Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

The Effect of Opening Windows on Air Change

Rates in Two Homes

Cynthia Howard-Reed , Lance A. Wallace & Wayne R. Ott

To cite this article: Cynthia Howard-Reed , Lance A. Wallace & Wayne R. Ott (2002) The Effect
of Opening Windows on Air Change Rates in Two Homes, Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 52:2, 147-159, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2002.10470775

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2002.10470775

Published online: 27 Dec 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9515

View related articles

Citing articles: 40 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
TECHNICAL PAPER
The Effect of Opening Windows on Air Change Rates in
Two Homes
Cynthia Howard-Reed and Lance A. Wallace
National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reston, Virginia
Wayne R. Ott
Departments of Statistics and Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California
ABSTRACT
More than 300 air change rate experiments were com-
pleted in two occupied residences: a two-story detached
house in Redwood City, CA, and a three-story townhouse
in Reston, VA. A continuous monitor was used to mea-
sure the decay of SF6 tracer gas over periods of 1–18 hr.
Each experiment first included a measurement of the air
change rate with all exterior doors and windows closed
(State 0), then a measurement with the single change from
State 0 conditions of opening one or more windows. The
overall average State 0 air change rate was 0.37 air changes
per hour (hr–1) (SD = 0.10 hr–1; n = 112) for the California
IMPLICATIONS
In estimating human exposure to airborne pollutants, it is
essential to understand how human behavior affects air
change rates in homes. We spend, on average, 66% of
the time in our own homes, and therefore much of our
inhalation exposure is due to residential indoor air con-
centrations of pollutants from indoor and outdoor sources.
Air change rates have a large effect on indoor concentra-
tions. An investigator trying to predict air change rates
from meteorological conditions might incorrectly assume
that air change rates are at a minimum during relatively
mild weather conditions (low wind speed and low out-
door/indoor temperature differences) and a maximum
during more extreme weather conditions. In contrast, it
has often been observed that air change rates in occu-
pied houses are at their highest, not lowest, when weather
conditions are more mild. Several previous investigators
have speculated that this is due to increased window-
opening behavior under mild conditions. Our results quan-
titatively confirm that having a single window open, even
during relatively mild meteorological conditions, can re-
sult in air change rates as high as, if not higher than, those
observed during extreme meteorological conditions. Thus,
it is important to account for occupant window-opening
behavior when predicting residential exposures to con-
taminants, because opening windows significantly affects
air change rates and indoor concentrations.
Volume 52 February 2002
Howard-Reed,
ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Wallace, and
Manage. Assoc. Ott
52:147-159
Copyright 2002 Air & Waste Management Association
house and 0.41 hr–1 (SD = 0.19 hr–1; n = 203) for the Vir-
ginia house. Indoor/outdoor temperature differences ap-
peared to be responsible for the variation at the Virginia
house of 0.15–0.85 hr–1 when windows were closed. Open-
ing a single window increased the State 0 air change rate
by an amount roughly proportional to the width of the
opening, reaching increments as high as 0.80 hr–1 in the
California house and 1.3 hr–1 in the Virginia house. Mul-
tiple window openings increased the air change rate by
amounts ranging from 0.10 to 2.8 hr–1 in the California
house and from 0.49 to 1.7 hr–1 in the Virginia house.
Compared with temperature differences and wind effects,
opening windows produced the greatest increase in the
air change rates measured in both homes. Results of this
study indicate the importance of occupant window-open-
ing behavior on a home’s air change rate and the conse-
quent need to incorporate this factor when estimating
human exposure to indoor air pollutants.
INTRODUCTION
The ability to estimate indoor and outdoor contributions
to residential concentrations of air pollutants depends on
knowledge of a home’s air change rate. Air change rates
have been measured in several probability-based U.S. stud-
ies, including more than 1360 homes in southern Califor-
nia1-4 and more than 520 homes in Maryland and New
York.5,6 The 5th percentile air change rates measured across
all studies ranged from 0.13 to 0.76 hr–1; the median (50th
percentile) air change rates ranged from 0.37 to 1.9 hr–1;
and the 95th percentile air change rates ranged from 1.1
to 6.1 hr–1. The explanations proposed for the variation in
these air change rates include meteorological conditions;7-11
home structure differences;12-14 heating, ventilation, and
air-conditioning (HVAC) characteristics;15-19 and occupant
behavior (e.g., window or door opening).20-22 Of these fac-
tors, the influence of occupant behavior on air change rate
is one of the least understood, and yet it may account for a
significant portion of the variability. For example, based
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 147
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
on the results of a survey of residential air change rates in
southern California, Wilson et al.23 suggested the measured
variability in air change rate was likely due to occupants
opening their windows. In another study, Kvisgaard and
Collet21 estimated that 63% of the average air change rate
in 16 Denmark homes was due to occupants opening win-
dows and doors.
Opening windows is a relatively common occupant
activity as shown by the National Human Activity Pattern
Survey (NHAPS) results.24 Of the 4723 people surveyed
evenly throughout the year, 42.5% of respondents opened
at least one window in their home on the day of the sur-
vey. Of the 2006 respondents who opened windows, the
largest percentage (42%) opened one or two windows and
as many as 6% opened more than 10 windows.
Although the idea of opening windows to increase a
home’s air change rate is not new, there have been only
limited studies quantifying this effect. To better under-
stand this effect, we measured air change rates in two oc-
cupied houses in Redwood City, CA, and Reston, VA. We
used a real-time monitor to measure the decay rate of a
tracer gas (SF6), which provided air change rates over pe-
riods of 1–18 hr. All experiments began by measuring air
change rates over a period of hours with all windows and
doors closed (State 0), followed immediately by opening
one or more windows to different measured widths and
again measuring the air change rates after a new equilib-
rium was established. The difference in the measured air
change rates associated with the two sets of conditions
was taken as the effect of the opened window. This ap-
proach minimized as much as possible the effects on air
change rates of changes in meteorological conditions.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
Experimental Houses
Table 1 compares both study houses and locations. The
California detached house is a two-story, four-bedroom,
three-bathroom house with a floor area of 200 m2 and
volume of ~510 m3. The living room, dining room,
kitchen, and den are located on the first floor with con-
necting archways and no internal doors (Figure 1a). Also
on the first floor is a bedroom and attached two-car ga-
rage. The living room has a “cathedral” ceiling extending
to the second story. The second floor includes three bed-
rooms and two bathrooms. The home’s HVAC system uses
100% recirculated air; that is, there is no fresh air intake.
The windows in the California house were primarily
horizontal sliding glass panes. The experimental window
that was most often opened was located in the den and
had a height of 1.4 m. Other windows opened during ex-
periments were located in the master bedroom, master
bathroom, upstairs bedroom, and downstairs bedroom.
The heights of these windows ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 m.
148 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
A transom window located in the kitchen was occasion-
ally tilted open several centimeters. Sliding glass doors (2
m height) located in the nook and the dining room were
also opened during several experiments.
The California house is located in Redwood City, CA,
which is ~48 km southwest of San Francisco, CA. This re-
gion is characterized by a narrow range of outdoor tem-
peratures year round. Based on 30-year meteorological data
(1961–1990),25 ambient temperatures are relatively mild,
with monthly averages ranging from 9.2 ºC (January) to
20.4 ºC (August). Hourly outdoor temperature and wind
speed data were collected from the San Jose airport, ~39
km from the experimental house. During most air change
experiments, temperature, wind speed, and wind direction
were not measured at the house. On occasion, outdoor and
indoor temperatures were measured at the California house
on a 1-min basis with CO Databears (model T15, Langan
Products). Wind speeds were often noted on experimental
days and were categorized as calm, light, or gusty. Since
completing the experiments described herein, additional
wind data were collected at a height of 3.05 m in the back-
yard at a distance of 4.6 m from the rear of the house using
a computerized anemometer (WeatherPort).
The Virginia house is a three-story, four-bedroom, four-
bathroom end-unit townhouse with a floor area of ~50 m2
per level (Figure 1b) and an approximate overall volume of
400 m3. The townhouse is built on a slope such that there
is a partial basement consisting of a utility room, pantry,
bathroom, and den with walkout patio. The middle level
consists of a kitchen, dining room, living room, and bath-
room. The top level contains four bedrooms (two of which
have been converted to offices) and two bathrooms. The
home’s HVAC system uses 100% recirculated air and its
ductwork does not enter the attic, resulting in minimal
duct leakage to the outdoors. Two “blower door” tests
[American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Stan-
dard E779]26 were recently performed to assess the air tight-
ness of the house. A blower door test consists of pressurizing
(or depressurizing) a building to a given pressure differ-
ence and measuring the resulting airflow rates. The aver-
age closed house air change rate at 50 Pa was 14.2 hr–1 with
an estimated leakage area of 1120 cm2 at 4 Pa. The blower
door test also showed there to be negligible air exchange
between the adjacent townhouses.
The windows of the Virginia house were also hori-
zontal sliders and were similar in size to those in the Cali-
fornia house. A majority of the experiments focused on
the second floor dining-room window that was 1.4 m in
height. Other windows opened during experiments were
located in the master bedroom, front bedroom, back of-
fice, and recreation room. The heights of these windows
were also 1.4 m. A 2.0-m-tall sliding glass door located in
the living room was opened several times.
Volume 52 February 2002
 Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott

