Toward Clean and Green Buildings
Publication: Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 150, Issue 9
Abstract
Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil engineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of the journal.
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed recognition of the critical role that the built environment plays in public health. The disease is transmitted mainly through inhalation of SARS-CoV-2 in shared indoor air (Wang et al. 2021). In addition to airborne pathogens, building occupants also need to cope with indoor pollutant emissions from cooking, use of cleaning and personal care products, off-gassing of building materials, and other sources (Farmer and Vance 2019; Goldstein et al. 2021; NASEM 2024); outdoor air pollution from industry and vehicles; wildfire smoke; and more frequent heat waves (NASEM 2016; Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis 2020). To address these myriad threats to our health and well-being, we need to fundamentally alter the paradigms that govern the design, construction, and operation of our indoor spaces in a sustainable and equitable manner.
Well-established approaches for improving indoor air quality (IAQ) through engineering controls include ventilation, filtration, and disinfection. However, these strategies may increase energy and maintenance costs if not applied thoughtfully. Thus, the challenge lies in designing cost-effective systems that can simultaneously optimize indoor environmental quality—air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics—and energy use. We need buildings that are both clean and green (Allen 2023), for the health of occupants and the planet.
Americans spend approximately 90% of their time indoors, on average. Perhaps because we are so immersed in the indoor environment and cannot easily see or touch air, we rarely stop to think about its impacts on human health and well-being (Arif et al. 2016; Anthes 2020; Jones 1999; Tham 2016). Nonetheless, many studies illustrate the negative impacts of poor IAQ, especially particulate matter (NASEM 2024), and the positive impacts of clean air. Poor IAQ has been shown to be associated with increased asthma incidence (Park et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2010), and with increased absenteeism and reduced performance in workplaces and schools (Deng et al. 2023; Fisk et al. 2019; Fisk 2017; Haverinen-Shaughnessy and Shaughnessy 2015; Stafford 2015; Wargocki and Wyon 2017; Wyon 2004). Improvements in IAQ have tangible economic benefits. Fisk (2000) estimated that improved IAQ would save $31–$87 billion annually, adjusted for inflation to the year 2023, from reduced respiratory disease, allergies, asthma, and sick building syndrome, and $36–$291 billion annually from increased productivity. The true savings would be even higher because these estimates do not account for the harder-to-quantify costs of learning losses on the economy.
A Science policy forum piece entitled “A Paradigm Shift to Combat Indoor Respiratory Infection” called for the adoption of engineering-based measures to reduce airborne transmission of respiratory infections in buildings (Morawska et al. 2021). Here, we expand on that vision and identify critical research needs, with a focus on public indoor spaces in the US and other highly developed countries. Efforts to address poor IAQ must address a potential downside: increased energy use and its associated environmental impacts. Globally, building operation consumes 30% of total energy (International Energy Agency 2022), mostly dedicated to heating and cooling. Ideally, implementation of engineering strategies that improve IAQ would simultaneously reduce energy use and ensure thermal comfort. However, there is long-standing tension between the goals of providing high levels of thermal comfort and IAQ, and reducing energy use. Conventional design principles for buildings focus mainly on thermal comfort and sometimes on perceived air quality and energy efficiency, often yielding low outdoor air ventilation rates and buildings that do not breathe well. Nor do these design principles meet the needs for protecting occupants and providing flexibility to the electric grid under increasingly variable environmental conditions and changing availability of renewable electricity sources. A paradigm shift is needed to simultaneously safeguard comfort and IAQ while optimizing energy use and flexibility (Li et al. 2022; Logue et al. 2011; Mishra et al. 2024; Wilson et al. 2014).
The time is ripe for a revolution in buildings and systems that control indoor environments. Technological innovations, such as accurate and reliable sensors, rich databases of environmental conditions, building controls, and data analytics, have matured to make such a revolution technically achievable. Recent public awareness of the importance of improving IAQ and the need to combat climate change has generated new demand. We view this as an opportunity to promote a more holistic approach that considers all contaminants of concern, not just pathogens, and considers building designs that optimize across competing indoor environmental quality needs and energy use. Among these parameters, we view the air quality–thermal comfort–energy use triad as a priority for action (Fig. 1). Achieving this goal through innovative, yet practical, engineered solutions requires diversion from business as usual and instead adopting an interdisciplinary systems approach (Little et al. 2023).
Future Directions and Research Needs
While it is natural to focus on new construction, our approach must also address existing structures because buildings remain in use for decades. Thus, we envision three components of a revolution in clean and green buildings (Fig. 1). We must (1) continue to envision, design, and redesign healthy buildings for the future, (2) apply innovative engineering solutions for existing buildings, and (3) prioritize affordable, portable solutions that do not require retrofitting so that underresourced communities can also share in the benefits of cleaner indoor air, thus helping address inequalities in the built environment and ensure that all have access to healthier buildings.
Healthy, Sustainable Buildings of the Future
Buildings of the future must be co-optimized for IAQ, thermal comfort, and energy use. This will require advances in pollutant detection, predictive and responsive control, and new materials, both in terms of the fundamental technologies and their implementation. Advances over the past few decades have produced an abundance of lower-cost sensors for measuring various chemical pollutants (e.g., carbon dioxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds). Consumer-grade sensors have been shown to provide acceptable accuracy for carbon dioxide and to capture trends in fine particulate matter in indoor air (Manibusan and Mainelis 2020; Peters and Zhen 2024; Singer and Delp 2018; Zou et al. 2020). While the sensitivity, accuracy, and selectivity of lower-cost sensors can vary, their low barriers to adoption can yield large data sets that are invaluable for understanding air quality issues and informing building management decisions. Further, the capability to detect airborne bacteria and viruses in near real time is advancing rapidly (Huffman et al. 2020). A prototype for SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated in residences of infected people (Puthussery et al. 2023). Nonetheless, we do not yet know how to deploy these technologies optimally to elicit optimal control and to inform the public of IAQ concerns, even for a ubiquitous and easily measured pollutant such as (Pistochini et al. 2023). Most building control systems do not respond to dynamic outdoor conditions or leverage forecasts for weather, outdoor air pollution, and renewable energy availability and prices. Finally, building materials and products should be considered more thoughtfully for their potential as both a source and sink of pollutants. As climate change intensifies, we must consider all these factors in the context of more frequent episodes of extreme heat, flooding, and wildfires. More responsive buildings can help increase community resilience so long as they continue to operate as intended in the face of such threats (Gerges et al. 2023).
A revolution to prioritize both occupant health and energy efficiency in buildings will require advances across science and engineering; partnerships with architects, social scientists, urban planners, and business leaders; and prioritization by industry and governments at all levels, from municipal to federal. Moreover, we must consider that our buildings are embedded in communities and urban systems that have varying baseline resilience to threats, capacity for adaptation, and vulnerability to extremes. We have identified some immediate research needs and areas of opportunity for innovation and investment. They include:
•
Optimizing sensing and detection of key contaminants (e.g., respiratory irritants, carcinogens, endocrine-disrupting compounds, allergens, pathogens).
•
Establishing optimal pollutant and thermal measurement strategies for indoor environments to guide sensor specification and placement.
•
Providing the public with accurate and actionable IAQ information.
•
Developing building systems that interface with current and forecasted weather, outdoor air quality, disease prevalence, utility rates, and energy carbon intensity data.
•
Implementing predictive control of building heating, cooling, ventilation, filtration, and other air cleaning systems to make building automation systems responsive to present and predicted future conditions.
•
Adapting for occupants’ preferences and feedback, and designing for ease of system operation and maintenance for the building owner or operator.
•
Engineering sustainable passive and active materials and building products to remove key contaminants (Darling and Corsi 2017; Darling et al. 2016) and/or buffer changes in temperature and humidity.
The technology readiness level of most of these items is low. A major challenge is that translating from IAQ metrics to measurable or quantifiable outcomes (e.g., occupant health, productivity, and learning) is complex. Moreover, it is difficult to formulate control strategies capable of managing the potential trade-offs between energy, thermal comfort, and outcome-based IAQ metrics in real time. If contaminants can be measured in real time, designing a control system that maintains their concentrations below a threshold can be achieved through existing strategies. However, how these thresholds translate to meaningful outcomes and how to adjust or relax these conditions during abnormal situations (e.g., wildfires, pandemics, and extreme weather events) to achieve the best possible outcomes remains an open problem. Given the increasing frequency of extreme events, new technologies should be designed to be robust against disasters and to help buildings recover from them.
Since 2005, successful field implementation of predictive control applied to commercial buildings has been documented for roughly 35 case studies, the majority being model predictive control that relies on a mathematical model of the building (Henze et al. 2005). A smaller number of field studies relies on experiential data in the context of reinforcement learning control (Blum et al. 2022; De Coninck and Helsen 2016; Freund and Schmitz 2021; Kim and Braun 2018; Liu and Henze 2006; West et al. 2014; Zhuang et al. 2018). Two recent studies have focused on solutions for energy optimal control for schools (Ham et al. 2023) and optimization of exposure to particulate matter and energy consumption in a test house (Mishra et al. 2024). Continued research and innovation will be crucial to realize the full potential of predictive control in diverse contexts.
Smart Engineering of Existing Buildings
We must accelerate our efforts to reimagine existing buildings and develop smart and effective methods to retrofit them with improved ventilation and air cleaning. Many public buildings are either naturally or mechanically ventilated at rates now recognized as too low to optimize health, well-being, and productivity (Carrer et al. 2015). New air cleaning technologies are being introduced and adopted but lack assessment of their actual effectiveness, or potential to cause harm, in real indoor environments. Similarly, building materials and furnishings may not have been vetted for toxic chemical emissions. Greater focus on the evaluation of existing building performance can help identify maintenance steps that can lead to improved IAQ and decreased energy use, but such steps are constrained by the limitations of existing systems and awareness of building managers and owners. A university in Spain serves as a case study for integrating devices and systems that monitor air quality and energy consumption, among other parameters, in an Internet of Things (IoT) system (Domínguez-Bolaño et al. 2024). Challenges include interoperability and integration, data storage and visualization, scalability, maintenance, security and privacy, and, of course, cost. Some immediate research needs and opportunities to transcend current limitations include:
•
Establishing optimal combinations of sensors, active and passive air cleaning technologies, and control algorithms to improve IAQ across various metrics while reducing energy use.
•
Reporting accurate and actionable IAQ information to building occupants.
•
Improving conventional heating, cooling, ventilation, and filtration system controls by applying approaches (e.g., model predictive control and reinforcement learning control) that co-optimize IAQ, thermal comfort, and energy use.
•
Evaluating the effectiveness of emerging air cleaning technologies and their potential to produce unwanted by-products.
•
Implementing new and improved operations and maintenance practices for air cleaners to address concerns such as filter changes, odor, noise, and unwanted air currents.
Effective and Affordable Solutions for Underresourced Environments
Ensuring that everyone has access to the revolution in IAQ requires that we develop solutions for all built environments, including those in underresourced communities. In these neighborhoods, improvements are likely to have large benefits because existing conditions are often worse than in other buildings and the burden of air pollution on health is disproportionately high (Bowe et al. 2019). Complementing the efforts described previously, we must provide sufficient ventilation, air cleaning capability, and heating and cooling solutions under resource-constrained conditions. Upgrades must account for the existing broader infrastructure and the social vulnerability of the community (Gerges et al. 2023; O’Lenick et al. 2019). Efforts must also consider issues such as ease of maintenance and the availability and training level of facilities managers for the buildings under consideration.
Immediate research needs and opportunities include:
•
Integrating reliable low-cost sensors into a platform that can be used in buildings to alert occupants about IAQ and recommend clear actions for remediation.
