Another One Bites the Dust

This topic submitted by Margot Bosscher, Vanessa Bauman, Brett Heneghan, Craig Seidel ( Nessa7585@hotmail.com ) on 12/16/03 .

Natural Systems 1 Syllabus---Western Program---Miami University

Another One Bites the Dust

Abstract
The average person breathes in about 16,000 quarts of air per day. Each quart contains some 70,000 visible and invisible particles. That's over a billion particles per day that our lungs have to filter out! As a group, we studied whether or not those students with asthma and other related health problems were really placed in a beneficial situation when being housed here at Miami University. To do this, we measured the dust content of three rooms in both Peabody and Mary Lyon Halls. Due to PeabodyÕs central air system, we hypothesized that it would have less mass per volume of dust particulates. Our results provided information which proved that there was a statistical difference between the halls. However, the difference opposed our original hypothesis: overall, Peabody had more dust in mass per volume.

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to compare the mass per volume (m/v) of dust particulates in a dormitory with a central air heating system (Peabody Hall on Western Campus) and one without (Mary Lyon Hall also on Western Campus). We hoped to determine if there was a significant difference in the dust levels between the aforementioned halls. We hypothesized that there would be a significantly lower dust content (mass per volume) in Peabody Hall due to the central air system. In our study, we collected conclusive evidence that there is a significant difference in mass per volume of dust particulates in one dorm compared to another.
Our group decided upon this topic after a discussion of the advantages of air conditioning in Peabody. We began to question whether the air conditioning makes a difference in the level of dust particulates (including allergens), which is the supposed reason students with asthma are housed in such a hall. Our original research design focused on a study of the effects of air conditioning on dust, but we had to modify our question as the seasons turned, the temperature dropped, and air conditioning was shut off. Although we could not use air conditioning specifically as our independent variable, we realized that Peabody Hall is still on a central air system, and Mary Lyon is not. Thus our study only changed slightly.
We were interested in this topic of study because we are concerned for the health and welfare of the Western students. We also wanted to know why students received central air housing just because they had allergies. We wanted to know how central air works and if it truly makes a difference in the levels of dust in the dormitories.

Relevance of Research Question/ Background Information
We felt this topic of study was relevant to any student who has allergy concerns. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Òexposure to coarse particles is primarily associated with the aggravation of respiratory conditions, such as asthma.Ó Fine particulates cause additional respiratory problems far more serious than asthma (www.epa.gov 1). This was taken into consideration when filling out a housing form for Miami University; there was an option to live in an air-conditioned dormitory for health reasons such as asthma and allergies.
Before we had conducted our experiment, we found several things to be true. If we were to discover that there was not a significant difference between dormitoriesÕ levels of dust particulates, then the specific housing for health reasons would be irrelevant due to similar levels of dust. Similar levels of dust pose a hazard, Òthe potentialÉ to cause harm to nature, property, or people,Ó to those students with health problems such as asthma or allergies (Hines 12). It could also show unfair, or unnecessary, preferential treatment to those with health issues who live in Peabody Hall over those without. This may be an issue Miami UniversityÕs House and Dining Services should explore further if our results point in that direction.
Dust is comprised of many different components, but dust is commonly defined as fine particles of matter (as of earth), or the particles into which something disintegrates. There are fibrous components, Òmicroscopic biological particles of animal, plant, and microbial origin,Ó like pet dander and pollen (Microorganisms 17). These solid particles are known as particulate matter (PM), and are categorized by size. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers (PM-2.5) are considered to be Òfine particles.Ó They derive from Òfuel combustion from motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities, as well as from residential fireplaces and wood stoves.Ó Larger particles (PM-10) can come from Òvehicles traveling on unpaved roads, materials handling, and crushing and grinding operations, as well as windblown dustÓ (www.epa.gov 1).
Particulates matter occurs in nature, yet humans have discovered ways to control the abundance of dust in interior areas. Although air may be filtered indoors, there are still ways that dust can be redirected into the air caused by various activities including vacuuming (Hines 23). Most of the released particulates are Òinorganic fibers, metals, and organic materials,Ó which if inhaled can pose serious health complications (Hays 38).
Dust can be controlled and collected by many different methods including absorbers, incinerators, condensers, mechanical collectors, baghouses, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, flute gas desulfurization systems, and stacks. These methods are complex and utilized by professionals only, because they are expensive and time consuming (Air Pollution). The common solution for homes is an air conditioning unit. For the purpose of this study, we are collecting dust though an electric filter.
Central air conditioning is often viewed simply as a luxury for homes and buildings. Actually it has important functions for maintaining an indoor climate. Its basic function is to ÒconditionÓ the air, including heating and cooling, cleaning and controlling moisture levels. Its major components are a filter, furnace, cooling unit, compressor, and fan (Figure 1). This is important in controlling the levels of dust pollution, including dust particulates and allergens. Our study will focus on the health related function of air conditioning, filtering the air. This function of air conditioning is relevant to our study because we want to know if the air conditioner really ÒconditionsÓ the air properly as it is suppose to. If this is the case then we predict Peabody will have a lower dust mass than Mary Lyon.
Dust is particularly subject to regulatory control because of its unique exposure concerns. ÒIndoor air quality and indoor environmental (IAQ/IE) concernsÉ [relate] to residential, commercial, office, and institutional buildings, as well as in vehicle transport" (Godish 3).

