Blog

Indoor Air Quality is a major concern to many of our friends at Green with Envy Home Store.  As the winter is still rolling into many of our areas, we start to close up our homes and feel the effects of poor air quality.  It is time to check the pre-filters on your Austin Air units and replace them if they are dirty or dark brown in color.  These are really inexpensive to replace and will help the performance of your air cleaner.  Most pre-filters last 12 to 18 months in a normal residential environment. Please call us if you are not sure if your filter needs changing and we will help with the process.

Some Facts about Healthier Indoor Air

*A 2010 report showed that allergists consider indoor air filtration to be part of a comprehensive strategy to improve respiratory health.

*Air Cleaner with HEPA filters have been shown to improve symptoms of Asthma

* A recent study in American Journal of Public Health showed that in poor designed energy efficient homes up to 90% of exposure to fine particulate matter came from indoor sources.  Besides particles and VOCs, the indoor air contained flame-retardants, pesticides, toxic metals and other pollutants.

Houseplants to the Rescue?

For more than 30 years, Bill Wolverton of NASA has investigated the use of plants in enclosed environments of space missions.  For maximum benefit, multiple species of houseplants would be needed to remove toxic materials in a particular area.  Many houseplants vary in the types of chemicals they are able to remove from the environment and efficiency with which they do their work.  However, some houseplants can actually contaminate the home due to pesticides use, the choice of media the plant is grown and the dreaded plastic pot in which many of our plants are delivered.  Wolverton completed an assessment of 50 houseplants by four criteria: 1) removal of chemical vapors, 2) ease of growth and maintenance, 3) resistance to insect infestation, and 4) transpiration rates. Wolverton stated that studies suggest houseplants are most effective in removing VOCs in energy efficient, nonventilated buildings; in highly ventilated buildings, the rapid exchange of inside and outside air makes the benefits of houseplants mostly limited to their psychological and aesthetic values. 

Top !0 Houseplant Air Cleaners

1 Areca palm (Chrysalidocarpus lutescens)

2 Lady palm (Rhapis excels)

3 Bamboo palm(Chamaedorea erumpens)

4 Rubber plant (Ficus elastic)

5 Dracaena (Dracaena decremensis)

6 English ivy (Hedera helix)

7 Dwarf date palm (Phoenix roebelenii)

8 Ficus (Ficus macleilandii)

9 Boston fern (Nephrolepis exaltata)

10 Peace lily (Spathiphyllum wallisii)

We are often asked when should we use AFM Safecoat Safe Seal.  The productl is highly effective at sealing in formaldehyde offgassing from processed wood products such as plywood, parrticle board, OSB and pressed wood.  The product is milky white in color, dries clear but does not harden like a floor sealer. The correct AFM Safecoat products for sealing floors is Polyureaseal.  A great video on Youtube explains the correct use of Safe Seal.  Please contact Green with Envy Home Store if you have any questions.

Kelly Sherman visited Green with Envy Home Store asking how to purchase and install her own reclaimed wood floor. That may seem complicated to many people but Kelly and our great staff came up with a plan.  First, could we actually save the old floor?   Unfortunalety, the floor could not be saved and was actually help together by some sort of tape.  I would rather have Kelly tell her own story.  Please visit her blog.  This project was fun, challenging but great for the environment.

 Green with Envy Home Store is always answering the hardest questions about using green products and services.  This week has been very interesting because of the looming deadline of the energy tax credits.  After attending Greenbuild in Chicago last week, it is quite evident that most manufacturers believe that the tax credits will NOT be extended into 2011.  This week’s questions were very interesting but windows seemed to be the main topic as clients rush to purchase replacement units before the end of the year.  The main questions that we answered related to descriptions about window specifications.  We like really good explanations about products and the Efficient Windows Collaborative provided the best information.  Here we go!

U-Factor
The rate of heat loss is indicated in terms of the U-factor (U-value) of a window assembly. The lower the U-factor, the greater a window's resistance to heat flow and the better its insulating properties. The nationally recognized rating method by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) is for the whole window, including glazing, frame and spacers. Center-of-glass U-factor is also sometimes referenced, and describes the performance of the glazing alone without the effects of the frame. For most energy efficient windows, the whole window U-factor is higher than the center-of-glass U-factor.