•
Developing modular systems that incorporate air quality sensors with heat recovery ventilation, filtration, air quality sensors, and air cleaning.
•
Surveying end users to develop understanding of barriers that inhibit adoption and use of various technologies [e.g., noise of lower-cost, do-it-yourself air cleaners (Dal Porto et al. 2022)].
Conclusions
We have both a generational opportunity and an intergenerational need to rethink how we engineer our indoor environments. No longer can IAQ take a back seat to energy use in the design and operation of buildings. While the costs of poor IAQ and occupant comfort may be less tangible to building owners and operators compared to energy costs, they have real health and economic consequences. Realizing a future in which building occupant health, comfort, and well-being are prioritized alongside minimizing energy consumption and carbon emissions will require engineering advances in sensors for pollutant detection, algorithms that control building systems, building materials that emit less and passively remove pollutants from indoor air, air cleaning technologies, and integration of humans in the loop to understand and optimize their environment. This will necessarily require partnership between researchers, industry, and government agencies alongside substantial investment to spur change. It is time to elevate the field of indoor environmental engineering to enable a future of healthy and sustainable built environments for all.
Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.
Acknowledgments
We thank all those involved in the Center for Optimized, Adaptive, and Healthy Indoor Environments (COAHIE) effort.
References
Allen, J. G. 2023. “Designing buildings that are both well-ventilated and green.” Harvard Business Review. Accessed July 15, 2023. https://hbr.org/2023/01/designing-buildings-that-are-both-well-ventilated-and-green.
Anthes, E. 2020. The great indoors: The surprising science of how buildings shape our behavior, health, and happiness. New York: Scientific American.
Arif, M., M. Katafygiotou, A. Mazroei, A. Kaushik, and E. Elsarrag. 2016. “Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature.” Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 5 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.006.
Blum, D., Z. Wang, C. Weyandt, D. Kim, M. Wetter, T. Hong, and M. A. Piette. 2022. “Field demonstration and implementation analysis of model predictive control in an office HVAC system.” Appl. Energy 318 (Mar): 119104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119104.
Bowe, B., Y. Xie, Y. Yan, and Z. Al-Aly. 2019. “Burden of cause-specific mortality associated with PM2.5 air pollution in the United States.” JAMA Netw. Open 2 (11): e1915834. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15834.
Carrer, P., P. Wargocki, A. Fanetti, W. Bischof, E. De Oliveira Fernandes, T. Hartmann, S. Kephalopoulos, S. Palkonen, and O. Seppänen. 2015. “What does the scientific literature tell us about the ventilation–health relationship in public and residential buildings?” Build. Environ. 94 (Mar): 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.08.011.
Dal Porto, R., M. N. Kunz, T. Pistochini, R. L. Corsi, and C. D. Cappa. 2022. “Characterizing the performance of a do-it-yourself (DIY) box fan air filter.” Aerosol Sci. Technol. 56 (6): 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2022.2054674.
Darling, E., and R. L. Corsi. 2017. “Field-to-laboratory analysis of clay wall coatings as passive removal materials for ozone in buildings.” Indoor Air 27 (3): 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12345.
Darling, E., G. C. Morrison, and R. L. Corsi. 2016. “Passive removal materials for indoor ozone control.” Build. Environ. 106 (Mar): 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.018.
De Coninck, R., and L. Helsen. 2016. “Practical implementation and evaluation of model predictive control for an office building in Brussels.” Energy Build. 111 (Jul): 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.014.
Deng, S., J. Lau, P. Wargocki, and Z. Wang. 2023. “Associations between illness-related absences and ventilation and indoor PM2.5 in elementary schools of the Midwestern United States.” Environ. Int. 176 (Jun): 107944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107944.
Domínguez-Bolaño, T., V. Barral, C. J. Escudero, and J. A. García-Naya. 2024. “An IoT system for a smart campus: Challenges and solutions illustrated over several real-world use cases.” Internet Things 25 (Apr): 101099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101099.