Table 1. Characteristics of the two houses studied in California and Virginia.

California House Virginia House

Location Redwood City, CA, midway between San Jose and San Reston, VA, 35 km northwest of Washington, DC
Francisco (42 km southwest of SFO airport) (13 km east of Dulles airport)
Weather Mild year-round, low winds Moderate temperatures, low winds
Type of House Detached, two-story End-unit three-story townhouse
Construction Materials Wood and stucco Cement block, stucco, and wood
Year of Construction 1986 1970
Floor Plan Four bedrooms, three bathrooms, attached garage, attic Four bedrooms, four bathrooms, partial basement, attic
Mixing Volume 510 m3 400 m3; ~135 m3 per level
Floor Area 200 m2 155 m2; ~52 m2 per level
HVAC Central a/c, gas heat Central a/c, gas heat
Window Types Horizontal sliding glass panes with screens Horizontal sliding glass panes with screens
Single Windows Opened Location Height (cm) Location Height (cm)
1 Den 137 Dining room 138
2 Nook sliding glass door 198 Recreation room 142
3 Dining-room sliding glass door 198 Office 144

The Virginia house is located in Reston, VA, which is
~35 km northwest of Washington, DC. In the District of
Columbia area, there is a greater temperature range be-
tween winter and summer months than there is in Cali-
fornia. Monthly average temperatures (from 1962 to
1993)25 ranged from –0.4 ºC in January to 24.4 ºC in July.
Meteorological data were available on an hourly basis from
nearby Dulles airport (~13 km from the Virginia house).
Outdoor and indoor temperatures were measured on a
5-min basis using nephelometers (model 500, Climet In-
struments), on a 1-min basis using CO Databears (model
T15, Langan Products), and occasionally with two house-
hold thermometers. All temperature monitors were col-
located for several extended multiday periods to determine
individual bias, which was corrected to a single monitor.
The outdoor temperature measurements at the house were
significantly correlated with temperatures measured at
Dulles airport with a Spearman correlation coefficient of
0.95 (t = 188, n = 3995). During most air change rate ex-
periments, wind data were not collected; however, the
Virginia house was effectively shielded by tall trees (the
property backs onto a 0.12 km2 forested park) and nearby
townhouse rows, resulting in no noticeable wind a ma-
jority of the time. Subsequent to most of the window-
opening experiments, an ultrasonic anemometer
(Climatronics, Inc.) was installed on the roof (~1 m above
roof) of the Virginia house.

Tracer Gas Technique

In both houses, the air change rate was determined using
the tracer decay method. A detailed description of this
method is provided in ASTM Standard E741.27 Sulfur
hexafluoride (commercial product grade, 99.8% pure, Scott
Specialty Gases Inc.) was used as the tracer gas. In the
California house, a mass flow controller (model 5850E,
Emerson Electric Co., Brooks Instrument Division) was
used to regulate the total mass of SF6 injected. In the Vir-
ginia house, an amount of SF6 sufficient to fill the vol-
ume in the chamber between the two valves in the
Figure 1. Floor plans of (a) the California house and (b) the Virginia two-valve regulator was released in a single burst. For the
house. decay method, the exact mass of released SF6 does not

Volume 52 February 2002 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 149
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
need to be quantified because the calculated air change
rate depends only on the rate of change of tracer concen-
trations. To avoid possible cylinder leakage, the tracer cyl-
inders were removed from the California house following
each initial release. This was not found to be necessary at
the Virginia house.
Brüel & Kjaer (B&K) multigas photoacoustic analyz-
ers (model 1302) were used to measure the SF6 concentra-
tion decay in both houses. The B&K monitor uses an IR
radiation beam to irradiate the gas sample with light at a
frequency corresponding to an absorption frequency of
the gas. The gas absorbs some of the incident light en-
ergy, the amount of energy depending on the concentra-
tion of the gas. The absorbed light energy is reradiated at
a longer wavelength (heat), which results in periodic pres-
sure waves (also known as sound waves) that are mea-
sured by a microphone. A sample was collected and
analyzed approximately every minute, providing “real-
time” measurements of the tracer concentration. The
monitor can detect SF6 at levels from ~0.1 to 80 ppm.
Two B&K monitors were operated side by side in the Cali-
fornia house resulting in an average percent difference in
SF6 concentration measurements of 4.6%. In the Virginia
house, the B&K monitor was collocated with a gas chro-
matograph with electron capture detector (GC/ECD)
(Valco Instrument Co., Inc.) to simultaneously measure
SF6 concentrations. A bivariate analysis for 3 days of si-
multaneous data collection showed the B&K monitor to
average 97% (p < 0.001) of the SF6 concentrations mea-
sured by the GC/ECD with an adjusted R2 value of 0.95.
Determination of a building’s air change rate is based
on the continuity equation.28-30 A general form of this
equation for each zone in a house may be written as
∑Q C − ∑Q C
dCiVi
= Qout,iCout − Qi,outCi + ji j
dt
j j
where Ci is the tracer concentration in zone i (ppm), Vi
is the volume of zone i (m3), Qout,i is the airflow rate
from outdoors to zone i (m3/hr), Cout is the tracer con-
centration in outdoor air (ppm), Qi,out is the airflow rate
from zone i to outdoors (m3/hr), Qji is the airflow rate
from zone j to zone i (m3/hr), Cj is the tracer concentra-
tion in zone j (ppm), and Qij is the airflow rate from
zone i to zone j (m3/hr). For the tracer concentration
decay technique using SF6, it is reasonable to assume
no contribution of SF6 mass from the outdoors (Cout =
0). Also, each zone’s volume (Vi) may be assumed con-
stant. For a single compartment (i = 1, j = 0), eq 1 may
be further simplified to
dC
V = −QoutC
dt
Combining like terms and integrating eq 2 results in
150 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
 C(t )  Qout (3)
ln =− t
 C(0)  V
where C(0) is the initial tracer concentration (ppm) and
Q out
is the air change rate (hr–1). Using measured values
V
of C over time, a plot of ln [C(t)/C(0)] versus time may be
created. The negative slope of the best-fit straight line
through these points is an estimate of the volumetric air-
flow rate divided by the house volume, which is typically
expressed as an air change rate with the units of air changes
per hour (hr–1). Because the B&K monitors consistently
showed a positive reading under clean air conditions, and
also in cases of nonzero residual levels of SF6 in the house,
it was important to subtract the appropriate background
levels from all readings. This was done by averaging the
B&K readings before the release of the tracer gas and also
after final equilibrium was reached and subtracting the
mean of the two averages from all values.
The standard error was calculated for the negative
slopes of all best-fit lines based on the regression of eq 3. In
general, the standard errors were relatively low. For example,
the mean standard error averaged over 163 State 0 slopes
calculated for the Virginia house basement was 0.020 hr–1
(SD = 0.044 hr–1), or ~5% of the overall mean air change
rate of 0.41 hr–1. For open-window periods, the regression
was often based on shorter (<1 hr) decay times and resulted
in an average standard error of 0.074 hr–1 (SD = 0.11 hr–1),
or ~7% of the mean open-window air change rate of 1.1
hr–1. Similar error values were observed for other levels in
the Virginia house and at the California house.
Several tests were completed in both houses to assess
the degree of tracer gas concentration uniformity among
and within the rooms. In the California house, separate
ij i (1) tracer experiments were completed with simultaneous
measurements in multiple locations. Results showed tracer
concentrations to be within ±2% on a single level and
within ±2% on different levels (ASTM Standard E74127
requires ±10% throughout the volume being tested). These
results provide evidence that within 45 min of the tracer
release at closed conditions (State 0: no open windows or
doors), the California house may be approximated by a
single, well-mixed compartment. Thus, tracer concentra-
tions were usually measured in a single location for a given
experiment in the California house. However, the loca-
tion of the monitor was varied between experiments.
Unlike the California house, the Virginia house ex-
hibited a strong stack effect in the colder months result-
ing in a fairly uniform tracer gas concentration on each
floor with a gradient of concentration with floor level. As
Etheridge and Sandberg28 suggest, a reasonable character-
(2)
ization of a multistory house is a single compartment per
level. This division of the house was validated by separate
Volume 52 February 2002