High-performance double-pane windows can have U-factors of 0.30 or lower, while some triple-pane windows can achieve U-factors as low as 0.15.

Low U-factors are most important in heating dominated climates, although they are also beneficial in cooling dominated climates. ENERGY STAR provides recommended U-factors for your climate.

R-Value.
A measure of the resistance of a glazing material or assembly to heat flow. It is the inverse of the U-factor (R = 1/U). A high-R-value window has a greater resistance to heat flow and a higher insulating value than one with a low R-value.

Solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC). The fraction of solar radiation admitted through a window or skylight, both directly transmitted, and absorbed and subsequently released inward. The solar heat gain coefficient has replaced the shading coefficient as the standard indicator of a window's shading ability. It is expressed as a number between 0 and 1. The lower a window's solar heat gain coefficient, the less solar heat it transmits, and the greater its shading ability. SHGC can be expressed in terms of the glass alone or can refer to the entire window assembly.

Increased Light and View

Daylight and view are two fundamental attributes of a window. Unfortunately, windows are also the source of significant solar heat gain during times when it is unwanted. Traditional solutions to reducing solar heat gain, such as tinted glazing or shades, yields a result that reduces the amount of light. New glazings with low-solar-gain low-E coatings can provide better solar heat gain reduction than tinted glass, with a minimal loss of visible light. This also means that views can be clearer and unobstructed.

Greater Protection from UV Fading

Many organic materials, such as carpet, fabrics, paper, artwork, paints, and wood may fade upon exposure to sunlight. Window selection can influence the type and intensity of transmitted radiation. The most harmful radiation in sunlight is ultraviolet (UV) rays, which are the most likely to break chemical bonds, leading to fading and degradation. Coatings on glass can reduce the transmission of UV radiation by up to 75%. UV absorbers can also be incorporated into thin plastic films in multi layer windows or as an interlayer in laminated glass. In both cases, the UV transmission can be reduced to less than1%. However, it is important to note that the remaining visible light that is transmitted can still cause fading in some materials. But low-E coated glass or plastic films reduce fading to a minimum for many modern interior furnishings.

We attempted to match performance measures for many major window manufacturers with the brand that we recommend, Serious Windows.  The process was overwhelming and caused many calls to technical service at the manufacturers.  Most large manufacturers do not provide full frame values but only center of glass performance measures. This contradicts the information provided by the Collaborative stating that manufacturers are switching over to full frame measurements.  Keep sending your questions and we will try to keep up!!!

In the last few months, Green with Envy Home Store has received many calls from parents complaining that their children are feeling sick and cannot focus in school.  The common response from the schools is that the children are immature or have some sort of learning issue.  Could the actual school building be contributing to these changes in behavior?  The answer is clear.  Does your local school have a formal Indoor Air Quality(IAQ) program?  Yes, a legitimate formal program with guidelines and training. The shocking truth is that only 51.4% of schools in the United States do have a formal indoor air quality management program.  These schools were significantly more likely than were schools without a program to have policies and use strategies to promote superior indoor air quality.  These findings were published in the Journal of School Health in June 2010.  Some great facts from the article include:

*A growing body of evidence shows that poor air quality in schools is associated with illness, decreased academic performance and absenteeism

*Poor IAQ in schools most often results from a failure to control moisture, temperature, humidity and pollution sources and also from a failure to ventilate classrooms adequately, performs routine maintenance and reduce pesticide use. 

*Compared to office buildings, schools house around 4 times the occupants in the same amount of floor space.

The results of the study really surprised Green Guy due to the major differences in school policies around the country.  Most schools seemed to address problems in buildings but really not in a formal manner.  The study found the following specific conditions in schools:

Mold and Moisture-90.3% of schools addressed mold and moisture issues within 48 hours. and most conducted periodic inspections of the building foundations, walls and roofs for cracks and leaks

Indoor Air Pollution-85.9% of schools have a plan to use, label, store and dispose of hazardous materials.  78% keep an inventory of hazardous materials and 65.9% have a smoke free school policy

Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems- Nearly all schools (96%) conducted periodic inspections of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems but only 50.3% maintained ventilation standards from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers.

