Why I Did Not (Yet!) Endorse the GoAQS Standard

Some time ago, Sotirios Papathanasiou, the originator of the new Global Open Air Quality Standards (GoAQS), called me and explained the details of GoAQS. He asked me to endorse it, but for the time being, I denied this. This decision was not easy and probably disappointed Sotirios, as we have known each other for quite some time and covered each other in our blogs.

So, I believe the best I can do is give some constructive feedback, and I would like to do this in an open form to foster a discussion around it. Before doing this, I recommend you read the White Paper (current version 0.8.6) to understand this standard.

Here are my main concerns:

Transparency and governance

One of my most pressing concerns surrounding GoAQS lies in its governance structure. The lack of transparency regarding its legal status raises questions about accountability and enforcement. Is GoAQS a registered non-profit organisation, a private entity, or something else entirely?

How is GoAQS funded? Are there potential conflicts of interest that could influence their decisions? The absence of clear information on these matters raises questions about the standard’s objectivity and impartiality.

Furthermore, the process by which decisions are made within the organisation remains opaque. How are committee members selected or elected?

To instil public trust and confidence, GoAQS must prioritise transparency and accountability. Clearly defining its legal status, disclosing its decision-making processes, and establishing a diverse and independent advisory board are crucial steps towards addressing these governance concerns.

Without a solid foundation of transparency and accountability, the legitimacy and impact of GoAQS could hinder its widespread adoption and its ability to truly promote healthier indoor environments. I would strongly recommend that this is addressed as soon as possible.

Goals and metrics: A need for clarity

Any standard must have a clearly defined primary objective. Is GoAQS primarily focused on health, building certification, or a balance of various factors? A more explicit focus would strengthen the standard’s impact and guide its implementation.

Scrutiny of the current chosen metrics reveals further concerns. The annual PM2.5 limit of 8 µg/m³ set by GoAQS contrasts the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendation of 5 µg/m³. It’s crucial to remember that there is no truly “safe” level of PM2.5 exposure; any level carries some degree of health risk. Therefore, setting a limit higher than the WHO’s recommendation raises questions about GoAQS’s commitment to protecting public health. Is a compromise being made for the sake of practicality or other considerations?

While GoAQS includes some relevant pollutants, the conspicuous absence of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as a broad category is a concern. It’s acknowledged that VOCs pose a measurement and interpretation challenge due to their complex nature and variability. However, their complete exclusion from the standard is surprising, considering their prevalence in other indoor air quality standards.

It’s worth noting that GoAQS does include formaldehyde, a specific VOC, in its Ultimate tier. This is a positive step, as formaldehyde is a common indoor pollutant with well-documented health risks. However, it’s crucial to recognise that formaldehyde represents only a fraction of the potential VOCs and gaseous pollutants present in indoor environments.

Moreover, other important gaseous pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), are also absent from the GoAQS framework. NO2 is a common indoor pollutant associated with combustion processes, e.g. from gas stoves, and can have significant respiratory health effects. The exclusion of such key pollutants raises questions about the standard’s comprehensiveness and its ability to address the full range of indoor air quality concerns adequately.

Implementation: Balancing Ambition with Practicality

While GoAQS sets targets for indoor air quality, the practicality of achieving these standards raises concerns. Some of the proposed parameters, particularly those related to ultrafine particles (PC0.3 and PC0.5) and gasses, are currently difficult to measure accurately with low-cost sensors in the market. The need for frequent and complex calibration of these instruments further compounds the challenge, potentially limiting their widespread adoption.

Moreover, the standard’s emphasis on particle counts might overshadow other pollutants’ importance and associated health risks. While particle counts provide valuable insights, a more balanced approach considering a more comprehensive range of pollutants, including those easily measurable with low-cost sensors, could prove more practical and impactful.

Introducing a new air quality index (AQI) also raises questions about its necessity and effectiveness. While an AQI can simplify complex data, it can also lead to oversimplification and obscure the nuances of individual pollutant levels. Clear communication of pollutant concentrations in their original units, coupled with actionable guidance, may be a more effective way to empower individuals and organisations to improve indoor air quality. Do we need another index? Wouldn’t there be better ways to raise awareness using the original units of measurement?

Finally, the lack of endorsement from major health organisations and regulatory bodies could hinder the adoption of GoAQS. It’s unclear if GoAQS can compete with other standards like RESET and if manufacturers will really start redesigning their products and platforms to integrate this standard if its future viability is unclear.

My conclusion for now

GoAQS represents a positive step, especially if it becomes an independent, open, global standard with a transparent governance body. To achieve this, some of the issues I outlined above must be resolved quickly. By addressing these concerns, GoAQS could become a truly impactful tool for improving indoor air quality.

I encourage open dialogue and collaboration to ensure the standard is transparent, scientifically sound, and practical to implement. I hope my feedback helps achieve this, and I’m open to supporting this endeavour at a stage where I feel the most critical issues, e.g. around governance, have been addressed.