Environmental Health Watch
Environmental Health Watch
Zickafoose J.S.,Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital |
Greenberg S.,Environmental Health Watch |
Dearborn D.G.,Case Western Reserve University
Public Health Reports | Year: 2011
Healthy Homes programs seek to integrate the evaluation and management of a multitude of health and safety risks in households. The education of physicians in the identification, evaluation, and management of these home health and safety issues continues to be deficient. Healthy Homes programs represent a unique opportunity to educate physicians in the home environment and stimulate ongoing, specific patient-physician discussions and more general learning about home environmental health. The Case Healthy Homes and Patients Program addresses these deficiencies in physician training while providing direct services to high-risk households. Pediatric and family practice resident physicians participate in healthy home inspections and interventions for their primary care patients and follow up on identified risks during health maintenance and acute illness visits. © 2011 Association of Schools of Public Health.
Wells E.M.,Purdue University |
Berges M.,Environmental Health Watch |
Metcalf M.,Environmental Health Watch |
Kinsella A.,Environmental Health Watch |
And 3 more authors.
Building and Environment | Year: 2015
Deep energy retrofits (DER) for residential housing have been proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; these result in ~50% additional energy efficiency compared to standard, energy star (ES), renovations. However, the impact of increased energy efficiency on indoor air quality (IAQ) is poorly understood. We conducted a longitudinal study to compare IAQ and occupant comfort in 12 low income single-family homes renovated to a DER or ES standard. Quarterly visits were conducted for a median of 18 months post-renovation; IAQ was assessed in 4 rooms per visit for a total of 237 measurements. Multivariable regression models accounted for repeated measurements and controlled for house- and family-related covariates. In fully adjusted models, average difference (95% confidence interval) in IAQ parameters in DER homes versus ES homes were: temperature:-0.3 ° C (-1.2, 0.6); relative humidity: 0.4% (-1.1, 1.8); carbon dioxide: 43.7 ppm (-18.8, 106.2); and total volatile organic compounds: 198ppb (-224, 620). Residents in DER homes were significantly less likely to report their homes were comfortable, most likely due to initial difficulties with new heating system technology. We found no differences in IAQ between DER and ES homes; however, education is strongly recommended when incorporating new technology into residences. © 2015 The Authors.
Scott Clark C.,Environmental Health Watch |
Succop P.A.,Environmental Health Watch |
Menrath W.,Environmental Health Watch |
Roda S.M.,Environmental Health Watch |
And 3 more authors.
Environmental Research | Year: 2010
A 7-year follow-up was conducted to determine factors associated with the longevity of interim soil lead hazard control measures that had been applied to housing in the Cleveland OH area. The approach involved (1) visual determination of the treatment integrity, (2) collection of information regarding 14 factors that may contribute to longevity of treatment integrity and (3) collection of one composite soil sample from treated areas with visual failure at each house and another composite sample from areas without visual failure. For the 200 houses studied, an average of 4 different soil areas were treated. For 96% of these areas, the treatments used were: (1) re-seeding, (2) mulch/wood chips and (3) gravel. Of a total of 191,034ft 2 of treated soil areas observed, less than one-third, i.e. 59,900ft 2 (31.3%) exhibited visual failure at the time of follow-up. Hazard control method and the presence/absence of shade were the only factors found to significantly affect visual failure rates. Of the three most commonly used control measures, the lowest visual failure rate was for re-seeding, 29.1% after a mean of 7.3 years; for non-shaded areas, which had been re-seeded, the failure rate was 22.2% compared to 35.7% for shaded areas. At 116 of the 193 houses (60%) that had both visually failed and visually non-failed treated soil areas, the geometric mean soil lead concentration was higher in the failed areas (p=0.003). The actual difference was only 13% with most levels equal to or exceeding 400ppm. However, when compared to the US EPA limit for bare soil in other residential areas (1200ppm) the percent equal to or exceeding the limit was much higher in the visually failed areas, 33.1%, than in areas where such failure was not observed, 22.0%. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.