Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take, where we unpack the latest research shaping our understanding of indoor air and the built environment. This week, we're diving into one of the most complex and urgent environmental dilemmas of our time: the smoke from fires we set on purpose. The paper, Associations between PM2.5 from Prescribed Burning and Emergency Department Visits in 11 Southeastern US States by a team of researchers from Boston University, Georgia Tech, and other institutions, tackles a critical question: In our effort to prevent catastrophic wildfires through prescribed burning, are we creating a different, more chronic health problem from the smoke of these "good fires"? The Environmental Dilemma: Prescribed burning—intentionally setting smaller, controlled fires to clear underbrush—is one of our primary tools to fight the catastrophic wildfires made worse by climate change. But this tool has side effects: smoke containing fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The question is whether we're trading one health disaster for another. The Study: Researchers analyzed over 30 million emergency department visits from 11 southeastern US states over nearly a decade—a region where prescribed burning is common practice. Using sophisticated chemical transport models, they "tagged" PM2.5 in the air to identify which portions came specifically from prescribed fires, allowing them to isolate the health signal of just these controlled burns. The Surprising Findings: Yes, there is a link. On days with high levels of PM2.5 from prescribed fires, there was a statistically significant increase in emergency department visits for upper respiratory infections and, most notably, ischemic heart disease, which went up by about 6%. But here's the counter-intuitive part: For the classic signatures of smoke exposure—overall respiratory admissions, asthma, and COPD—they didn't find a statistically significant increase. This is what makes smoke from prescribed fires different from wildfire smoke. Why the Difference? The nature of the fires themselves. Wildfires are hot, intense, and chaotic, burning everything from the forest floor to the canopy. Prescribed burns are cooler and slower, designed to smolder through underbrush, grass, and leaf litter. This difference in what's burning and how it's burning creates a different chemical cocktail of smoke. Prescribed fire smoke tends to have lower concentrations of pollutants like carbon monoxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) compared to wildfire smoke. The Big Takeaway: Not all smoke is created equal. The health impact of PM2.5 is not just about the mass of particles in the air—it's about what those particles are made of, and it depends profoundly on the source. This research doesn't give us an easy answer. It doesn't say prescribed burning is safe or unsafe. Instead, it gives us a much more nuanced picture. It's a powerful reminder that there are no easy wins in environmental management—it's all a game of trade-offs. We're using a tool to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, but that tool has its own health risks, and those risks are different. This kind of research is absolutely vital for land managers and public health officials because it helps them understand the specific health impacts of their decisions, allowing for more targeted warnings and a better, more honest conversation about the risks we're actually choosing to manage. Associations between PM2.5 from prescribed burning and emergency department visits in 11 Southeastern US states https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109770 The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: The Prescribed Burning Paradox 00:01:48 The Study Design: Tagging Smoke from Good Fires 00:02:54 The Findings: A Surprising Health Signal 00:04:02 Not All Smoke is Equal: The Chemistry Matters 00:05:32 The Big Takeaway: Environmental Trade-Offs and Honest Conversations 00:06:40 Closing: Thanks and Next Week
In this essential episode, we sit down with Paul O'Sullivan, lecturer in Sustainable Energy Engineering at MTU and co-lead of the MESO Research Group, to explore one of the most pressing—yet often overlooked—challenges in our built environment: how do we design buildings that don't overheat? Paul brings deep expertise in low-energy demand-side technologies, building retrofit strategies, indoor thermal environments, and ventilative cooling. His work sits at the fascinating intersection of thermal comfort, air quality, decarbonization, and the future resilience of our homes, schools, and workplaces. The Central Question We've spent decades designing buildings to be thermally comfortable in winter—airtight, well-insulated, energy-efficient. But in doing so, have we created a new problem? As our climate warms and our buildings become better at keeping heat in, how do we ensure they can also let heat out when they need to—without resorting to energy-intensive air conditioning? Key Topics Discussed: Thermal Comfort vs. Overheating: What's the difference between discomfort and a genuine health risk? Why overheating is not just about temperature, but about duration, vulnerability, and the capacity of a building to respond. The Unintended Consequences of Energy Efficiency: How our drive to decarbonize heating has created buildings that struggle to cool—and why Ireland's cooling season now starts in March. The Cooling Ladder: A design philosophy for tackling overheating—starting with prevention (solar shading, orientation), then modulation (thermal mass, phase-change materials), then dissipation (ventilative cooling), and only finally, supplementary mechanical cooling. Ventilative Cooling and the New CEN Technical Specification: How natural and mechanical ventilation can provide free, sustainable cooling—and why the European standard Paul helped develop is a game-changer for designers. The Performance Gap: Why buildings that look great on paper often overheat in reality—and why simulation tools are struggling to keep pace with the rate of climate change and building innovation. Agency and Adaptation: The power of openable windows, external shutters, and giving occupants control. Why buildings that allow people to adapt perform better—and why we've lost some of that agency in modern construction. This is a conversation about trade-offs, resilience, and the path forward. It's about recognizing that comfort isn't a luxury—it's a fundamental aspect of health, well-being, and productivity. And it's about designing buildings that work with their climate, not against it. DESCRIPTION: HOST: Simon Jones: https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-air-quality-matters/ GUEST: Paul O’Sullivan - https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-d-o-sullivan-441b9023/ The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Paul O'Sullivan and the Science of Thermal Comfort 00:02:18 Thermal Comfort vs Air Quality: Different Lenses on Indoor Environment 00:04:07 Maslow's Hierarchy: Is Comfort a Luxury or a Necessity? 00:05:34 The Decarbonization Dilemma: Energy Efficiency vs Thermal Comfort 00:09:31 Expectation and Adaptation: The Psychology of Thermal Experience 00:14:29 The Cooling Ladder: A Design Philosophy for Passive Solutions 00:15:44 Where Are We With the Science? Progress and Gaps in Thermal Comfort 00:24:07 Defining Overheating: From Discomfort to Health Risk 00:24:15 The Measurement Challenge: 20 Different Ways to Assess Overheating 00:27:52 Conditioned vs Free-Floating: Two Different Overheating Problems 00:37:09 Ireland's Paradox: Overheating in a Cool Climate 00:37:16 The Building as Battery: Thermal Mass and Night Cooling Strategies 00:52:55 The Performance Gap: Why Simulations Don't Match Reality 01:00:40 The Data Desert: Why We Don't Know How Our Buildings Perform 01:20:50 Behavior and Technology: The Human Element in Building Performance 00:49:07 Ventilation's Role: Free Cooling Potential and Air Quality Trade-offs 00:56:08 Heat Recovery Dilemma: Winter Efficiency vs Summer Cooling Needs 01:10:20 Hybrid Solutions: The Future of Resilient Cooling 01:40:55 Climate Shelters: Schools as Community Heat Wave Refuges 01:43:36 Double Jeopardy: When Heat Waves Meet Power Outages and Poor Air Quality 01:26:51 The MESO Research Group: From Ventilative Cooling to Citizen Science 01:29:44 Window Aerodynamics: The Forgotten Performance Metric 01:34:55 European Standards: Translating Research into Design Tools 01:48:26 Citizen Science: Engaging Occupants in Building Performance Research 01:51:30 The Path Forward: Data, Standards, and Human-Centered Design
Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take, where we unpack the latest research shaping our understanding of indoor air and the built environment. This week, we're diving into a paper that tackles a question millions of us have been living with since the pandemic: What actually makes a good home office? The study is titled Home as an Office: Investigating the Associations Between Indoor Environmental Quality, Wellbeing and Performance in Work From Home Settings, and it explores a fascinating tension—between what sensors objectively measure and what people subjectively experience. The Setup: Researchers recruited 95 people working from home in Vancouver and Seattle and used a clever two-pronged approach. On one hand, participants were given desktop monitors that objectively measured PM2.5, total VOCs, CO₂, temperature, humidity, and sound levels—the hard numbers on the physical environment. On the other hand, they conducted detailed questionnaires asking people about their perceptions: Are you satisfied with the lighting? Do you have an ergonomic chair? Does noise from family interrupt you? They also measured outcomes using standardized surveys for psychological wellbeing, physical symptoms, and work performance. The Core Question: Which is the better predictor of wellbeing and productivity—the objective data from the sensors, or the subjective feelings of the occupants? The Surprising Finding: The data from the objective sensors—the actual measured levels of PM2.5, CO₂, and so on—showed predominantly weaker associations with how people felt or how productive they were. Even if CO₂ levels were a bit high or PM2.5 was slightly elevated, in this study it didn't have a strong direct link to reported wellbeing or performance. Why? The authors suggest that indoor environmental quality in most homes was generally moderate, but more importantly, people have agency at home. If you're cold, you can change the thermostat. If the air feels stuffy, you can open a window. This ability to control and adapt seems to weaken the direct link between what a sensor measures and how people actually feel. The Perception-Based Data Tells a Different Story: When researchers looked at subjective perception, they found much stronger connections. Satisfaction with ergonomic furniture, good daylight, and a pleasant workspace aesthetic were all strongly linked to positive wellbeing and performance outcomes. People who felt good about their physical setup felt better and worked better. The reverse was also true. Problems like unwanted interruptions from family, noise from the street, or even persistent kitchen odors were strongly associated with lower psychological wellbeing, reduced vitality, and depressed mood. The Big Takeaway: The paper's core message is not that objective indoor air quality doesn't matter—of course it does, especially at extreme levels. But in the context of working from home, our subjective experience of the space is a much better predictor of our wellbeing and performance than what a sensor might tell us. Perception really is reality here. The feeling of being in control, having a comfortable and aesthetically pleasing space, and not being constantly interrupted—these are not just fluffy nice-to-haves. The study shows they have measurable, statistically significant associations with our mental health and productivity. The Implications: This challenges a purely engineering-led, sensor-driven approach to creating healthy buildings. It tells us we can't just focus on hitting certain parts per million. We need a more holistic, human-centered approach. When we design spaces for home working—or frankly, any space—we need to think just as much about ergonomics, acoustics, privacy, and personal control as we do about ventilation rates. Home as an office: Investigating the associations between indoor environmental quality, well-being, and performance in work-from-home settings https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113310 The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: The Home Office Question We've All Been Asking 00:01:35 The Study Design: Measuring Both Objective and Subjective Reality 00:02:55 The Surprising Finding: Sensors Don't Tell the Whole Story 00:03:32 The Agency Factor: Why Home is Different from the Office 00:04:05 Perception is Reality: The Power of Subjective Experience 00:04:41 The Problems That Matter: Interruptions, Noise, and Kitchen Odors 00:05:07 The Big Takeaway: Beyond Parts Per Million 00:05:53 Implications: A Human-Centered Approach to Indoor Spaces 00:06:40 The Validation: Your Uncomfortable Chair Really Does Matter 00:07:07 Closing: Thanks and Next Week
In this episode, we sit down with Bart Cremers, Group Knowledge Consultant at Zehnder Group International, to explore one of the most critical—yet often overlooked—challenges in advancing indoor air quality: how industry and academia can collaborate more effectively. Bart occupies a fascinating position, straddling the worlds of industry and research, product innovation and scientific rigour. With deep expertise in physics, renewable energy, data analysis, and business development, he has spent years translating fundamental science into real-world ventilation solutions—and feeding real-world performance data back into the research community. The Central Question: We already have the tools and knowledge to deliver clean, healthy indoor air. So why is there still such a persistent gap between what we know works in the lab and what actually happens in people's homes? And how can we unlock the enormous potential that exists when industry and academia work together properly? Key Topics Discussed: The Two Silos: Why industry and academia often work on the same problems but from fundamentally different perspectives—and why bridging that gap is essential for progress. What Industry Brings to Research: Real-world performance data, field monitoring at scale, the ability to tell stories rather than just specs, and the crucial feedback loop between lab performance and lived experience. What Academia Brings to Industry: Scientific rigour, peer review, freedom to explore problems without immediate commercial pressure, and the discipline to ask—and answer—the right questions. The Speed Problem: Why academic research can take five or six years from conception to publication—and by that time, the technology being studied is often two generations out of date. The Performance Gap: Why so much academic research ends up measuring poorly installed or maintained ventilation systems—and what that means for our understanding of what good ventilation can actually achieve. Models vs. Reality: The critical importance of validating simulations and models with real-world data—and how industry can provide the field measurements academia desperately needs. The Minimum Becomes the Maximum: How regulations and standards, by nature, lag behind innovation—and why designing to minimum compliance is a race to the bottom that leaves everyone worse off. The Future: Ventilation as a Service: Why the shift from selling products to selling clean air and healthy outcomes could fundamentally transform the industry—and close the performance gap for good. Multifunctional Systems: The promise and peril of integrating ventilation with heating, cooling, and other building systems—and why we need to get the basics right first. Retrofit and Renovation: Why the next frontier isn't just new build, but bringing healthy indoor air to the billions of existing buildings—and why that requires a completely different approach. Citizen Science: The untapped potential of involving real