297

views

Comment

recommends

Review: found

Is Open Access

Review of 'Achieving a healthy indoor environment by using an emissions barrier for stopping spread of chemicals from building into the indoor air'

Reviewer: Pawel Markowicz

Inviter role(s): EDITOR

Publication date of review: 2021-11-21

Bookmark

Pawel Markowicz5

Achieving a healthy indoor environment by using an emissions barrier for stopping spread of chemicals from building into the indoor airCrossref ScienceOpen

The article provides details of cTrap installation

Average rating:	    Rated 5 of 5.
Level of importance:	    Rated 5 of 5.
Level of validity:	    Rated 5 of 5.
Level of completeness:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:	    Rated 5 of 5.
Competing interests:	None

Reviewed article

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Achieving a healthy indoor environment by using an emissions barrier for stopping spread of chemicals from building into the indoor air

Johan Mattsson, Lennart Larsson (2021)

An emissions barrier was used in premises with indoor air complaints due to emissions from the buildings in question. The emissions comprised chlorophenols/chloroanisoles and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from treated wood, and volatile organic compounds (VOC), mainly 2-ethylhexanol, from PVC flooring and the glue used to paste the flooring onto a concrete slab. Attaching the barrier at the surfaces from where the emissions were spread (floor, walls, ceiling) resulted in a fresh and odour-free indoor air. We conclude that using an emissions barrier in buildings made unhealthy by moisture is an efficient way of restoring a pleasant and healthy indoor air.

2 comments Cited 0 times – based on 0 reviews

Preprint version 1

     Review now

Bookmark

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ARCH.AV5ARZ.v1.RKLEGY

License:

This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

ScienceOpen disciplines: Materials technology,Historic preservation,Civil engineering,Public health

Keywords: Pollution and health,Healthy buildings,Sustainability in architecture and the built environment,Adsorbent,People and their environment,Emissions barrier,Sustainability,Restoration

Review text

Introduction:

Airborne particles released from the building construction may be removed by using portable air cleaners with mechanical air filtration (HEPA etc) - Please provide HEPA abbreviation for the clarification.

Results 1st installation:

Also, the mouldy odour disappeared in the bedroom following the cTrap installation. Is that a personal statement of the authors? If yes, please indicate that in the paragraph.

General comment: Please keep air concentration unites consistant with the table 1 (µg/m³ not µg/m3). All air concentration unites should ideally be presented or as per ng or µg /m³ for consistency.

Results: 2nd installation:

There was a disturbing smell inside the building which persisted even after the tar had been removed. If possible, please provide more information about a smell.

Table 1:

a) n.d. for chloroanisoles. Please provide the abbreviation of n.d. If not detected, please provide a limit of detection (LOD) for this compound.

b) The unit of µg/m³ is not applicable for the 'emmisions' table row but for 'without cTrap' and ' with cTrap' rows. Please modify it for the clarification.

References

Kolarik, J., and Wargocki P. (2010). Can a photocatalytic air purifier be used to improve the perceived air quality indoors? Indoor Air 20, 255-262. Markowicz, P. and Larsson, L. (2012). The surface emissions trap: A new approach in indoor air purification. J. Microbiol. Methods 91, 290-294.\

Please separate both references

Comments

Pawel Markowicz wrote:

I have no further comments, review has been completed.

2022-01-16 20:59 UTC

One person recommends this

Johan Mattsson wrote:

Introduction:

Results 1st installation:

Also, the mouldy odour disappeared in the bedroom following the cTrap installation. Is that a personal statement of the authors? If yes, please indicate that in the paragraph. Has been clarified

Results: 2nd installation:

There was a disturbing smell inside the building which persisted even after the tar had been removed. If possible, please provide more information about a smell. Has been done

Table 1:

a) n.d. for chloroanisoles. Please provide the abbreviation of n.d. If not detected, please provide a limit of detection (LOD) for this compound. Information has been added

b) The unit of µg/m³ is not applicable for the 'emmisions' table row but for 'without cTrap' and ' with cTrap' rows. Please modify it for the clarification. Has been corrected

References

Please separate both references Has been done

2022-01-14 06:19 UTC

Pawel Markowicz wrote:

Introduction:

Results 1st installation:

Also, the mouldy odour disappeared in the bedroom following the cTrap installation. Is that a personal statement of the authors? If yes, please indicate that in the paragraph.

Results: 2nd installation:

There was a disturbing smell inside the building which persisted even after the tar had been removed. If possible, please provide more information about a smell.

Table 1:

a) n.d. for chloroanisoles. Please provide the abbreviation of n.d. If not detected, please provide a limit of detection (LOD) for this compound.

b) The unit of µg/m³ is not applicable for the 'emmisions' table row but for 'without cTrap' and ' with cTrap' rows. Please modify it for the clarification.

References

Please separate both references

2021-11-21 22:25 UTC

One person recommends this