Indoor Air Quality in Green Vs Conventional Multifamily Low-Income Housing

• Published in: Environmental science & technology 2014-07, Vol.48 (14), p.7833-7841
• Main Authors: Colton, Meryl D, MacNaughton, Piers, Vallarino, Jose, Kane, John, Bennett-Fripp, Mae, Spengler, John D, Adamkiewicz, Gary
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Affordable housing; Aged; Air Pollutants - analysis; Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis; Air. Soil. Water. Waste. Feeding; Aldehydes; Applied sciences; Atmospheric pollution; Biological and medical sciences; Buildings. Public works; Carbon dioxide; Demography; Environment. Living conditions; Environmental Exposure - analysis; Exact sciences and technology; Family; Female; Formaldehyde - analysis; Green buildings; Green Chemistry Technology; Humans; Indoor air quality; Indoor pollution and occupational exposure; Low income groups; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nitrogen dioxide; Nitrogen Dioxide - analysis; Particulate Matter - analysis; Pollution; Pollution indoor buildings; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Public Housing; Sick building syndrome; Socioeconomic Factors
• ISSN: 0013-936X; 1520-5851
• DOI: 10.1021/es501489u

Indoor air quality is an important predictor of health, especially in low-income populations. It is unclear how recent trends in “green” building affect the indoor exposure profile. In two successive years, we conducted environmental sampling, home inspections, and health questionnaires with families in green and conventional (control) apartments in two public housing developments. A subset of participants was followed as they moved from conventional to green or conventional to conventional housing. We measured particulate matter less than 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nicotine, carbon dioxide (CO2), and air exchange rate (AER) over a seven-day sampling period coincident with survey administration. In multivariate models, we observed 57%, 65%, and 93% lower concentrations of PM2.5, NO2, and nicotine (respectively) in green vs control homes (p = 0.032, p < 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively), as well as fewer reports of mold, pests, inadequate ventilation, and stuffiness. Differences in formaldehyde and CO2 were not statistically significant. AER was marginally lower in green buildings (p = 0.109). Participants in green homes experienced 47% fewer sick building syndrome symptoms (p < 0.010). We observed significant decreases in multiple indoor exposures and improved health outcomes among participants who moved into green housing, suggesting multilevel housing interventions have the potential to improve long-term resident health.