.74 1.64

55 CC1 9/14/06 436.81 1. 08 75.31 56.79 1.66 1.37

56 CC1 9/14/06 416.94 0. 04 73.68 59.09 0.24 0.10

56 CC2 9/14/06 339.39 1. 53 67.83 69.47 1.78 1.68

58 CC1 9/15/06 443.37 1. 53 74.60 55.69 1.72 1.58

58 C1 1/31/07 541.70 1. 44 70.28 42.69 1.68 1.52

59 CC1 9/17/06 353.03 NA 72.05 46.04 NA NA

59 C1 1/29/07 390.41 1. 75 62.07 55.93 2.85 2.12

59 CC2 9/15/06 323.01 2. 33 63.81 76.72 3.47 3.09

59 CC1 9/15/06 368.43 1. 43 69.49 61.23 1.62 1.58

59 C2 1/29/07 330.39 3. 44 51.70 94.05 3.88 3.67

59 CC1 9/16/06 376.15 0. 91 70.21 63.67 1.61 1.41

61 CC1 9/18/06 703.31 1. 00 75.51 40.94 1.45 1.30

62 C1 1/25/07 586.68 0. 06 69.20 24.26 0.31 0.09

62 CC2D 9/18/06 307.89 0. 02 72.55 30.74 0.47 0.07

62 CC2 9/18/06 302.07 0. 02 72.41 31.66 0.35 0.06

62 CC1 9/18/06 573.18 0. 12 77.21 36.16 0.23 0.15

64 CC1D 9/19/06 486.16 0. 40 77.35 28.29 1.11 0.64

64 CC1 9/19/06 475.71 0. 02 77.18 28.60 0.20 0.06

65 CC2 9/19/06 322.59 0. 36 69.66 37.47 1.74 0.99

65 CC1 9/19/06 545.48 0. 83 75.65 33.18 2.00 1.17

66 CC1 9/19/06 451.87 0. 01 73.67 39.13 0.07 0.04

67 CC1 9/20/06 484.10 0. 52 71.86 27.60 1.63 0.84

68 CC1 9/20/06 452.88 0. 24 74.06 27.58 0.67 0.42

68 CC2 9/20/06 327.15 0. 07 66.97 39.20 0.61 0.20

69 CC1 9/20/06 892.81 0. 83 78.77 30.06 2.08 1.26

70 CC1 9/21/06 445.14 0. 70 75.73 36.83 1.35 1.16

71 CC2 9/21/06 322.50 1. 89 68.97 43.85 2.81 2.10

71 CC1 9/21/06 430.25 0. 00 76.26 29.67 0.03 0.00

72 CC1 9/21/06 484.27 0. 01 77.47 31.40 0.30 0.04

73 C1 1/23/07 555.53 0. 00 70.57 22.65 0.04 0.01

73 C2 1/23/07 315.33 0. 35 57.69 25.10 1.35 0.72

74 C1 1/23/07 706.92 0. 22 68.69 25.31 0.95 0.41

75 C1 1/24/07 617.95 0. 01 71.93 22.79 0.09 0.03

75 C2 1/24/07 280.50 0. 00 56.80 25.49 0.01 0.00

76 C1 1/25/07 563.85 0. 06 64.65 24.39 0.12 0.08

77 C1 1/26/07 557.28 0. 08 NA NA 0.19 0.12

77 C2 1/26/07 333.75 3. 03 50.17 76.02 3.86 3.57

78 C1 1/29/07 561.37 1. 67 69.23 41.39 2.60 1.80

78 C1D 1/29/07 582.28 0. 23 68.87 42.05 1.45 0.39

79 C1 1/29/07 523.34 0. 92 64.56 47.77 2.29 1.23

80 C1 1/30/07 927.60 1. 20 68.06 45.18 2.82 2.00

81 C2 1/31/07 312.89 2. 11 51.15 82.63 2.76 2.57

81 C1 1/31/07 581.16 NA 68.78 44.68 NA NA

83 C1 2/1/07 616.15 0. 80 65.09 48.40 2.09 0.94

83 C1D 2/1/07 572.75 1. 08 64.73 49.04 3.26 1.28

84 C1 2/1/07 557.29 1. 34 NA NA 2.36 1.61

84 C2 2/1/07 336.98 3. 40 52.09 75.16 4.89 4.40

85 C1 2/1/07 660.90 1. 60 65.72 48.95 2.85 1.90

86 C1D 2/5/07 912.76 0. 17 72.49 32.13 1.26 0.32

86 C1 2/5/07 911.02 1. 13 NA NA 3.05 1.45

87 C1 2/5/07 657.18 0. 71 72.51 28.14 1.94 0.85

87 C2 2/5/07 354.01 0. 14 66.82 28.67 1.26 0.28

### E-23 Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concen trations, and temperature and relative

humidity sample IDs.

Home

ID Sample

Type Date 24 Hr CO 2 (ppm) 24 Hr

CO

(ppm) 24 Hr

Temp

(F) 24 Hr

RH

(%) Max 1

Hr CO

(ppm) Max 8

Hr CO

(ppm)

