Revisions for Indoor Air Quality Monitoring
| 47 | mathew |
August 19, 2015 20:10
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an epidemiologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer-like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's the evolution our photo card by @warren and @nshapiro:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the initial research note here Field testing here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 46 | nshapiro |
June 17, 2015 18:56
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an epidemiologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's the evolution our photo card by @warren and @nshapiro:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the initial research note here Field testing here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 45 | nshapiro |
June 17, 2015 18:54
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an epidemiologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the initial research note here Field testing here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 44 | nshapiro |
June 17, 2015 18:49
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an epidemiologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
https://i.publiclab.org/system/images/photos/000/009/952/original/test-photo-card-2.pdf Building the phytoremediation toolSee the initial research note here Field testing here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 43 | nshapiro |
June 01, 2015 22:02
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an epidemiologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the initial research note here Field testing here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 42 | nshapiro |
May 06, 2015 14:47
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the initial research note here Field testing here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 41 | nshapiro |
April 02, 2015 16:20
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 40 | nshapiro |
April 02, 2015 16:18
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on indoor formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 39 | nshapiro |
April 02, 2015 16:17
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 38 | nshapiro |
April 02, 2015 15:10
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 37 | warren |
March 30, 2015 19:06
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WebsiteWhereWeBreathe.org (not yet launched) was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 36 | warren |
March 30, 2015 19:05
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 35 | warren |
March 30, 2015 18:55
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY formaldehyde test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials:
(Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level. Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 34 | warren |
March 30, 2015 18:52
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials: 1 Kitagawa 710 Formaldehyde tube (1 box of 20 tubes costs $129 + shipping). 1 VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). 1 Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump, 100-Gallon ($19.22). 2 small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). (Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level.
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials: Plastic flower pot (or any pot that you can plug the drainage of and . Porous plant Growth Medium (We used rocks made of recycled glass) Epoxy or Saran wrap VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump (Small) Two small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). Aqua Mist Airstone (5 cm x 14cm) Photo cardWe're developing a printed card to help people read the color in the testing tube, and to help consistently record data and upload a photo of the data. Here's a draft by @nshapiro:
Here's sort of a design mockup based on the above we might build upon:
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 33 | nshapiro |
March 30, 2015 17:30
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials: 1 Kitagawa 710 Formaldehyde tube (1 box of 20 tubes costs $129 + shipping). 1 VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). 1 Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump, 100-Gallon ($19.22). 2 small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). (Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level.
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials: Plastic flower pot (or any pot that you can plug the drainage of and . Porous plant Growth Medium (We used rocks made of recycled glass) Epoxy or Saran wrap VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump (Small) Two small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). Aqua Mist Airstone (5 cm x 14cm)
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 32 | nshapiro |
March 30, 2015 17:29
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials: 1 Kitagawa 710 Formaldehyde tube (1 box of 20 tubes costs $129 + shipping). 1 VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). 1 Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump, 100-Gallon ($19.22). 2 small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). (Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level.
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here Bill of Materials Plastic flower pot (or any pot that you can plug the drainage of and . Porous plant Growth Medium (We used rocks made of recycled glass) Epoxy or Saran wrap VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump (Small) Two small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). Aqua Mist Airstone (5 cm x 14cm)
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 31 | nshapiro |
March 30, 2015 17:21
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here Bill of Materials: 1 Kitagawa 710 Formaldehyde tube (1 box of 20 tubes costs $129 + shipping). 1 VWR FLOW METER ACR 2IN.1-1LPM ($74.62 + shipping). 1 Tetra 77855 Whisper Air Pump, 100-Gallon ($19.22). 2 small segments of ordinary aquarium airline pump (very inexpensive). 2 1/8-27 MPT to airline conversion valves ($4 for two). (Note: this technique will also likely work with the 740 NO2 tube, just dial the air flow down to 200 ml per minute and run for 20 minutes as opposed to 30 at 300 ml/min for formaldehyde.) The first step is to reverse the diaphragm in the pump to convert it to a vacuum. Open up the four Philips head screws on the belly of the pump. Lift up, rotate 180 degrees, and then replace the diaphragm as indicated in the below GIF. (Click the image to view the animation again)
Attach a small segment of airline tubing from the pump to the top of the flow meter (which you have equipped with the conversion valves at both openings) and then attach another small section of tubing to the bottom of the flow meter. You will have three points where you can adjust the flow rate (the meter, and both conversion valves). Open all valves to their most open--while still sealed--position. Once you've started the pump, use the large valve on the flow meter to regulate the flow rate down to .3 liters per minute (or 300 ml per minute). Using the heart-shaped scoring stone included with the tubes, score and then crack off both ends of the tube so that airline tubing can snugly attach. Attach the tubing so that the "HCHO ->" arrow is pointing in the direction that air is flowing (ie towards the pump). Set an alarm for 30 minutes (don't just look at the clock and hope you will remember). Place the kit on a level surface at least three feet above the floor and plug the pump in and start your timer. After 30 minutes turn off the pump and inspect the length of stain by eye and take a photo of the tube in medium light with a black background. The reagent in the tube will begin with a yellowish waxy color and will discolor to pink to indicate the level.
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 30 | warren |
March 30, 2015 16:06
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal
Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 29 | warren |
March 27, 2015 20:00
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Images
Tetra Whisper aquarium pump
Closeup of pump connected to plant container, with optional in-line flow meter
Colormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection -- see below for PDF documentation Supporting DocumentsColormetric tubes for formaldehyde detection: 710_1.pdf Gonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert | |
| 28 | warren |
March 27, 2015 19:31
| over 9 years ago
Where We Breathe 2014-PresentWhere We Breathe is a project of Public Lab's Open Air Initiative focused on domestic formaldehyde monitoring and mitigation. WWB is composed of four interconnected aspects: An online platform: where community members can pair test results to the symptoms they register in an etymologically validated survey, share stories about the impact of air pollution in their communities, and find support and resources for advocacy. A lending library: which will foster maximum use of test kits at a minimum price and allow for DIY devices to make inroads into the marginalized populations that need them most. A DIY test kit: conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will detect formaldehyde down to 5ppb and yields results in a thermometer like readout after a 30 minute sample (ie. no need to send samples to the lab). A DIY remediation kit: also conveyed by the lending library, bought in the Public Lab store or made on your own, will help reduce the atmospheric load of formaldehyde in your home by circulating air though the root system of plants known for their formaldehyde remediation capacity. This simple enhancement could increase the plant's ability to scrub the air of formaldehyde by as much as 100 times. WhereWeBreathe was developed to address non-place based environmental justice issues that revolve around toxic exposures emanating from distributed infrastructure (e.g. manufactured housing, flooring, natural gas compressor stations). To this end it re-imagines epidemiological research tools around community needs. It re-frames epidemiological surveys as a forum for community peer-support and knowledge building. Rather than treat participants as research subjects, this project creates a safe and anonymous-by-default space to share stories, symptoms, and resources, while re-imagining the alliance between affected communities and researchers. View or contribute to the code on GitHub: https://github.com/publiclab/wherewebreathe Mockup of Where We Breathe website created by @MelissaN and @warren:
DIY formaldehyde test kitSee the research note here
Building the phytoremediation toolSee the research note here Contribute to the wiki here
Why domestic air quality?Despite the long held observation that indoor chemical concentrations are generally higher than corresponding outdoor concentrations and that Americans spend ninety percent of their time indoors, the home is the last environmentally unregulated airspace in the United States. As both a major seat of exposure and regulatory void, indoor air quality is ripe for research-to-action interventions. Further, domestic exposures are often tied to racial and socioeconomic health disparities, making indoor air quality an environmental justice issue as much as it is a public health issue. Why formaldehyde?Formaldehyde is the most common and most toxicologically understood indoor air pollutant. This chemical vapor is a gateway to understanding commonplace domestic exposures. It is used as a setting agent, binding together particle board walls, subfloors, hardboard cabinetry and adhering carpets to their backing. As a result of its prevalent use in home construction, formaldehyde is the dominant cumulative contributor to cancer risk from the indoor environment and gives rise to a broad range respiratory, dermatological and neurological pathologies. Where is this an issue?By current estimates, upwards of 98 percent of new homes (up to 5.5 years old) maintain indoor formaldehyde levels capable of inducing irritation. Elevated domestic concentrations of this chemical are commonplace from readily affordable mobile homes to high-end and tightly sealed “green homes” in California’s Silicon Valley. The energy efficiency of 'green housing' is often achieved by reducing thermal exchange between the inside and outside of