Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Indoor air quality and occupant comfort in homes with deep versus
conventional energy efciency renovations
Ellen M. Wells a, *, Matt Berges b, Mandy Metcalf b, Audrey Kinsella b, Kimberly Foreman b,
Dorr G. Dearborn c, Stuart Greenberg b
a
b
c

School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

Environmental Health Watch, Cleveland, OH 44113, USA
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 March 2015
Received in revised form
21 June 2015
Accepted 22 June 2015
Available online 24 June 2015

Deep energy retrots (DER) for residential housing have been proposed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; these result in ~50% additional energy efciency compared to standard, energy star (ES),
renovations. However, the impact of increased energy efciency on indoor air quality (IAQ) is poorly
understood. We conducted a longitudinal study to compare IAQ and occupant comfort in 12 low income
single-family homes renovated to a DER or ES standard. Quarterly visits were conducted for a median of
18 months post-renovation; IAQ was assessed in 4 rooms per visit for a total of 237 measurements.
Multivariable regression models accounted for repeated measurements and controlled for house- and
family-related covariates. In fully adjusted models, average difference (95% condence interval) in IAQ
parameters in DER homes versus ES homes were: temperature:
0.3  C (
1.2, 0.6); relative humidity:
0.4% (
1.1, 1.8); carbon dioxide: 43.7 ppm (
18.8, 106.2); and total volatile organic compounds: 198 ppb
(
224, 620). Residents in DER homes were signicantly less likely to report their homes were
comfortable, most likely due to initial difculties with new heating system technology. We found no
differences in IAQ between DER and ES homes; however, education is strongly recommended when
incorporating new technology into residences.
2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords:
Indoor air pollution
Conservation of energy resources
Ventilation
Carbon dioxide
Volatile organic hydrocarbons
Thermal comfort

1. Introduction
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is an important strategy
to mitigate global climate change. One method to reduce emissions
is through improving energy efciency of buildings, as building
energy use contributes 20e40% of all greenhouse gas emissions
[1,2]. However, there is substantial concern that methods to increase energy efciency, such as increased air tightness, may also
lead to worse indoor air quality (IAQ) [3,4]. Poor IAQ has been
associated with development or exacerbation of respiratory diseases including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
[4e8]. Thus, attaining clean indoor air is an important public health
goal [9]. Modeling studies suggest that both improved efciency as
well as good IAQ can both be achieved; but, a key factor is ensuring
that adequate ventilation is supplied [1,10e12]. However, there is

* Corresponding author. School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, HAMP 1269, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
E-mail address: wells54@purdue.edu (E.M. Wells).

limited data on whether this is achieved in practice, and even less

for extremely efcient homes, such as deep energy retrot or net
zero energy homes [3,13e16].
Several studies have explored the relationship between energy
efcient homes and occupant health. The majority report energy
efcient homes are associated with health benets [17e24],
although Sharpe and colleagues report higher physician-diagnosed
adult asthma cases among those living in energy efcient dwellings
[25]. A recent meta-analysis by Maidment and colleagues found a
small, but statistically signicant improvement in health associated
with energy efcient housing, but also acknowledge the need for
additional research in this area [26].
Fewer studies to date have included data on air quality, with
somewhat mixed results. Jones et al. compared air quality in one
new and one recently renovated energy efcient housing developments with an existing housing development in Chicago;
although carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, total
volatile organic compounds, and particulate concentrations were
higher in the efcient developments all measurements were well
within recommended IAQ guidelines [22]. Two energy efcient

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.06.021
0360-1323/ 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

332

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

single-family homes in France did not demonstrate any air quality

issues three years post-renovation [27]. Frey et al. measured IAQ
before, during, and after efciency renovations in senior housing in
Arizona; they found signicant decreases in formaldehyde, but not
particulates or other aldehydes [28]. Colton et al. found statistically
signicant reductions in particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, and
nicotine in energy efcient apartments compared to controls [19].
However, the impact of a newer advancement in energy efciency retrots, the deep energy retrot strategy, has not been
thoroughly evaluated in terms of IAQ and health. A recent report
from France found reductions in small particles, radon, and some
volatile organic compounds but increases in other volatile organic
compounds when comparing air quality among seven newly constructed, highly efcient homes with the national averages [29].
This initial work is promising, but limited: more work needs to be
conducted to fully understand the implications of highly efcient
homes on indoor air quality [15,30].
Therefore, the goal for this project was to compare IAQ and
occupant comfort for one year among low-income homes renovated
using Energy Star (ES) and Deep Energy Retrots (DER) renovation
methods. ES renovations generally achieve ~50% reduction in energy
use compared to typical existing houses, whereas DER renovations
typically result in a ~70% reduction compared to typical existing
houses [30,31]. Ventilation requirements for both renovation types
were designed to meet American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards [32]. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in air quality or
comfort between these two types of energy efcient renovations
and that these would be comfortable places to live.
2. Methods
In order to evaluate our hypothesis, we completed a longitudinal
study which assessed indoor air quality and self-reported occupant
comfort comparing homes renovated using either ES (n 6) or DER
(n 6) approaches. Renovation methods were based on existing
Energy Star guidelines [33] and deep energy reduction principles
[34]; these were further adapted for this study as described in detail
previously [35] and summarized in Table 1. Briey, all renovations
incorporated increased insulation, improved thermal barriers and
incorporation of energy efcient appliances; although DER improvements were designed to exceed the efciency of ES homes
(i.e., ACH50 of 5 in ES versus  3 in DER). ES homes used an
exhaust-only ventilation system using continuously running
bathroom fans whereas DER homes used energy recovery ventilators to provide a balanced ventilation system. Both ventilation
systems were designed to meet air exchange requirements
described by ASHRAE 62.2 [32]. Standard furnaces were installed
into ES homes; in contrast, all DER homes had air source heat had

