By Bob Baker

Is there a relationship between indoor air and health? If so, what are the impacts, issues and solutions involved in the relationship? These are the questions that were asked at a NSF sponsored conference in Denver May 3-5. This conference was notable because it was the first public forum to take on the Indoor Air – Health relationship as a central theme. Although most in the field believe that there must be a relationship between poor quality indoor air and both overall health and chronic conditions, there has been little research to date that has proven such a relationship.

NSF is a logical organization to ask the question. Many years ago, their business was creating the standards that plumbing components were built to. The NSF mark on pipe has long been a recognized symbol of compliance. More recently, they have emphasized their role as a health standards organization. Many devices utilized in health sensitive applications undergo evaluation against NSF criteria. The mark is a sought after symbol of excellence. Much of the NSF's motivation for hosting this conference was to find out if the time is right for NSF standards for products and systems impacting indoor air quality. Beyond that, is a desire to provide a forum where the health/IAQ relationship could be debated openly.

A couple hundred-industry leaders plus your writer attended the meeting to see what this new effort will add to our knowledge. The meeting had wide support. 16 different organizations ranging from a local health department to the mighty ASHRAE were listed as Supporting Organizations. The executive steering committee of 38 included many familiar names from the lecture platforms where IAQ matters are discussed.

An interesting model was followed for the five general sessions. A featured speaker gave a major presentation, developing a point of view. This was followed by several shorter talks complementing the first or offering a counterpoint. Finally, Facilitators led the attendees in an hour-long discussion of the subject. Between sessions, we had the opportunity to visit a constantly changing set of poster sessions where we could discuss the topic one on one with the author of the paper. Several exhibitors also explained their various technologies. It was a good plan that should have produced more than it did.

Overall, the conference suffered under several challenges. Some of the speakers arrived late, failed to show or had to leave early. The various presentations did not mesh to the degree that the organizers planned. The majority of the material presented was a rehash of past presentations. There was just not any real new information. The audience thinned out considerably over the span of the conference (probably due to the lack of new data). As a result, the conference failed to achieve the consensus it sought. We still do not have research based proof of a relationship between indoor air and health. None of this was the fault of the NSA or the organizers. Nor is it necessarily bad news. This was a first conference of its type and researchers do not bring their latest findings to a first conference. They want to see who else is in attendance and whether the conference is going to become established as a high profile venue. Finally, there is just not much to report, as the subject has not been well investigated.

There are a number of positives that came out of this event for those of us who believe that the indoor environment does affect health:

• The subject has been introduced. Now it will be discussed in other forums.
• Some researchers may be encouraged to begin new projects.
• Competing organizations may step up their work on the subject of health. ASHRAE has an Environmental Health Committee who has been appropriately cautious. Will their pace change now?

Hopefully NSA will be encouraged by the possibilities and continue their involvement. Much will depend on the comments that come from the industry. The rest will rest with the resolve of NSA management. They have broken ground in a new area. That takes a lot of faith. We can only pray that they feel the rewards justify the efforts.

There is some evidence that things are changing. Toward the end of the conference, I asked why, given all the evidence we had seen at the conference, no one had seen fit to mandate even a minimal level of maintenance for air conditioning systems. One of the facilitators responded that such a standard will likely be voted out for public review at the ASHRAE meeting in June. Is the conference having an impact already?

Mr. Baker's field of expertise is the control of contamination in air-conditioning and ventilating systems by mold, mildew and bacteria. He writes and speaks frequently about the efficacy, legal risks, and regulatory issues involved in various control strategies. He serves on ASHRAE Technical Committee TC 2.3, TC 2.4, TC 9.8, and Sampling of Airborne Particulate Concentration in Commercial and Residential Buildings GPC 17P. He also serves as a member of ASTM D22.06 (Indoor Air Quality) and is on the Board of Directors of the Indoor Air Quality Association and the Florida Public Health Foundation. Because HVAC applications encompass new uses from an U.S. EPA regulatory standpoint, Mr. Baker works closely with the EPA and industry groups, including serving as the chair of the IAQ committee of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, to help formulate policy in this area.

Bob Baker is Chairman and CEO of BBJ Environmental Solutions, Inc., a company specializing in providing clean air through environmentally responsible products, such as BBJ MicroBiocide , BBJ Micro Coil Clean , "FreshDuct Odor Eliminator ", and BBJ Mold and Mildew Remover™ as well as the revolutionary new Power Coil Clean™. For additional information, Mr. Baker can be reached at (800) 889-2251 or through the company web site at http://www.bbjenviro.com.