Staff Training-93.9% of schools have someone to oversee maintenance issues but only 74.3% of schools required custodial or maintenance staff to receive training on the labeling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials.  Likewise, only 59.8% of schools required training on how to address mold issues.  

The one issue that really hits home at Green with Envy Home Store is the use of low-emitting products in schools.  In the past, we have written about many issues relating to indoor air quality in schools and our own experiences.  Only 56.5% of schools in the study have a policy to purchase low-emitting products.  These products include cleaners, paints, floor sealers and the dreaded carpets in the buildings.  Please contact your school board members and ask about your schools IAQ policy.  The children in your community would appreciate your efforts.

Green with Envy Home Store likes to pass on relevant information to our clients and readers and a great article from Peter Yost of BuildingGreen.com continues this tradition.  His article,  “EPA Takes Action on Spray-Foam Health Risks”  is a great example of how more and more “green” products are finally being scrutinized by the EPA.  The Building Green website is a great source for many of your green building  questions and Green with Envy Home Store regulary uses the site. The following is Peter's excellent investigative article:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a new action plan for chemicals used in spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation.  Isocyanates, such as MDI (methylene diphenyl diisocyanate), are highly reactive chemicals that can cause skin, eye, and lung irritation, asthma, and chemical sensitization when absorbed through the skin or inhaled.

When SPF is applied on a job site, both the ingredients and the byproducts of the process involve potentially toxic emissions that require protective measures for workers as well as any occupants. This is not news: worker protection protocols and quality assurance programs for SPF installation were developed by the SPF industry decades ago. Why the fuss now?

“There has been an increase in recent years in promoting the use of foams and sealants by do-it-yourself energy-conscious homeowners, and many people may now be unknowingly exposed to risks from these chemicals,” Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told EBN. You can add to that a growing number of complaints about adverse health effects from homeowners and occupants of office buildings where SPF has been applied during energy retrofits.

The EPA chemical action plan

EPA’s SPF action plan for MDI is being developed within its Design for the Environment (DfE) program under jurisdiction from the Toxic Chemical Substances Act (TCSA), which requires U.S. chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors to report to EPA any information suggesting that one of their chemicals “presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.”

While the reported data is technically public information, penetrating it is very difficult, in some measure because manufacturers often claim confidentiality for proprietary components in their chemical formulations. But the cumulative evidence to date has moved EPA to take real action on this issue. The plan calls for the agency to:

issue a data call-in from manufacturers of reports they have received of significant adverse health effects (TCSA requires EPA notification but not submission of all data);

consider issuing a test rule requiring exposure monitoring studies for MDI;

consider initial rulemaking for both consumer-applied and professionally applied SPF products;

and consider identifying additional chemical substances that may be present in uncured form in consumer products.

The action plan leaves open questions about how far EPA will go to clamp down on these products, but it’s safe to think of this as a shot across the bow from EPA for the SPF industry.

Safe re-entry times

In addition to the presence of MDI in the product, the chemical reaction and curing of SPF can produce other chemicals of concern: excess isocyanates, aldehydes, amine catalysts, and other volatile organic compounds. We don’t know much about the nature and quantities of offgassing of these substances, the curing rates of SPF, or how health risks can change with improper environmental conditions or mixing ratios during the SPF process. To that end, there is a new ASTM standard under development. John Sebrowski, a senior associate scientist with Bayer MaterialScience and chair of the task group working on this ASTM standard, is helping develop a standard practice to establish re-occupancy times after onsite SPF application. “We are currently getting ready to conduct research using micro-scale chambers and thermal desorption techniques to measure emissions,” he told EBN.