mixing experiments in which tracer concentrations were
measured on different levels and at different locations on
the same level. In January, when the stack effect was at a
peak, the following geometric means of the ratio of con-
centrations for different levels with the central fan off
were determined: Level 3/Level 1 = 1.5 (n = 13, GSD =
1.2), Level 3/Level 2 = 1.3 (n = 4, GSD = 1.1), and Level 2/
Level 1 = 1.2 (n = 11, GSD = 1.1). In July, there appeared
to be improved mixing between the floors with the fol-
lowing geometric means: Level 3/Level 1 = 0.99, Level 3/
Level 2 = 0.98, and Level 2/Level 1 = 1.0. It should be
noted that a potential reverse stack effect at the Virginia
house during the summer months was counteracted by
the heat-generating equipment (pumps, computers, etc.)
located on Level 1. During the summer months, tracer
concentrations were within 4% on any given level. Due
to the three-compartment nature of the three-level Vir-
ginia house, in winter, the B&K monitor was retrofitted
with an 18-m, 0.64-cm o.d. Teflon tubing such that mea-
surements could easily be made on different levels dur-
ing the course of an experiment. Initial mixing of the tracer
gas after release was normally enhanced through opera-
tion of the home’s central fan.
Opening one or more windows also introduced a
multizone situation for both houses. An open window is
a source of “clean” outdoor air of different density than
indoor air. As a result, air entering the window rapidly
reduces the existing tracer concentration. This rapid re-
duction of concentration, however, was observed only in
the zone near the open window. For example, in the Cali-
fornia house, a monitor sampling in a nearby bedroom
or upstairs did not record the rapid loss of tracer follow-
ing the opening of the den window downstairs. A smoke
tracer test in the Virginia house indicated that the flow of
air from the window was observable up to 6 m away from
the window, but not beyond. This new source of “clean”
air eventually mixed with the remaining air volume of
the house; however, the tracer concentrations were dif-
ferent depending on the distance from the open window,
resulting in multiple compartments.
When determining the air change rate for a multi-
compartment volume, a more complex method than
that provided in eq 2 is needed. Sinden31 provides a de-
tailed solution method for a multicompartment situa-
tion. This method results in the following tracer
concentration vector:
n Virginia house.
C(t) = ∑α
k =1
k xkexp(λkt) (4)
where n is number of compartments, αk is the solution
constant dependent on initial conditions, xk is the eigen-
vector associated with eigenvalue λk, and λk is the eigen-
value of matrix based on the solution of matrix
Volume 52 February 2002
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
determinant. After a sufficiently long time, the portion
of the concentration associated with the smaller eigen-
values of eq 4 becomes negligible. At this point, as shown
by Etheridge and Sandberg,28 the tracer decay rate in all
compartments approaches a single value
C(t) ≅ exp(max λkt) xmax (5)
where max λk is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix
and xmax is the eigenvector associated with max λk.
Thus, when plotting ln(Ci) versus time for each well-
mixed compartment i, the concentration decay curve for
each compartment will become parallel, all with a slope of
λk. The associated slope (max λk) is typically not the same
value as that of the whole-house air change rate. In fact,
Etheridge and Sandberg28 show the maximum eigenvalue
to be between the smallest air change rate and the largest
air change rate occurring in any zone. It appears that the
maximum eigenvalue is always as large as or larger than
the whole-house air change rate, and the overestimate is
symmetrical whether a stack effect or reverse stack effect is
occurring. Our three-compartment model indicates that,
for a case in which the inflow of air at the lowest level is
twice that at the highest level, the observed slope will be
1.08 times the actual whole-house air change rate.
For experiments involving multiple compartments
(e.g., open-window conditions, State 0 in the Virginia
house in winter), slopes for the decay curve were deter-
mined for periods of maximum eigenvalue domination.
For the Virginia house, we defined the period of maxi-
mum eigenvalue domination as the period after mixing
when slopes for each zone were within 20% of each other.
Slopes that did not meet these criteria were not used in
the data analysis.
Approach
A “two-state” experimental approach was adopted and
followed in both test houses. The first state, State 0, con-
sisted of all windows and external doors closed, with most
internal doors open. For the California house experi-
ments, State 0 also consisted of the door connecting the
attached garage and house being closed and the HVAC
system being off. Each house remained at State 0 long
enough to establish an associated well-mixed, “steady”
air change rate. State 0 time ranged from 3 to 10 hr in
the California house and from 30 min to 7 hr in the
The second state incorporated a single change from
State 0 conditions; that is, a window was opened to a speci-
fied width (1.3–63.5 cm). Again, measurement time was
sufficiently long to allow a valid measurement of the av-
erage air change rate in this new state. This uninterrupted
dual-state approach minimized the effect of other cofactors.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 151
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott

Additional experiments were completed in which mul-

tiple windows were opened on the same level as well as
on different levels.

RESULTS
Air change experiments were performed in the two occu-
pied residences between May 1995 and July 1999. A total
of 130 experiments were completed in the California
house and more than 200 experiments were completed
in the Virginia house. Between the two homes, experi-
ments were representative of different seasons, weather
conditions, and times of day. During this extended sam-
pling period, no major changes were made to either house. Figure 2. Comparison of air change rates with all windows and
doors closed (State 0) at the Virginia house and the California house.
State 0 Experiments For each class interval, the air change rate is equal to or greater than
(External Windows and Doors Closed) the value listed.

