Characterization of indoor air quality and resident health in an Arizona senior housing apartment building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of key indoor air quality (IAQ) parameters and resident health was carried out in 72 apartments within a single low-income senior housing building in Phoenix, Arizona. Air sampling was carried out simultaneously with a questionnaire on personal habits and general health of residents. Mean PM10 concentrations are 66±16, 58±13, and 24±3 μg/m3 and mean PM2.5 concentrations are 62±16, 53±13, and 20±2 μg/m3 for the living room, kitchen, and outdoor balcony, respectively. Median PM10 concentrations are 17, 18 and 17 μg/m3 and median PM2.5 concentrations are 13, 14, and 13 μg/m3, respectively. The initial results indicate that increased indoor particle concentrations coincide with residents who report smoking cigarettes. Indoor formaldehyde concentrations revealed median levels of 36.9, 38.8, and 4.3 ppb in the living room, kitchen, and balcony, respectively. Results show that 36% of living room samples and 44% of kitchen samples exceeded the Health Canada REL for chronic exposure to formaldehyde (40 ppb). Associations between occupants’ behavior, self-reported health conditions, and IAQ are evaluated. Implications:This study provides a characterization of indoor air quality (IAQ) of subsidized apartments for seniors in Phoenix, Arizona. It is important for policy makers to understand the environments in which low-income seniors live, as they are vulnerable to the health impacts from poor IAQ. Formaldehyde concentrations were found to exceed the Health Canada 8-hr reference exposure level (REL) for up to 44% of indoor samples. Particulate matter exposure was governed by resident behavior (i.e., smoking). Associations between occupants’ behavior, IAQ, and self-reported health conditions are evaluated. This work can provide a foundation for subsequent remediation of IAQ conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".