Thanks, Fabia / Peter

I agree with Peter on the "open windows for choice" option.  For me, this means people are exposed and we may as well not bother with mitigation.  As Peter says because the pollution is invisible, and the effects (generally) chronic, people will not generally recognise the risk.

I do agree with you about the issues with 'filters' you mention.  MVHR also has to be carefully selected and not allow users to override the 'minimum' setting.  I have experience of one flat conversion in an AQMA where they took air from the rear facade and the residents turned the MVHR off leading to condensation and mould!!

They are likely to need MVHR anyway due to noise from the road (so they do not have to rely on openable windows for standard and boost ventilation).  Ordinarily, I would allow openable windows for summer cooling and purge ventilation where the source is road traffic noise.

I note your comments Peter on the height issue and a roof-mounted inlet may be an option and I can explore that as a potential solution.

It would be a fantastic PhD or MSc study to determine indoor NO2 levels where the windows are high quality well fitted acoustic glazing, MVHR provides the normal ventilation from a 'clean' facade, and residents can choose to open the window just for summer cooling and purge ventilation (burnt toast etc).  I wonder if having the windows closed for 'most' of the time reduces residents long-term exposure?

One for the academics to take up perhaps?

Kind regards

Phil Mason MSc MIEnvSC, MCIEH, AMIOA
Environmental Consultant (Air Quality, Noise and Land Contamination)
Urban Vision Partnership Ltd.

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the AIRQUALITY list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=AIRQUALITY&A=1