the home. When more tightly sealed homes are not equipped with added ventilation chemicals can accumulate in the indoor air. Inexpensive laminate flooring, and a range of other commodities can raise the level of atmospheric formaldehyde in your home. While we our monitoring tool focuses exclusively on formaldehyde our mitigation tool can potentially remediate a broad range of indoor toxics, including benzine, toluene, trichloroethylene and xylene depending on what plant is used in the kit. Why manufactured housing?Although formaldehyde is the most common toxicant across housing types, we are particularly interested in working with the inhabitants of manufactured housing for the following reasons. Disproportionate exposureAlthough understudied, research indicates that formaldehyde levels in manufactured homes are on average four times higher than those of conventional homes. These high chemical concentrations in manufactured housing are due to the high use of engineered woods that utilize formaldehyde as a binding agent, the high ratio of exterior walls to indoor airspace and minimal Large, understudied and underserved populationManufactured housing is the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in the United States. While the exact number of manufactured housing occupants is unknown, it its commonly estimated that 20 million lower and moderate-income Americans currently reside in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes have an outsized share of the low cost housing market, representing 1 in 6 owner-occupied housing units with costs less than $500 per month. The median net worth of households that live in manufactured housing is one-quarter of the median net worth of other households. Chemical awareness without resourcesFormaldehyde has been a notorious issue among manufactured housing communities for over 30 years. Recent investigative reporting such as the 60 Minutes exposé on the high rates of formaldehyde emanating from Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring have raised public concern about this chemical. This longstanding problem in conjunction with recent media attention have sparked a great deal of interest in and demand for formaldehyde test kits among manufactured housing inhabitants, yet these are precisely the groups that cannot afford testing and are not networked in a way that can build strong toxic tort cases which can lead the way towards industry and regulatory reform. Supporting DocumentsGonzalez-Flesca, Norbert, André Cicolella, Matthew Bates, and Emmanuelle Bastin. 1999. “Pilot Study of Personal, Indoor and Outdoor Exposure to Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 6 (2): 95–102. Khoder, M I, A A Shakour, S A Farag, and A A Abdel Hameed. 2000. “Indoor and Outdoor Formaldehyde Concentrations in Homes in Residential Areas in Greater Cairo.” Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2 (2): 123–26. Leech, Judith A., William C. Nelson, Richard T. Burnett, Shawn Aaron, and Mark E. Raizenne. 2002. “It’s about Time: A Comparison of Canadian and American Time-Activity Patterns.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 12 (6): 427–32. Accessed August 20. Adamkiewicz, Gary, Ami R. Zota, M. Patricia Fabian, Teresa Chahine, Rhona Julien, John D. Spengler, and Jonathan I. Levy. 2011. “Moving Environmental Justice Indoors: Understanding Structural Influences on Residential Exposure Patterns in Low-Income Communities.” American Journal of Public Health 101 (Suppl 1): S238–45. Salthammer, Tunga, Sibel Mentese, and Rainer Marutzky. 2010. “Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment.” Chemical Reviews 110 (4): 2536–72. Hun, Diana E., Jeffrey A. Siegel, Maria T. Morandi, Thomas H. Stock, and Richard L. Corsi. 2009. “Cancer Risk Disparities between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Populations: The Role of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): 1925–31. McGwin, Gerald, Jeffrey Lienert, and John I. Kennedy. 2009. “Formaldehyde Exposure and Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (3): 313–17. Kilburn, Kaye H. 1994. “Neurobehavioral Impairment and Seizures from Formaldehyde.” Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 49 (1): 37–44. CA OEHHA. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants-- Formaldehyde. Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Looking for the older Roomba-based work? This project is located on the "Roomba" wiki: http://publiclab.org/wiki/roomba-indoor-air-quality-mapping |
Revert |