people in real homes in the research process—not just as data sources, but as co-creators of the questions we need to answer. This is a conversation about friction, opportunity, and the path forward. It's about recognizing that both industry and academia have blind spots—and that the only way to truly advance indoor air quality is to work together, with mutual respect, shared goals, and a willingness to learn from each other's strengths. HOST: Simon Jones: https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-air-quality-matters/ GUEST: Bart Cremers: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bart-kremers/ The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent - Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Bridging Industry and Academia in Air Quality 00:03:17 The Two Worlds: Understanding Industry and Academic Perspectives 00:07:05 The Friction and Opportunity: Why Collaboration is Challenging 00:13:48 Real World vs Lab: The Performance Gap Problem 00:16:00 Communication Challenges: Telling Stories vs Presenting Specs 00:25:14 The Speed Problem: When Research Can't Keep Up with Innovation 00:33:26 The Value Exchange: What Industry Brings to Research 01:00:01 The Installation Crisis: Measuring Poorly Installed Systems 01:04:35 The Minimum Becomes the Maximum: Engineering for Redundancy 01:09:08 Closing the Gap: Training, Education, and Consumer Protection 01:15:31 The Future: Renovation, Smart Controls, and Ventilation as a Service 01:31:40 Multifunctional Systems: The Promise and Complexity of Integration 01:42:52 Closing Thoughts: Building for People in a Complex Future
Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take, where we unpack the latest research shaping our understanding of indoor air and the built environment. This week, we're at a paper that tackles a fundamental question: Where exactly should we put indoor air quality sensors? How many do we actually need? And how often should they take readings? The paper is titled Long-term Indoor Air Quality Monitoring in Office Buildings: Data-Driven and Goal-Oriented Recommendations for Sensor Replacement and Sampling Frequency, and it's all about moving from guesswork to evidence-based monitoring strategies. The Problem: Existing standards are all over the place. One might say you need a sensor every 50 square meters, another says 325 is fine. One says sample every 15 minutes, another says 30 is okay. There's a real lack of clear, evidence-based guidance—and if you get it wrong, you're either spending a fortune on equipment you don't need, or you're collecting data that's useless or actively misleading. The Study: Researchers installed 16 sensors across three office sites in Shanghai and collected four years of data on PM2.5, PM10, and CO₂—taking readings every single minute. They then analyzed the spatial and temporal patterns to answer the critical questions: Does a sensor over here tell the same story as one over there? And what information do you lose if you sample every hour instead of every minute? Key Findings: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 & PM10): The dominant driver is outdoor air. Indoor PM levels tracked outdoor levels very closely, meaning infiltration is the key factor. For tracking general trends, you don't need a massive density of sensors—readings from different locations were highly correlated. CO₂: A Completely Different Story: CO₂ is generated indoors by occupants, and the study found huge differences depending on sensor location. Key factors included the type of HVAC system, room size, distance from windows, and proximity to air outlets. A single sensor in a large, complex office space just won't cut it. The Goal-Oriented Approach: Here's where the paper gets clever. The authors argue that we're often trying to do two different jobs with monitoring, and we need to separate them: Job #1 - Temporal Trend Monitoring: Understanding the big picture—daily cycles, seasonal changes, overall average conditions. For this, you can use about one sensor every 150 square meters, and sampling intervals of 90 minutes for PM and 130 minutes for CO₂ are sufficient without losing accuracy. This means less data to store, less energy use, and less maintenance. Job #2 - High Concentration Event Monitoring: Catching the bad stuff—short, sharp spikes in pollution when a meeting room fills up or outdoor smoke floods in. For this, you need much more frequent sampling: every 4 minutes for PM2.5 and CO₂, and every 15 minutes for PM10. You also need more sensors placed strategically in high-risk zones—large rooms, spaces with standalone AC units, and areas far from ventilation sources. The Big Takeaway: There's no single "right" way to monitor indoor air quality—it all depends on your goal. This paper gives us a data-driven framework for making that choice. If you want to understand long-term building performance, you can use a sparse network sampling infrequently. But if your primary goal is health and safety—protecting occupants from pollution peaks—you need a denser, targeted network sampling much more often. This is about being deliberate. It's about monitoring with purpose. Long-term indoor air quality monitoring in office buildings: Data-driven and goal-oriented recommendations for sensor placement and sampling frequency https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113392 The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: The Fundamental Questions of Air Quality Monitoring 00:01:35 The Problem: Inconsistent Standards and Guidance Gaps 00:02:02 The Study Design: Four Years of Data from Shanghai Offices 00:02:38 Particulate Matter Findings: Outdoor Air Drives Indoor Trends 00:03:14 CO2 Findings: The Complexity of Indoor-Generated Pollutants 00:03:47 The Goal-Oriented Approach: Two Different Monitoring Jobs 00:04:37 Trend Monitoring: Less is More for General Performance 00:05:19 Event Monitoring: Frequent Sampling for Health and Safety 00:06:15 The Big Takeaway: No Single Right Way to Monitor 00:06:59 Closing: From Good Ideas to Smart Strategies
To celebrate 100 episodes of the Air Quality Matters podcast, we welcome back our very first guest, the renowned Max, for a wide-ranging discussion on the past two years and the revolutionary future of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). Max, one of the leading voices in air quality standards, dives into the major themes that have dominated the conversation, including the post-pandemic landscape, the rise of health-focused standards, and the critical importance of Particulate Matter (PM) control. In this episode, you will learn: The Health Convergence: How the medical community and engineering discipline are finally converging to tackle IAQ, driven by the ability to measure environments more accurately. The Post-Pandemic Bubble: Why the huge spike in interest around airborne disease has led to a feeling of "general disappointment" in the industry, and where the real progress is being made. Particulate Matter (PM): The Big Problem, Simple Fix: Why PM is the major component of indoor air harm and how simple engineering controls like filtration are the cost-effective solution. The DALY Revolution: A deep dive into Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and how Max’s work uses this public health metric to move away from arbitrary ventilation flow rates and quantify the actual harm of indoor contaminants in ASHRAE 62.2. The CO2 Myth: Max’s famously animated argument on why CO2 is not a good indicator of indoor air quality and is, in fact, an international engineering problem. A 9-Year Deadline: Max's personal mission to completely phase out ventilation flow rate requirements from air quality standards in less than a decade. Join us as we reflect on 100 episodes and look forward to a future where we can judge the success of a space by its ongoing performance, not just minimum standards. HOST: Simon Jones: https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-air-quality-matters/ GUEST: Max Sherman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-sherman-b7301514/ The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.
Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take, where we unpack the latest research shaping our understanding of indoor air and the built environment. The State of Indoor Air in Australia 2025, produced by the Thrive Research Centre and key Australian institutions, represents the first real national stock take of indoor air quality in a country that has been measuring outdoor air for decades. The Shocking Reality: Australia has been producing national state of the environment reports for decades, but they have almost exclusively focused on outdoor air. The great indoors—where Australians spend 90% of their time—has been a massive blind spot. This document is the first real attempt to answer a very simple question: What do we actually know about the air inside our buildings? The answer is a bit of a shock. The Big Takeaway: The most important finding of this report is not about specific pollution levels—it's about the sheer vastness of what we don't know. The report's great contribution is that it authoritatively documents our collective ignorance. It holds up a mirror and shows us a reflection that's mostly blank. This report is intended as a baseline, a starting point, and a catalyst for a national conversation and hopefully a national strategy. After decades of focusing on the sky outside, it's time to finally pay serious, coordinated attention to the air in the rooms we actually live, work, and learn in. This isn't just a report. It's the start of a very important piece of work. https://thriveiaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20250909-State-of-Indoor-Air-in-Australia-final.pdf The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Australia's First Indoor Air Quality Baseline 00:01:35 The Shocking Data Gap: Less Than 0.03% Coverage 00:02:46 Geographic Blind Spots: The Queensland and Western Australia Concentration 00:03:45 Residential Findings: Gas Cookers, Wood Heaters, and Bushfire Smoke 00:04:27 The Hidden Dangers: Formaldehyde and Volatile Organic Compounds 00:05:06 Office Buildings: Traffic Proximity and HVAC Design Matter 00:05:37 The One Take: Documenting Our Ignorance as a Catalyst for Change 00:06:19 Critical Questions for the Future: Building Codes, Infiltration, and Protection 00:07:01 Closing: A Call to Action for Indoor Air Quality
In this landmark episode, we sit down with Dr. Esther Sternberg, a professor of medicine, scientist, and internationally recognized pioneer in the science of mind-body interaction, healing spaces, and the role of place in well-being. Dr. Sternberg's groundbreaking work has influenced how we think about healthy buildings today. Her books—Healing Spaces, The Balance Within, and Well at Work—have become foundational texts for architects, designers, and health professionals seeking to create environments that don't just do no harm, but actively support human flourishing. The Central Question: There's a critical difference between designing spaces to do no harm and designing spaces to support well-being. We have the tools and knowledge to ensure clean air, excellent ventilation, and non-toxic materials—but what about resilience? What about the third leg of the stool: our own capacity to thrive, perform, and heal? Key Topics Discussed: From Immune Response to Environment: Dr. Sternberg's remarkable journey from studying brain-immune connections in rats to discovering how the built environment shapes stress, performance, and health—starting with a single patient and a personal healing experience in Crete. Spirituality in the Workplace: Why this was the hardest chapter to write in Well at Work, and how concepts like flow, focus, rituals, and going offline are essential—not fringe—elements of peak performance and well-being. The Stress-Performance Rainbow: Understanding the relationship between stress and flow. Why the goal is not to eliminate stress, but to find your "middle of the rainbow"—where focus, energy, and performance peak without burnout. Agency and Control: Why giving people choices—over light, sound, temperature, and workspace—is one of the most powerful levers for reducing stress and enhancing resilience. The fighter pilot analogy that explains it all. The Seven Domains of Integrative Health: Sleep, stress and relaxation response, environment, movement, relationships, spirituality, and nutrition—and how each can be embedded into the design and operation of buildings. The GSA Studies: How wearable health devices and continuous environmental monitoring revealed the precise conditions—decibel levels, humidity ranges, light exposure—that optimize health, reduce stress, and improve sleep quality in office workers. Healing Spaces and Virtual Nature: From hospital rooms in Dublin to immersive nature experiences with Studio Elsewhere—how technology and thoughtful design can bring restorative environments to those who need them most. The Contrarian Path: Dr. Sternberg's story of fighting scientific dogma, being denied promotion for work that "had no relevance to human health," and ultimately proving that the brain and immune system are intimately connected—and that place matters profoundly. https://www.linkedin.com/in/esther-sternberg-m-d-8a957927/ https://esthersternberg.com/ HOST: Simon Jones: https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-air-quality-matters/ GUEST: Dr. Esther Sternberg The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Meeting Esther Sternberg and the Science of Well-Being 00:02:04 Beyond Do No Harm: Designing Spaces for Well-Being 00:02:32 The Foundation: Clean Air and the 30-Year Cycle of Recognition 00:07:01 Spirituality in Buildings: Focus, Flow, and Belonging 00:12:36 The Science of Flow: Stress, Performance, and the Rainbow Model 00:21:08 Engineering for Performance: Choice, Movement, and Active Office Design 00:25:56 The Athlete Analogy: Building Resilience Through Strategic Stress 00:29:10 Virtual Nature and Reset Spaces: The 15-Minute Dose Effect 00:34:42 Chronic Stress and Burnout: Why Rest is Not Optional 00:34:01 Sustainability of Flow: Body Chemistry and Time Limits 00:56:49 Control and Agency: The Jet Fighter Pilot Lesson 00:58:44 Circadian Light: From Blue to Red and the Morning Advantage 01:02:15 The Given That Isn't: Why Buildings Still Cause Harm 00:38:32 Community and Belonging: The Antidote to Isolation 00:52:26 Acoustics and Culture: The Surprising Variability of Sound Preferences 01:10:09 The Economic Case: Return on Investment for Well-Being 01:18:42 Dr. Sternberg's Journey: From One Patient to the Built Environment 01:29:21 Fighting Dogma: The Politics of Science and Strategic Credibility 01:40:01 The Crete Revelation: Personal Healing and the Seven Domains 01:44:17 GSA Studies: Measuring the Built Environment's Impact on Health 01:53:22 The Future: From Mandates to Magnetic Spaces 01:55:50 Technology and Innovation: From Dublin to Studio Elsewhere 01:58:35 Closing: Building the Army of Advocates
The quality of air in our schools is directly shaping our children's health, attendance, and ability to learn. The Paper:Impact of Air Quality including Thermal Conditions on Educational Buildings on Health, Wellbeing and Performance by Duncan Grassie and researchers from the UK Health Security Agency and Eurovent. This scoping review is essentially a stock take—gathering all existing research to map out what we know, where the evidence is strong, and where the gaps remain. The Fundamental Question: Children spend approximately 30% of their waking hours in educational buildings—breathing air and experiencing thermal conditions they have absolutely no control over. What is the collective evidence telling us about how these environments are shaping their health, attendance, and crucially, their ability to learn? The Paper Impact of Indoor Air Quality, Including Thermal Conditions, in Educational Buildings on Health, Wellbeing, and Performance: A Scoping Review https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12080261 The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Understanding Scoping Reviews and Educational Environments 00:01:49 The Three Pillars: Health, Absenteeism, and Performance 00:02:00 Health Impacts: The Respiratory Connection 00:02:50 The Absenteeism Crisis: Quantifying Lost School Days 00:03:46 Academic Performance: The CO2 and Temperature Effect 00:04:56 Solutions Part 1: Source Control as the First Line of Defense 00:05:32 Solutions Part 2: Ventilation as the Critical Intervention 00:06:11 The Economic Case: A $4 Million Investment with $110 Million Returns 00:06:30 The One Take: From Evidence to Action and Our Responsibility 00:07:44 Closing: Thanks and Next Steps
In this essential episode, we dive deep into the complexities shaping the European built environment with an industry expert from Eurovent (YR-VENT), the European industry association for Indoor Climate (HVAC), Process Cooling, and Food Cold Chain technologies. We tackle the core tension in Europe: reconciling the immense pressure for decarbonization with the political and social need for affordable housing. Is the EU's flagship Green Deal facing a legislative backlash? We explore the realities of the 'Fit for 55' package, the polarising effects on national politics (like in Germany), and how geopolitical shifts and inflation are changing market priorities. Key Topics Discussed: The EPBD Shift: Moving from a focus purely on energy consumption to a holistic Sustainable Buildings Directive that integrates Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), occupant well-being, solar readiness, and sustainable mobility. IEQ: The Post-Pandemic Reality: Why the massive public awareness of indoor air quality during COVID-19 failed to translate into widespread market changes in schools and residential settings. Smart Systems & Complexity: The future of integrated HVAC systems, the inevitable comparison to complex modern cars, and the new digital skillset required for installers and maintenance personnel. The Risk of "Affordable" Building: A warning against short-sighted construction that focuses on upfront cost, leading to long-term issues like mold and poor health outcomes, and how institutional finance is now demanding IEQ data to mitigate asset risk. Circular Economy & EPDs: The pressing need for the HVAC industry to standardize and harmonize Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) to accurately calculate embodied carbon and operational carbon for new mandatory building requirements. About Eurovent (YR-VENT): As a coordinating body for the HVAC industry, YR-VENT represents manufacturers across heat pumps, chillers, air filters, and more. We discuss their role in monitoring legislative developments, driving market education, and running the independent third-party performance certification scheme to build confidence in product claims. What are your thoughts on the tension between sustainability and affordability? Let us know in the comments! HOST: Simon Jones: https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-air-quality-matters/ GUEST: Stijn Renneboog: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stijn-renneboog-42893613b The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Europe's Built Environment at a Crossroads 00:02:39 The Housing Crisis vs Climate Action: Finding Balance 00:17:46 EPBD Evolution: From Energy to Holistic Sustainability 00:25:44 Making the Invisible Visible: Monitoring Indoor Air Quality 00:32:48 Sweden's Success: Ventilation Inspections Drive Energy Renovations 00:35:36 Beyond Minimums: The Market Opportunity for Better Air Quality 00:41:59 Technology Integration: The Promise and Complexity of Smart Buildings 00:48:01 Lessons from Singapore: Separating Conditioning from Ventilation 00:57:03 The COVID Legacy: Why Awareness Didn't Translate to Action 01:09:28 Follow the Money: How Finance is Driving Health in Buildings 01:16:30 Eurovent's Mission: Bridging Policy and Practice 01:32:10 The Embodied Carbon Challenge: Harmonizing Standards for Impact
Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take, where we unpack the latest research and reports shaping our understanding of indoor air and the built environment. This week, I'm diving into the seventh edition of a critical annual report that reads like a global health check—not for people, but for policy. The State of Global Air Quality Funding 2025, produced by the Clean Air Fund and the Climate Policy Initiative, follows the money trail to reveal whether our global investments actually align with our stated goals for clean air, health, and climate action. The diagnosis? It's deeply concerning and frankly contradictory. The Shocking Reality: While the world talks endlessly about the air pollution health crisis, direct funding for outdoor air quality projects has plummeted by 20%, now representing just 1% of all international development funding. Meanwhile, fossil fuel-prolonging funding—money that actively entrenches our dependence on fossil fuels—has surged by 80% in a single year, reaching $9.5 billion. The Contradiction in Action: In 2023, development funders spent more than 2.5 times more money on projects that prolong fossil fuel use than on projects specifically designed for clean air. It's like trying to bail out a sinking boat with a teacup while someone else uses a power drill to punch holes in the hull. Case Study - Bangladesh: A country with some of the world's worst air pollution received $1.1 billion more in fossil fuel-prolonging finance than in all air quality projects combined. The contradiction is staggering. The Glimmer of Hope: Funding for projects with air quality co-benefits—like metro systems or renewable energy where clean air is a happy side effect—rose by 7% to nearly $29 billion. The report argues we need to stop letting clean air be a happy accident and integrate air quality targets into these massive projects from the beginning. The Inequality Crisis: Just three countries (Philippines, Bangladesh, China) received 65% of all direct outdoor air quality funding. Meanwhile, of the 10 countries with the world's highest PM2.5 concentrations, seven received less than $1 per person in total air quality financing. Sub-Saharan Africa's situation is particularly dire, with funding dropping by 91% and now receiving less than 1% of the global total. The Fundamental Question: This report isn't just a collection of data—it's a mirror held up to our global priorities. And right now, that reflection shows a world trying to treat a disease with one hand while actively feeding it with another. Air pollution isn't just an environmental or health issue, but a fundamental development challenge. The question this report leaves us with: What are we going to do to change the picture? The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website.
I sit down with two of the most influential actors in the indoor air quality sector, Georgia Lagoudas (Science Policy Expert and Bioengineer) and Bronwyn King (Australian Radiation Oncologist & Anti-Tobacco Campaigner), the principals behind the recent landmark air quality event at the UN General Assembly in New York. This event launched the Global Pledge for Healthy Indoor Air—the first international effort to formally recognise clean indoor air as a basic human right essential to health and well-being. In this powerful conversation, they break down: The Problem: Why, despite all the science and technology, we still don't have clean air in our schools, hospitals, and workplaces. The Water Analogy: How we expect clean water but accept unsafe air. The 6 Pillars of the Pledge: How clean indoor air stitches into Human Rights, Health, Pandemic Preparedness, Climate Resilience, Workplace Safety, and Inclusion. The Cost of Inaction: Why the long-term health impact of poor indoor air is comparable to tobacco exposure. The Future: How Air Club and the Global Pledge plan to create "Fear Of Missing Out" among governments and organisations to drive real change. Join the Movement & Take Action: https://www.airclub.org/ GUESTS: Georgia Lagoudas: https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgialagoudas/ Bronwyn King: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bronwyn-king The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: The Global Pledge for Healthy Indoor Air 00:02:30 Why a Pledge and Why Now 00:05:46 Creating Global Solidarity Through Advocacy 00:21:13 Air Quality as a Fundamental Human Right 00:22:56 Health Impacts: Beyond the Lungs 00:23:48 Pandemic Preparedness and Building Resilience 00:25:16 Climate Resilience and Wildfire Smoke 00:26:36 Workplace Safety and Accessibility Rights 00:38:38 The Invisibility Problem and Communication Challenge 00:47:05 Economic Impacts and the Cost of Inaction 01:03:18 Taking Action: From Pledges to Practice 01:10:53 Building the UN Coalition 01:19:10 Air Club and the Path Forward
Does fixing ventilation in homes actually make people with asthma healthier? The answer is an emphatic yes – but the type of system you install makes all the difference. This episode unpacks a remarkable two-year study from Chicago that followed 51 adults with physician-diagnosed asthma across 40 homes, tracking their health before and after different ventilation interventions. The researchers didn't just install equipment and hope for the best – they meticulously measured asthma control month by month using standardized health scores, while simultaneously monitoring indoor air pollutants to understand exactly what was changing. The results are striking. Across all intervention types, participants saw a 6.3% improvement in asthma control scores – enough to shift the proportion of people with well-controlled asthma from 57% to 75%. But here's where it gets fascinating: the gold standard balanced ventilation systems with energy recovery (MVHR/ERV) delivered an 8.4% improvement, pushing 86% of participants into well-controlled territory and eliminating poorly controlled asthma entirely in that group. Meanwhile, simpler exhaust-only systems still helped but delivered less than half the benefit. The Smoking Gun: Nitrogen Dioxide The study identified a clear culprit: nitrogen dioxide from gas cooking. For every standard deviation decrease in indoor NO2 levels, asthma control improved by 7.1%. In a study where 90% of homes had gas stoves, this finding directly links the pollutants we generate indoors to measurable health outcomes. It's not just about bringing in fresh air – it's about diluting and removing the combustion byproducts that accumulate in our homes. Perhaps most powerfully, the greatest improvements occurred among those who needed it most: participants over 45, Black and African American residents, and households earning less than $75,000 annually. These groups started with worse asthma control, meaning the intervention delivered its biggest impact precisely where health disparities are greatest. From Building Codes to Therapeutic Environments This isn't just another academic exercise – it's real-world evidence that transforms how we think about home ventilation. The study shows that properly designed mechanical ventilation isn't a luxury or just about meeting codes; it's a direct public health intervention that can reduce health inequalities. The benefits aren't immediate – they build over months and years – but they're substantial and measurable. The implications are profound. When a ventilation upgrade can eliminate poorly controlled asthma in a group of sufferers, we're not talking about marginal gains. We're talking about transforming homes from environments that exacerbate illness into therapeutic spaces that actively support health. And crucially, this intervention works best for those who are suffering most – offering a concrete pathway to address health equity through better housing. This research moves us beyond theoretical arguments about air quality to hard evidence: engineering our indoor environments is healthcare by another name. For the millions living with asthma, especially in communities already facing health disparities, this study offers hope that relatively straightforward home improvements can deliver life-changing results. Effects of residential ventilation and filtration interventions on adult asthma outcomes The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.
In this special episode, we sit down with the founders and champions of World Ventilate Day (November 8th) to dissect the critical difference between air quality and ventilation. They reveal why their focus is on action, agency, and empowering everyone—from homeowners to governments—to take control of their indoor environments. Key Discussion Points: Action vs. Nuance: Why the day focuses on ventilation (the action) rather than the more nuanced conversation around air quality. The Agency Angle: How ventilation provides agency at every level, from national governance to managing your own home. Beyond Air Quality: Why ventilation is critical not just for air, but for managing a building's thermal environment, humidity, comfort, and energy. The Pandemic's Legacy: The shocking realisation during COVID that "we haven't got a clue" about the ventilation in our buildings, and the danger of apathy today. The Collaboration Imperative: Discussing the theme 'Collaborate to Ventilate' and the need for engineers and building users to work together. What We're NOT Talking About: The panellists share their most pressing overlooked topics, including the destructive power of apathy , the complexity of real-world ventilation , and the urgent need for competence and accountability in the industry. Reframing Success: Why we need to measure the performance and outcomes of ventilation, not just the existence of a product. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: World Ventilate Day and Its Mission 00:02:25 Why Ventilation, Not Just Air Quality? 00:06:25 The Origins: How World Ventilate Day Began 00:09:02 The Pandemic Wake-Up Call: What We Didn't Know 00:17:10 Breaking Down Engineering Barriers Through Collaboration 00:21:56 Ventilation Engineers: The Hidden Health Heroes 00:23:45 The Lungs as Filters: A Powerful Analogy 00:28:57 The Future of World Ventilate Day: Going Global 00:34:21 Fighting Apathy: The Destructive Power of Indifference 00:38:12 The Complexity Challenge: Beyond Simple Solutions 00:43:52 The Competence Crisis: When Good Intentions Go Wrong 00:49:16 Reframing Success: From Products to Performance World Ventilate Day: November 8th. Find out more and get involved: https://www.worldventil8day.com/ Cath Noakes Henry Burridge Nathan Wood #81 - Nathan Wood #15 Cath Noakes #7 Henry Burridge The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website.
Why is it so difficult to prove that mold makes people sick when millions of people clearly suffer in water-damaged buildings? The association is undeniable. The causation? That's where things get complicated. This episode unpacks a fundamental challenge that has plagued the mold and health field for decades – the seemingly simple but scientifically complex distinction between association and causation. We know with certainty that people in damp, moldy buildings experience more respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and various health complaints. The 2004 Institute of Medicine report established this definitively, finding "sufficient evidence of an association" between visible mold and respiratory symptoms. But proving that mold directly causes these problems? That's an entirely different scientific mountain to climb. The core challenge lies in what scientists call the Bradford Hill criteria – the gold standard for establishing causation in epidemiology. To prove mold causes illness, we'd need to demonstrate a clear dose-response relationship (more mold equals more illness), temporal relationships (exposure before symptoms), biological plausibility, and ideally, experimental evidence. But here's the rub: mold exposure in real buildings is never just mold exposure. It's a complex soup of fungal spores, bacterial endotoxins, volatile organic compounds, allergens, and chemical emissions from degrading materials. How do you isolate the effect of one component in this biological cocktail? The Exposure Assessment Black Hole Perhaps the most maddening aspect is our inability to accurately measure what people are actually exposed to. Unlike a drug trial where you know exactly what dose someone received, mold exposure is invisible, variable, and cumulative. A single air sample tells you almost nothing about someone's exposure over weeks or months. Spore counts fluctuate wildly based on humidity, disturbance, and time of day. Some people might react to dead spores or fragments that don't even show up in standard tests. Others might be sensitive to mycotoxins at levels far below what we can reliably detect. This measurement problem creates a vicious cycle. Without good exposure data, we can't establish dose-response relationships. Without dose-response relationships, we can't prove causation. Without proven causation, there's less funding for better measurement tools. And round and round we go. The Human Variability Factor Then there's the inconvenient fact that people react differently to the same environment. Genetics, immune status, age, pre-existing conditions – all these factors influence whether someone develops symptoms in a moldy building. This heterogeneity makes it nearly impossible to predict who will get sick and how sick they'll get, further muddying the causation waters. The episode explores how this scientific uncertainty has real-world consequences. Insurance companies exploit the causation gap to deny claims. Building owners hide behind the lack of "proof" to avoid remediation. Meanwhile, people suffering in water-damaged buildings are told their symptoms might be "all in their head" because science can't definitively prove the mold is making them sick. The Path Forward Despite these challenges, the scientific consensus is clear on one point: water-damaged buildings are unhealthy environments that should be remediated, regardless of whether we can prove specific causal pathways. The precautionary principle applies – we know enough about the associations to act, even if we can't draw straight lines from exposure to illness. This One Take reveals why the mold and health field remains so contentious and why simple questions like "is mold making me sick?" don't have simple answers. It's a sobering reminder that in environmental health, the gap between what we observe and what we can scientifically prove often feels insurmountable – not because the connections aren't real, but because reality is far more complex than our measurement tools and study designs can capture. Damp Indoor Spaces and Health (2004) The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.
When Worlds Collide: Tropical Wisdom Meets Temperate Challenges In this wide-ranging discussion, Chandra brings over 35 years of experience from Singapore's hot, humid environment to share insights that challenge conventional thinking about ventilation and comfort. As one of three pioneers who established Singapore's indoor air quality research unit in the early 1990s, his team's tagline – "energy efficient, healthy buildings" – has guided decades of innovation in tropical building design. The conversation reveals striking contrasts: while European buildings might operate at 21-23°C, Singapore's newest net-zero buildings maintain comfort at 26-27°C using elevated air speeds from ceiling fans. This isn't just about energy savings – it's a fundamental rethinking of how we achieve thermal comfort. As Chandra explains, tropically-acclimatized people actually prefer air movement, unlike those from colder climates who perceive it as draft. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Meeting a Legend of Indoor Air Quality 00:02:08 Air Quality as a Human-Centered Challenge 00:23:17 Making the Invisible Visible: Sensors and Awareness 00:42:58 Hot and Humid Climates: Engineering Lessons from Singapore 00:52:50 Decoupling Ventilation from Cooling: A Revolutionary Approach 01:00:55 Net-Zero Buildings and Adaptive Comfort 01:12:25 Global Equity and Simple Solutions 01:23:30 Building Preparedness and Future Resilience Chandra Sekhar - LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/professor-chandra-sekhar-singapore/ The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.
Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take as we explore a fascinating convergence of finance, health, and real estate that's reshaping how Wall Street thinks about buildings. What happens when the financial markets discover that healthy buildings aren't just good for people – they're good for portfolios? This episode unpacks a compelling business case that's turning heads in boardrooms and investment committees worldwide. We dive into groundbreaking research from the International WELL Building Institute that fundamentally reframes how we think about building costs through a simple but powerful concept: the 90-9-1 rule. Think about it: for a typical business, only 1% of costs go to energy, 9% to real estate, and a staggering 90% to people – salaries, benefits, human capital. Yet for decades, the entire green building movement has obsessed over shaving pennies off that 1% energy slice while ignoring the massive opportunity sitting in the 90%. As the research reveals, a mere 1% improvement in productivity through better indoor environmental quality is financially equivalent to eliminating your entire energy bill. The Numbers That made Wall Street Take Notice The evidence is striking. Harvard's COG-fx study shows that enhanced ventilation and lower VOCs can boost cognitive function scores – translating to $6,500-7,500 per employee annually in improved productivity. That's not theoretical; that's measurable impact on decision-making, creativity, and performance. Buildings with health certifications like WELL command 4.5-7.7% higher rents and secure lease terms over a year longer than their conventional counterparts. This isn't just about feeling good – it's about financial fundamentals. But here's where it gets really interesting: the financial markets themselves are now rewarding healthy buildings with cheaper capital. Sustainability-linked loans and social bonds are tying interest rates directly to achieving health and wellness targets. When your building's WELL certification can literally reduce your borrowing costs, you know the market has crossed a tipping point. Beyond Productivity: The Hidden Costs of Unhealthy Buildings The report goes deeper than just productivity gains. It tackles the twin demons of absenteeism (people not showing up) and presenteeism (people showing up but functioning poorly). Poor air quality, inadequate lighting, and thermal discomfort create a constant drain on organizational performance that most companies never even measure. Fix these issues, and you're not just adding value – you're plugging leaks that have been hemorrhaging money for years. The conversation also explores specific strategies that deliver returns: biophilic design that goes beyond token plants to create genuine connections with nature, daylighting that improves both work performance and sleep quality, and ventilation strategies that keep people sharp throughout the day rather than suffering through afternoon brain fog. The ESG Revolution's Next Chapter Perhaps most significantly, this shift represents the maturation of ESG investing. While the 'E' (environmental) has dominated for years, the 'S' (social) is finally being recognized as financially material. How companies treat their most valuable asset – their people – directly impacts long-term viability and profitability. Top-tier corporations engaged in the war for talent are actively seeking and paying premiums for spaces that support employee wellbeing. This episode reveals how investing in healthy buildings has evolved from a nice-to-have amenity to a strategic imperative. The business case is no longer theoretical – it's robust, quantified, and being proven daily in real estate markets worldwide. When Wall Street starts betting on healthy buildings, you know we've reached an inflection point where doing good and doing well are finally, undeniably aligned. IWBI Investing in Health Pays Back The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.
Join us for an enlightening conversation with Bill Bahnfleth, ASHRAE Fellow, former president, and professor at Penn State's Department of Architectural Engineering, who perfectly bridges the gap between rigorous science and practical application in the built environment. Where Are We Now in the Ventilation Journey? In this wide-ranging discussion, Bill offers a sobering assessment of our post-pandemic reality. Despite COVID being what should have been "the reset" for indoor air quality awareness, we're watching that attention rapidly fade. As he travels globally in his role as an ASHRAE Distinguished Lecturer, Bill observes a consistent pattern: buildings designed to bare minimums, maintenance treated as an afterthought, and a massive gulf between what academic conferences discuss and what actually happens in real buildings. The conversation reveals how regional differences shape ventilation practices – from Europe's long-standing ventilation focus to markets where outdoor air is considered too energy-intensive to be viable. Yet one universal truth emerges: the tyranny of minimum standards becoming maximum targets, and the persistent failure to maintain even basic system performance. Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: The State of Indoor Air Quality Post-Pandemic 00:02:00 Global Perspectives on Ventilation Challenges 00:26:15 The Medical Community's Missing Voice 00:36:59 ASHRAE's Evolution and Global Expansion 00:58:05 Standard 241: Born from Crisis 01:05:27 Equivalent Clean Air: A New Paradigm 01:11:04 Building Resilience and Modal Operations 01:16:15 Risk Assessment vs. Simple Thresholds 01:31:05 The Technology Balance: Benefits and Byproducts 01:44:44 Accessibility Rights and Indoor Air Quality
Welcome back to Air Quality Matters and One Take as we dive into a German medical guideline that fundamentally challenges how we think about mold diagnosis and testing. What if everything we've been told about measuring mold to prove it's making us sick is wrong? This episode unpacks the 2023 AWMF Mold Guidelines, a comprehensive consensus document from the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies that brings together hygienists, immunologists, dermatologists, and other experts to cut through decades of confusion about indoor mold exposure. Their message is both radical and refreshingly simple: stop chasing spores, start fixing dampness. The guideline drops several bombshells that challenge conventional wisdom. First, they state unequivocally that if you can see mold, you don't need to sample it – just remove it. Environmental measurements of mold, mycotoxins, or microbial VOCs? They declare these "rarely useful" for medical diagnosis. In fact, they go so far as to say that monitoring mycotoxins in indoor air has "no indication in medical diagnostics." For an industry that's built around testing and quantification, this is revolutionary. The Focus Shift: From Lab Tests to Leaks The document's core philosophy centers on the precautionary principle: mold shouldn't be tolerated indoors, period. Not because we can definitively prove it causes specific diseases, but because it represents a hygiene problem with potential health risks. The primary recommendation isn't complex – identify the moisture source and fix it. The building, not the lab report, becomes the focus of intervention. When it comes to health effects, the guideline draws clear boundaries. They recognize two categories: general irritant effects (itchy eyes, runny nose, mood disturbances) and specific clinical conditions, which are overwhelmingly allergic reactions and, rarely, infections in immunocompromised individuals. Notably absent from their list of proven associations are chronic fatigue syndrome, neurotoxic effects, and autoimmune diseases – conditions often attributed to mold but lacking sufficient scientific evidence for causation. Diagnosing Without Air Samples For doctors facing patients who believe mold is making them sick, the guideline prescribes a traditional allergy workup: detailed medical history, skin-prick tests, specific IgE antibody measurements, and if necessary, provocation testing. It's the same process used for pollen or dust mite allergies – no air sampling required. They even provide a list of diagnostic methods to avoid, including bioresonance procedures and mycotoxin blood tests, firmly planting their flag in evidence-based medicine. The document identifies clear risk groups requiring special protection: severely immunosuppressed patients, those with cystic fibrosis, and people with existing asthma. For these individuals, mold isn't just an irritant – it can pose serious infection risks. The Uncomfortable Truth Perhaps most striking is the guideline's honesty about what we don't know. They acknowledge that we lack established health-based guideline values for mycotoxins in air, can't draw clear dose-response relationships between measured concentrations and symptoms, and simply don't have the science to support many claimed mold-illness connections. This isn't dismissive – it's scientifically honest. The implications are profound for building managers, indoor air quality professionals, and anyone dealing with mold complaints. The message is clear: stop endlessly measuring what we can't interpret and start addressing the root cause – moisture. It's a pragmatic, precautionary approach that prioritizes action over analysis paralysis. This episode reveals how Germany's medical establishment is pushing back against the tendency to overcomplicate mold issues, offering instead a clear-eyed, evidence-based framework that separates what we know from what we merely suspect. For anyone navigating the murky waters of mold and health, this guideline offers a much-needed compass. AWMF mold guideline “Medical clinical diagnostics for indoor mold exposure” – Update 2023 AWMF Register No. 161/001 The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.
Welcome to Air Quality Matters as we illuminate a revolutionary that's been quietly transforming how we think about infection control in our built environment. In this episode, we dive into the world of far UVC light with Janet Price, Chief Science Officer at Visium, who brings an exceptional blend of molecular biology expertise and real-world application experience to this fascinating conversation. The Invisible Warrior Against Invisible Threats Far UVC represents a specific wavelength of light (222 nanometers) that exists beyond our visible spectrum – a form of energy that naturally occurs in space but never reaches Earth's surface due to atmospheric absorption. What makes this technology so compelling is its dual-action mechanism: it simultaneously damages both DNA/RNA and proteins in pathogens, essentially fighting a war on multiple fronts against viruses, bacteria, and even mold spores. Yet remarkably, this same light that devastates single-cell organisms can't penetrate the dead skin layer protecting our living tissue – making it safe for continuous human exposure. Janet walks us through the science with remarkable clarity, explaining how these krypton gas-filled lamps produce their precise wavelength and why that specificity matters. Unlike the broad-spectrum mercury bulbs used by Wells nearly a century ago, today's far UVC technology delivers targeted germicidal action without the risks associated with traditional UVC exposure. The conversation reveals how a minute of exposure can inactivate 50% of flu viruses in a space, potentially reducing transmission risk by up to 91% in typical office settings. The Path Forward Perhaps most thought-provoking is Janet's perspective on what's needed for widespread adoption. Like Wells before her, she recognises that the technology works – the science is clear, the standards are emerging (UL 8082 certification now exists specifically for far UVC devices), but the epidemiological evidence at the population scale remains elusive. We need, as she puts it, someone willing to create "the cleanest town in the world" to demonstrate what's possible when we treat our air as seriously as we treat our water. The conversation also confronts uncomfortable truths about our post-pandemic fatigue and the funding cliff that's left many promising technologies stranded. Yet Janet's optimism is infectious – she sees a future where cleaning our air requires nothing more from people than showing up and breathing, where invisible light fights invisible threats without anyone having to change their behavior. This episode offers both a masterclass in emerging technology and a rallying cry for those who believe indoor air quality deserves the same attention we've given to clean water and food safety. It's essential listening for facility managers, healthcare administrators, engineers, and anyone curious about how we might finally win the war against airborne pathogens – not through behavior change or constant vigilance, but through the simple application of the right wavelength of light. Janet Price - LinkedIn Visium The Air Quality Matters Podcast in Partnership with Zehnder Group - Farmwood - Eurovent- Aico - Aereco - Ultra Protect - The One Take Podcast in Partnership with SafeTraces and Inbiot Do check them out in the links and on the Air Quality Matters Website. If you haven't checked out the YouTube channel its here. Do subscribe if you can, lots more content is coming soon.