A total of 112 State 0 experiments were completed at the
California house (Table 2). The measured State 0 air change
rates ranged from 0.22 to 0.67 hr–1, with half of all mea-
sured rates falling in a tight interval of 0.30–0.39 hr–1 (Fig-
ure 2). The State 0 air change rates were primarily measured
between 6:00 and 11:00 p.m.
A total of 203 State 0 experiments, incorporating 393
measurements of air change rates for the three different
levels, were completed at the Virginia house (see Table
2). The measured State 0 air change rates were averaged
across all three levels and ranged from 0.10 to 0.82 hr–1
(see Figure 2). The nighttime mean of 0.44 hr–1 (n = 121)
was similar to the daytime mean of 0.39 hr–1 (n = 81).
The Virginia house was subjected to a wider range of
meteorological conditions than those experienced at the
California house.
Multiple and stepwise regressions were performed on
the Virginia house air change rates to investigate the ef-
fects of temperature and wind speed and direction on the
house at State 0 (closed windows). The meteorological pa-
rameters were obtained from Dulles airport, ~13 km north-
west of Reston. The distribution of air change rates was
strongly bimodal, with high rates in the winter (Decem-
ber 14, 1998, to March 21, 1999) (mean = 0.57 hr–1, SD =
0.14 hr–1, n = 95) and low rates in the summer (June 26 to
July 10, 1999) (mean = 0.15 hr–1, SD = 0.06 hr–1, n = 59).32
Because of its bimodal character, the complete distribu-
tion failed tests for normality and log-normality; how-
ever, the individual winter and summer distributions were
not rejected for log-normality by the chi-square test (p =
0.47 and p = 0.37, respectively), and the winter distribu-
tion was also not rejected for normality (p = 0.66). There-
fore, regressions were performed separately on the winter
and summer data. For the winter data (n = 74), the airport
meteorological parameters accounted for 65% of the to-
tal variance. Of this total, 54% was associated with the
indoor/outdoor temperature difference, 9% with the wind
speed, and ~1% each with the two orthogonal axes (north-
south and east-west). In summer, no meteorological vari-
ables significantly affected air change rates.
A similar multiple regression was not performed on
the California house. Instead, a series of nine experiments
were carried out in 2000 at the California house to look
very closely at the effect of wind on air change rate, using

Table 2. Seasonal averages of ventilation State 0 air change rates.

California House State 0 Virginia House State 0

Season Mean (hr–1) n SD (hr–1) SE (hr–1) Mean (hr–1) n SD (hr–1) SE (hr–1)

Winter 0.39 35 0.099 0.017 0.53 100 0.13 0.013

(Jan 1–March 31)
Spring 0.34 21 0.089 0.019 0.28 67 0.12 0.014
(April 1–June 30)
Summer 0.35 23 0.097 0.020 0.14 21 0.033 0.0073
(July 1–Sept 30)
Fall 0.38 33 0.11 0.019 0.55 15 0.16 0.040
(Oct 1–Dec 31)
Overall Average 0.37 112 0.10 0.0095 0.41 203 0.19 0.013

152 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 52 February 2002
 Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott

the backyard anemometer to Table 3. Single window/door-opening experiments at the California house.
measure wind speed and wind
direction. The approach was to Width of Area of Window/Door Date State 0 Air New Air Delta Air
measure air change rates at State Opening Opening Opened Change Rate Change Rate Change Rate
(cm) (cm2) (hr–1)a (hr–1)b (hr–1)c
0 on two consecutive days, one
windy and one nonwindy, to
2.5 343 Den Oct 20, 95 0.41 0.44 +0.03
see if a clear difference could be
3.8 521 Den Oct 26, 95 0.38 0.49 +0.11
noted. Temperature differences 5.1 699 Den Oct 13, 95 0.44 0.75 +0.31
from day to day were relatively 5.1 699 Den Nov 24, 95 0.50 0.79 +0.29
small. Three days included pe- 5.1 699 Den Jan 8, 96 0.49 0.78 +0.29
riods of several hours when the 7.6 1041 Den Oct 25, 95 0.39 0.64 +0.25
winds averaged approximately 10.2 1397 Den Oct 15, 95 0.46 0.76 +0.30
2–2.5 m/sec at the 3 m height, 10.2 1397 Den Nov 16, 95 0.44 0.79 +0.35
whereas for 6 days, the winds 10.2 1397 Den Feb 27, 96 0.48 0.55 +0.07
averaged less than 0.5 m/sec. No 10.2 1397 Den Mar 8, 96 0.25 0.60 +0.35
difference was seen in the mea- 10.2 1397 Den Apr 24, 96 0.24 0.59 +0.35
12.7 1740 Den Dec 22, 96 0.34 0.84 +0.50
sured air change rates on the
12.7 1740 Den Jan 15, 99 0.32 0.54 +0.22
windy versus nonwindy days.
15.2 2082 Den Sep 24, 95 0.29 0.46 +0.17
Thus, no effect of winds on air
22.9 3137 Den July 6, 96 0.36 0.73 +0.37
change rates was evident at the 27.9 3822 Den Aug 11, 96 0.30 0.56 +0.26
California house. 30.5 4179 Den Oct 11, 95 0.41 0.96 +0.55
33.0 4521 Den Aug 9, 96 0.32 0.61 +0.29
Single Window Opening 33.0 4521 Den Sep 29, 96 0.24 0.53 +0.29
Experiments 35.6 4877 Den Aug 20, 96 0.30 0.65 +0.35
A total of 30 experiments were 35.6 4877 Den Oct 2, 96 0.28 0.83 +0.55
completed with a single win- 38.1 5220 Den July 31, 96 0.35 0.82 +0.47
dow or door opening following 43.2 5918 Den Aug 21, 96 0.35 0.61 +0.26
a State 0 experiment at the Cali- 48.3 6617 Den Mar 17, 96 0.34 1.14 +0.80
50.8 6960 Den Oct 7, 96 0.29 0.82 +0.53
fornia house (Table 3). A typi-
74.9 14,830 Nook Oct 18, 96 0.28 0.74 +0.46
cal example of a plot of the
91.4 18,100 Nook July 18, 95 0.37 1.34 +0.97
concentration decay during the
91.4 18,100 LR door Aug 23, 95 0.38 1.05 +0.67
State 0 period and the subse- 91.4 18,100 Nook Oct 25, 98 0.33 1.08 +0.75
quent change in decay rate fol- 91.4 18,100 Nook Oct 27, 98 0.25 0.80 +0.55
lowing a window opening of
12.7 cm shows two distinct aState 0 air change rate is the steady-state air change rate with all external windows and doors closed; bNew air change rate is the steady-state
slopes representing each state air change rate following the opening of a window; cDelta air change rate is the difference between the new and State 0 air change rates.
(Figure 3). At the Virginia house,
34 single window-opening experiments were completed
(Table 4). At this house, during similar meteorological con-
ditions, a single window was opened on different floors re-
sulting in a varied effect on air change rate. For example, a
single window was opened 12.7 cm in the first-level recre-
ation room, resulting in an air change rate increase of 1.26
hr–1 (averaged across three levels). When a similar window
was opened 12.7 cm in the second-level dining room, the
air change rate increased by an average of 0.35 hr–1 (aver-
aged across three levels). A third-level office window opened
12.7 cm only increased the air change rate by 0.15 hr–1 (av-
eraged across three levels). This difference in the increase in
Figure 3. Representative “two-state” experiment at the California house,
air change rate might be attributed to the distribution of
in which State 0 was maintained between 14 and 17 hr, at which time the
pressure differences in the three levels of the house. Un- family-room window was opened 12.7 cm. The measured State 0 air
der stack conditions, more fresh air will enter a lower- change rate was 0.34 (±0.003 SE) hr–1 (n = 146, R2 = 0.992). The open-
level opening than a similar opening on the top floor. window air exchange rate was 0.84 (±0.003 SE) hr–1 (n = 116, R2 = 0.998).