When asked what relationship the current ASTM draft standard and research might have to the existing protocol offered by Bayer MaterialScience (which recommends re-occupancy times of 12 hours and 24 hours for workers and occupants, respectively), Sebrowski responded that the protocol would be used as a starting point, but “we are also investigating other approaches to measuring the emissions.”

According to EPA, safe re-entry times put forward by manufacturers vary between 8–24 hours for one-component SPF and 23–72 hours for two-component SPF. But more research and standardized testing is clearly needed. EPA is not working alone on this issue; several other federal agencies—including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—are part of the team. Each is concerned about protecting workers or consumers from health effects from the increasingly prevalent site-applied SPF.

Should we stop using SPF?

“I think you have to be careful when you discuss the toxicity of spray foam,” says David Price, environmental scientist in the indoor environment division of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “I have not seen any information at this point that there is any hazard to occupants.” While Price supports EPA’s decision to gather data on possible post-occupancy issues with SPF, he doesn’t want the public to “find the accused guilty before you hear the case.” Price has seen some of the anecdotal evidence as well as some of the scientific findings, and says that no cause-effect relationship has yet been found between SPF installation and post-occupancy illnesses. “It’s appropriate for EPA to look at this stuff; that’s what we do,” Price told EBN. “But I’m very sensitive about tagging a product as ‘of concern’ or ‘may be toxic’” before the data has been gathered and reviewed.

EBN contacted several builders and foam industry professionals, and found that most were unwilling to be quoted on an issue they deemed sensitive and still-unfolding. One leading green remodeler offered this perspective: “I have stopped using SPF in any of my projects at this point. I simply can’t and won’t jeopardize my clients’ health and the reputation of my company by using building materials with the emissions profile of SPF.”

Green with Envy Home Store strives to provide our clients and blog readers with the most up to date information relating to products that we use in our homes and businesses. This is a great, straightforward article by Remy Molina of LiveScience.com describing the listing of two of our least favorite chemicals, Formaldehyde and Stryene, as carcinogens.    It is very ironic that we just published in our last blog on how to tame formaldehyde with AFM Safecoat Hard Seal!!Thanks to the United States Government for telling us something that we have known for years. 

The congressionally mandated report identifies substances that are either known to be human carcinogens or are reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. The new additions, announced on June 6, include formaldehyde and aristolochic acids, a family of acids that occur naturally in some plant species, which are now both considered known human carcinogens.

In addition to being used in medical laboratories and mortuaries as a preservative, formaldehyde is widely used to make resins for household items such as composite wood products, paper product coatings, plastics, synthetic fibers and textile finishes.

The six other additions, all of which fall into the second "anticipated" category, include:

• Captafol: a fungicide that had been used to control fungal diseases in fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, and grasses, and as a seed treatment. It has been banned in the United States since 1999, but past exposures may still have an effect on health.

• Cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder or hard metal form): commonly referred to in the United States as cemented or sintered carbide, this substance is used to make cutting and grinding tools, and wear-resistant products for various industries, including oil and gas drilling, as well as mining.

• Certain inhalable glass wool fibers: include only those fibers that can enter the respiratory tract, are highly durable, and are biopersistent, meaning they remain in the lungs for long periods of time. The largest use of general purpose glass wool is for home and building insulation, which appears to be less durable and less biopersistent, and so less likely to cause cancer in humans.

• o-nitrotoluene: used as an intermediate in the preparation of azo dyes and other dyes, including magenta and various sulfur dyes for cotton, wool, silk, leather and paper; it is also used in preparing agricultural chemicals, rubber chemicals, pesticides, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and explosives.

• Riddelliine: found in certain plants of the genus Senecio, a member of the daisy family, grown in sandy areas in the western United States and other parts of the world. Though not used commercially in the United States, many species have been identified in herbal medicines and teas.

• Styrene: a synthetic chemical used worldwide in the manufacture of products such as rubber, plastic, insulation, fiberglass, pipes, automobile parts, food containers and carpet backing. People may be exposed to it by breathing indoor air with styrene vapors from building materials, tobacco smoke and other products. The greatest exposure to styrene in the general population is through cigarette smoking.