pumps for heating and cooling, with back-up heating systems

specied and provided. In three DER homes the air source heat
pumps were tied to a ducted system; in the other three, the pumps
were used with single point, non-ducted mini-splits.
All twelve homes included in the study were low-income,
approximately 100 year-old single family houses located in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Homes were American Colonial or Bungalows,
detached with 1e2 stories and basements. Cleveland is located on
the southern shore of Lake Erie, which inuences its climate.
Typical outdoor temperatures in Cleveland range from
2.2  C in
January to 23.1  C in July; average annual precipitation is 105.7 cm
and snowfall is 173.0 cm [36]. However, the study period
(2011e2013) was somewhat warmer and had more precipitation
than average; thus, winter heating loads were lighter than normal.
All homes were scheduled to undergo gut renovation to ES
standards by Cleveland Housing Network, a not-for-prot affordable housing developer. Through inclusion in this study six of these
homes were further renovated to DER standards. Assignment of
homes to the more energy efcient DER guidelines was based on
consideration of the feasibility and cost; i.e., smaller homes are
more readily renovated to meet DER standards. Following renovation, homes were available to occupants through a lease-purchase
program where occupants have the option to purchase the home
following 15 years of occupancy.
2.1. Study population and visits
The study was advertised through yers posted at Cleveland
Housing Network's ofce and website. Other homes, also renovated
to ES standards, were available for individuals who did not wish to
participate in the study. Any individual eligible to enter a leasepurchase agreement was eligible to participate in this study.
Eligibility criteria to enter a lease-purchase agreement are based on
housing regulations; these include a low-to-moderate income
requirement as well as nancial and criminal background checks.
Participants signed an informed consent document prior to
enrollment. This study was conducted with approval of the Case
Western Reserve University Institutional Review Board.
Participants completed a baseline questionnaire shortly before
they moved into the study home. A visual inspection of the home
was completed by study staff following renovation but before occupancy. Quarterly follow-up visits were scheduled with participants to ensure that they would be at their homes during the time
of the visit. At each follow-up visit study staff administered a
questionnaire to determine occupant-reported data, completed a
visual inspection of the home to document staff-reported observations, and measured indoor air quality in the living room/foyer,
kitchen, master bedroom, basement, and outside the home. A
timeline of data collection is shown in Fig. 1.

Table 1
Renovation design specications.
Design parameter

Deep energy reduction

Energy star

ACH50
ACH
HERS score
Basement Insulation
Wall insulation
Roof insulation
Thermal barrier
Ventilation type
Furnace type

3
0.2
60
R10 to R20
R23 to R40
R50 to R60
Contiguous alignment of thermal and air barrier
Energy recovery balanced ventilation
Air source heat pump, <40 k Btu; some homes also had
a backup 98% efcient tankless hot water/heat coil system
<12
75

5
0.35
85
R10
R19
R38
Thermal bypass checklist
Whole house exhaust
>90% efcient gas furnace,  40 k Btu

Heating load, Btu/hr/ft2

Reduction of heating load, %

ACH air changes per hour; ACH50 air changes per hour at 50 Pa of pressure; HERS home energy rating system.

<16
50

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

333

Fig. 1. Dates of data collection for each house included in the study. Diamonds indicate Energy Star homes; squares indicate Deep Energy Retrot homes.

Data for each home was collected over a 9e21 month period
(median 18). Baseline data were not included in the present
analysis, as they were collected prior to when participants moved
into these homes. At one study visit, staff found the ventilation
system was malfunctioning. As these data were not representative
of the intended renovation they were excluded from analyses. In
total, up to 63 study visits (ES 38, DER 25) and up to 237
individual-room air quality measurements (ES 144, DER 93)
were used in analyses.
2.2. Data collection
House characteristics were assessed by study staff just after
renovation was completed. A certied home energy assessor
completed the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index and air
tightness tests [37]. The HERS index was developed by Residential
Energy Services Network, a nonprot organization, and is used
widely to assess energy efciency in the United States, including
federal government users such as the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. A score of 100 indicates efciency typical of a
newly-built home; a score of 130 indicates 30% less efciency and a
score of 70 indicates 30% increased efciency [37]. Trained study
staff used portable indoor air quality monitors to measure temperature (T), relative humidity (RH), carbon dioxide (CO2), (TSI VelociCalc 9555 with probe 982; TSI Incorporated; Shoreview, Minnesota)
as well as total volatile organic compounds (tVOCs) (ppbRAE 3000;
RAE Systems; San Jose, California, calibrated with isobutylene).
Range and precision of these measurements were T:
10 to
60  C, 0.3  C; RH: 0e95%, 3%; CO2: 0e5000 ppm, 3%
or 50 ppm; and tVOCs: 1 to 10,000 ppb. Instrumentation was
maintained and calibrated according to manufacturer instructions.
Instruments were placed on top of a short stepladder at an elevation
of four feet and data were collected each second over a 9 min period;
the median value was used as a snapshot of air quality conditions.
Both a participant questionnaire and a staff visual inspection form
were used to collect data during study visits: staff-administered
questionnaires were used to collect self-reported data from participants, whereas inspections reected study staff observations. Both
the questionnaire and visual inspection were modied from those
used previously [38]. Some items, such as whether individuals were
smoking in the home, were included on both the questionnaire and
the inspection. In the questionnaire this was phrased as In the past
three months, has anyone smoked cigarettes, cigars, or pipes inside
your home? whereas in the inspection staff participants were asked
Is there evidence of smoking in the house?

Other data collected via the questionnaire included who was

living in the home, selected activities, and perceived comfort over
the past three month period at every visit. Temporary living arrangements are not unusual for this population: 50% of the
households reported changes in household residents during the
study period. Demographic information collected includes: the
number, age, sex, and race/ethnicity of individuals living in the
home. Family members were categorized into adults (18 years
old) and children (<18 years old). Activities in the home included
presence of pets, use of incense/scented candles or space heaters,
and smoking by residents or visitors. Participants were also asked if
they used space heaters, humidiers, or often left their windows
open. Occupant comfort was assessed by asking the participant a
series of questions to determine how frequently their home was
too hot, too cold, drafty, stuffy, humid, dry, or just
right over the past three months. Responses were recorded as
often, sometimes or rarely. Responses were categorized as
often and sometimes/rarely for analysis.
Trained study staff conducted a visual inspection of the home at
every study visit using a standardized checklist. The assessment
included questions designed to assess signs of ooding, clutter,
pests, pets and smoking at the time of the study visit. Data for
smoking and pets were obtained both from the questionnaire as
well as the visual inspection; for analysis we created one variable
indicating their presence if this was reported either from the
questionnaire or inspection.
2.3. Statistical analysis
All data were analyzed using Stata 13.1 (StataCorp; College
Station, Texas). We used generalized estimating equation (GEE)
models, which account for the correlation within repeated measurements for each home over time and provide estimates of the
average response across all homes [39]. As indoor air quality
measurements were taken in multiple rooms in each home, 2-level
multilevel (mixed) models were also considered to incorporate
repeated measurements over time and multiple measurements per
home; however, between-room variance was extremely small,
indicating that this additional component was not necessary to
describe relationships within the dataset [40].
Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe the crosssectional and longitudinal distributions of each variable. Distributions for CO2 and tVOCs were lognormal; therefore geometric
means are presented in results and regression models were tested
to determine if log-transformed versions of these variables

334

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

Table 2
Mean (95% condence interval) of post-renovation house characteristics.
House characteristic

Deep energy reduction (N 6)

Energy star (N 6)

All (N 12)

Year built
Size of conditioned space (ft2)
HERS score
cfm50 (ft3/minute)
12-month energy use (MM Btu)
12-month energy use/space (MM Btu/ft2)

1905 (1897, 1913)

2260 (2106, 2414)
38.0 (35.0, 41.0)
623 (478, 768)
83.8 (63.0, 104.6)
0.037 (0.027, 0.048)

1912 (1906, 1919)

2428 (2185, 2671)
71.3 (66.6, 76.0)
1658 (1042, 2274)
154.8 (116.6, 193.1)
0.063 (0.052, 0.075)

1909 (1903, 1914)

2344 (2196, 2492)
54.7 (43.3, 66.0)
1141 (683, 1598)
119.3 (87.9, 150.7)
0.050 (0.039, 0.062)

HERS Home Energy Rating Scale; cfm50 airow at a pressure difference of 50 Pa.
Values are mean (95% condence interval). Energy use estimates were based on 12 months of utility bills, adjusted for degree days. Energy use per square foot was calculated
using conditioned space post-renovation. Bold type indicates Fischer's exact test p < 0.05.

provided improved model t. Indoor air quality parameters,

housing characteristics, and family characteristics were compared
with renovation type on a cross-sectional basis using Fisher's exact
tests. Cross-sectional bivariate comparisons of indoor air quality
parameters by room and by calendar month were also assessed. We
additionally created a psychrometric chart to compare observed air
quality with comfort recommendations described in ASHRAE
Standard 55e2013.
Multivariable linear or logistic GEE regression models were
constructed to assess the relationship between renovation type
with indoor air quality parameters (T, RH, CO2, and tVOCs) and selfreported occupant comfort (too hot, too cold, just right). There was
very little between-renovation variability within drafty, stuffy,
humid or dry, so these outcomes were not included in multivariable analyses. We constructed an unadjusted and an adjusted
model which controlled for date/time (cubic spline or linear),
amount of conditioned space (quadratic), temperature

(continuous), relative humidity (continuous), self-reported family

size (continuous), self-reported percentage of males (continuous),
presence of pets (yes/no), presence of smokers (yes/no), use of incense or scented candles (yes/no), self-reported frequency of
opening windows (ordinal: never/sometimes/frequently). All
covariates were time-varying except for the amount of conditioned
space. Use of space heaters, heating and air conditioning were
considered for inclusion, but not included due to the likelihood of
their colinearity with temperature. Results are presented as change
in air quality parameter or odds ratio for self-reported comfort
comparing DER homes to ES homes.
3. Results
Post-renovation home characteristics are presented in Table 2.
There was no signicant difference in home age or size of conditioned space between the two renovation types; however, as

Table 3
Number (percent) of households reporting selected family characteristics and activities, by renovation status.
Family characteristic/activity
Average size of household
2.0e3.0 people
3.1e5.0 people
> 5 people
Average# of adults/household
1.0 adult
1.1e1.9 adults
2.0 adults
> 2.0 adults
Average# of children/household
0.0e1.0 child
1.1 to 2.0 children
2.1 to 3.0 children
> 3 children
Average % males/household
8.0%e25.0%
25.1%e40.0%
40.1%e50.0%
> 50%
Used incense/scented candles
Never reported, N (%)
Sometimes reported, N (%)
Always reported, N (%)
Pet present
Never reported, N (%)
Sometimes reported, N (%)
Always reported, N (%)
Smoking occurred in home
Never reported, N (%)
Sometimes reported, N (%)
Always reported, N (%)
Windows open
Never reported, N (%)
Sometimes reported, N (%)
Always reported, N (%)

Deep energy reduction (N 6)

Energy star (N 6)

All (N 12)

4 (66.7)
0 (0.0)
2 (33.3)

2 (33.3)
4 (66.7)
0 (0.0)

6 (50.0)
4 (33.3)
2 (16.7)

5
0
0
1

(83.3)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(16.7)

2
3
1
0

(33.3)
(50.0)
(16.7)
(0.0)

7
3
1
1

(58.3)
(25.0)
(8.3)
(8.3)

0
5
0
1

(0.0)
(83.3)
(0.0)
(16.7)

1
1
3
1

(16.7)
(16.7)
(50.0)
(16.7)

1
6
3
2

(8.3)
(50.0)
(25.0)
(16.7)

2
2
1
1

(33.3)
(33.3)
(16.7)
(16.7)

2
1
3
0

(33.3)
(16.7)
(50.0)
(0.0)

4
3
4
1

(33.3)
(25.0)
(33.3)
(8.3)

0 (0.0)
4 (66.7)
2 (33.3)

1 (16.7)
4 (66.7)
1 (16.7)

1 (8.3)
8 (66.7)
3 (25.0)

2 (33.3)
1 (16.7)
3 (50.0)

4 (66.7)
2 (33.3)
0 (0.0)

6 (50.0)
3 (25.0)
3 (25.0)

2 (33.3)
2 (33.3)
2 (33.3)

1 (16.7)
3 (50.0)
2 (33.3)

3 (25.0)
5 (41.7)
4 (33.3)

0 (0.0)
4 (66.7)
2 (33.3)

0 (0.0)
4 (66.7)
2 (33.3)

0 (0.0)
8 (66.7)
4 (33.3)

Data include multiple study visits per house. All values are reported by study participant except for have pet and smoker present which were classied as yes if reported by
participant or observed by study staff. Smokers were either household members or household visitors.

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

335

expected given that smaller homes were preferentially assigned to

the DER arm of the study, the point estimates for size indicate the
DER homes were somewhat smaller. There are fewer observations
for DER homes compared to ES homes, likely because it took longer
to complete the more comprehensive renovations in DER homes as
well as the fact that DER participants were more likely to be lost to
follow-up compared to participants living in ER homes. DER homes,
on average, had a 33.3 lower HERS index score, 1035 lower cubic
feet/minute airow at a difference of 50 Pascale (cfm50) [35], and
used 71 MM Btu less energy over a 12-month period versus ES
homes, conrming that DER homes were substantially more energy
efcient.
Family characteristics and activities are reported in Table 3. We
did not observe any signicant differences in these characteristics
by renovation type. All of the families in the study were African
American; the majority were female, single-parent families.
3.1. Indoor air quality
The median and range of the 237 indoor air quality measurements including all homes were T: 23.0  C (range: 15.2, 27.9), RH:
47.1% (22.0, 77.5), CO2: 716 ppm (476, 2284), and tVOCs: 346 ppb (0,
3279). A cross-sectional description of indoor air quality parameters stratied by renovation type, room, and calendar month, is
shown in Fig. 2. There was little difference in air quality parameters
by room type. Temperature and relative humidity varied by season,
with higher measurements occurring during the summer.
Results from multivariable GEE models are presented in Table 4.
We did not observe any difference in T, RH, or tVOCs between
homes of different renovation types for any model. For CO2, we
observed a borderline signicant increase in the unadjusted model
but these changes were attenuated in the adjusted model.
3.2. Occupant comfort
A cross-sectional depiction of self-reported occupant comfort is
shown in Fig. 3. Overall, families generally reported favorably
regarding household conditions: 60.3% reported that their home as
often just right during the past three months. With regards to less
favorable conditions, 19.4% reported their homes were often too
hot; 14.4% too cold; 5.1% too drafty; 4.9% too stuffy and 6.6% too dry.
There were no reports of homes being too humid. In the crosssectional analysis, those in DER homes were more likely to report
that their homes were too cold, and less likely to report that their
homes were too hot or just right.
This is consistent with the results from the multivariable GEE
models reported in Table 5. In these, participants living in DER
homes were 85% less likely (95% condence interval: 41%, 96%) to
report that their home was just right. These results are also
consistent with our measurements for temperature: the lowest
temperatures we recorded were from DER homes.
Temperature and associated relative humidity measurements
were plotted on a psychrometric chart (Fig. 4). Roughly 47 observations, or 19.8%, fall outside of the graphical comfort zone as
dened by ASHRAE Standard 55. The majority (n 34, 14.3%)
suggest cold conditions; most often recorded in the living room.
4. Discussion
We renovated 12 low-income homes to an Energy Star or Deep
Energy Retrot energy efciency standard and followed residents
to assess indoor air quality and resident comfort for up to 24
months post-renovation. In models adjusted for both housing
characteristics and resident activities, we did not observe any statistically signicant difference in indoor air quality between the

Fig. 2. Geometric mean and 95% condence interval for temperature (C) (n
observations 237), relative humidity (%) (n 237), carbon dioxide (ppm) (n 237)
and total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (ppb) (n 201); stratied by renovation
type, room, and month. ES energy star; DER deep energy reduction; LR living
room; KI kitchen; BR master bedroom; BA basement.

Table 4
Average difference (95% condence interval) for indoor air quality parameters in
DER compared to ES homes.
IAQ parameter

Unadjusted

Adjusted

Temperature, C
Relative humidity, %
Carbon dioxide, ppm
Total VOCs, ppb

237
237
237
201

0.80 (
1.88, 0.29)

1.50 (
1.42, 4.42)
71.4 (
7.5, 150.2)
224 (
140, 587)

0.30 (
1.21, 0.61)

0.38 (
1.08, 1.83)
43.7 (
18.8, 106.2)
198 (
224, 620)

CI condence interval; C Celsius; CO2 carbon dioxide; tVOC total volatile

organic compounds. Models are linear generalized estimating equations (GEE) accounting for correlation within homes; carbon monoxide uses a logistic function.
Models include observations from 12 houses, including multiple visits and measurements from multiple rooms. Covariates were included as time-varying covariates (assessed at every visit) with the exception of the amount of conditioned
space. Adjusted models controlled for date (cubic spline), amount of conditioned
space (quadratic), temperature (except for the temperature model), and relative
humidity (except for the relative humidity model), family size, proportion male,
presence of pets, presence of smokers, using incense/scented candles, and having
windows open. Italic type indicates p < 0.10, likelihood ratio test.

336

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

Fig. 3. Mean and 95% condence interval for the percent reporting a specic comfort parameter, stratied by renovation type. N varies from 59e63 due to missing values.

Table 5
Odds ratio (95% CI) for self-reported comfort in DER compared to ES homes.
Comfort parameter

Unadjusted

Adjusted

Too hot
Too cold
Just right

61
62
62

0.24 (0.05, 1.08)

3.43 (0.89, 13.17)
0.30 (0.07, 1.40)

0.14 (0.01, 1.63)

2.74 (0.46, 16.24)
0.15 (0.04, 0.59)

Models are generalized estimating equations (GEE) accounting for correlation

within homes, using a logistic function. Families living in 12 homes were included;
multiple visits were included in the dataset. Covariates are included as time-varying
covariates (assessed at every visit) with the exception of the amount of conditioned
space. Bold type indicates p < 0.05 and italic type indicates p < 0.10, likelihood ratio
test. Adjusted model controls for date, amount of conditioned space (quadratic),
temperature, and relative humidity, household size, proportion male, presence of
pets, presence of smokers, and using incense/scented candles and frequently having
windows open.

