GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hi - I suggest more info on interior air quality.

Background: I live in a very tight house and for many years suspected but wasn't sure that the indoor air quality was not right, and that ventilation needed improvement. I did eventually verify this. This made me also think about it for vehicle air quality especially as this can presumably affect driver alertness.... and so arguably there is a safety component to this suggestion. I don't see this general topic come up that much in advanced vehicle discussions, but I think that Tesla equipped the Model X with some strong interior air quality measures (I don't know about sensors to display information along with the measures).

One specific idea would be to include the ability to bring up information on the flat-panel display as to CO2 ppm and perhaps other items ppm. I took a sensor from my house and temporarily relocated it to my Volt with an inverter to plug it in, but haven't really strongly tried it yet, have mostly been focused on other things in my early use of the car.

There might also be a related suggestion to be made, once more information is displayed, as to the related area of considering installing higher quality filters (and I guess just noting here Tesla's leadership in raising the issue in a prominent way, though to be sure, I haven't thoroughly researched this, maybe other automakers are doing innovative things in this area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,396 Posts
Maybe not as evident in AZ, but in cold climates you realize just how much air exchange happens in the cabin of a vehicle (else it fogs up like no tomorrow) - the cold, dry air from outside is the primary source for defogging in the winter.
If you have recirc off, the air inside your cabin is being exchanged quite often. With recirc off, the cabin air is constantly being pushed out as the vehicle drives.

A house, in contrast, is much slower to exchange air and can be prone to air quality issues. This is the one plus to having an old, leaky house :)

The huge unknown, of course, is how good is that air being brought into your vehicle? If there's an aging vehicle in front of you, likely not great as you're sucking in fumes and maybe some raw fuel as well.

So perhaps the suggestion would be more for some kind of system to test incoming air vs cabin air and select outside air or recirc as required to improve air quality?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Maybe not as evident in AZ, but in cold climates you realize just how much air exchange happens in the cabin of a vehicle (else it fogs up like no tomorrow) - the cold, dry air from outside is the primary source for defogging in the winter.
If you have recirc off, the air inside your cabin is being exchanged quite often. With recirc off, the cabin air is constantly being pushed out as the vehicle drives.

A house, in contrast, is much slower to exchange air and can be prone to air quality issues. This is the one plus to having an old, leaky house :)

The huge unknown, of course, is how good is that air being brought into your vehicle? If there's an aging vehicle in front of you, likely not great as you're sucking in fumes and maybe some raw fuel as well.

So perhaps the suggestion would be more for some kind of system to test incoming air vs cabin air and select outside air or recirc as required to improve air quality?
Thanks, I guess my main thought is regardless of whether the end-result is to improve and automate more vehicle testing and better vehicle response to outdoor air quality issues, the central suggestion I am making is to display key empirical testing and results information to riders to air quality _inside_ the vehicle. To this, I would say yes, it would also be good to offer riders information as to outside air quality and then both the riders and the vehicle (if the riders choose to engage automatic decision-making) can make more informed ventilation and filtration decisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
I don't spend enough hours per 24 in a car to make a significant difference. Neither our home or business is a clean room. Obviously, outside is not either. So for another $1000 or two on sale price then higher maintenance costs isn't something I'd personally look for in a car, motorcycle, or bicycle.

For those who spend lots of hours in their cars? The pollution they are generating by driving 50,000+ miles a year with fuel or grid power seems to be a better area to focus on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
Even with recirculation off I believe there is a fraction of outside air coming in. Except for sitting in the sun for hours and possible outgassing, I'd expect the air quality in the car is governed more by outside quality than anything else. Barring what the occupants do of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
Thanks, I guess my main thought is regardless of whether the end-result is to improve and automate more vehicle testing and better vehicle response to outdoor air quality issues, the central suggestion I am making is to display key empirical testing and results information to riders to air quality _inside_ the vehicle. To this, I would say yes, it would also be good to offer riders as to outside air quality and then both the riders and the vehicle (if the riders choose to engage automatic decision-making) can make more informed ventilation and filtration decisions.
Outside of particulate filtration I'm not sure much else is practical. Even buildings generally aren't capable of much more than that. Collecting data can show whether my SWAG of the situation is accurate or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Outside of particulate filtration I'm not sure much else is practical. Even buildings generally aren't capable of much more than that. Collecting data can show whether my SWAG of the situation is accurate or not.
Thanks, a quick correction, I edited my post that you had quoted since what I really meant to emphasize was "....it would also be good to offer riders [information] as to outside air quality ..."

In any event, more to the point, I think it is easily practical to offer riders information as to CO2 ppm and maybe one or two more things. Since decisions as to whether or not to recirculate can be based on a sense of whether there needs to be more "fresh air" in the car, part of my point is to offer more hard information on which to base this "sense".