"Reducing exposure to cancer-causing agents is something we all want, and the Report on Carcinogens provides important information on substances that pose a cancer risk," Linda Birnbaum, director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

With these additions, the 12th Report on Carcinogens now includes 240 listings, which can all be found here. Each substance undergoes an extensive evaluation with numerous opportunities for scientific and public input before it is added to the report.

However, even if a substance is listed in the report, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will cause cancer. Many factors influence whether a person will develop cancer, including an individual's susceptibility to a particular substance, and the amount and duration of exposure to the substance.

During a recent search on Google Scholar, Green Guy of Green with Envy Home Store noticed an interesting article in Environmental Health Perspectives concerning scented consumer goods.  The author, Carol Potera, completed a great review of a study completed by the University of Washington, Seattle and published the results.  The article really shocked us at Green with Envy Home Store and we actually underestimated the amount of different chemicals in certain products.

A survey of selected scented consumer goods showed the products emitted more than 100 volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including some that are classified as toxic or hazardous by federal laws. Even products advertised as “green,” “natural,” or “organic” emitted as many hazardous chemicals as standard ones.

Anne Steinemann, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and public affairs at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues used gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to analyze VOCs given off by the products. They tested 25 air fresheners, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, disinfectants, dish detergents, all-purpose cleaners, soaps, hand sanitizers, lotions, deodorants, and shampoos. Many of the products tested are top sellers in their category.

A single fragrance in a product can contain a mixture of hundreds of chemicals, some of which (e.g., limonene, a citrus scent) react with ozone in ambient air to form dangerous secondary pollutants, including formaldehyde. The researchers detected 133 different VOCs. Most commonly detected were limonene, α- and β-pinene (pine scents), and ethanol and acetone (often used as carriers for fragrance chemicals).

Steinemann and colleagues found the average number of VOCs emitted was 17. Each product emitted 1–8 toxic or hazardous chemicals, and close to half (44%) generated at least 1 of 24 carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants, such as acetaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde, or methylene chloride.1 These hazardous air pollutants have no safe exposure level, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Of the 133 VOCs detected, only ethanol was listed on any label (for 2 products), and only ethanol and 2-butoxyethanol were listed on any Material Safety Data Sheet (for 5 products and 1 product, respectively).

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates cleaning supplies, air fresheners, and laundry products, currently does not require manufacturers to disclose any ingredients on the label, including fragrances in these products. The same is true for fragrances in personal care items, which are overseen by the Food and Drug Administration. The Household Product Labeling Act, currently under review in the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to label consumer products with all ingredients, including fragrance mixtures. “Disclosing all ingredients could be a first step to understanding potential toxicity and health effects,” says Steinemann.

Although the authors did not seek to assess whether use of any of the products studied would be associated with any risk, Steinemann says she receives hundreds of letters, phone calls, and e-mails from people who report a variety of respiratory, dermatological, and neurological problems they attribute to scented products: “Children have seizures after exposure to dryer sheets, and adults pass out around air fresheners,” she says. Steinemann and colleague Stanley M. Caress have written elsewhere that 19% of respondents across two U.S. telephone surveys reported health problems they attributed to air fresheners, and nearly 11% reported irritation they attributed to scented laundry products vented outdoors.

“It’s important to take people’s complaints seriously,” says Steinemann, because “these human experiences are helping to inform science.” One of her next projects will focus on biomarkers of exposure and effect to better understand how fragranced products may cause a range of adverse health effects. “The ultimate goal is to improve public health,” Steinemann says. For now, she recommends cleaning with basic supplies like vinegar and baking soda.

Steinemann’s study “strongly suggests that we need to find unscented alternatives for cleaning our homes, laundry, and ourselves,” says Claudia Miller, an allergist and immunologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. An expert in chemical sensitivity, or toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, Miller created the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory, a screening tool for chemical intolerance. According to Miller, products intended to keep homes smelling fresh can set people up for a lifetime of chemically induced illness, and repeated exposure to small amounts of household chemicals can trigger symptoms to previously tolerated chemicals. “The best smell is no smell,” Miller says.