Volume 52 February 2002 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 153
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott

Table 4. Single window-opening experiments at the Virginia House. California house. Theory sug-
gests that if temperature differ-
Width of Area of Window Date State 0 Air New Air Delta Air ences are strong enough to
Opening Opening Opened Change Rate Change Rate Change Rate overwhelm effects due to wind
(cm) (cm2) (hr–1)a (hr–1)b (hr–1)c
and turbulence, then the
change in air change rate will
1.3 174 Dining room Mar 17, 97 0.59 0.71 +0.12
scale linearly with the product
2.5 355 Dining room Mar 31, 97 0.29 0.56 +0.27
2.5 355 Dining room Jan 4, 99 0.80 0.82 +0.02 of the window opening width
2.5 355 Dining room Jan 5, 99 0.76 0.98 +0.22 and the square root of the tem-
2.5 361 Recreation room Jan 6, 99 0.64 1.50 +0.86 perature difference;28 however,
2.5 361 Recreation room Jan 7, 99 0.62 1.50 +0.88 a plot of the delta air change
5.1 703 Dining room Feb 23, 97 0.54 0.81 +0.27 rate versus this compound
5.1 703 Dining room Mar 6, 97 0.44 0.67 +0.23 variable on the x axis failed to
5.1 703 Dining room Mar 15, 97 0.44 0.66 +0.22 improve the fit. It appears that
5.1 703 Dining room Dec 29, 98 0.52 0.89 +0.37
the relationship between air
5.1 703 Dining room Dec 30, 98 0.76 1.21 +0.45
change rate, temperature dif-
5.1 703 Dining room Jan 23, 99 0.26 0.52 +0.26
ference, wind and turbulence
5.1 729 Office Feb 16, 99 0.27 0.45 +0.18
7.6 1058 Dining room Mar 3, 97 0.33 0.73 +0.40 effects, neutral pressure height,
7.6 1084 Recreation room Feb 10, 99 0.60 1.90 +1.3 possible vertical temperature
10.2 1406 Dining room Mar 10, 97 0.57 1.07 +0.50 gradients, and other variables
12.7 1761 Dining room Dec 17, 98 0.45 0.96 +0.51 difficult to measure or hold
12.7 1761 Dining room Jan 27, 99 0.48 0.67 +0.19 constant prevent us from es-
12.7 1806 Recreation room Feb 6, 99 0.33 1.59 +1.26 tablishing a simple relation-
12.7 1826 Office Jan 12, 99 0.31 0.46 +0.15 ship between air change rate
15.2 2110 Dining room Mar 29, 97 0.17 0.62 +0.45
increases and the width of
15.2 2110 Dining room Apr 1, 97 0.64 1.03 +0.39
opening of a single window.
19.1 2639 Dining room Feb 3, 99 0.42 1.27 +0.85
20.3 2813 Dining room Mar 24, 97 0.54 1.14 +0.60
25.4 3516 Dining room Mar 28, 97 0.30 1.06 +0.76 Local Dilution Effect
25.4 3516 Dining room Dec 16, 98 0.42 1.0 +0.58 For several minutes immedi-
25.4 3516 Dining room Dec 21, 98 0.39 0.75 +0.36 ately following the opening of
25.4 3516 Dining room Dec 22, 98 0.67 1.35 +0.68 the California house den win-
30.5 4219 Dining room Mar 22, 97 0.41 1.15 +0.74 dow, an intermediate decay
40.6 5626 Dining room Apr 5, 97 0.37 1.06 +0.69 period with a steep slope was
50.8 7032 Dining room Apr 2, 97 0.38 1.27 +0.89 observed (Figure 5a). This
50.8 7032 Dining room Dec 15, 98 0.47 1.41 +0.94
rapid tracer decay, or “whoosh”,
50.8 7032 Dining room Dec 28, 98 0.87 1.66 +0.79
was measured during experi-
63.5 8794 Dining room Apr 7, 97 0.34 1.11 +0.77
ments in which the window
a b
State 0 air change rate is the steady-state air change rate with all external windows and doors closed; New air change rate is the steady-state was opened at least 2.5 cm
air change rate following the opening of a window; cDelta air change rate is the difference between the new and State 0 air change rates. and the B&K monitor was
sampling in the room con-
In both homes, a single window was selected to study taining the open window. As discussed earlier, this steeper
extensively the effect of opening a window to different slope reflects the influx of outdoor air to the immediate
widths ranging from 1.3 to 63.5 cm. In the California air volume, resulting in a significant dilution of the ex-
house, 25 experiments involved the opening of a win- isting tracer gas in only that zone. This concentration
dow located in the den (see Figure 1 for window loca- response was short-lived, typically lasting on the order
tion). In the Virginia house, a dining room window was of 10 min. As the concentration levels adjusted to this
selected for 28 controlled experiments. A monotonic in- change in conditions, the slope of the logarithm of con-
crease in air change rate with width of window opening centration became flatter and then stabilized at a value
was observed (Figure 4). A linear regression of the delta larger than the State 0 air change rate but less than the
air change rate and width of window opening resulted in value observed immediately after opening the window.
a slope of 0.012 ± 0.0016 hr–1/cm and intercept of 0.25 ± The values listed in Tables 3 and 4 represent air change
0.041 hr–1 for the Virginia house, and a slope of 0.0069 ± rates measured after the total house volume air had be-
0.0018 hr–1/cm and intercept of 0.19 ± 0.046 hr–1 for the come fully mixed.

154 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 52 February 2002

Figure 4. Relationship between the increase in air exchange and window
opening width following the opening of a single den window in the
California house and a single dining-room window in the Virginia house.
Tracer decay results for the Virginia house also showed
this initial sharp decrease in SF6 concentration following
the opening of a window, but only on the floor where the
window was open. A representative tracer decay graph
(Figure 5b) shows several aspects common to the Virginia
house experiments. First, the slopes for each floor are par-
allel prior to the opening of the window (State 0), reflect-
ing equilibrium conditions. Second, the window was
opened in the dining room at the same time the B&K
monitor was sampling in that room. As with the Califor-
nia house, a rapid clearing out (“whoosh” effect) was evi-
dent for a relatively short period of time. As seen in other
experiments, the lower and upper floors did not experi-
ence such a steep initial decline in tracer concentration
following a window opening in the dining room. Finally,
the decay curve slopes were again parallel after a suffi-
cient mixing time had elapsed.
Multiple Window Opening Experiments
A more effective clearing out of the tracer gas was dem-
onstrated when multiple windows were opened on dif-
ferent floors. In the California house, 29 experiments
were completed with two or more window openings
(Table 5). Transient period decay rates measured as high
as 16 hr–1. Following the transient period, measurable
sustained air change rates (>40-min averaging time)
ranged from 0.10 to 2.8 hr–1. The average increase in air
change rate for all multiple window openings with an
available starting value was 1.1 hr–1 (SD = 0.77, n = 21).
The average increase in air change rate for opening dif-
ferent combinations of two windows was 0.85 hr–1,
which increased to 1.3 hr–1 when three or more win-
dows were opened. Often, the tracer gas concentrations
decayed to below detection limits within the first 40
min after opening the windows, not allowing the de-
termination of a “readjusted” rate. For an experiment
Volume 52 February 2002
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
Figure 5. “Whoosh” effect observed at (a) the California house (family-
room window opened 35.6 cm from time 24 to 31 hr) and (b) the Virginia
house (dining-room window opened 25.4 cm from time 14 to 16.8 hr).
with every window and exterior door opened, the tracer
gas concentration decreased to below the minimum
detection limit within 2 min.
Similar results were obtained for the multiple win-
dow-opening experiments completed at the Virginia
house. The measurable sustained values ranged from 0.74
to 3.4 hr–1. The average increase in air change rate for all
multiple window openings with an available start value
was 1.25 hr–1 (SD = 0.49, n = 7).
DISCUSSION
Historically, the estimation of residential air change rates
has focused on the influence of meteorological factors such
as wind speed and indoor/outdoor temperature difference.
As a result, we specifically looked at the relationship of
these factors and air change rates measured in the Cali-
fornia and Virginia homes to compare their ability to in-
crease air change rate with that of opening windows. In
both experimental homes, the range of meteorologically
influenced air change rates was within a single order of
magnitude, with a maximum value in the neighborhood
of 0.8 hr–1. At the Virginia house, with all doors and win-
dows closed, indoor/outdoor temperature differences were
closely associated with measured air change rates. This
relationship is most easily seen by noting that the mean
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 155
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott

Table 5. Multiple window openings at the California house.