As to offering better filtration once the information is gathered both as to indoor and outdoor air, I can't really say but wasn't really excellent interior air quality a highlighted part of Tesla's Model X intro (i.e.: you can press a button and get air quality that is to the level of protecting you from biological warfare?).

No idea what you mean by "SWAG".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
As to offering better filtration once the information is gathered both as to indoor and outdoor air, I can't really say but wasn't really excellent interior air quality a highlighted part of Tesla's Model X intro (i.e.: you can press a button and get air quality that is to the level of protecting you from biological warfare?).



No idea what you mean by "SWAG".
Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

That still sounds like just particulate filtering and isn't going to change CO2 levels (or any other gas for that matter). To do that would require scrubbers or something. I thinks it's industry standard or perhaps federal requirement to require an amount of fresh air even when recirculation is engaged. Not sure there's much point in measuring the outside air quality if there's no capability to do anything about it. Cars generally don't have independent air sources or purifiers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

That still sounds like just particulate filtering and isn't going to change CO2 levels (or any other gas for that matter). To do that would requires scrubbers or something. I thinks it's industry standard or perhaps federal requirement to require an amount of fresh air even when recirculation is engaged. Not sure there's much point in measuring the outside air quality if there's no capability to do anything about it. Cars generally don't have independent air sources or purifiers.
Thanks, my primary suggestion is to measure inside-the-vehicle air quality and report it to the vehicle occupants (for the first time in automotive history?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I sort of agree, but some simple CO2 meters at this point are below $100.

Also: If there are regulations around requiring cars to provide a certain amount of fresh air even when recirculating (and I don't know if there are) then this might mean that manufacturers are already measuring air quality, which means it's just a matter of displaying the data to the vehicle occupants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
I sort of agree, but some simple CO2 meters at this point are below $100.

Also: If there are regulations around requiring cars to provide a certain amount of fresh air even when recirculating (and I don't know if there are) then this might mean that manufacturers are already measuring air quality, which means it's just a matter of displaying the data to the vehicle occupants.
Look...The Center for Disease Control has designated 100,000 ppm of carbon dioxide as life-threatening, or "immediately dangerous to life." More recently, Dr. Peter Harper of Health and Safety Executive has determined that exposure to lower levels, starting at 84,000 ppm for 60 minutes or more, will also result in fatality.

Whereas...On average, exposures at 100 ppm or greater is dangerous to human health. In the United States, the OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to less than 50 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period; in addition, employees are to be removed from any confined space if an upper limit ("ceiling") of 100 ppm is reached.

So why are you so concerned with CO2?

Now if you are experiencing high CO2 levels in your blood gases...then you need to be seen by a physician immediately...:(

Imbalances in the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and pH levels of your blood can indicate the presence of certain medical conditions. These may include:

kidney failure
heart failure
uncontrolled diabetes
hemorrhage
chemical poisoning
a drug overdose
shock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
As I read through this I do have to wonder if the OP wasn't actually wondering about Carbon Monoxide (CO), as produced by combustion, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as produced by breathing.

There have been some recent issues with CO poisoning in emergency response vehicles (Police) [See Link] and some locations have begun to mandate CO detectors inside the vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,718 Posts
As I read through this I do have to wonder if the OP wasn't actually wondering about Carbon Monoxide (CO), as produced by combustion, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as produced by breathing.

There have been some recent issues with CO poisoning in emergency response vehicles (Police) [See Link] and some locations have begun to mandate CO detectors inside the vehicles.

CO measurement would be more important. A high CO implies a malfunction, design problem (generally least likely), or misuse issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
Look...The Center for Disease Control has designated 100,000 ppm of carbon dioxide as life-threatening, or "immediately dangerous to life." More recently, Dr. Peter Harper of Health and Safety Executive has determined that exposure to lower levels, starting at 84,000 ppm for 60 minutes or more, will also result in fatality.

Whereas...On average, exposures at 100 ppm or greater is dangerous to human health. In the United States, the OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to less than 50 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period; in addition, employees are to be removed from any confined space if an upper limit ("ceiling") of 100 ppm is reached. [...]
Hi - the information you've quoted is simply wrong or at best misleading or incomplete. Ambient outdoor ppm of CO2 is about 400, so establishing some sort of maximum at such low levels (50 or 100 ppm) seems ludicrous. Maybe you meant to say something differently?

As to getting a more realistic idea of defining high levels, these links give a better idea:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/carbondioxide.htm
Long-term exposure limit (8-hr reference period) of 5000 ppm
Short-term exposure limit (15 minute reference period) of 15000 ppm


There are nuances to this, and there are differences in what is said to be safe. A nuance would be just because you have not hit the upper limit, this does not mean the ppm is safe over many days and years. For example, this is more in-line with my own experience:

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/11/06/carbon-dioxide-inside-can-be-harmful-too

"... scientists found impairments in cognitive function test scores at CO2 concentrations in the 950-1,000 ppm range, and significantly worse performance when CO2 rose to 1500 and 2,500 ppm. The researchers stressed that carbon dioxide levels in indoor environments, especially schools, frequently rise above 1,000 ppm...."

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm

High CO2 levels, generally over 1000 ppm, indicate a potential problem with air circulation and fresh air in a room or building.

When I ordered a CO2 meter (after a test indicated a possible ventilation problem with my house), I found it set by default for the alarm to go off at 1000 ppm (which it did within a short amount of time,.... cracking windows and such tended to alleviate this).

I guess it's possible that you quoted a source accurately as to what a 100,000 ppm and 84,000 ppm will do, but I think getting a more realistic understanding of this includes getting a sense of what the ppm goals are for helping to define what is a healthy fresh air environment, particularly so the driver can maintain alertness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
CO measurement would be more important. A high CO implies a malfunction, design problem (generally least likely), or misuse issue.
both CO2 and CO measurements would be nice, and neither would be prohibitively expensive. The overall suggestion I made as stated simply was " suggest more info on interior air quality." CO and CO2 info both might be helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
As I read through this I do have to wonder if the OP wasn't actually wondering about Carbon Monoxide (CO), as produced by combustion, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as produced by breathing.

There have been some recent issues with CO poisoning in emergency response vehicles (Police) [See Link] and some locations have begun to mandate CO detectors inside the vehicles.
Thanks, the link is really interesting and an illustration of how teeth-gritting it can be to try to make the point. In this case, it was a law enforcement department complaining about a specific issue. I doubt the average citizen would have been able to get as much swift action.

As to what I meant, when I mentioned CO2 in the original post, it is what I meant. I do realize that household sensors much more commonly provide information on CO and I do agree it would make sense also to provide CO sensing equipment inside vehicles, as part of overall interior air quality measuring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
Hi - the information you've quoted is simply wrong or at best misleading or incomplete. Ambient outdoor ppm of CO2 is about 400, so establishing some sort of maximum at such low levels (50 or 100 ppm) seems ludicrous. Maybe you meant to say something differently?

As to getting a more realistic idea of defining high levels, these links give a better idea:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/carbondioxide.htm
Long-term exposure limit (8-hr reference period) of 5000 ppm
Short-term exposure limit (15 minute reference period) of 15000 ppm


There are nuances to this, and there are differences in what is said to be safe. A nuance would be just because you have not hit the upper limit, this does not mean the ppm is safe over many days and years. For example, this is more in-line with my own experience:

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/11/06/carbon-dioxide-inside-can-be-harmful-too

"... scientists found impairments in cognitive function test scores at CO2 concentrations in the 950-1,000 ppm range, and significantly worse performance when CO2 rose to 1500 and 2,500 ppm. The researchers stressed that carbon dioxide levels in indoor environments, especially schools, frequently rise above 1,000 ppm...."

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm

High CO2 levels, generally over 1000 ppm, indicate a potential problem with air circulation and fresh air in a room or building.

When I ordered a CO2 meter (after a test indicated a possible ventilation problem with my house), I found it set by default for the alarm to go off at 1000 ppm (which it did within a short amount of time,.... cracking windows and such tended to alleviate this).

I guess it's possible that you quoted a source accurately as to what a 100,000 ppm and 84,000 ppm will do, but I think getting a more realistic understanding of this includes getting a sense of what the ppm goals are for helping to define what is a healthy fresh air environment, particularly so the driver can maintain alertness.
The second set of numbers in my post refers to CARBON MONOXIDE (Whereas...On average, exposures at 100 ppm or greater is dangerous to human health. In the United States, the OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to less than 50 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period; in addition, employees are to be removed from any confined space if an upper limit ("ceiling") of 100 ppm is reached.)...NOT CARBON DIOXIDE...it appears one of my edits were not saved...:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
The second set of numbers in my post refers to CARBON MONOXIDE (Whereas...On average, exposures at 100 ppm or greater is dangerous to human health. In the United States, the OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to less than 50 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period; in addition, employees are to be removed from any confined space if an upper limit ("ceiling") of 100 ppm is reached.)...NOT CARBON DIOXIDE...it appears one of my edits were not saved...:(
Thanks, it's a pain that your edit was not saved, but knowing that you meant CO, this does make more sense. I do agree that it is useful to have an idea of the upper limit numbers on CO, though I haven't myself operated any sort of sensor and don't have a knowledge of normally what the numbers might be.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top