88 C1 2/5/07 509.37 1. 78 69.63 33.18 1.90 1.83

92 C1 2/7/07 1027.85 1. 64 70.40 43.12 2.58 2.13

93 C1 2/7/07 561.80 1. 10 64.78 37.50 1.41 1.33

93 C1D 2/7/07 547.92 0. 24 64.30 37.88 0.40 0.35

94 C1 2/8/07 930.72 2. 41 70.27 29.80 4.69 3.70

95 C1 2/8/07 751.66 0. 41 67.86 34.48 0.83 0.44

95 C2 2/8/07 344.37 1. 91 57.51 36.99 3.03 2.62

96 C1 2/8/07 632.60 1. 43 66.95 31.50 2.77 2.48

97 C1 2/20/07 552.90 0. 17 74.29 35.34 1.21 0.27

98 C1 2/20/07 875.54 1. 92 64.18 51.69 2.33 2.15

98 C2 2/20/07 335.11 1. 51 52.15 73.39 2.39 2.21

99 C1 2/22/07 754.63 1. 12 67.80 47.90 2.23 1.72

99 C1 2/23/07 813.78 1. 35 67.91 46.72 1.95 1.81

99 C1 2/24/07 715.09 1. 91 67.43 46.83 2.13 1.99

99 C2 2/22/07 315.92 2. 41 45.20 82.06 3.52 3.07

102 C1 2/23/07 1020.33 1. 88 68.05 46.80 2.43 2.11

104 C1 2/23/07 663.34 1. 22 69.68 38.14 2.05 1.80

104 C2 2/23/07 325.49 1. 93 47.57 61.59 2.87 2.66

105 C1 2/27/07 656.01 1. 64 62.73 52.16 1.99 1.89

106 C1 2/28/07 748.66 1. 64 67.05 51.38 2.32 1.94

107 C2 2/28/07 349.19 1. 53 48.10 65.87 3.16 2.52

107 C2D 2/28/07 280.70 1. 51 NA NA 3.35 2.65

107 C1 2/28/07 631.57 0. 69 68.71 45.28 1.52 0.96

108 C1 2/28/07 562.91 1. 85 65.49 46.92 3.07 2.27

109 C1 3/2/07 838.49 1. 61 69.41 45.46 2.25 1.91

110 C1 3/2/07 723.12 0. 73 66.36 45.90 3.15 1.90

110 C2 3/2/07 334.54 1. 70 53.40 67.35 2.50 2.31

112 C1 3/5/07 582.87 0. 52 68.61 45.14 1.28 0.92

112 C2 3/5/07 327.21 0. 25 64.25 44.08 0.53 0.40

113 C1 3/5/07 663.02 1. 51 67.44 50.60 2.54 2.02

114 C1 3/6/07 890.43 NA 67.51 54.03 NA NA

115 C2 3/6/07 367.05 1. 05 58.49 57.92 1.82 1.62

115 C1 3/6/07 1013.39 2. 32 68.67 51.94 2.77 2.41

116 C1 3/6/07 627.57 1. 73 69.79 46.13 2.01 1.88

116 C1D 3/6/07 612.52 2. 06 69.61 46.62 2.39 2.26

117 C1 3/7/07 754.28 0. 45 NA NA 0.64 0.55

118 C1 3/7/07 925.97 2. 09 72.24 47.17 2.40 2.20

118 C2 3/7/07 312.60 2. 22 58.54 71.60 3.31 3.10

119 C1 3/7/07 763.51 1. 43 66.91 52.53 1.51 1.47

120 C1 3/8/07 1084.66 1. 30 74.46 47.17 1.98 1.46

121 C2D 3/8/07 316.99 2. 40 54.63 69.15 3.11 2.88

121 C1 3/8/07 438.56 1. 14 67.18 51.35 2.43 1.62

### E-24Outdoor air exchange rate PFT measurements.HomeIDTest Day24 hourSample IDTest DayachTest DayDuplicate SampleIDTest DayDuplicateachLong Term2 WeekSample IDLongTermachLong TermDuplicateSample IDLong TermDuplicateach001 001-T1-0807060.25002 002-T1-0301070.21002-T1L-0301070.24002 002-T1-0807066.47002-T1L-0807061.37002-T1LD-0807061.39003 003-T1-0807060.71004 004-T1-0808060.45004 004-T1-0301070.13005 005-T1-0808060.17005 005-T1-1023060.15005 005-T1-0227070.27006 006-T1-0808060.16006-T1L-0808060.22006 006-T1-0227070.23006 006-T1-1023060.63008 008-T1-0809060.21008 008-T1-0301070.23009 009-T1-0809060.34009-T1D-0809060.33010 010-T1-0810060.10011 011-T1-0810060.11011 011-T1-0302070.09012 012-T1-0810060.58013 013-T1-0814060.16013 013-T1-1024060.81013-T1L-1024060.27014 014-T1-0814065.34014-T1L-0814061.51015 015-T1-0814065.19016 016-T1-0815061.43017 017-T1-0815064.28017 017-T1-0221070.66018 018-T1-0815061.25018-T1D-0815061.25018 018-T1-0221070.61019 019-T1-0220070.11019-T1D-0220070.10019 019-T1-081606NA

### E-25Outdoor air exchange rate PFT measurements.HomeIDTest Day24 hourSample IDTest DayachTest DayDuplicate SampleIDTest DayDuplicateachLong Term2 WeekSample IDLongTermachLong TermDuplicateSample IDLong TermDuplicateach019 019-T1-1024060.29020 020-T1-0816060.21021 021-T1-0816060.16022 022-T1-0817060.41023 023-T1-0817060.17024 024-T1-0817060.45024-T1L-0817060.27025 025-T1-0221070.35025 025-T1-0821060.95025-T1L-0821060.83026 026-T1-0821060.33027 027-T1-0821061.25029 029-T1-0822060.19029-T1L-0822060.24030 030-T1-0822060.30030-T1D-0822060.31031 031-T1-0823060.44031-T1-0823060.27032 032-T1-0823060.73033 033-T1-0824060.23033 033-T1-0826060.13033 033-T1-0825060.29034 034-T1-0824060.59037 037-T1-0905060.29038 038-T1-0905060.13038-T1L-0905060.16038 038-T1-0123070.27038-T1L-0123070.14039 039-T1-0124070.17039 039-T1-0905060.20040 040-T1-0906060.39041 041-T1-0906060.21041-T1L-0906060.17041 041-T1-0125070.18041 041-T1-0126070.19041 041-T1-0127070.20042 042-T1-0906060.21043 043-T1-0907060.38044 044-T1-0126070.22044-T1D-0126070.22044-T1L-0126070.21044-T1LD-0126070.20

### E-26Outdoor air exchange rate PFT measurements.HomeIDTest Day24 hourSample IDTest DayachTest DayDuplicate SampleIDTest DayDuplicateachLong Term2 WeekSample IDLongTermachLong TermDuplicateSample IDLong TermDuplicateach044 044-T1-0907060.86045 045-T1-0907060.19045-T1D-0907060.20045 045-T1-0123070.24046 046-T1-0908060.28047 047-T1-0908060.15048 048-T1-0908060.33049 049-T1-0912060.14049 049-T1-0130070.13050 050-T1-0912063.17050-T1L-0912060.47050 050-T1-0130070.17053 053-T1-0913060.35054 054-T1-0913060.41054-T1D-0913060.38055 055-T1-0914061.04056 056-T1-0914060.66058 058-T1-0131070.15058 058-T1-0915060.48059 059-T1-0917061.25059 059-T1-0916061.79059 059-T1-0915062.25059-T1L-0915062.30059 059-T1-0129070.59061 061-T1-0918060.18062 062-T1-0918060.32062 062-T1-0125070.45064 064-T1-0919060.33064-T1D-0919060.36064-T1L-0919060.26065 065-T1-0919060.51066 066-T1-0919060.46067 067-T1-0920060.85067-T1L-0920060.78068 068-T1-0920060.33069 069-T1-0920060.20070 070-T1-0921060.85071 071-T1-0921060.57

