4.7 Article

Indoor air quality and occupant comfort in homes with deep versus conventional energy efficiency renovations

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 331-338

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.06.021

关键词

Indoor air pollution; Conservation of energy resources; Ventilation; Carbon dioxide; Volatile organic hydrocarbons; Thermal comfort

资金

  1. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grant [OHLHH0203-09]
  2. Cleveland Foundation
  3. Mary Ann Swetland Center for Environmental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deep energy retrofits (DER) for residential housing have been proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; these result in similar to 50% additional energy efficiency compared to standard, energy star (ES), renovations. However, the impact of increased energy efficiency on indoor air quality (IAQ) is poorly understood. We conducted a longitudinal study to compare IAQ and occupant comfort in 12 low income single-family homes renovated to a DER or ES standard. Quarterly visits were conducted for a median of 18 months post-renovation; IAQ was assessed in 4 rooms per visit for a total of 237 measurements. Multivariable regression models accounted for repeated measurements and controlled for house- and family-related covariates. In fully adjusted models, average difference (95% confidence interval) in IAQ parameters in DER homes versus ES homes were: temperature: -0.3 degrees C (-1.2, 0.6); relative humidity: 0.4% (-1.1, 1.8); carbon dioxide: 43.7 ppm (-18.8, 106.2); and total volatile organic compounds: 198 ppb (-224, 620). Residents in DER homes were significantly less likely to report their homes were comfortable, most likely due to initial difficulties with new heating system technology. We found no differences in IAQ between DER and ES homes; however, education is strongly recommended when incorporating new technology into residences. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据