Fig. 4. Psychrometric chart depicting 237 observations of comfort conditions in Energy

Star (N 144; light blue circles) and Deep Energy Reduction (N 93; dark blue
squares) homes. Winter and summer comfort zones, dened by ASHRAE Standard 55,
are located within the green parallelogram. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

different renovation types. However, residents in the more highly

energy efcient homes were signicantly less likely to report that
the comfort of their home was just right.
On average, indoor CO, CO2, T, and RH concentrations were
consistent with or lower than published guidelines [32,41]; we
could not compare tVOCs with these guidelines, as the guidelines
exist for separate volatile organic compounds. Although on average

parameters met generally accepted standards for indoor air quality,

we did observe a few measurements of elevated tVOCs and reduced
temperatures. Some individual measurements of tVOCs were substantially higher than the median value; this frequently correlated
with a staff observation of some activity (such as use of air fresheners immediately prior to the study visit) that could result in the
introduction of VOCs into the home. Other studies have also reported elevated concentrations of some VOCs following renovations for energy efciency [29,42].
Some measurements for temperature in this study were lower
than recommended values. Notably, the majority of these were only
recorded in one room but not the other rooms: there were only 5
out of 62 study visits where cold conditions were reported in
multiple rooms within a single house. A recent literature survey of
factors which contribute to occupant comfort concluded that
providing occupants' control of the indoor environment was
important; additionally thermal comfort took precedence over visual comfort, acoustic comfort, or IAQ [43]. This is consistent with
the discomfort reported by our participants on some occasions. We
did investigate the causes of these colder temperatures; issues
relating to this were addressed and are discussed in more detail
below.
Several environmental health studies on energy efcient retrots have focused on measures of health [18e26] or housing conditions other than indoor air quality [20,23]. Although our results
are not directly comparable to these studies, the fact that the majority of our measured air quality concentrations met published air
quality guidelines is consistent with these reports. Our results are
also consistent with studies which directly report air quality concentrations [19,22,29]. Energy efcient housing developments in
Chicago were reported to have higher 24 h CO2 (839 and 777 ppm
vs. 635 ppm in controls), CO (0.43 and 0.44 ppm vs. 0.31 ppm in
controls), and tVOCs (93 and 64 ppb vs. 47 in controls) [22]. Our
estimates for CO2 were similar to this study, although we observed
substantially higher tVOC concentration; overall though, the
observation that more efcient homes had slightly higher pollutant
concentrations reects our observations. Colton et al. followed
residents in multifamily public housing in Boston; some residents
moved to energy efcient buildings and others moved to conventional buildings [19]. They reported that median CO2 in energy
efcient buildings was 1208 ppm, which is comparable with our
observations. Additionally, they also report a non-statistically signicant increase in CO2 in energy efcient vs. conventional buildings [19], which is similar to our ndings of a non-statistically
signicant increase in DER homes compared to ES homes. In a
different study, Derbez et al. measured air quality during summer

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

and winter seasons within seven newly-built, highly energy efcient homes in France; energy efciency gains were similar to DER
homes in our study [29]. Their reported median temperature
(20.3e25.7  C, summer; 19e21.6  C, winter), relative humidity
(45e58%, summer; 29e34% winter), and carbon dioxide concentrations (351e811 ppm) are similar to our observations, including
increased T and RH concentrations during summer months [29].
After reviewing staff notes as well as measured indoor air
quality parameters, it seems likely that the reported occupant
discomfort with temperature in DER homes may be related to
initial difculties with incorporating new heating system technology. As noted earlier, half of the DER homes used unducted minisplit heat pumps. These unducted heat pumps do not operate in
the same manner as conventional heaters: it takes a longer period
for a temperate adjustment on the thermostat to result in changed
conditions within the house. Additionally, backup heating systems
were not always installed or working correctly. It is possible that a
lack of familiarity with installation or maintenance personnel as
well as participants resulted in incomplete installation and/or use
of this technology, which could result in colder houses or houses
with more temperature variability.
On several occasions study staff identied problems with the
installation or operation of these units, which were immediately
corrected. To further investigate whether this may have been the
source of the discomfort reported by residents we conducted a
post-hoc analysis by rerunning models from Table 5 while
excluding homes that solely relied on the mini-splits and found no
difference in perceived comfort between the DER and ES homes
(data not shown). Difculty in achieving energy savings or indoor
air quality goals due to a lack of education regarding new technology has been reported previously [29,44]. Walker et al. undertook an education intervention among residents in newly
renovated energy efcient units, and recommended that future
efforts include tailored education for residents and improved
oversight to ensure proper installation of equipment [44]; importance of training methodology was also emphasized elsewhere
[45]. Our staff incorporated informal training during the home visual inspections and discussed an informational pamphlet with
participants. However, it is possible that these efforts could have
been better tailored for our study population.
A limitation of this design is that we were not able to collect
robust data on occupant health; therefore a health evaluation was
not included in this analysis. We also do not have any measurements from the housing previously occupied by our participants, or
from houses that did not undergo an intervention. This does not
affect the internal validity of this study. However, our data should
be interpreted accordingly as comparisons between two types of
energy efciency renovations as opposed to comparing energy
efcient homes with standard housing. The relatively short period
each observation represents (<10 min) is another weakness of this
research; the brevity of this measurements limits our capacity to
extrapolate results to other dates and times of day. As a result, our
results should be interpreted as initial evidence which recommends the value of a similar study with a larger sample size and
increased time period of air sample collection.
This study has several strengths, including a multidisciplinary
research group and a focus on older, affordable single family
housing. The expense of conducting these renovations limits the
number of homes that can be included in studies of this type;
however, our longitudinal study design with repeated measurements in each home allowed us to collect a sufcient quantity of
data for statistical analyses. We also obtained time-varying data on
household characteristics in addition to indoor air quality, and had
more frequent follow-up visits than other studies. However,
perhaps the main strength of the study is its focus on the impact of