### E-27Outdoor air exchange rate PFT measurements.HomeIDTest Day24 hourSample IDTest DayachTest DayDuplicate SampleIDTest DayDuplicateachLong Term2 WeekSample IDLongTermachLong TermDuplicateSample IDLong TermDuplicateach072 072-T1-0921060.77073 073-T1-0123070.32074 074-T1-0123070.17075 075-T1-0124070.25076 076-T1-0125070.25077 077-T1-0126070.11078 078-T1-0129070.39078-T1D-0129070.40078-T1L-0129070.42078-T1LD-0129070.43079 079-T1-0129070.38080 080-T1-0130070.20081 081-T1-0131070.29083 083-T1-0201070.41083-T1D-0201070.40083-T1L-0201070.32083-T1LD-0201070.32084 084-T1-0201070.25085 085-T1-0201070.26086 086-T1-0205070.09086-T1D-0205070.09087 087-T1-0205070.32088 088-T1-02505070.13089 089-T1-0206070.50090 090-T1-0206070.18090-T1L-0206070.12091 091-T1-0206070.20092 092-T1-0207070.25093 093-T1-0208070.14093-T1D-0208070.13094 094-T1-0208070.20095 095-T1-0208070.17095-T1L-0208070.16096 096-T1-0208070.12097 097-T1-0220070.64098 098-T1-0220070.20099 099-T1-0223070.17099 099-T1-022207NA099-T1L-0222070.15099-T1LD-0222070.14099 099-T1-0224070.16101 101-T1-0222070.26102 102-T1-0223070.11102-T1L-0223070.11104 104-T1-0223070.66105 105-T1-0227070.23105-T1L-0227070.23

### E-28Outdoor air exchange rate PFT measurements.HomeIDTest Day24 hourSample IDTest DayachTest DayDuplicate SampleIDTest DayDuplicateachLong Term2 WeekSample IDLongTermachLong TermDuplicateSample IDLong TermDuplicateach106 106-T1-0228070.33106-T1L-0228070.24107 107-T1-0228070.23108 108-T1-0228070.24109 109-T1-0302070.13110 110-T1-0302070.30112 112-T1-0305070.31113 113-T1-0305070.13114 114-T1-0306070.09115 115-T1-0306070.18116 116-T1-0306070.22116-T1D-0306070.16117 117-T1-0307070.11118 118-T1-0307070.19118-T1L-0307070.19119 119-T1-0307070.11120 120-T1-0308070.12120-T1L-0308070.23121 121-T1-0308070.18

### F-1 

## APPENDIX F

Home and Mechanical Ventilati on System Characteristics

### F-2 Appendix Key

Label Description

ad Automatic Damper

DOA Ducted Outdoor Air Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation System

EC Evaporative Cooler

fc Fan Cycler

ELA Effective Leakage Area @ 10 pascals

Fl Floor

G Garage

gd Gravity Damper

H Home

HRV Heat Recovery Ventilator Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation System

md Manual Damper

na Not Applicable / Not Available

OA Outdoor Air

Occ Occupants

RAD Forced Air Unit Return Air Damper Nighttime Cooling System

t-stat Thermostat

WD Window

WDF Window Fan

WHF Whole House Fan Nighttime Cooling SystemHome characteristics and air leakage data.HomeIDDateHomeAge# OccFl AreaVolumeWD Area/Fl AreaACH50SLAHome toOAELAHome toGarageELAGarageto OAELA001 8/8/06 3.27 2 1742 16624 0.084.49 3.18 141.90 10.90 127.75002 3/4/07 3.93 2 1813 17328 0.074.23 2.94 137.50 23.16 189.58003 8/8/06 3.02 4 2244 19584 0.06 4.92 3.00 176.20 22.95 71.68004 8/9/06 2.77 2 2005 19136 0.053.78 2.45 129.80 22.53 184.03005 2/28/07 2.85 5 3147 28391 0.086.14 3.26 285.60 35.95 143.89006 2/28/07 3.27 4 3806 35404 0.075.37 2.69 294.70 27.25 152.28008 8/10/06 2.86 2 1283 10918 0.075.64 3.04 105.80 10.69 155.84009 8/10/06 2.27 1 1283 10667 0.046.14 3.70 122.70 14.57 171.03010 8/11/06 2.86 1 1887 18047 0.074.28 2.81 139.70 11.00 160.14011 3/3/07 2.28 1 1616 13821 0.08 5.97 NA NA NA NA012 8/11/06 3.11 2 1894 18107 0.054.37 2.61 134.60 10.06 278.25013 8/15/06 4.12 4 2241 19901 0.065.16 2.98 179.50 14.25 226.79014 8/15/06 3.12 3 3403 31320 0.034.59 2.88 258.50 29.87 191.99015 8/15/06 3.21 2 2883 27340 0.065.20 2.86 231.10 46.53 292.08016 8/16/06 3.13 1 2273 21580 0.074.93 2.08 145.70 51.67 350.35017 2/22/07 3.29 2 2038 19556 0.054.58 2.83 155.40 10.69 156.05018 8/16/06 3.54 2 1718 16304 0.065.30 3.51 158.00 18.44 194.72019 8/17/06 2.88 4 4205 38916 0.054.46 2.15 262.90 16.35 260.53020 8/17/06 3.30 1 2152 20748 0.055.56 3.31 194.80 20.12 110.15021 8/17/06 3.13 2 1968 19764 0.074.14 2.88 148.80 8.80 139.38022 8/18/06 3.05 2 1659 14223 0.086.45 4.04 172.70 27.04 300.78023 8/18/06 3.38 5 3321 33317 0.054.88 2.63 251.60 42.23 423.29024 8/18/06 1.96 2 2851 27414 0.074.63 2.66 210.20 17.29 343.12025 8/22/06 3.31 2 2531 24128 0.074.21 2.62 177.90 15.30 424.76026 8/22/06 3.72 2 2439 23416 0.064.32 2.41 164.50 5.34 303.29027 8/22/06 1.80 5 2197 16615 0.06 4.00 2.10 120.80 13.52 91.39029 8/23/06 2.14 3 3119 28910 0.043.61 1.66 153.50 29.76 243.35030 8/23/06 3.64 5 2311 20497 0.066.35 3.34 214.60 29.76 243.35031 8/24/06 2.90 3 2719 23294 0.053.45 2.01 144.40 0.00 297.01032 8/24/06 3.40 5 2374 22909 0.065.91 3.24 217.10 6.39 231.09033 8/27/06 3.40 4 2214 21182 0.074.23 2.61 155.70 5.76 327.71



### F-3Home characteristics and air leakage data.HomeIDDateHomeAge# OccFl AreaVolumeWD Area/Fl AreaACH50SLAHome toOAELAHome toGarageELAGarageto OAELA034 8/25/06 5.48 4 5064 55613 0.034.62 3.31 450.50 0.00 959.03037 9/6/06 3.27 4 3413 31772 0.074.40 2.71 246.70 28.51 136.87038 1/24/07 2.35 2 3413 31772 0.084.75 2.98 269.60 34.58 132.68039 1/24/07 3.10 4 3413 31772 0.074.60 2.83 258.30 9.54 167.05040 9/7/06 3.93 4 2858 22276 0.05 3.93 2.12 159.20 13.83 61.20041 1/28/07 3.02 3 2147 17661 0.06 6.33 3.40 195.90 12.79 55.54042 9/7/06 3.02 3 3108 25522 0.05 3.64 2.02 166.20 18.13 61.52043 9/8/06 4.19 4 2838 26996 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA044 9/8/06 2.77 5 2765 25606 0.065.74 3.69 267.60 9.64 106.79045 9/8/06 2.85 4 2301 19970 0.066.19 3.47 215.00 7.13 124.92046 9/8/06 2.69 3 3212 26836 0.065.27 2.92 250.20 10.58 117.80047 9/8/06 3.02 2 2226 18290 0.06 4.77 2.96 167.60 26.62 53.03048 9/9/06 3.02 3 2515 20920 0.07 4.22 2.53 164.70 39.61 80.38049 1/31/07 3.28 4 2952 27489 0.06 3.84 2.40 188.00 11.32 38.15050 9/13/06 4.20 6 3327 32043 0.07 4.02 2.33 214.10 1.05 62.25053 9/14/06 4.95 6 3647 34210 0.07 3.85 2.18 219.80 15.41 55.02054 9/14/06 4.04 4 3753 34414 0.075.32 3.20 321.60 23.89 112.66055 9/15/06 4.38 5 2537 24865 0.085.25 3.06 213.10 14.04 140.43056 9/15/06 3.79 3 3338 32662 0.09 5.13 2.71 259.90 21.27 90.02058 2/1/07 4.21 3 3659 34641 0.06 3.23 1.39 155.60 17.82 47.37059 9/18/06 4.30 5 3756 32829 0.078.38 4.82 484.10 20.54 122.72061 9/19/06 3.30 3 2935 24579 0.05 4.72 2.71 209.60 15.51 69.80062 9/19/06 3.30 4 2790 22909 0.06 3.87 2.37 169.10 14.78 49.78064 9/20/06 3.97 3 3144 28888 0.064.69 2.70 231.30 17.92 152.07065 9/20/06 2.88 4 3113 26598 0.064.85 2.61 221.00 9.22 124.19066 9/20/06 3.97 2 2942 27207 0.055.94 3.54 280.40 18.03 158.88067 9/21/06 3.47 2 2442 21042 0.07 4.73 1.78 134.70 5.87 78.60068 9/21/06 2.64 2 3532 32848 0.063.63 2.12 204.00 35.95 179.31069 9/21/06 3.47 5 2916 25618 0.053.73 2.98 206.50 23.48 114.86070 9/22/06 2.81 2 2521 24411 0.067.28 5.61 352.70 12.68 133.62071 9/22/06 3.64 2 3072 27170 0.06 4.95 2.50 216.40 7.65 85.62072 9/22/06 3.48 6 2935 26057 0.04 4.43 2.67 207.10 7.13 75.67



### F-4Home characteristics and air leakage data.HomeIDDateHomeAge# OccFl AreaVolumeWD Area/Fl AreaACH50SLAHome toOAELAHome toGarageELAGarageto OAELA073 1/24/07 5.06 3 2857 26252 0.06 4.75 2.50 200.70 4.09 80.91074 1/24/07 4.15 5 2855 28356 0.07 5.27 3.17 249.40 NA NA075 1/25/07 NA 6 3156 37463 0.096.64 5.05 430.40 24.42 123.87076 1/26/07 3.24 2 3754 30752 0.054.51 2.33 237.70 18.65 129.85077 1/27/07 3.49 2 3590 33599 0.084.20 2.38 235.70 7.02 138.55078 1/30/07 4.83 3 3116 26172 0.064.11 2.19 184.80 11.84 235.17079 1/30/07 2.08 3 2180 17949 0.064.87 2.65 154.20 16.56 290.51080 1/30/07 3.67 6 3066 27626 0.07 5.14 2.82 237.90 9.85 80.59081 2/1/07 2.25 3 2258 18989 0.10 4.83 2.90 169.90 13.73 60.05083 2/2/07 3.34 3 1864 16223 0.08 6.20 3.88 187.30 1.05 61.41084 2/2/07 3.93 2 2348 20537 0.07 4.67 3.01 181.20 11.95 78.71085 2/2/07 4.09 4 2389 21224 0.07 4.87 2.71 176.00 9.01 73.99086 2/6/07 4.27 2 1879 16187 0.065.31 3.43 164.50 13.73 126.08087 2/6/07 NA 4 1902 17392 0.074.36 3.28 143.90 21.38 168.52088 2/6/07 4.10 1 3257 26735 0.064.76 2.63 227.30 17.61 161.71089 2/7/07 2.35 2 2828 23064 0.06 5.18 2.62 202.70 24.21 74.62090 2/7/07 4.27 4 1902 17439 0.074.25 3.01 144.40 16.24 180.47091 2/7/07 4.02 5 2686 21534 0.054.10 1.96 145.90 35.11 219.98092 2/8/07 4.27 8 3327 27570 0.064.49 2.41 215.50 27.77 174.49093 2/8/07 3.69 3 2324 20276 0.085.12 2.99 184.70 22.32 133.31094 2/9/07 4.27 2 1667 12996 0.08 6.27 3.73 157.50 31.65 98.83095 2/9/07 2.86 4 2790 26729 0.064.97 3.05 229.70 22.22 119.37096 2/9/07 1.69 3 3443 33276 0.064.72 2.84 266.80 17.50 277.51097 2/21/07 5.05 2 2258 21788 0.065.49 3.30 203.30 45.06 413.75098 2/21/07 4.14 4 2205 21098 0.065.78 3.60 213.00 23.89 379.17099 2/25/07 3.65 4 3404 34194 0.063.52 2.03 194.40 13.62 160.55101 2/23/07 3.56 2 1677 16010 0.074.87 3.29 143.60 19.91 316.18102 2/24/07 2.48 1 1940 16663 0.07 4.55 2.57 133.30 13.41 91.07104 2/24/07 2.98 2 1771 15158 0.087.32 3.73 183.20 90.34 329.70105 2/28/07 3.49 5 3923 34840 0.054.72 2.55 275.10 42.97 256.97106 3/1/07 3.33 6 2301 21273 0.074.68 2.81 173.90 6.92 192.62107 3/1/07 4.58 3 2752 25399 0.062.83 1.77 128.80 80.80 461.86



