IndOOr Air Quality: Materials Selection
HEALTHCARE - TOP 5 GREEN BUILDING STRATEGIES
EPA Publication 909-F-07-001
What? Building materials can have a major impact on air quality and can affect
occupants, especially sensitive ones including children, the elderly, and patients
who are immunocompromised or have respiratory problems. Careful selection of
materials along with proper ventilation, operation, and maintenance can improve
air quality.
Why? Enhanced Community Reputation:
Improves indoor air quality and
promotes community awareness
Enhances reputation as caring facility
Better air quality attracts patients
and helps recruit and retain staff
Environmental /Staff/Patient
Benefit:
Provides healthy surroundings for
patients, workers, and visitors
Supports "Primum non nocere" ("First
do no harm")
Often requires less cleaning
chemicals
Cost Competitive:
Initial cost often offset by reduced
maintenance
How?
Less use of finished surfaces can reduce costs
Minimize the need for surface coatings
Meet low emission standard (low VOC): LEED, regulatory agencies, or labeling
organizations
Collect air quality data during commissioning and occupancy
Case
Studies
Emory University
University of Florida
Kaiser Permanente
Discovery Health Center
Green Guide for Health Care (GGHC) Criteria: Construction: Environmental Quality and Operations:
Integrated Operations www.gghc.org
This is one of 5 Building Healthy Hospitals case studies developed by EPA's Pacific Southwest Regional Office,
with Resource Conservation Challenge and Pollution Prevention funds.
www.epa.qov/reqion09/waste/p2/pro1ects/hospart.html
Indoor Air Sustainable Flooring Process Water Efficiency Lighting Efficiency Energy Efficiency
Building Healthy Hospitals 1
This fact sheet was produced by EPA's Pacif c Southwest Regional Office. Mention of trade names, products, or serv ces does not
convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying off cial EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.
Printed on 100% recycled paper, 50% post-consumer content - process chlorine-free
2007
~
-------
IndOOr Air Quality: Materials Selection
HEALTHCARE - TOP 5 GREEN BUILDING STRATEGIES
CASE STUDY: LOW-VOC MATERIAL SELECTION
Applicability: New construction, major renovation, or remodeling
projects.
Environmental Not quantified.
Impact:
Other Benefits: Not quantified.
Background
Many healthcare construction projects, including many of the case studies profiles here,
incorporate interior finishes and products characterized as "reduced or non-toxic," low-VOC
or PVC-free. After flooring (see Strategy #3), most of the focus for low-VOC product
selection falls on products applied in liquid form that cover, adhere, or seal interior surfaces.
All of the healthcare facilities completed their analysis and selection of these materials
based on the intuitive assumption that they will reduce exposure to occupants to potentially
dangerous or harmful chemicals. At the same time, the facilities have collected scant
empirical data documenting any actual difference or benefit following the initial construction
and commissioning phase. While this lack of data likely leads to underestimating benefits,
most healthcare organizations proceed as part of "green building" initiatives and out of
concern for people involved in building construction.
Discover Health Center, Emory University and the University of Florida pursued IAQ credits
to achieve LEED certification and in so doing considered a broad spectrum of materials when
selecting low-VOC materials, including:
Adhesives Sealants
Caulk Coating
Finish Paints
In addition, Kaiser is developing specifications that eliminate harmful chemicals from entire
categories of building materials including moldings and paints to add to their efforts with
more sustainable carpet specifications.
Performance
Discovery Health Center: Discovery specified and installed low-VOC and "low-toxicity"
finishes, including paints, stains, cabinetwork, sealers, and adhesives, but did not collect
data on any potential benefits during construction or after installation.
University of Florida: The Orthopedic Center used low-VOC interior finishes, mainly focusing
on paints and adhesives and used the LEED standards as guidance. Though staff (building
Building Healthy Hospitals 200?
An EPA P2 Project 2
-------
IndOOr Air Quality: Materials Selection
HEALTHCARE - TOP 5 GREEN BUILDING STRATEGIES
management and janitorial) are generally positive about the products, the University of
Florida has not collected additional data on potential benefits.