Figure 1

Research Design
Our design was the incorporation of two buildings with three trials of dust collection within each of the halls using three different rooms in each hall. We measured the volume of dust that occurs in an air-conditioned building versus a building with no air conditioner. From the results we were then able to determine if the air-conditioned dorm really supplies condition of air, which should result in less dust volume. The instrument that was used for the collection of dust was a Hamilton Beach True Air Cleaner with replaceable air filters. Due to time restraints and the nature of the project, these filters will be replaced every 10 days for the three trials.

Methods
The methods of our research were based upon exact measurements of weight and time. Our measurement device was be the Hamilton Beach True Air Cleaner. This device used air filters recommended to be replaced every four weeks. In our experiment we used two separate filtering units. One unit was placed in Mary Lyon Hall and the other unit was placed in Peabody Hall, each of these locations being on Western Campus of Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA. In order to eliminate some factors such as different living conditions affecting the air quality we changed the location of the filtration units every 10 days. When changing the filters there were a number of steps that were absolutely crucial for accurate results.
It was important that we get the weight of the filters prior to putting them into the filtration units in order to obtain the weight of the dust; the basis of our measurements were the weight of the dust. We used an electronic scale, which weighed to the 0.001 gram.

Figure 2

At the end of each 10 day increment, we placed the filter inside of a plastic bag in order prevent the loss of any dust which could be vulnerable to elements such as wind. We also weighed the bag prior to placing the dirty filter inside. Then we weighed the bag and the filter to the nearest thousandth. From this weight we subtracted the weight of the filter prior to the 10 day increment and then subtracted the weight of the plastic bag and resulted with the weight of the dust collected in the two-week increment. These final measurements were recorded in Table 1.
We varied the room locations in order to provide a better statistical result. If we were to only sample one room in each hall, it would be more of a comparison between the two rooms themselves rather than the halls. For every week we chose a room in either Peabody or Mary Lyon hall that had windows that faced the same direction. By doing this we eliminated one of the factors that could hinder accurate results. So each week had a pair of rooms with windows facing in the same direction. At this time we were also able to find a map that showed the halls locations on the Miami University Campus. This is shown in Figure 3. The layouts of each of the rooms being tested within those halls are given in Figures 4 and 5 as well.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

We recorded the space of each room we were testing. This was valuable because the amount of area that each room has could affect the amount of dust. The rooms are all very similar in floor space; we researched the exact specifications through the Miami University website. These are recorded in Tables 2 and 3.
We then used StatView to run a T-test on our recorded results from Table 1. Our level of confidence was 95%. Using Microsoft Excel, we then created graphs displaying our Òmass per volumeÓ column. In Graph 1, we displayed mass per volume of each Peabody trial (P1, P2, P3) against Mary Lyon results (M1, M2, M3). We will include the means of both Peabody and Mary LyonÕs results in Graph 2.

Here is our data in excel format.
Research Timeline
Sunday, Oct. 19, 2003 Order filters from www.kitchen-collection.com
Sunday, Oct. 26, 2003 Expected arrival of materials
Saturday, Nov. 1, 2003 Start first trial (M1 and P1)
Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2003 Measure and record data from first trial (M1 and P1).
Friday, Nov. 13, 2003 Replace filters, begin second trial (M2 and P2).
Sunday, Nov. 23, 2003 Measure and record data from second trial (M2 and P2), intended start date for
trial 3, interrupted by Thanksgiving break regulations- no appliances allowed to remain plugged in.
Sunday, Dec. 1, 2003 Replace filters, begin third trial (M3 and P3)
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 Measure and record data from third trial (M3 and P3), evaluate all collected data
and draw conclusions.