### F-5Home characteristics and air leakage data.HomeIDDateHomeAge# OccFl AreaVolumeWD Area/Fl AreaACH50SLAHome toOAELAHome toGarageELAGarageto OAELA108 3/1/07 3.41 2 2878 26961 0.086.05 3.68 284.90 69.90 207.30109 3/3/07 3.67 2 2226 21330 0.073.97 2.67 155.30 14.04 203.63110 3/3/07 3.17 2 1616 13821 0.085.62 3.50 145.80 11.95 125.45112 3/6/07 4.01 4 4457 40371 0.045.61 2.66 344.70 74.62 311.26113 3/6/07 4.93 5 2785 27450 0.085.21 3.02 234.50 13.10 131.73114 3/7/07 3.68 5 3451 30164 0.066.06 3.11 299.30 6.29 225.64115 3/7/07 3.85 4 2028 17462 0.077.11 4.01 217.80 20.75 208.66116 3/7/07 4.60 4 4182 40288 0.054.23 2.48 258.60 96.52 529.14117 3/8/07 2.43 2 2319 22231 0.085.23 3.24 202.10 3.88 219.03118 3/8/07 2.93 3 1548 13296 0.075.18 3.14 126.70 14.67 336.31119 3/8/07 NA 1 1532 13144 0.075.34 3.29 130.60 10.58 242.93120 3/9/07 4.02 2 1361 12459 0.065.94 3.27 123.00 96.21 618.32121 3/9/07 4.94 3 2261 20499 0.044.41 2.89 168.90 26.10 274.89



### F-6

### F-7 Forced air unit (FAU) duct leakage data.

Home ID Date System #1

Duct Leakage

(%) System #2

Duct Leakage

(%) System #3

Duct Leakage

(%)

001 8/8/06 8.9

002 3/4/07 6.1

003 8/8/06 11.3

004 8/9/06 7.4

005 2/28/07 15.8 16.7

006 2/28/07 7.4 13.1

008 8/10/06 4.2

009 8/10/06 8.0

010 8/11/06 5.4

011 3/3/07 7.2

012 8/11/06 3.8

013 8/15/06 8.5

014 8/15/06 9.4

015 8/15/06 9.2

016 8/16/06 11.2

017 2/22/07 4.8

018 8/16/06 7.5

019 8/17/06 29.3

020 8/17/06 13.4

021 8/17/06 12.5

022 8/18/06 4.8

023 8/18/06 9.0

024 8/18/06 10.2

025 8/22/06 11.1

026 8/22/06 12.8

027 8/22/06 12.6

029 8/23/06 3.5

030 8/23/06 27.8

031 8/24/06 6.8

032 8/24/06 12.7

033 8/27/06 8.8

034 8/25/06 73. 5 34.0 17.2

037 9/6/06 8.3 9.2

038 1/24/07 4.1 4.2

039 1/24/07 9.5 3.9

040 9/7/06 11.4 6.8

041 1/28/07 9.2

042 9/7/06 10.5

043 9/8/06 32.8 38.4

044 9/8/06 7.2

045 9/8/06 14.3

046 9/8/06 11.3 9.7

047 9/8/06 6.0

048 9/9/06 8.7

049 1/31/07 16.2

050 9/13/06 10.4 13.0

053 9/14/06 9.3 9.7

054 9/14/06 16.9 12.8

055 9/15/06 17.1

056 9/15/06 13.4 14.1

058 2/1/07 9.7 10.4

059 9/18/06 9.4 8.5

### F-8 Forced air unit (FAU) duct leakage data.

Home ID Date System #1

Duct Leakage

(%) System #2

Duct Leakage

(%) System #3

Duct Leakage

(%)

061 9/19/06 8.9

062 9/19/06 NA

064 9/20/06 14.0 8.6

065 9/20/06 11.1 6.9

066 9/20/06 7.8

067 9/21/06 8.8 10.4

068 9/21/06 11.6 13.0

069 9/21/06 13.2

070 9/22/06 6.2

071 9/22/06 20.7

072 9/22/06 9.2

073 1/24/07 10.6 14.6

074 1/24/07 10.9 10.2

075 1/25/07 16.8 14.2

076 1/26/07 8.5 9.5

077 1/27/07 9.0 12.2

078 1/30/07 11.6 8.4

079 1/30/07 7.3

080 1/30/07 10.1 10.2

081 2/1/07 NA

083 2/2/07 17.0

084 2/2/07 11.3

085 2/2/07 14.8

086 2/6/07 8.8

087 2/6/07 6.3

088 2/6/07 10.4 7.5

089 2/7/07 16.0

090 2/7/07 NA

091 2/7/07 1.9

092 2/8/07 9.9 6.7

093 2/8/07 11.5

094 2/9/07 11.8

095 2/9/07 8.8

096 2/9/07 7.2 7.3

097 2/21/07 4.8

098 2/21/07 21.8

099 2/25/07 5.6

101 2/23/07 6.4

102 2/24/07 8.9

104 2/24/07 46.6

105 2/28/07 10.6 14.3

106 3/1/07 14.6

107 3/1/07 15.8

108 3/1/07 10.4 11.0

109 3/3/07 4.8

110 3/3/07 5.8

112 3/6/07 36.7

113 3/6/07 10.7

114 3/7/07 5.2 7.9

115 3/7/07 10.1

116 3/7/07 31.9

117 3/8/07 16.8

### F-9 Forced air unit (FAU) duct leakage data.

Home ID Date System #1

Duct Leakage

(%) System #2

Duct Leakage

(%) System #3

Duct Leakage

(%)