No. of Date No. of 1st No. of 2nd Monitor Initial Air Whoosh Regression Open Regression Delta Air
Open Floor Floor Location Change Decay Time Window Air Time Change Rate
–1 –1 –1 –1
Windows Windows Windows (hr ) (hr ) (min) Change (hr ) (min) (hr )

2 Apr 21, 96 1 1 1st floor 0.36 – – 0.84 110 0.48

2 June 27, 96 1 1 1st floor 0.33 – – 1.34 75 1.01
2 July 28, 96 1 1 1st floor 0.45 7.74 10 2.94 60 2.49
2 Aug 13, 96 1 1 1st floor – 4.79 20 1.62 65 –
2 Aug 31, 96 1 1 1st floor 0.49 10.7 5 1.22 50 0.73
2 Oct 9, 95 2 0 1st floor – – – 0.89 140 –
2 Apr 1, 96 2 0 1st floor 0.39 – – 0.87 65 0.48
2 Aug 30, 96 2 0 1st floor 0.36 5.19 10 1.71 100 1.35
2 Sep 1, 96 2 0 1st floor 0.35 4.67 10 0.69 350 0.34
2 Sep 3, 96 2 0 1st floor 0.36 4.26 10 0.73 270 0.37
2 Sep 7, 96 2 0 1st floor 0.36 3.37 20 0.77 120 0.41
3 June 27, 96 2 1 1st floor 1.34 – – 2.37 105 1.03
3 Mar 18, 96 1 2 1st floor – – – 2.53 70 –
3 Mar 28, 96 1 2 1st floor 0.33 – – 3.09 70 2.76
3 Mar 31, 96 1 2 1st floor 0.33 – – 1.76 170 1.43
3 Apr 8, 96 1 2 1st floor 0.32 – – 2.21 70 1.89
3 Apr 2, 96 3 0 1st floor 0.35 12 6 1.17 90 0.82
3 Apr 3, 96 3 0 1st floor 0.39 2.47 5 0.62 150 0.23
3 Nov 28, 98 3 0 1st floor 0.33 4.77 20 0.80 20 0.47
3 Nov 28, 98 3 0 2nd floor 0.37 4.95 20 0.47 20 0.10
3 Dec 13, 98 3 0 1st floor 0.35 6.15 21 2.07 100 1.72
4 Aug 18, 95 2 2 1st floor – 9.1 6 1.49 120 –
4 May 18, 96 2 2 1st floor 0.33 – – 1.66 210 1.33
4 May 28, 96 2 2 1st floor 0.35 5.06 10 2.31 60 1.96
6 May 19, 96 2 4 1st floor 0.29 6.67 40 – – –
7 Aug 29, 96 4 3 1st floor 0.33 15.8 12 – – –
7 Sep 14, 96 4 3 1st floor 0.37 7.5 35 – – –
7 Oct 8, 96 4 3 1st floor 0.31 9.02 32 2.11 40 1.80
8 Apr 20, 96 4 4 1st floor 0.29 11.2 30 – – –
8 May 14, 96 4 4 1st floor 0.25 11.9 30 – – –

wintertime air change rate was nearly 4 times the mean
summertime rate. When temperatures were nearly the
same indoors and outdoors, the air change rate was ~0.1
hr–1, increasing to ~0.8 hr–1 when the temperature differ-
ence reached a maximum of nearly 30 ºC. Although wind
speed was significant in the wintertime regression on the
Virginia house, it explained only 9% of the observed vari-
ance and was thus negligible compared with the tempera-
ture effect. In the case of the California house, the greatly
smaller range of indoor/outdoor temperature differences
made it difficult to determine a temperature effect, and a
wind speed effect was also not observable.
By adding the opening of a window to the already
present meteorological influences of air change rate,
we were able to further increase the air change rate by
an order of magnitude. Specifically, at the Virginia
house, it appears that the maximum effect on air change
rate due to wind velocity and indoor/outdoor tempera-
ture differences is in the neighborhood of 0.7 hr –1,
whereas window opening can achieve extended peri-
ods with decay rates of ~2 hr–1. Thus, window opening
in this area with fairly strong seasonal temperature
variations can result in air change rates ~3 times those
due to the maximum indoor/outdoor temperature dif-
ferences. At the California house, the dominance of
window opening over meteorological effects is much
more pronounced, with window opening able to
achieve air change rates almost 10 times higher than
the average meteorologically influenced (State 0) air
change rate. Thus, our results show that the air change
rate in a single house is highly dependent on window-
opening conditions and that a wide range of air change
rates is achievable in a single house simply by adjust-
ing the window positions.