Discussion/Conclusion
After deciding on a great topic, getting the necessary supplies and spending many weeks on collecting data we had a few complications in the results of our project. There were some factors that we believe could have had an effect on the outcome of our project. Perhaps a few minor things could of thrown our results off like cleanliness of the room before the filter was placed in it and exact placement of the filter relative to the room that it was being compared to. Such tribulations as these were unavoidable with the time given and the necessary needs of everyday life involved.
If we were to do this experiment again, we would try to have a much more controlled environment. Also, we would have many more tests over longer periods of time. It was hard for us to get any real statistical value with just 3 tests and with their test period being so short. However, our tests did show that there was a significant difference in the amount of dust collected in the two dorms.
The greater amount of dust, however, was collected in Peabody Hall. This disproves our hypothesis; we assumed the dust would be less dense in Peabody Hall since it is one of the dorms that Miami University places students with asthma and allergies. This poses a serious problem to the university. It is giving priority living conditions, air conditioning, to students that do not deserve them. On top of that, they are putting these students at a higher risk of sickness because of this dust filled environment.
This problem could be the result of a few things that the university can easily modify. Perhaps the filters in the Peabody Air Conditioning system are not clean. An unclean filter is worse than having no filters at all. All of the material that is collected by the filter over time weakens the filter. As the filter gets too dense, it begins to let in all of these materials. It is important that Miami regulates the changing of its filters within its Air Conditioning Units; otherwise it is a serious health risk to the students.

Resources
Air Pollution Control Equipment: Selection, Design, Operation, and Maintenance. Ed. By Louis Theodore and
Anthony J. Buonicore. Prentice-Hall Inc.: New Jersey, 1982.
Davies, C.N. Air Filtration. Academic Press: London, 1973. Pages 1-9. Different methods and tools used to
filtrate the air, and their accuracy.
Godish, Thad. Indoor Environmental Quality. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, 2000. Indoor contaminants and
source controls.
Hays, Steven M., Ronald V. Gobbell, and Nicholas R. Ganick. Indoor Air Quality: Solutions and Strategies.
McGraw-Hill Inc: New York., 1995. Page 38.
Hess-Kosa, Kathleen. Indoor Air Quality: Sampling Methodologies. Lewis Publishers: Florida, 2002. Page 11.
This resource discusses several different sampling methods and lists of different devices to complete those
methods.
Hines, Anthony L., Tushar K. Ghosh, Sudarshan K. Loyalka, Richard C. Warder, Jr. Indoor Air Quality and
Control. PTR Prentice-Hall New Jersey, 1993. Page 12 23. Different ways to control indoor air quality.
Institute of Medicine: Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air. Clearing the Air. National
Academy Press: Washington D.C., 2000. Indoor allergens, exposures, and their effects on inhabitants
health.
McCarthy, Samet, Spengler. Indoor Air Quality Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, c2001. This resource tells
about different standards on indoor air quality.
Microorganisms In Home and Indoor Work Enviornment. Ed By Brian Flannigan, Robert A. Samsom, J. David
Miller. Taylor & Francis Inc.: New York, NY, 2001. The diversity, health impacts, investigation, and control of
microorganisms.
Organic Dusts. Ed. By Robert Jacobs and Ragnar Rylander. CRC Press: Boca Raton, 1994. Pages 21-35.
Exposure, Effects, and Prevention of dust, and what its composed of.
Particulate Matter. Ed. By R.L. Maynard and C.V. Howard. BIOS Scientific Publishers Limited: Oxford, UK, 1999.
Pages 9-17. Properties and Effects dust has upon our health.
www.ari.org/consumer/howdoesitwork/howACwks.html October 8, 2003.
www.epa.gov/iaq. This is a government site that provides information on indoor air quality.
www.hdg.muohio.edu/code/MyCard/MYmenu.php?MYpage=MYcampusMap.php&thisperson=public&
ImageMap=fromMenu October 9, 2003.
www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary October 9, 2003.
www.ohsa-slc.gov/SLTC/indoorairquality/ This is a site on the government corporation Ohsa, which regulates
indoor air quality.
www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/hlsaf2/ncr393.pdf This article is about residential air quality, ways to improve upon
it, and basic information on general concerns about indoor air quality.
www.parrett.uk.com/dustmeas1.htm