118 3/8/07 4.4

119 3/8/07 5.1

120 3/9/07 5.7

121 3/9/07 6.0

### F-10 Window usage and mechanical exhaust a nd outdoor air exchange rate data.

Home

ID Date Test Day

Window Usage

(ft 2 -hrs) Week Average

Window Usage

(ft 2 -hrs) Exhaust Air

24-hr Air

Exchange Rate Outdoor Air

24-hr Air

Exchange Rate

001 8/8/06 94.57 143.89 0.01 na

002 8/8/06 833.62 988.85 0.03 0.000

002 3/2/07 28.85 46.98 0.02 0.000

003 8/8/06 299.79 153.07 0.01 0.000

004 3/2/07 0.00 1.14 0.03 0.004

004 8/9/06 753.54 829.51 0.03 0.010

005 8/9/06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.000

005 2/28/07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.000

005 10/24/06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.000

006 10/24/07 527.67 506.02 0.00 0.000

006 8/9/06 13.00 176. 19 0.01 0.000

006 2/28/07 0.00 0.37 0.01 0.000

008 8/10/06 91.91 186. 29 0.00 0.032

008 3/2/07 1.71 1.71 0.01 0.048

009 8/10/06 198.76 169.99 0.03 0.070

010 8/11/06 42.29 71.89 0.00 0.021

011 3/3/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 na

011 8/11/06 0.00 0.00 0.00 na

012 8/11/06 362.40 319.56 0.00 0.002

013 8/15/06 45.18 42.33 0.06 0.000

013 10/25/07 609.74 424.14 0.04 0.000

014 8/15/06 1305.96 808.79 0.00 0.000

015 8/15/06 833.24 718.86 0.00 0.408

016 8/16/06 497.36 341.46 0.51 0.442

017 8/16/06 1113.70 925.33 0.35 0.469

017 2/22/07 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.469

018 8/16/06 0.00 8.20 0.00 1.816

018 2/22/07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.622

019 2/21/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.534

019 10/25/06 364.27 277.03 0.00 0.013

019 8/17/06 2447.54 1180.63 0.00 0.595

020 8/17/06 0.00 2.79 0.00 0.000

021 8/17/06 0.83 3.78 0.02 0.054

022 8/18/06 203.76 173.98 0.03 na

023 8/18/06 34.71 33.56 0.00 0.000

024 8/18/06 299.56 235.45 0.17 0.191

025 2/22/07 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.224

025 8/22/06 118.43 95.96 0.16 2.021

026 8/22/06 290.44 452.04 0.17 0.123

027 8/22/06 421.27 520.33 0.01 0.000

029 8/23/06 104.41 464.54 0.02 0.000

030 8/23/06 49.21 75.68 0.00 0.000

031 8/24/06 200.60 315.46 0.00 0.000

032 8/24/06 530.71 411.65 0.04 0.000

033 8/27/06 47.50 17.81 0.02 0.000

033 8/25/06 29.69 17.81 0.02 0.000

033 8/26/06 47.50 17.81 0.02 0.000

034 8/25/06 457.51 500.22 0.02 3.696

037 9/6/06 169.01 130.87 0.00 0.000

038 9/6/06 58.47 12.54 0.00 0.000

038 1/24/07 27.08 27.32 0.00 0.000

### F-11 Window usage and mechanical exhaust a nd outdoor air exchange rate data.

Home

ID Date Test Day

Window Usage

(ft 2 -hrs) Week Average

Window Usage

(ft 2 -hrs) Exhaust Air

24-hr Air

Exchange Rate Outdoor Air

24-hr Air

Exchange Rate

039 1/25/07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.000

039 9/6/06 23.44 72.24 0.01 0.000

040 9/7/06 303.95 453.75 0.01 0.000

041 1/27/07 0.00 9.59 0.00 0.000

041 1/26/07 5.39 9.59 0.00 0.000

041 1/28/07 0.81 9.59 0.00 0.000

041 9/7/06 38.96 59.21 0.02 0.000

042 9/7/06 132.10 122.06 0.01 0.000

043 9/8/06 298.26 242.44 0.00 0.012

044 9/8/06 301.41 351.76 0.01 2.182

044 1/27/07 0.55 3.06 0.00 0.000

045 1/24/07 0.00 4.02 0.00 0.000

045 9/8/06 1.04 2.07 0.02 0.000

046 9/9/06 61.11 21.01 0.00 0.000

047 9/9/06 0.00 0.32 0.02 0.000

048 9/9/06 415.70 151.32 0.01 0.000

049 1/31/07 0.00 25.80 0.00 0.000

049 9/13/06 67.22 320. 16 0.00 0.000

050 1/31/07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.000

050 9/13/06 937.65 521.17 0.01 0.000

053 9/14/06 1216.58 1260.36 0.01 0.000

054 9/14/06 785.13 837.38 0.01 0.000

055 9/15/06 335.42 265.60 0.10 0.000

056 9/15/06 770.76 740.41 0.00 0.000

058 9/16/06 1267.94 1049.77 0.00 0.000

058 2/1/07 0.00 3.14 0.01 0.008

059 9/16/06 999.14 1099.41 0.01 0.000

059 9/17/06 1260.87 1099.41 0.00 0.000

059 9/18/06 1158.90 1099.41 0.01 0.000

059 1/30/07 103.35 88.26 0.00 0.000

061 9/19/06 0.00 157. 32 0.00 0.000

062 9/19/06 353.84 359.42 0.00 0.000

062 1/26/07 263.77 102.44 0.02 0.000

064 9/20/06 263.46 337.52 0.00 0.000

065 9/20/06 622.58 620.05 0.03 0.000

066 9/20/06 0.00 33.66 0.00 0.000

067 9/21/06 1258.77 648.13 0.00 0.000

068 9/21/06 179.77 186.06 0.00 0.000

069 9/21/06 112.67 309.52 0.00 0.000

070 9/22/06 98.39 169. 34 0.00 0.000

071 9/22/06 313.17 247.99 0.01 0.000

072 9/22/06 392.62 220.73 0.00 0.000

073 1/24/07 23.49 16.00 0.00 0.000

074 1/24/07 0.64 0.40 0.01 0.000

075 1/25/07 22.52 3.22 0.00 0.000

076 1/26/07 92.36 109. 90 0.01 0.000

077 1/27/07 0.00 10.89 0.00 0.000

078 1/30/07 83.37 144. 69 0.01 0.000

079 1/30/07 44.35 24.60 0.04 0.000

080 1/30/07 0.00 186. 70 0.01 0.000

081 2/1/07 21.17 49.82 0.02 0.000

### F-12 Window usage and mechanical exhaust a nd outdoor air exchange rate data.

Home

ID Date Test Day

Window Usage

(ft 2 -hrs) Week Average

Window Usage

(ft 2 -hrs) Exhaust Air

24-hr Air

Exchange Rate Outdoor Air

24-hr Air

Exchange Rate

083 2/2/07 13.77 30.43 0.03 0.083

084 2/2/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

085 2/2/07 5.28 14.10 0.02 0.000

086 2/6/07 1.92 6.79 0.00 0.000

087 2/6/07 320.57 110.27 0.02 0.000

088 2/6/07 32.99 8.20 0.00 0.000

089 2/7/07 512.19 248.23 0.01 0.000

090 2/7/07 169.13 87.13 0.00 0.000

091 2/7/07 72.48 43.30 0.02 0.000

092 2/8/07 0.00 1.11 0.01 0.000

093 2/8/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

094 2/9/07 31.73 251. 24 0.00 0.000