337

DER renovations in the context of affordable housing; these result

in greater energy efciency than more commonly used ES or similar
guidelines and demonstrate that this energy use reduction can be
accomplished within a low-income population.
In conclusion, we found no differences in indoor air quality
between DER and ES homes. Our results suggest that it may be
possible to achieve greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
via residential energy efciency renovations without degrading
indoor air quality; however this should be conrmed in larger
studies. Our results also suggest that careful attention should be
paid to ensure sufcient education of installation and maintenance
personnel as well as occupants, particularly when incorporating
novel technology or systems.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank William Hutzel, Mike Piepsny,
Fatima Allen, Akbar Tyler, Debrah Mohammed, George Trappe, Jody
Lavrich, Kate Monter-Durban, Jim Todt and Linda Wigington for
their contributions to this research. This study was supported by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grant# OHLHH0203-09 and a
grant from the Cleveland Foundation. The Mary Ann Swetland
Center for Environmental Health also provided partial support
(EMW; DGD).
References
[1] P. Wilkinson, K.R. Smith, M. Davies, H. Adair, B.G. Armstrong, M. Barrett, et al.,
Public health benets of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions:
household energy, Lancet 374 (2009) 1917e1929.
[2] L. Perez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, C. Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption
information, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 394e398.
[3] A. Bone, V. Murray, I. Myers, A. Dengel, D. Crump, Will drivers for home energy
efciency harm occupant health? Perspect. Public Health 130 (2010) 233e238.
[4] A.P. Jones, Indoor air quality and health, Atmos. Environ. 33 (1999)
4535e4564.
[5] C.S. Mitchell, J.J. Zhang, T. Sigsgaard, M. Jantunen, P.J. Lioy, R. Samson, et al.,
Current state of the science: health effects and indoor environmental quality,
Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2007) 958e964.
[6] J.M. Samet, J.D. Spengler, Indoor environments and health: moving into the
21st century, Am. J. Public Health 93 (2003) 1489e1493.
[7] P.N. Breysse, G.B. Diette, E.C. Matsui, A.M. Butz, N.N. Hansel, M.C. McCormack,
Indoor air pollution and asthma in children, Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 7 (2010)
102e106.
[8] R.J. Levy, Carbon monoxide pollution and neuro development: a public health
concern, Neurotox. Teratol. 49 (2015) 31e40.
[9] F. Wu, D. Jacobs, C. Mitchell, D. Miller, M.H. Karol, Improving indoor environmental quality for public health: impediments and policy recommendations, Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2007) 953e957.
[10] I. Hamilton, J. Milner, Z. Chalabi, P. Das, B. Jones, C. Shrubsole, et al., Health
effects of home energy efciency interventions in England: a modelling study,
BMJ Open 5 (2015) e007298.
[11] J. Milner, C. Shrubsole, P. Das, B. Jones, I. Ridley, Z. Chalabi, et al., Home energy
efciency and radon related risk of lung cancer: modelling study, BMJ 348
(2014) f7493.
[12] J.I. Levy, Y. Nishioka, J.D. Spengler, The public health benets of insulation
retrots in existing housing in the United States, Environ. Health 2 (2003) 4.
[13] S.G. Howieson, T. Sharpe, P. Farren, Building tight - ventilating right? How are
new air tightness standards affecting indoor air quality in dwellings? Build.
Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 35 (2014) 475e487.
[14] A. Lubeck, F. Conlin, Efciency and comfort through deep energy retrots:
balancing energy and moisture management, J. Green. Build. 5 (2010) 3e15.
[15] D. Crump, A. Dengel, M. Swainson, Indoor Air Quality in Highly Energy Efcient Homes e a Review, NHBC Foundation, Amersham, England, 2009.
[16] T.L. Hemsath, A. Walburn, A. Jameton, M. Gulsvig, A review of possible health
concerns associated with zero net energy homes, J. House. Built Environ. 27
(2012) 389e400.
[17] J. Breysse, S.L. Dixon, D.E. Jacobs, J. Lopez, W. Weber, Self-reported health
outcomes associated with green-renovated public housing among primarily
elderly residents, J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 21 (4) (2015 JuleAug)
355e367, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000199 details at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25679773.
[18] J. Breysse, D.E. Jacobs, W. Weber, S. Dixon, C. Kawecki, S. Aceti, et al., Health
outcomes and green renovation of affordable housing, Public Health Rep. 126
(Suppl. 1) (2011) 64e75.

338

E.M. Wells et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 331e338

[19] M.D. Colton, P. MacNaughton, J. Vallarino, J. Kane, M. Bennett-Fripp,

J.D. Spengler, et al., Indoor air quality in green vs conventional multifamily
low-income housing, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (2014) 7833e7841.
[20] E. Garland, E.T. Steenburgh, S.H. Sanchez, A. Geevarughese, L. Bluestone,
L. Rothenberg, et al., Impact of LEED-certied affordable housing on asthma in
the South Bronx, Prog. Community Health Partnersh. 7 (2013) 29e37.
[21] P. Howden-Chapman, J. Crane, R. Chapman, G. Fougere, Improving health and
energy efciency through community-based housing interventions, Int. J.
Public Health 56 (2011) 583e588.
[22] D.E. Jacobs, E. Ahonen, S.L. Dixon, S. Dorevitch, J. Breysse, J. Smith, et al.,
Moving Into Green Healthy Housing, J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 21 (4)
(2015 JuleAug) 345e354, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000047
details at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24378632.
[23] D.E. Jacobs, J. Breysse, S.L. Dixon, S. Aceti, C. Kawecki, M. James, et al., Health
and housing outcomes from green renovation of low-income housing in
Washington, DC, J. Environ. Health 76 (2014) 8e16 quiz 60.
[24] J.A. Leech, M. Raizenne, J. Gusdorf, Health in occupants of energy efcient new
homes, Indoor Air 14 (2004) 169e173.
[25] R.A. Sharpe, C.R. Thornton, V. Nikolaou, N.J. Osborne, Higher energy efcient
homes are associated with increased risk of doctor diagnosed asthma in a UK
subpopulation, Environ. Int. 75 (2015) 234e244.
[26] C.D. Maidment, C.R. Jones, T.L. Webb, E.A. Hathway, J.M. Gilbertson, The
impact of household energy efciency measures on health: A meta-analysis,
Energy Policy 65 (2014) 583e593.
[27] M. Derbez, B. Berthineau, V. Cochet, C. Pignon, J. Riberon, G. Wyart, et al., A 3year follow-up of indoor air quality and comfort in two energy-efcient
houses, Build. Environ. 82 (2014) 288e299.
[28] S.E. Frey, H. Destaillats, S. Cohn, S. Ahrentzen, M.P. Fraser, The effects of an
energy efciency retrot on indoor air quality, Indoor Air 25 (2015) 210e219.
[29] M. Derbez, B. Berthineau, V. Cochet, M. Lethrosne, C. Pignon, J. Riberon, et al.,
Indoor air quality and comfort in seven newly built, energy-efcient houses in
France, Build. Environ. 72 (2014) 173e187.
[30] R. Cluett, J. Amann, Residential Deep Energy Retrots, American Council for an
Energy-Efcient Economy, Washington, D.C., 2014. Available at: http://aceee.
org/research-report/a1401 (accessed 24.06.15).
[31] P. Freitag, J. Cuevas, Enterprise green Communities Criteria Project Management Guide, Enterprise Green Communities, New York City, NY, USA, 2012.
Available
at:
http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/servlet/servlet.
FileDownload?le00Pa000000HAKcjEAH (accessed 24.06.15).
[32] ASHRAE, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, American Society of

[33]
[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]
[38]

[39]
[40]
[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]
[45]

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE, Atlanta),

GA, 2010.
US Environmental Protectin Agency, Energy Star for Homes Version 2
Guidelines, US Environmental Protection Agency,, Washington, DC, 2014.
Thousand Home Challenge, Thousand Home Challenge: Resources, 2014.
Available at: http://www.thousandhomechallenge.com/resources (accessed
17.10.14).
M. Berges, M. Metcalf, Lessons learned on energy-efcient affordable housing:
practical insights on combining deep energy retrots with affordable housing
for 12 Cleveland homes, J. Light Constr. (2013) 55e63.
United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cleveland,
Ohio Climate Information, United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2015. Available at: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/cle/climate/cle/
climatecle.html (accessed 14.05.15).
Residential Energy Services Network, Residential Energy Services Network,
2014. Available at: http://www.resnet.us (accessed 14.05.15).
C.M. Kercsmar, D.G. Dearborn, M. Schluchter, L. Xue, H.L. Kirchner,
J. Sobolewski, et al., Reduction in asthma morbidity in children as a result of
home remediation aimed at moisture sources, Environ. Health Perspect. 114
(2006) 1574e1580.
S.L. Zeger, K.Y. Liang, Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous
outcomes, Biometrics 42 (1986) 121e130.
P.J. Diggle, P.H. Heagerty, K.Y. Liang, S.L. Zeger, Analysis of Longitudinal Data,
Oxford University Press, Norfolk, UK, 2002.
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Indoor Air Quality in
Commercial and Institutional Buildings, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/
Publications/3430indoor-air-quality-sm.pdf (accessed 24.06.15).
H.H. Liang, C.P. Chen, R.L. Hwang, W.M. Shih, S.C. Lo, H.Y. Liao, Satisfaction of
occupants toward indoor environment quality of certied green ofce
buildings in Taiwan, Build. Environ. 72 (2014) 232e242.
M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors inuence human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (2011)
922e937.
S.L. Walker, D. Lowery, K. Theobald, Low-carbon retrots in social housing:
Interaction with occupant behaviour, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2 (2014) 102e114.
J.K. Day, D.E. Gunderson, Understanding high performance buildings: The link
between occupant knowledge of passive design systems, corresponding behaviors, occupant comfort and environmental satisfaction, Build. Environ. 84
(2015) 114e124.