Farmer, D. K., and M. E. Vance. 2019. “Indoor air: Sources, chemistry and health effects.” Environ. Sci. Processes Impacts 21 (8): 1227–1228. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM90035G.
Fisk, W., P. Wargocki, and X. Zhang. 2019. “Do indoor levels directly affect perceived air quality, health, or work performance?” ASHRAE J. 61 (9): 70–74.
Fisk, W. J. 2000. “Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency.” Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25 (Jun): 537–566. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.537.
Fisk, W. J. 2017. “The ventilation problem in schools: Literature review.” Indoor Air 27 (6): 1039–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12403.
Freund, S., and G. Schmitz. 2021. “Implementation of model predictive control in a large-sized, low-energy office building.” Build. Environ. 197 (Mar): 107830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107830.
Gerges, F., R. H. Assaad, H. Nassif, E. Bou-Zeid, and M. C. Boufadel. 2023. “A perspective on quantifying resilience: Combining community and infrastructure capitals.” Sci. Total Environ. 859 (Mar): 160187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160187.
Goldstein, A. H., W. W. Nazaroff, C. J. Weschler, and J. Williams. 2021. “How do indoor environments affect air pollution exposure?” Environ. Sci. Technol. 55 (1): 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05727.
Ham, S. W., D. Kim, T. Barham, and K. Ramseyer. 2023. “The first field application of a low-cost MPC for grid-interactive K-12 schools: Lessons-learned and savings assessment.” Energy Build. 296 (Mar): 113351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113351.
Haverinen-Shaughnessy, U., and R. J. Shaughnessy. 2015. “Effects of classroom ventilation rate and temperature on students’ test scores.” PLoS One 10 (8): e0136165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136165.
Henze, G. P., D. E. Kalz, S. Liu, and C. Felsmann. 2005. “Experimental analysis of model-based predictive optimal control for active and passive building thermal storage inventory.” HVAC&R Res. 11 (2): 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2005.10391134.
Huffman, J. A., et al. 2020. “Real-time sensing of bioaerosols: Review and current perspectives.” Aerosol Sci. Technol. 54 (5): 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.1664724.
International Energy Agency. 2022. Buildings. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Jones, A. P. 1999. “Indoor air quality and health.” Atmos. Environ. 33 (28): 4535–4564. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00272-1.
Kim, D., and J. E. Braun. 2018. “Development, implementation and performance of a model predictive controller for packaged air conditioners in small and medium-sized commercial building applications.” Energy Build. 178 (Mar): 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.019.
Li, R., et al. 2022. “Ten questions concerning energy flexibility in buildings.” Build. Environ. 223 (Jun): 109461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109461.
Little, J. C., R. O. Kaaronen, J. I. Hukkinen, S. Xiao, T. Sharpee, A. M. Farid, R. Nilchiani, and C. M. Barton. 2023. “Earth systems to anthropocene systems: An evolutionary, system-of-systems, convergence paradigm for interdependent societal challenges.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 57 (14): 5504–5520. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06203.
Liu, S., and G. P. Henze. 2006. “Experimental analysis of simulated reinforcement learning control for active and passive building thermal storage inventory: Part 2: Results and analysis.” Energy Build. 38 (2): 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.06.001.
Logue, J. M., T. E. McKone, M. H. Sherman, and B. C. Singer. 2011. “Hazard assessment of chemical air contaminants measured in residences.” Indoor Air 21 (2): 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00683.x.
Manibusan, S., and G. Mainelis. 2020. “Performance of four consumer-grade air pollution measurement devices in different residences.” Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 20 (2): 217–230. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2019.01.0045.
Mishra, N. K., M. E. Vance, A. Novoselac, and S. Patel. 2024. “Dynamic optimization of personal exposure and energy consumption while ensuring thermal comfort in a test house.” Build. Environ. 252 (Jun): 111265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111265.