095 2/9/07 0.00 86.97 0.03 0.000

096 2/9/07 0.00 5.13 0.01 0.000

097 2/21/07 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.333

098 2/21/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

099 2/23/07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.013

099 2/25/07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.013

099 2/24/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.013

101 2/23/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

102 2/24/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.029

104 2/24/07 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.259

105 2/28/07 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.000

106 3/1/07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.000

107 3/1/07 13.01 9.45 0.00 0.000

108 3/1/07 4.34 1.62 0.04 0.000

109 3/3/07 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.002

110 3/3/07 140.15 67.91 0.08 0.002

112 3/6/07 324.71 154.74 0.01 0.000

113 3/6/07 0.00 101. 42 0.04 0.000

114 3/7/07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.000

115 3/7/07 20.26 53.19 0.01 0.000

116 3/7/07 50.49 58.01 0.02 0.000

117 3/8/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

118 3/8/07 0.00 53.07 0.01 0.000

119 3/8/07 0.00 36.85 0.00 na

120 3/9/07 0.00 55.86 0.02 0.000

121 3/9/07 159.84 121.24 0.01 0.000

### F-13 Mechanical outdoor air ventilat ion system characteristics.

Home ID System Type Damper

Type Control Location System Operational Status

001 DOA ad fc/attic not operational

004 DOA md t-stat/home operational

008 DOA md t-stat/home operational

009 DOA md t-stat/home operational

010 DOA md t-stat/home operational

011 DOA md t-stat/home not operational

012 DOA md t-stat/home operational

015 WHF gd switch/home operational

016 HRV na switch/attic operational

017 HRV na switch/attic operational

018 HRV na switch/attic operational

018 RAD ad t-stat/home operational

019 RAD ad t-stat/home operational

021 DOA ad fc/attic operational

022 HRV na switch/home not operated

024 HRV na timer/home operational

024 WHF gd switch/home operational

025 HRV na switch/attic operational

025 RAD ad t-stat/home operational

026 HRV na switch/home operational

034 WHF gd switch/home operational

043 DOA (FAU1) ad t-stat/home operational

043 DOA (FAU2) ad t-stat/home operational

044 WD fan na switch/home operational

044 WHF gd switch/home operational

058 DOA (FAU1) md t-stat/home operational

070 EC ad t-stat/home operational

083 DOA md t-stat/home operational

088 WHF gd switch/home operational

097 HRV na switch/attic operational

099 DOA ad fc/attic operational

102 DOA ad fc/attic operational

104 HRV na timer/home operational

109 DOA md t-stat/home operational

110 DOA md t-stat/home operational

112 RAD ad t-stat/home operational

116 RAD ad t-stat/home operational

117 RAD ad fc t-stat/home operational

118 DOA md fc/attic operational

119 DOA md fc/attic not operational

### F-14 Mechanical outdoor air ventilation system out door air flow rates and operational on-times

during the 24-hour Test Day.

Home ID Date System Type Outdoor Air

Flow Rate

(cfm) Test Day

On-time

(hours)

1 8/8/06 DOA na na

4 3/2/07 DOA 28 1.22

4 8/9/06 DOA 28 2.81

8 3/2/07 DOA 71 2.98

8 8/10/06 DOA 71 1.95

9 8/10/06 DOA 48 6.20

10 8/11/06 DOA 27 5.63

11 3/3/07 DOA na na

11 8/11/06 DOA na na

12 8/11/06 DOA 31 0.38

15 8/15/06 WHF 6591 0.68

16 8/16/06 HRV 159 24.00

17 2/22/07 HRV 153 24.00

17 8/16/06 HRV 153 24.00

18 8/16/06 RAD 700 12.81

18 2/22/07 RAD 635 1.85

18 2/22/07 HRV 120 24.00

18 8/16/06 HRV 120 24.00

19 2/21/07 RAD 880 0.00

19 8/17/06 RAD 880 10.52

19 10/25/06 RAD 880 0.24

21 8/17/06 DOA 44 9.68

22 8/18/06 HRV 209 na

24 8/18/06 WHF 5067 0.00

24 8/18/06 WHF 7486 0.00

24 8/18/06 HRV 135 15.52

25 2/22/07 RAD 830 0.00

25 2/22/07 HRV 90 24.00

25 8/22/06 HRV 90 24.00

25 8/22/06 RAD 1110 15.63

26 8/22/06 HRV 149 7.75

34 8/25/06 WHF 7272 11.31

43 9/8/06 DOA (2) 27 4.45

43 9/8/06 DOA (1) 8 1.61

44 1/27/07 WDF 201 0.00

44 1/27/07 WHF 3856 0.00

### F-15 Mechanical outdoor air ventilation system out door air flow rates and operational on-times

during the 24-hour Test Day.

Home ID Date System Type Outdoor Air

Flow Rate

(cfm) Test Day

On-time

(hours)

44 9/8/06 WDF 201 18.50

44 9/8/06 WHF 3856 4.83

58 2/1/07 DOA 49 2.19

58 9/15/06 DOA 49 0.00

70 9/22/06 EC 2450 0.00

83 2/2/07 DOA 355 1.51

88 2/6/07 WHF 3589 0.00

88 2/6/07 WHF 3250 0.00

97 2/21/07 HRV 121 24.00

99 2/24/07 DOA 10 17.94

99 2/25/07 DOA 10 17.91

99 2/23/07 DOA 10 17.78

102 2/24/07 DOA 9 1.63

104 2/24/07 HRV 66 23.75

109 3/3/07 DOA 52 0.38

110 3/3/07 DOA 63 0.14

112 3/6/07 RAD 1175 0.00

116 3/7/07 RAD 945 0.00

117 3/8/07 RAD 775 0.00

118 3/8/07 DOA 31 3.69

119 3/8/07 DOA na na

### F-16

### G-1 

## APPENDIX G

Difficulties Encountered in the Field Study

The following are difficulties that we encounter ed during the study, followed by the corrective

action that was taken. Unless ot herwise noted, we have deleted from the database and the

associated data analyses the data noted below th at was unable to be collected as a result of

constraints encountered in the field or were asso ciated with shortened sa mple periods (thus not

representative of the st andard 24-hour samples), failed analytic al analyses, or yielded unrealistic

data.