Emory Winship Cancer Institute: Emory specified low-VOC adhesives, sealants, paints, and
carpets be used throughout the Winship Cancer Institute. Post-construction commissioning
analysis did not include air monitoring for chemical contaminants. Defining "low-VOC" for
each product type was dictated by the LEED criteria. In many cases, LEED references
standards specific to the product type and defined by its respective industry association (see
Exhibit 1). For example, the carpet used in the Winship Cancer Institute met
the requirements of the Carpet & Rug Institute's (CRI) Green Label Indoor Air Quality Test
Program. CRI's Green Label indicates that the manufacturer participates in a voluntarily
program to test products to ensure it meets established requirements that define the lowest
emitting interior products on the market. Specifications for other product categories are
evolving and
EXHIBIT 1 | SUMMARY OF LOW-VOC BUILDING MATERIALS
Material
Applicable Low-VOC Standard
Cost Premium
Adhesives used for all
finishing applications.
California Air Resources Board (CARB): 15%
current; 1.5% proposed
Carpeted flooring
installed throughout the
facility.
Carpet and Rug Institutes Green Label Indoor Air
Quality Test Program.
Total VOC <0.5 mg/m3
4 -Phenylcyclohexene) <0.05 mg/m3
Formaldehyde (to prove that none is used)
<0.05 mg/m3
Styrene <0.4 mg/m3
Caulk applied to tile, wall
and flooring seams, and
other applications.
CARB: 4.0 % currently, 0.5% proposed
Green Guard (www.greenguard.org) Environmental
Institutedo testing for all interior finishing
products
Finish applied to
woodwork, casing, and
other applications.
5 to 20%
10-20% initially, but
depending on the type
can yield significantly
cost savings over
useful life
5 to 20%
10-50% (but
increasingly commonly
available and cost
competitive)
Building Healthy Hospitals
An EPA P2 Project
2007
-------
IndOOr Air Quality: Materials Selection
HEALTHCARE - TOP 5 GREEN BUILDING STRATEGIES
EXHIBIT 1 | SUMMARY OF LOW-VOC BUILDING MATERIALS
Material
Applicable Low-VOC Standard
Cost Premium
Interior paints used for
walls, fixtures, and other
applications.
Green Seal: Interior <50 grams/liter
GreenGuard:
Individual VOCs<0.1 TLV (Threshold Limit Value)*
Formaldehyde <0.05 ppm
Styrene <0.07 mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)
Total VOCs <0.5 mg/m3
Total aldehydes <0.1 ppm
US EPA: Zero-VOC <5 grams/liter
Minimally more costly;
paint quality is primary
cost factor
Sealants
CARB: 4.0 % currently, 0.5% proposed
20-50% (but
increasingly commonly
available and cost
competitive)
Note: The Green Guide for Healthcare contains a good summary of more stringent and emergent
standards, http://www.qqhc.org/
The application of low-VOC products is in many instances identical to that of standard
products. Based on their experience applying and maintaining low-VOC products, Emory
University and the University of Florida have noted the following:
Color Availability. Emory indicated that very low-VOC and no-VOC paints are not
as widely available in dark or vibrant colors.
Application. Low and No-VOCs paint can be applied in nearly the same way as
conventional, high-VOC paints. Both Emory and University of Florida maintenance
staffs indicated that low-VOC paints are thinner than standard paints and require an
additional coat for complete coverage. The Emory construction manager stated that
use of low-VOC sealants had a "significant impact on indoor quality, primarily during
construction, but the impact after construction was not as significant."
Waste Management. Low-VOC and no-VOC paints are not considered hazardous
waste materials, so disposal is much easier than with standard paints.
Cost
All of the organizations specified low-VOC building materials where they were available and
did not conduct a cost/benefit analysis or cost comparison with more conventional choices
where a low-VOC option existed. In the absence of empirical data on cost comparisons, the
Building Healthy Hospitals 200?
An EPA P2 Project 4
-------
IndOOr Air Quality: Materials Selection
HEALTHCARE - TOP 5 GREEN BUILDING STRATEGIES
facilities estimated from 5-15% higher initial costs for the low-VOC alternatives depending
on the product, but no higher than a 10% overall increase in initial costs of the building for
specifying low-VOC materials. In fact, most cited a lower overall cost of interior finishes as
a result of minimizing the need for paints and finishes from other sustainable material
choices (e.g., natural products like linoleum, concrete, steel, and wood).
Case Study Vitals
The following summarize success criteria for implementing this project at other healthcare
facilities:
Low-VOC products are widely available and increasing available for all interior finish
products; specifications are product category-specific (e.g., different acceptable
levels for adhesives versus paints).
Specifying low-VOC materials should begin with design of underlying materials to
minimize the need for finishes.
Facilities select and specify low-VOC materials based on their assumed effect during
construction and do not measure benefits past the commissioning stage.
Building Healthy Hospitals 200?
An EPA P2 Project 5
------- |