156 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 52 February 2002

This influence of window opening on air change rate
is an important consideration for indoor air quality mod-
els. In general, however, it is difficult to develop a quanti-
tative relationship between air change rate and the
opening of one or more windows. According to the Ameri-
can Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Condition-
ing Engineers (ASHRAE) Fundamentals Handbook,7 flow
through an open window depends on several variables,
including area of the window opening, number and loca-
tion of window openings, wind speed, indoor/outdoor
temperature difference, and height of the neutral pres-
sure level (the point where the indoor pressure is equal to
the outdoor pressure). In addition, there is the presence
of turbulent eddies at the window opening. Although we
found the increase in air change rate to be primarily de-
pendent on window-opening area (width), many com-
plex factors may need to be considered.
For example, the indoor/outdoor temperature dif-
ference is also a function of the window opening width—
as the window opening width increases, the airflow
increases and replaces more of the indoor air with out-
door air of a different temperature. In one case at the
Virginia house, after opening the dining room window,
the temperature of that room declined from 23 to 9 ºC
in 1 hr. At time t = 0 (measuring time from the opening
of the window), the temperature difference and, there-
fore, the flow is at a maximum; a monitor near the win-
dow will measure a rapid decline in concentration (the
“whoosh” observed in Figures 5a and 5b). At a later time,
tss, when steady-state conditions have again been ob-
tained, the same monitor will register a slower decrease.
In the first case (t ~ 0), the observed decrease cannot be
considered an air change rate (except possibly for the
volume of air affected by the initial “whoosh”), but in
the second case (t = tss), the final steady-state decrease is
a true air change rate. It is possible that some of the
higher air change rates reported in the literature are due
to this “whoosh” effect and are therefore overestimates.
Window Opening Behavior
Noted in Other Studies
In addition to being theoretically complex, there are few
experimental data available to aid in understanding the
window-opening phenomenon. The relationship between
air change rate and window opening width has not been
quantified for real homes in the existing literature. How-
ever, several studies have observed a general increase in
air change rate when comparing measurements during
periods a house was closed and periods windows were
open. For example, Wilson et al.23 reviewed the results of
several California air change rate studies completed in
occupied houses and concluded that window-opening
behavior accounted for much of the observed variability.
Volume 52 February 2002
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
They presented evidence that air change rates from at least
one study were significantly increased (1.22–1.34 hr–1)
when outdoor temperatures were between 19 and 24 ºC,
compared with the observed range of 0.35–0.98 hr–1 at
temperatures outside this range. The marked increase was
attributed to the tendency of persons to open windows
when the outdoor temperature is mild.
Dick and Thomas33 studied air change rates in 28 oc-
cupied houses during the winters of 1948 and 1949 in
England. Twenty homes were exposed to wind speeds on
the order of 3.8 m/sec and eight were in a more shielded
location with average wind speeds of 2.0 m/sec. The mean
air change rate under closed-window conditions in the
homes with the higher mean wind speed was 1.51 hr–1,
compared with 0.88 hr–1 in the homes with the lower mean
wind speed. The authors found that the effect of occu-
pancy (i.e., window-opening behavior) was to increase
these mean rates by between 0.95 and 1.10 hr–1.
Kvisgaard and Collet21 measured air change rates in
28 Denmark homes, of which 17 were naturally venti-
lated. Air change rates were measured for each house with
all windows and doors closed, resulting in a range of State
0 air change rates from <0.1 to ~0.4 hr–1 for the naturally
ventilated homes. When occupants were allowed to open
windows and doors, the average air change rates increased
to 0.2–1.1 hr–1. Based on these measurements, the authors
estimated that 63% of the total air change rate for these
homes was due to occupants opening windows and doors.
Iwashita and Akasaka20 concluded that 87% of the
total air change rate was due to occupant behavior. The
authors measured the air change rates in eight occupied
dwellings of a 16-story apartment complex with 52.2-m2
dwellings during the summer in Kagoshima City, Japan.
The average State 0 air change rate, measured when the
home was unoccupied with no windows open or HVAC
operation, for seven of the eight dwellings was 1.9 hr–1.
The lumped average increase in air change rate due to
opening windows or operating the air conditioner was
~24 hr–1. These values are only upper bounds, however,
because it is not possible to differentiate between loss to
the outdoors and loss to hallways and adjacent apartments
using a single tracer gas. Thus, it is not possible to di-
rectly compare these findings with our results due to the
difference in building type (i.e., high-rise apartment com-
plex vs. single family home).
Roulet and Scartezzini22 measured 8-hr average air
change rates in an occupied three-story detached house
(530 m3) in Lausanne, Switzerland, for a 12-day period.
For the entire monitoring period, average air change rates
were 0.37 hr–1 (SD = 0.083 hr–1, n = 13) when all of the
windows were closed and increased to 0.55 hr–1 when one
or two windows were opened on the third level. The width
of window opening was not specified, making it difficult
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 157
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
to compare to results presented here. However, in the Vir-
ginia house, the increase in air change rate due to open-
ing one upstairs window ranged from 0.15 to 0.18 hr–1,
consistent with the value of 0.18 hr–1 observed by Roulet
and Scartezzini.22
Traynor et al.34 also measured the increase in air
change rates when windows were opened in two unoccu-
pied single-story homes in Albany, OR, that were con-
nected by their garages. The State 0 air change rate for
both homes was ~0.2 hr–1. After opening all of the win-
dows (number not specified, but appears to be six win-
dows per home based on floor plan drawing) in each home
by 1 cm, the air change rate increased by ~0.3 hr–1. Inter-
estingly, opening one window by ~5 cm resulted in an
average 0.3 hr–1 increase in air change in both the Califor-
nia house and the Virginia house.
Window opening is not only an important determi-
nant of ventilation, but it also has a direct impact on con-
taminant concentration levels in homes. The increased
infiltration of outdoor air associated with an open win-
dow may reduce indoor contaminant concentrations as-
sociated with indoor sources, as well as increase the
penetration of outdoor contaminants. Several studies have
noted an increased correlation between measured indoor
and outdoor pollutant concentrations during periods with
the windows open.35-37 Open windows may also affect the
distribution of pollutants in a building. For example, an
occupant may open a single window to remove odors and
smoke from a specific room (e.g., opening a kitchen win-
dow after a cooking fire). While this action may be effec-
tive at removing a significant percentage of the pollutant
mass from the room with the open window, it does not
rapidly remove pollutants from other affected areas in the
house. For example, after opening the dining-room win-
dow 25 cm in the Virginia house, the concentration in
that room is reduced by 45% in 8 min, whereas it would
take ~45 min for the concentration upstairs to be reduced
by the same amount. Because the heated smoky air from
cooking rises rapidly to the upstairs rooms, it may be
important to clear these rooms as well as the kitchen. Based
on the experimental results of this study, a more effective
method to evacuate pollutants from the entire house
would be to open multiple windows, at least one per level
of the home.
CONCLUSIONS
This study examined air change rates measured in two
different types of homes located on the east and west
coasts of the United States and reached the following
conclusions:
• Of the covariates studied, opening windows and
doors produced the greatest increase in air change
rates measured in both homes.
158 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
• The indoor/outdoor temperature difference was
found to be the primary contributor to the Vir-
ginia house’s air change rate with all windows
closed (State 0).
• Opening a window by more than a few centime-
ters often produces a rapid influx of air restricted
to a relatively small volume of the house for a
transient period of a few minutes followed by a
steady air change rate for the house as a whole.
This whoosh effect (a temporary sharp drop in
tracer gas concentration near the window) is, of
course, not the whole-house air change rate.
• A monotonic increase in air change rate with
width of window opening was documented. How-
ever, the exact form of the relationship, for the
complex conditions associated with the occupied
experimental houses, could not be determined.
• At the Virginia house, on all four occasions in
the winter when a window was opened to the
same width on different floors, the increase in
whole house air change rate was greatest for the
case when a window was opened on the lowest
level. This finding suggests that the dependence
of air change rate on open windows is a function
not only of the width of the opening but also
the elevation of the window.
• Opening multiple windows increased the air
change rate by as much as 2.8 hr–1 in the Califor-
nia house and 1.7 hr–1 in the Virginia house.
These increases are far greater than could be pro-
duced in a closed house even by extreme winds
and temperature differences.
• Future indoor air quality surveys should carefully
take into account the window position of the
homes surveyed, because of the great importance
of this main covariate over other factors and the
lack of emphasis given to it in past studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Andrew Persily, Steve
Emmerich, Dan Greb, Steve Nabinger, and Stuart Dols of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
for supplying and maintaining a GC/ECD and SF6 tracer
gas for supplementary measurements during this study.
This research was partially funded by the Tobacco Related
Disease Research Program of the State of California Grant
No. 6RT-0118 and by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) University Partnership Agreement No.
DW89931890 with Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-
tory and Stanford University. EPA, through its Office of
Research and Development, funded and managed part of
the research described herein. It has been subjected to
Agency review and approved for publication. Mention of
Volume 52 February 2002

trade names or commercial products does not constitute
an endorsement or recommendation for use.
REFERENCES
1. Özkaynak, H.; Xue, J.; Weker, R.; Butler, D.; Koutrakis, P.; Spengler, J.
The Particle TEAM (PTEAM) Study: Analysis of the Data; Final Report;
Contract No. 68-02-4544; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1996; Vol. III.
2. Colome, S.D.; Wilson, A.L.; Tian, Y. California Residential Indoor Air
Quality Study. Vol. 2: Carbon Monoxide and Air Exchange Rate: A
Univariate & Multivariate Analysis; Integrated Environmental Services:
Irvine, CA, 1994.
3. Wallace, L.A.; Nelson, W.C.; Ziegenfus, R.; Pellizzari, E.D. The Los
Angeles TEAM Study: Personal Exposures, Indoor-Outdoor Air Con-
centrations, and Breath Concentrations of 25 Volatile Organic Com-
pounds; J. Expos. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 1991, 1 (2), 37-72.
4. Colome, S.D.; Wilson, A.L.; Becker, E.W.; Cunningham, S.J.; Baker,
P.E. Analysis of Factors Associated with Indoor Residential Nitrogen
Dioxide: Multivariate Regression Results. In Proceedings of the 4th In-
ternational Conference on Indoor Air; Seifert, B., Esdorn, H., Fischer, M.,
Rüden, H., Wegher, J., Eds.; Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene:
Berlin, 1987; Vol. I, pp 405-409.
5. Wallace, L.A.; Manale, A.; Nelson, W.C. Preliminary Results of the
Baltimore TEAM Study: II. Personal Air and Breath Measurements. In
Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants; EPA 600/9-88/015; Air
Pollution Control Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1988; pp 149-154.
6. Sheldon, L.S.; Hartwell, T.D.; Cox, B.G.; Sickles, J.E., II; Pellizzari, E.D.;
Smith, M.L.; Perritt, R.L.; Jones, S.M. An Investigation of Infiltration
and Indoor Air Quality; Final Report, Contract No. 736-CON-BCS-85;
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority: Albany,
NY, 1989.
7. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals; American Society of Heating, Re-
frigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE): Atlanta, GA, 1997.
8. Murray, D.M.; Burmaster, D.E. Residential Air Exchange Rates in the
United States: Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions by
Season and Climatic Region; Risk Anal. 1995, 15 (4), 459-465.
9. Chastain, J.P.; Colliver, D.G. Influence of Temperature Stratification
on Pressure Differences Resulting from the Infiltration Stack Effect;
ASHRAE Trans. 1989, 95 (1), 256-268.
10. Swami, M.V.; Chandra, S. Correlations for Pressure Distribution on
Buildings and Calculation of Natural Ventilation Airflow; ASHRAE
Trans. 1988, 94 (1), 243-266.
11. Shaw, C.Y. Methods for Estimating Air Change Rates and Sizing Me-
chanical Ventilation Systems for Houses; ASHRAE Trans. 1987, 93
(2), 2284-2302.
12. Parker, G.B.; McSorley, M.; Harris, J. The Northwest Residential Infil-
tration Survey: A Field Study of Ventilation in New Houses in the
Pacific Northwest. In Air Change Rate and Airtightness in Buildings;
ASTM STP 1067; Sherman, M.H., Ed.; American Society for Testing
and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, 1990; pp 93-103.
13. Sherman, M.H. Analysis of Errors Associated with Passive Ventilation
Measurement Techniques; Bldg. Environ. 1989, 24 (2), 131-139.
14. Nazaroff, W.W.; Offermann, F.J.; Robb, A.W. Automated System for
Measuring Air-Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses;
Health Phys. 1983, 45 (2), 525–537.
15. Cummings, J.B.; Tooley, J.J., Jr. Infiltration and Pressure Differences
Induced by Forced Air Systems in Florida Residences; ASHRAE Trans.
1989, 95 (2), 551-560.
16. Lambert, L.A.; Robison, D.H. Effects of Ducted Forced-Air Heating
Systems on Residential Air Leakage and Heating Energy Use; ASHRAE
Trans. 1989, 95 (2), 534-541.
17. Modera, M.P. Residential Duct System Leakage: Magnitude, Impacts,
and Potential for Reduction; ASHRAE Trans. 1989, 95 (2), 561-569.
18. Parker, D.S. Evidence of Increased Levels of Space Heat Consumption
and Air Leakage Associated with Forced Air Heating Systems in Houses
in the Pacific Northwest; ASHRAE Trans. 1989, 95 (2), 527-533.
19. Robison, D.H.; Lambert, L.A. Field Investigation of Residential Infiltra-
tion and Heating Duct Leakage; ASHRAE Trans. 1989, 95 (2), 542-543.
20. Iwashita, G.; Akasaka, H. The Effects of Human Behavior on Natural
Ventilation Rate and Indoor Air Environment in Summer—A Field
Study in Southern Japan; Energy Bldgs. 1997, 25, 195-205.
21. Kvisgaard, B.; Collet, P.F. The User’s Influence on Air Change. In Air
Change Rate and Airtightness in Buildings; ASTM STP 1067; Sherman,
M.H., Ed.; American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia,
PA, 1990; pp 67-76.
Volume 52 February 2002
Howard-Reed, Wallace, and Ott
22. Roulet, C.; Scartezzini, J.L. Measurement of Air Change Rate in an
Inhabited Building with a Constant Tracer Gas Concentration Tech-
nique; ASHRAE Trans. 1987, 93, 1371-1380.
23. Wilson, A.L.; Colome, S.D.; Tian, Y.; Becker, E.W.; Baker, P.E.; Behrens,
D.W.; Billick, I.H.; Garrison, C.A. California Residential Air Exchange
Rates and Residence Volumes; J. Expos. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 1996,
6 (3), 311-326.
24. Tsang, A.M.; Klepeis, N.E. National Human Activity Pattern Survey
(NHAPS); Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-W6-001, by Lockheed Martin: Las Vegas,
NV, 1996.
25. WorldClimate Web site. http://www.worldclimate.com. Buttle and
Tuttle, Ltd.: 1997.
26. Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressur-
ization. ASTM E779-99; American Society for Testing and Materials:
West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
27. Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by
Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution; ASTM E741-00; American Society for
Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA, 2001.
28. Etheridge, D.; Sandberg, M. Building Ventilation: Theory and Measure-
ment; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, United Kingdom, 1996.
29. Breum, N.O. Diagnosis of Ventilation by Single-Tracer Gas Techniques;
Indoor Air 1993, Supp. 1, 3-28.
30. Sherman, M.H. Tracer-Gas Techniques for Measuring Ventilation in
a Single Zone; Bldg. Environ. 1990, 25 (4), 365-374.
31. Sinden, F.W. Multi-Chamber Theory of Air Infiltration; Building
Environ. 1978, 13, 21-28.
32. Wallace, L.A.; Emmerich, S.J.; Howard-Reed, C. Continuous Measure-
ments of Air Change Rates in an Occupied House for One Year: The
Effect of Temperature, Wind, Fans, and Windows; J. Expos. Anal.
Environ. Epidemiol., recommended for publication.
33. Dick, J.B.; Thomas, B.A. Ventilation Research in Occupied Houses;
J. Inst. Heat. Vent. Eng. 1951, 19, 306-326.
34. Traynor, G.W.; Apte, M.G.; Carruthers, A.R.; Dillworth, J.F.; Prill, R.J.;
Grimsrud, D.T.; Turk, B.H. The Effects of Infiltration and Insulation on
the Source Strengths and Indoor Air Pollution from Combustion Space
Heating Appliances; J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1988, 38, 1011-1015.
35. Abt, E.; Suh, H.H.; Allen, G.; Koutrakis, P. Characterization of Indoor
Particle Sources: A Study Conducted in the Metropolitan Boston Area;
Environ. Health Perspect. 2000, 108 (1), 35-44.
36. Sarnat, J.A.; Koutrakis, P.; Suh, H.H. Assessing the Relationship between
Personal Particulate and Gaseous Exposures of Senior Citizens Living
in Baltimore, MD; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2000, 50, 1184-1198.
37. Long, C.M.; Suh, H.H.; Koutrakis, P. Characterization of Indoor Par-
ticle Sources Using Continuous Mass and Size Monitors; J. Air & Waste
Manage. Assoc. 2000, 50, 1236-1250.
About the Authors
Cynthia Howard-Reed (corresponding author) completed
this work as an environmental engineer with the Human
Exposure Analysis Branch, National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL) at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Dr. Howard-Reed currently works for the
Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the National Insti-
tute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Her mailing ad-
dress is NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8633, Gaithersburg, MD
20899-8633 (e-mail: chreed@nist.gov). Lance A. Wallace is
an environmental scientist with the Human Exposure Analy-
sis Branch, NERL, at EPA. Wayne R. Ott is an exposure
research scientist with joint appointments in the Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the De-
partment of Statistics at Stanford University.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 159