1. During the Summer-North field session, th ree formaldehyde/acetaldehyde samples, 001-

F1-080706, 005-F2-080806, and 012-F1-081006 had fa llen off from the air sampling rig.

To ensure that the samples did not fall off in the future, an extra one-inch piece of

Masterflex Norprene tubing was added to the t op of the charcoal scrubber to secure the

samples.

2. During the Winter-South field session, there we re two pump failures that occurred in

homes that affected the formaldehyde/ace taldehyde sample 045-F1-012307 and 079-F1-

012907 and VOC samples 045-V1-012307 and 079-V1-012907. Team 3 found the pumps

off upon arrival but were able to recover the elapsed tim e. It was unknown what had

caused the pump malfunctions, but to ensure that samples were not shortened in the

future we minimized the use of these pumps.

3. During the analyses of the formaldehyde/acetaldehyde measurements, 084-F2-020107

and 086-F1D-020507, a laboratory error occurred and the analyses for these two samples

were lost.

4. For the formaldehyde/acetaldehyde measuremen ts in the FAU in Home 033 during the

Summer-North field session, all three sa mples, 033-FSA-082406 (supply air sample),

033-FRA-082406 (return air sample), and 033-FAA-082406 (attic) suffered a sampling

error. The field technician inadvertently in stalled the Anasorb CSC, coconut charcoal

sorbent tube in front of the DNPH sampler. This scrubber was supposed to be placed

downstream of the sampler to scrub the emi ssions of residual acetonitrile released by the

DNPH sample cartridge. The net result of this was that the formaldehyde and

acetaldehyde mass concentrations were either below the method mass detection limit or

unrealistically low.

5. For the PM 2.5 

### samples there was one sample lost . Sample 018-P1-022107, yielded an

unrealistically low mass gain of -1 μg indoor concentration. An examination of the air

sample flow rates indicated proper air sampling rates. Re-weighing the filter resulted in

confirmation of the laboratory post-sampling weighing. Thus, the cause of this sample

error is either that the filter was not instal led into the air sampler or there was an error

associated with the pre-sa mpling weighing. We examined with a microscope at 100x

filter 018-P1-022107, filters with normal mass loadings, and fi eld blanks, and could not

### G-2 discern any visible difference. We thus cannot say one way or another whether the filter

018-P1-022107 was ever installed.

6. For the PFT samplers there were two samples lost. Sample 099-T1-022207 was lost

during the laboratory analyses. Sample 019- T1-081606 yielded an unrealistically low

outdoor air exchange rate, 0.03 ach.

7. There was a malfunction with IAQ Calc #1, where Team 3 had found it off on two

occasions—one in Winter North Home 108 and Winter Sout h Home 039. It was

unknown what had caused the malfunction, but to ensure that samples were not shortened

in the future we minimized the use of IAQ Calc #1 in the future, resulting in no further

failures. Both homes had samples sets re presenting more than 63% of the 24-hour

sampling period (i.e., Home 039 with 63% of 24 hours from 16:16 to 07:30 and Home

108 data with 84% of 24 hours from 16:08 to 12: 24), thus we elected to retain these data

(i.e., CO, CO 2 

### , T, and RH) in both the database a nd the associated population statistics.

8. We also observed that IAQ Calc #6 had a malfunction when recording temperature and

relative humidity. The results were observed to be erratic and unrealistic at four homes

(019-C1D-022007, 077-C1-020507, 107-C2D-022807, and 117-C1-030707) in the

Winter-North field session and two ho mes (084-C1-020107 and 086-C1-020507) in the

Winter-South field session. To reduce any futu re problems, the use of IAQ Calc #6 was

reduced as much as possible.

9. During the QA/QC review of the carbon monoxid e data we discovered three homes with

erratic indoor data. The homes were Ho me 059 (Summer-South), Home 081 (WinterSouth), and Home 114 (Winter-North). The caus e of these erratic re sults could not be

determined.

10. During the Summer and Winter South Regions, Team 1 did not specify which type of

PFT sources had been used, for homes 037, 039, 041 for the summer and 041 for the

winter. It was assumed that the A type sour ces were used when entering data and doing

the analyses. We note that the small differen ce between these two sources is 12 nanoliters

per hour (nL/h). For the A source the emission rate is 1584 nL/h and for the X source, the

emission rate is 1572 nL/h. As this error is ve ry low (i.e., a 0.76% difference) we elected

to retain these data fo r the population statistics.

11. The building envelope and gara ge-home air leakage measurements were not performed in

Home 043, as a result of insufficient time pr ovided by the homeowner to complete these

tests, which represents the last set of test s conducted at each home. Additionally in Home

011, wind conditions allowed only for a CFM50 measurement, and thus only an ACH 50

is calculated and no SLA is calculated, and ju st a house-to-garage pr essure and coupling

factor is calculated and no house-to-g arage leakage area is calculated.

12. The FAU duct air leakage measurements were not performed in Homes 061, 081, and

090, as a result of the inspectors not being able to seal one or more supply air diffusers in

### G-3 bedrooms where access was not possible at the time of our inspection (e.g., sleeping

occupant).

13. During the Winter South Field Session, Team 1 had distributed the window/door and fan

logs using a different adhesive on the back of the logs. When Team 3 arrived to remove

the logs, they could not do so without ripping th e log sheets. To ensure that the data was

not lost, Team 3 copied the information from the logs onto a separate sheet of paper. To

prevent this from happening in the future, T eam 1 was notified of the adhesive problem

and was directed to use the origin al selected non-residue adhesive.

14. In Home 043 the research team was unable to collect information regarding the area of

different types of floor finish es, the area of moisture staini ng or fungal growth, and the

area of composite wood from floors, walls, ceiling, and furniture/cabinetry due to a lack

of time provided by the homeowner to complete this task.

The following paragraphs summarize the number a nd percentage of air contaminant and outdoor

air exchange rate samples lost duri ng this study and as described above.

Formaldehyde. A total of 10 of the 221 field sa mples (4%) were lost, representing a 4% loss

percentage. The most common cause of these lo sses were failures in the sample pumps and

tubing connections.

Volatile Organic Compounds. A total of 2 of the 208 field samples were lo st, representing a loss

percentage of less than 1%. The most common cause of these losses was failure in the sample

pumps.

Carbon Monoxide. A total of 3 of the 206 field samp les were lost, representing a loss percentage

of less than 2%. The cause of these failures is unknown but so me type of failure in the

electrochemical sensor el ectronics is suspected.

Outdoor Air Exchange Rate PFT Samples. A to tal of 2 of the 167 field samples were lost,

representing a loss percentage of 1%. The most common cause of these losses was laboratory

analytical error.