*4.2.4. Carbon dioxide data*

Both study periods reveal comparable trends in CO2 levels, highlighting a strong diurnal range. It is also clear that there is an identifiable difference between the general CO2levels in SP1 compared with SP2. Comparing identical bedrooms in House A and House B is also of interest.


### **Table 6.** Overall Bedroom CO2 Statistics

In SP1 CO2concentration reaches levels double the maximum recommended value high‐ lighting unhealthy IAQ. SP2 produced healthier results; however maximum values in each house still rose above Pettenkofer's Max. (Table 6) In general, bedrooms in House A and House B appear to function similarly in relation to CO2.

**Figure 3.** Unhealthy Bedroom Performance, SP1, House B, Bedroom 3

ditions, with max. and min. of 21.9o

strong instability evident within all three indicators.

**Figure 4.** Unhealthy Bedroom Performance, SP1, House A, Bedroom 2

The most unacceptable levels of CO2 found by the studies were recorded during SP1 in House B, Bedroom 3. (Figure 3) There was one occupant sleeping in this room. Levels of CO2reached over 1000ppm for approximately 13 hours of each day, more than half of the total study period. The maximum level recorded was 1819 and the minimum being 713ppm (Table 7). The range of 1106 is evidence of the occupancy pattern, however, the diurnal range is less defined in this instance and may show that the room was also occupied at times during the day. When the room was in use CO2levels in the air indicated a potentially harm‐ ful IAQ. When discussing IAQ, Ta and RH data recorded for this example support poor con‐

C and 16.7o

C, 67.5% and 36.4% respectively. There is

The Role of Building Users in Achieving Sustainable Energy Futures

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51900

151

**Figure 2.** Comparison CO2Levels, SP1, House A, Bedroom 2 & Living Room

The diurnal range is clearly visible on the graphical information produced for the study peri‐ ods. (Figure 2) This day to night change can be attributed to the bedrooms occupancy pattern, prescribed by their function. A graph showing a 24 hour period within a bedroom allows the rise in CO2levels to be identified as occurring during the night, and can be associated with peri‐ ods of sleep, and therefore occupancy. When CO2 levels are lower the room is most likely to be empty because respiration is not taking place. Occupancy patters within the living room, also identifiable through CO2 levels, are quite different to that of the bedroom.

**Figure 3.** Unhealthy Bedroom Performance, SP1, House B, Bedroom 3

*4.2.4. Carbon dioxide data*

150 Sustainable Energy - Recent Studies

**Table 6.** Overall Bedroom CO2 Statistics

House B appear to function similarly in relation to CO2.

**Figure 2.** Comparison CO2Levels, SP1, House A, Bedroom 2 & Living Room

identifiable through CO2 levels, are quite different to that of the bedroom.

interest.

Both study periods reveal comparable trends in CO2 levels, highlighting a strong diurnal range. It is also clear that there is an identifiable difference between the general CO2levels in SP1 compared with SP2. Comparing identical bedrooms in House A and House B is also of

**Bedrooms Max (ppm) Min (ppm) Range Mean (ppm)** SP1 – House A 2007.00 478.00 1529.00 872.50 SP1 – House B 2006.00 445.00 1561.00 921.06 SP2 – House A 1300.00 367.00 933.00 605.26 SP2 – House B 1478.00 375.00 1103.00 633.82

In SP1 CO2concentration reaches levels double the maximum recommended value high‐ lighting unhealthy IAQ. SP2 produced healthier results; however maximum values in each house still rose above Pettenkofer's Max. (Table 6) In general, bedrooms in House A and

The diurnal range is clearly visible on the graphical information produced for the study peri‐ ods. (Figure 2) This day to night change can be attributed to the bedrooms occupancy pattern, prescribed by their function. A graph showing a 24 hour period within a bedroom allows the rise in CO2levels to be identified as occurring during the night, and can be associated with peri‐ ods of sleep, and therefore occupancy. When CO2 levels are lower the room is most likely to be empty because respiration is not taking place. Occupancy patters within the living room, also The most unacceptable levels of CO2 found by the studies were recorded during SP1 in House B, Bedroom 3. (Figure 3) There was one occupant sleeping in this room. Levels of CO2reached over 1000ppm for approximately 13 hours of each day, more than half of the total study period. The maximum level recorded was 1819 and the minimum being 713ppm (Table 7). The range of 1106 is evidence of the occupancy pattern, however, the diurnal range is less defined in this instance and may show that the room was also occupied at times during the day. When the room was in use CO2levels in the air indicated a potentially harm‐ ful IAQ. When discussing IAQ, Ta and RH data recorded for this example support poor con‐ ditions, with max. and min. of 21.9o C and 16.7o C, 67.5% and 36.4% respectively. There is strong instability evident within all three indicators.

**Figure 4.** Unhealthy Bedroom Performance, SP1, House A, Bedroom 2

Another bedroom performing particularly poorly was House A, Bedroom 2, again during SP1 (Figure 4).Although levels of CO2 were less frequently above 1000pm, compared with the pre‐ vious example, it did have the highest level of CO2 recorded over the whole investigation. The room was also occupied by one person but, it is worth noting that this bedroom was subject to approximately 30 hours of natural ventilation over the duration of the study period. The max‐ imum level recorded was 2007ppm and the minimum level was 497ppm, giving an excessive range, of 1510 (Table 7). Air quality in relation to CO2 levels was poor. Ta and RH data record‐ ed max. and min. values of 22.9o C and 17.6o C, 59.3% and 38.1% respectively.

for this bedroom was continuously below 1000ppm. The maximum level recorded was 939ppm and the minimum was 386ppm (Table 7). This produced an overall range in CO2 levels of 553ppm. Importantly, the room appears to respond better to occupation that in pre‐

With reference to the two latter examples, (Figures 4 and 5) both bedrooms are in House A and therefore have the same construction. They also have identical floor area and volumes, (Table 2) and appear to differ only in orientation. An influential disparity between the two

**Max (ppm) No. > 1000ppm Time > 1000ppm**

**(hr& min)**

The Role of Building Users in Achieving Sustainable Energy Futures

Time >1000ppm (hr& min)

**Mean Time/Day > 1000ppm (hr& min)**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51900

153

**Mean Time/**

**Day>1000ppm (hr& min)**

vious examples, with CO2 levels remaining within the prescribed limits.

House A – Bed 1 713 1398 1847 153hr 55 11hr 50 House A – Bed 2 497 2007 1513 126hr 5 9hr 42 House A – Bed 3\* 681 1316 197 16hr 25 1hr 16 House A – Bed 4 478 1176 711 59hr 15 4hr 33 Bedroom Total 2369 5897 4268 355hr 40 6hr 50 House B – Bed 1 585 1569 1317 109hr 45 8hr 27 House B – Bed 2 445 2006 690 57hr 30 4hr 25 House B – Bed 3 713 1819 2085 173hr 45 13hr 22 House B – Bed 4 550 1907 1220 101hr 40 7hr 49 Bedroom Total 2293 7301 5312 442hr 40 8hr 31 Total 44662 13198 9580 798hr 20 7hr 41

**Max (ppm)** No.

House A – Bed 1 386 939 0 0min 0min House A – Bed 2 393 1151 467 38hr 55 3hr 54 House A – Bed 3 374 1044 352 29hr 20 2hr 56 House A – Bed 4 367 1300 265 22hr 5 2hr 13 Bedroom Total 1520 4434 1084 90hr 20 2hr 16 House B – Bed 1 417 1226 334 27hr 50 2hr 47 House B – Bed 2 460 1075 56 4hr 40 28min House B – Bed 3 433 1478 774 64hr 30 6hr 27 House B – Bed 4 375 1055 18 1hr 30 9min Bedroom Total 1685 4834 1182 98hr 30 2hr 28 Total 3205 9268 2266 188hr 50 2hr 22

**Table 7.** CO2 Levels, SP1 and SP2 (\*House A – Bed 3 was not slept in, see Table 4.)

>1000ppm

examples is the study period in which the data was collected.

**(ppm)**

**(ppm)**

**SP1 Min**

**SP2 Min**

**Figure 5.** Healthy Bedroom Performance, SP2, House A, Bedroom 1

**Figure 6.** SP1, House A, Bedroom 1

The healthiest levels of CO2 were recorded during SP2 in House A, Bedroom 1. (Figure 5) This room had one occupant and was not subject to any natural ventilation. Data recorded for this bedroom was continuously below 1000ppm. The maximum level recorded was 939ppm and the minimum was 386ppm (Table 7). This produced an overall range in CO2 levels of 553ppm. Importantly, the room appears to respond better to occupation that in pre‐ vious examples, with CO2 levels remaining within the prescribed limits.

Another bedroom performing particularly poorly was House A, Bedroom 2, again during SP1 (Figure 4).Although levels of CO2 were less frequently above 1000pm, compared with the pre‐ vious example, it did have the highest level of CO2 recorded over the whole investigation. The room was also occupied by one person but, it is worth noting that this bedroom was subject to approximately 30 hours of natural ventilation over the duration of the study period. The max‐ imum level recorded was 2007ppm and the minimum level was 497ppm, giving an excessive range, of 1510 (Table 7). Air quality in relation to CO2 levels was poor. Ta and RH data record‐

The healthiest levels of CO2 were recorded during SP2 in House A, Bedroom 1. (Figure 5) This room had one occupant and was not subject to any natural ventilation. Data recorded

C, 59.3% and 38.1% respectively.

C and 17.6o

ed max. and min. values of 22.9o

152 Sustainable Energy - Recent Studies

**Figure 6.** SP1, House A, Bedroom 1

**Figure 5.** Healthy Bedroom Performance, SP2, House A, Bedroom 1

With reference to the two latter examples, (Figures 4 and 5) both bedrooms are in House A and therefore have the same construction. They also have identical floor area and volumes, (Table 2) and appear to differ only in orientation. An influential disparity between the two examples is the study period in which the data was collected.


**Table 7.** CO2 Levels, SP1 and SP2 (\*House A – Bed 3 was not slept in, see Table 4.)

With this in mind, an obvious difference can be shown between the two study periods by comparing the best performing bedroom from SP2 with its counterpart in the first study. (Figure 5 and 6). SP2 shows much lower levels of CO2 than that recorded in the same bed‐ room in SP1. In fact SP1 results indicate unacceptable levels of CO2 within all the bedrooms of House A and B (Table 7). In SP2 only two of the eight bedrooms recorded levels above 1000ppm on a regular basis (>3 hours a day). Further to this, SP2's maximum levels are not as high, and the minimum levels were also lower.

produced, such as that seen prevalent in SP1 (Figure 3) is a concern. The bedrooms have ac‐ ceptable CO2 levels when empty but when they are occupied they fail to adapt. This obser‐ vation leads to an assumption that there is very little or no ventilation taking place during SP1. This conclusion is supported by unstable Ta and RH levels also presented in the CP. Reasons for poor ventilation could be attributed to the MVHR system not functioning as re‐ quired to produce the sufficient amount of air changes per hour needed for each room. There was no CP prior to SP2 to gain clarification from, however, a reduction in the diurnal

The Role of Building Users in Achieving Sustainable Energy Futures

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/51900

155

Other than the probable identification of a poorly performing MVHR system, there are other

As highlighted in Figure 3, Bedroom 3 in House B SP1 produces unhealthy CO2 results. The room's size could be a contributing factor resulting in poor IAQ. Bedroom 3 has a volume less than half that of the largest bedroom (Table 2). It has no additional system design re‐ quirements, such as a larger supply vent or increased flow rate to provide more air changes. With the same occupancy levels the air will become polluted more rapidly than in a bed‐

It is also worth considering that the occupant slept with the door shut, magnifying the IAQ problem. There are no trickle vents between rooms and with the door shut there is no way of stale air leaving the room, this in turn inhibits supply flow.Bedroom 3's performance is of specific interest because it has the most potential to be used as a nursery. As previously mentioned in the IAQ of these spaces must be excellent as it is a time when childhood ill‐

room of a larger size, due to the smaller volume of air available for respiration.

range in SP2 shows that better ventilation must be taking place.

**Figure 7.** CP, House A & B, Bedroom 2

*4.3.4. Bedroom performance variation*

factors for varying bedroom performance.

ness/IAQ related health issues are most common.

Although a crude representation, looking at the mean time per day that bedrooms spend above 1000ppm clearly strengths the visible difference shown in the graphs, between the CO2 levels in both study period.