Morawska, L., et al. 2021. “A paradigm shift to combat indoor respiratory infection.” Science 372 (6543): 689–691. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg2025.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Attribution of extreme weather events in the context of climate change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2024. Health risks of indoor exposure to fine particulate matter and practical mitigation solutions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O’Lenick, C. R., O. V. Wilhelmi, R. Michael, M. H. Hayden, A. Baniassadi, C. Wiedinmyer, A. J. Monaghan, P. J. Crank, and D. J. Sailor. 2019. “Urban heat and air pollution: A framework for integrating population vulnerability and indoor exposure in health risk analyses.” Sci. Total Environ. 660 (Mar): 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.002.
Park, D. W., S.-H. Kim, and H. J. Yoon. 2017. “The impact of indoor air pollution on asthma.” Allergy Asthma Respir. Dis. 5 (6): 312–319. https://doi.org/10.4168/aard.2017.5.6.312.
Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E., and S. C. Lewis. 2020. “Increasing trends in regional heatwaves.” Nat. Commun. 11 (1): 3357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16970-7.
Peters, T., and C. Zhen. 2024. “Evaluating indoor air quality monitoring devices for healthy homes.” Buildings 14 (1): 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010102.
Pistochini, T., M. Ellis, F. Meyers, A. Frasier, C. Cappa, and D. Bennett. 2023. “Method of test for -based demand control ventilation systems: Benchmarking the state-of-the-art and the undervalued potential of proportional-integral control.” Energy Build. 301 (Jun): 113717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113717.
Puthussery, J. V., et al. 2023. “Real-time environmental surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 aerosols.” Nat. Commun. 14 (1): 3692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39419-z.
Singer, B. C., and W. W. Delp. 2018. “Response of consumer and research grade indoor air quality monitors to residential sources of fine particles.” Indoor Air 28 (4): 624–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12463.
Stafford, T. M. 2015. “Indoor air quality and academic performance.” J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 70 (Mar): 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.11.002.
Tham, K. W. 2016. “Indoor air quality and its effects on humans—A review of challenges and developments in the last 30 years.” Energy Build. 130 (May): 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.071.
Wang, C. C., K. A. Prather, J. Sznitman, J. L. Jimenez, S. S. Lakdawala, Z. Tufekci, and L. C. Marr. 2021. “Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses.” Science 373 (6558): eabd9149. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9149.
Wargocki, P., and D. P. Wyon. 2017. “Ten questions concerning thermal and indoor air quality effects on the performance of office work and schoolwork.” Build. Environ. 112 (Jun): 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.020.
West, S. R., J. K. Ward, and J. Wall. 2014. “Trial results from a model predictive control and optimisation system for commercial building HVAC.” Energy Build. 72 (Mar): 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.037.
Wilson, J., S. L. Dixon, D. E. Jacobs, J. Breysse, J. Akoto, E. Tohn, M. Isaacson, A. Evens, and Y. Hernandez. 2014. “Watts-to-wellbeing: Does residential energy conservation improve health?” Energy Effic. 7 (1): 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9216-8.
Wyon, D. P. 2004. “The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity.” Indoor Air 14 (s7): 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00278.x.
Xu, Y., S. Raja, A. R. Ferro, P. A. Jaques, P. K. Hopke, C. Gressani, and L. E. Wetzel. 2010. “Effectiveness of heating, ventilation and air conditioning system with HEPA filter unit on indoor air quality and asthmatic children’s health.” Build. Environ. 45 (2): 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.06.010.
Zhuang, J., Y. Chen, and X. Chen. 2018. “A new simplified modeling method for model predictive control in a medium-sized commercial building: A case study.” Build. Environ. 127 (Jan): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.10.022.
Zou, Y., M. Young, M. Wickey, A. May, and J. D. Clark. 2020. “Response of eight low-cost particle sensors and consumer devices to typical indoor emission events in a real home (ASHRAE 1756-RP).” Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 26 (2): 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2019.1676094.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Volume 150 • Issue 9 • September 2024
Copyright
This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
History
Received: Feb 9, 2024
Accepted: Apr 17, 2024
Published online: Jun 27, 2024
Published in print: Sep 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Nov 27, 2024
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.