Tobacco Documents Online

at any given time) non-smokers would need over 100 cfm per occupant to hold dissatisfaction at only 20$." Also unlike Dr. Cain,.ASHRAE..St.andard 62-1989. makes no mention of non-smoker ventilation rates. To do so would r create an HVAC designers nightmare, as past experience with previously flawed ASHRAE Standard 62-1981 has shown. ASHRAE standards for ventilation of office space have varied from 20 cfm per person of outdoor air before the energy crisis to the recently replaced 5 cfm per person in non-smoking areas and 25 cfm per person in smoking areas set in*the mid-seventies. The new ASHRAE standard does not differentiate between non-smoking and moderate smoking areas, with 20 cfm per person being the recommendation in office spaces. Their experience, in real life situations, is that 20 cfm of outdoor air per person deals adequately with moderate smoking activities in buildings, and this should be reflected in any EPA position on the issue unless major new research shows this not to be the case. Environmental chamber data cannot generally be extrapolated to predict performance within actual occupied spaces. For example, Dr Cain reported employing a sniffing station where air from the chamber was passed through "an aluminum box of 0=11M3 which "eventually went back into a return duct. The box enabled persons to judge the air in the chamber without the need to enter it. After sniffing the air at the system, the visitor assigned the occupany odor a magnitude_estima.te from.the scale previously.generated-from

judgments of butanol". Dr. Cain then-stated-that "in view of- our findings that only 85% of visitors deamed the very weak butanol level of 1 acceptable, the ASHRAE-80$-rule seems rather stringent" (5). While this observation obviously reflects Dr. Cain's opinion, one can hardly expect these findings to be used by HVAC designers attempting to comply with the above specified ASHRAE 62-1989 "untrained observer" criteria provided under it's Appendix C as a guideline for implementation whenever concern for odors in buildings become a problem. Dr. Cain also pointed out some important problems in his published test results (5) which are not mentioned in this chapter. For example, in his tests "high humidity led to higher odor intensity and substantially lower acceptability". Furthermore, "agreement among visitors from one set of experiments to another suggests that visitors decided on acceptability on the basis of odor intensity without regard to quality". This alone in our opinion suggests some major uncertainties in Dr. Cain's basic premise. It is interesting to note that in a generally parallel research effort dealing with formaldehyde, Dr. Cain concluded that "a given concentration of formaldehyde may evoke quite different degrees of irritation, depending upon duration of exposure, fluctuations in concentrations, and the presence of other agents in the air".(l) Yet he fails to account for these same likely variables in his published ETS

I work (5)... Additional problems are also ccnveniently ignored; namely: (a) Laboratory experiments in a.cl.irrate chamber of small volume in which cigarettes were smoked with-a smoking machine (6) are hardly comparable to actual smokers moving about occupied spaces of considerably larger volume, and exposed surface area, etc. (2). Inside most buildings there are a wide range of absorptive surfaces such as carpets, wall coverings, particle board, and furnishings. These act as sinks for gas and particle phase emisEions from all indoor sources, reducing both the intersity and half-life of irritative substances in the air. This is in direct contrast to the non-absorptive surface of the smoking chambers used in these tests. (b) Effects of widely differing brands of tobacco often result in some variations in ga:;eous and particulate composition, a factor largely icinored by Dr. Cain in his remarks (6). (c) The effects of climatic (i.e., humidity) influence on perceived odor and irritation threshold levels is largely ignored. For example, iis pointed out by other researchers (6) threshold limit values are reduced for drier environments, e.g. naturally ventilated spaces in winter, etc.

(d) Variations in concentration--of czone and/or particulate matter in outdoor air (used in Dr. Cain's experiments) were not accounted-.for,-. (e) Recognizing that more than one-tYalf of the U.S. population reside in areas that have failed to meet the 120 ppbv natural Ambient Aii Quality ,Standard (NAAQS), (7) for ozone, a known irritant that is odorless. In reviewing his published work, we can find no evidence of any measurentents made to determine outdoor air ozone levels in Hew Haven during the period of his testinc (5). _ B (f) of Levels of ETS necessary to raise- the carbon monoxide concentration from 2 to 5 ppm are considerably higher than found in.typical modern office environments where smoking is discretionary. Absolute levels of ETS used in the laboratory studies versus real life situations, as well as frequency of occurrence. This is especially the case when carbon monoxide is used as an indicator ETS (as found in reference six in this chapter). Certainly any measurement of maintained particulate concentrations•(8) (i.e., attributable directly to tobacco ~ 07 smoke) should take into account the probable effects: ~ W W

(a) Of prevailing outdoor-air on indoor-air, any infiltration, internal deposition levels, and (b) That fan operations, HVAC systein filter efficiencies, infiltration, internal deposition sites, internal generation rates (of all known or suspected species including VOC's, particles, and ozone) and (c) their interaction would have a-Derceived odor and irritation levels. r As many other researchers have :oointed out (7) (8), such tests require (at a minimum) the determination of a mass balance model based on the characteristics of a specific building and site. Such information cannDt reasonably be extrapolated from data obtained from environmental test chamber without considerable speculation. Accordingly,-such methods are questionable particularly when establishing realistic ventilation rates for todays modern buildings in the manner suggested by Dr. Cain. In practice, the experience of HBI mirrors that of ASHRAE, in that where 20 cfm of fresh outside air is provided, complaints of excessive smoke are rarely found. The problem remains, however, that this level of ventilation tends to be ~ .~ the exception rather than the rule, and then-not only smoke ~ builds up, but_'all types of internally generated-pollutants; W .P

most less visible_than cigarette.smoke, a].though frequently just as irritative. References (1) Cain, W. S., See, Leaderer, B., and 7'oson, T. (1986). Irritation and odor from formaldehyde: chamber studies. In IAQ '86: Managing Indoor Air for Health and Energy Conservation. Atlanta: ASHRAE, pp., 126-137. (2) Clausen, G. H., Fanger, P. 0., Cain, W. S. and Leaderer, B. P. (1986). Stability of body odoi7 in enclosed spaces. Environment International, 12, 201-205. (3) Clausen, G. H., Moller, S.B., Fanger,. P.O., Leaderer, B. P., and Dietz, R. (1986). Background odor caused by previous tobacco smoking. In IAQ '86: Managing Indoor Air for Health and Energy Conversation. Atlanta: ASHRAE, pp. 119-125. (4) Clausen, G.H. (1988) Comfort and env:Lronmental tobacco smoke. In IAQ '88: Engineering Solutions to Indoor Air Problems. Atlanta, ASHRAE, pp. 267-274. (5) Cain, W.S., Leaderer, B.P., Isseroff, R., Bergland, L.G., ' Huey R. J., Lipsitt, E. D., and Perlman, D. (1983).

Ventilation requirements in buildings - 1. Control of occupany odor and tobacco smoke odor. Atmospheric Environment 17, 1183-1197. .(6) Weber, A. (1984). Annoyance and irritation by passive smoking. Preventative Medicine, 13, 618-625. (7) Weschler, C. J. and Shields, H.C. (1989). Indoor Ozone Exposures. JAPCA, 39 pp. 1562 - 1568. (8) Weschler, C.J. and Shields, H.C. (1989), The effects of ventilation, filtration and outdoor air on the - composition of indoor air at a telephone office building, Environment International, Vol. 15, pp. 593 - 604. (9) Yaglou, C.P., Riley, E.C., and Coggins, E. (1936). Ventilation requirements. ASHRAE Transactions, 42, 133-162: