Indoor air concentrations are susceptible to temporal and spatial variations and have long posed a challenge to characterize for vapor intrusion scientists, in part, because there was a lack of evidence to draw conclusions about the role that building and weather conditions played in altering vapor intrusion exposure risks. Importantly, a large body of evidence is available within the building science discipline that provides information to support vapor intrusion scientists in drawing connections about fate and transport processes that influence exposure risks. Modeling tools developed within the building sciences provide evidence of reported temporal and spatial variation of indoor air contaminant concentrations. In addition, these modeling tools can be useful by calculating building air exchange rates (AERs) using building specific features. Combining building science models with vapor intrusion models, new insight to facilitate decision-making by estimating indoor air concentrations and building ventilation conditions under various conditions can be gained. This review highlights existing building science research and summarizes the utility of building science models to improve vapor intrusion exposure risk assessments.
Funding source: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Award Identifier / Grant number: P42ES007380
Funding source: National Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: 1452800
Funding statement: The project described was supported by grant number P42ES007380 (University of Kentucky Superfund Research Program, funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000066) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and by grant number 1452800 from the National Science Foundation (funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001).
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation.
Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.
1. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants. Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2010. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/128169/e94535.pdf?ua=1. Accessed September 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
2. Folkes D, Wertz W, Kurtz J, Kuehster T. Observed spatial and temporal distributions of CVOCs at Colorado and New York vapor intrusion sites. Ground Water Monit Remed 2009;29:70–80.10.1111/j.1745-6592.2009.01216.xSearch in Google Scholar
3. Holton C, Luo H, Dahlen P, Gorder K, Dettenmaier E, Johnson PC. Temporal variability of indoor air concentrations under natural conditions in a house overlying a dilute chlorinated solvent groundwater plume. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:13347–54.10.1021/es4024767Search in Google Scholar
4. Reichman R, Shirazi E, Colliver DG, Pennell KG. US residential building air exchange rates: new perspectives to improve decision making at vapor intrusion sites. Environ Sci Proc Impact 2017;19:87–100.10.1039/C6EM00504GSearch in Google Scholar
6. Brewer R, Nagashima J, Rigby M, Schmidt M, O’Neill H. Estimation of generic subslab attenuation factors for vapor intrusion investigations. Ground Water Monit Remed 2014;34:79–92.10.1111/gwmr.12086Search in Google Scholar
7. Dols WS. A tool for modeling airflow and contaminant transport. ASHRAE J 2001;43:35.Search in Google Scholar
8. Dols WS, Polidoro BJ. CONTAM User Guide and Program Documentation Version 3.2. Technical Note (NIST TN)-1887, 2015. Available at: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1887.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
11. Nguyen A-T, Reiter S, Rigo P. A review on simulation-based optimization methods applied to building performance analysis. Appl Energy 2014;113:1043–58.10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.061Search in Google Scholar
13. Li Y, Delsante A, Chen Z, Sandberg M, Andersen A, Bjerre M, et al. Some examples of solution multiplicity in natural ventilation. Build Environ 2001;36:851–8.10.1016/S0360-1323(01)00011-7Search in Google Scholar
14. Chen ZD, Li Y. Buoyancy-driven displacement natural ventilation in a single-zone building with three-level openings. Build Environ 2002;37:295–303.10.1016/S0360-1323(01)00021-XSearch in Google Scholar
15. Andersen KT. Airflow rates by combined natural ventilation with opposing wind – unambiguous solutions for practical use. Build Environ 2007;42:534–42.10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.006Search in Google Scholar
17. Mazumdar S, Chen Q. A one-dimensional analytical model for airborne contaminant transport in airliner cabins. Indoor Air 2009;19:3–13.10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00553.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Parker S, Coffey C, Gravesen J, Kirkpatrick J, Ratcliffe K, Lingard B, et al. Contaminant ingress into multizone buildings: an analytical state-space approach. Build Simul 2014;7:57–71.10.1007/s12273-013-0136-5Search in Google Scholar
21. Wang H. Fast CFD simulation method for indoor environment modeling. 2013. Boulder, CO: Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado. Available at: https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=cven_gradetds. Accessed September 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
22. Wang H, Zhai Z. Application of coarse-grid computational fluid dynamics on indoor environment modeling: optimizing the trade-off between grid resolution and simulation accuracy. HVAC&R Res 2012;18:915–33.Search in Google Scholar
23. Emmerich SJ, Persily AK, Walton G. Application of a multi-zone airflow and contaminant dispersal model to indoor air quality control in residential buildings. 1994. Available at: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=916693. Accessed September 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
24. Li H. Validation of three multi-zone airflow models. Montreal, Quebec, CA: Masters thesis, Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University; 2002. Available at: https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/1631/. Accessed September 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
25. Haghighat F, Li H. Building airflow movement – validation of three airflow models. J Architect Plan Res 2004;21:331–49.Search in Google Scholar
26. Wang J, Zhang J, Shaw C, Reardon J, Su J. Comparisons of multizone airflow/contaminant dispersal models. Internal Report. Institute for Research in Construction. Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council of Canada; 1998. Available at: https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/fulltext/?id=2154cda5-5899-4dc7-a142-d89db79b107b. Accessed September 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
27. Wang L, Chen Q. Validation of a coupled multizone-CFD program for building airflow and contaminant transport simulations. HVAC&R Res 2007;13:267–81.10.1080/10789669.2007.10390954Search in Google Scholar
28. Chen Q, Glicksman LR, Srebric J. Simplified methodology to factor room air movement and the impact on thermal comfort into design of radiative, convective and hybrid heating and cooling systems. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE; 1999.Search in Google Scholar
29. Wang LL, Dols WS, Chen Q. Using CFD Capabilities of CONTAM 3.0 for simulating airflow and contaminant transport in and around buildings. HVAC&R Res 2010;16:749–63.10.1080/10789669.2010.10390932Search in Google Scholar
30. Wang L, Chen Q. On solution characteristics of coupling of multizone and CFD programs in building air distribution simulation. International Building Performance Simulation Association 2005 (IBPSA 2005) 2005;5:1315–22.Search in Google Scholar
31. Persily AK. Modeling radon transport in multistory residential buildings, in modeling of indoor air quality and exposure. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 1993.Search in Google Scholar
32. Fang JB, Persily AK. Computer simulations of airflow and radon transport in four large buildings. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 1995.10.6028/NIST.IR.5611Search in Google Scholar
33. Abreu LDV, Johnson PC. Effect of vapor source−building separation and building construction on soil vapor intrusion as studied with a three-dimensional numerical model. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:4550–61.10.1021/es049781kSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Pennell KG, Bozkurt O, Suuberg EM. Development and application of a three-dimensional finite element vapor intrusion model. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2009;59:447–60.10.3155/1047-32126.96.36.1997Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
36. Breen MS, Schultz BD, Sohn MD, Long T, Langstaff J, Williams R, et al. A review of air exchange rate models for air pollution exposure assessments. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2014;24:555–63.10.1038/jes.2013.30Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37. ASHRAE. 2001 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating Air-Conditioning Engineers; 2001.Search in Google Scholar
38. Shirazi E, Pennell KG. Three-dimensional vapor intrusion modeling approach that combines wind and stack effects on indoor, atmospheric, and subsurface domains. Environ Sci Proc Impacts 2017;19:1594–607.10.1039/C7EM00423KSearch in Google Scholar
39. Luo H, Dahlen P, Johnson PC, Peargin T, Creamer T. Spatial variability of soil-gas concentrations near and beneath a building overlying shallow petroleum hydrocarbon–impacted soils. Ground Water Monit Remed 2009;29:81–91.10.1111/j.1745-6592.2008.01217.xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston