After a summer and fall choked with wildfire smoke, Canadians are now facing yet another spike in seasonal respiratory illnesses from COVID-19, the flu and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
Discussions over air quality improvement in classrooms are likewise intensifying, as parents and politicians alike call for improved ventilation in schools. In Ontario, the Improving Air Quality for Children Act was recently introduced and is currently in its second reading. If passed, it would see every publicly funded school and child-care facility install carbon dioxide (CO2) monitors.
The monitors are one way of measuring the amount of clean oxygen circulating in a room. The higher the amount of CO2, the poorer the air quality in a given space. According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), classrooms should not exceed CO2 levels of more than 700 parts per million (ppm).
During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, cleaner indoor air was highlighted as a priority by provincial and federal governments and funding was allocated to improve ventilation and filtration systems in schools.
In August 2020, Ottawa announced up to $2 billion in funding to “support provinces and territories in their efforts to ensure a safe return to school.” In Ontario, the province has invested more than $665 million to improve air quality in schools and deployed more than 100,000 HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) units, Grace Lee, a spokesperson for the Ontario Minister of Education, told the Canadian Press.
Yet, despite these large reported investments, experts and parent advocacy groups say that air quality in classrooms is still inadequate and inconsistent from school to school. In September, concerned parents in the Ontario School Safety group donated Corsi-Rosenthal (CR) Box air purifiers to the Waterloo Region District School Board after the board said that the total number of HEPA filters at schools would be reduced. Air quality measurements are usually carried out during the winter months, but results from the last school year are not encouraging. Nearly 83 per cent of schools in New Brunswick exceeded peak CO2 limits during the 2022-2023 school year. The most recent air quality reports from Quebec show that CO2 levels in nearly a quarter of classrooms were still higher than acceptable as of April 2023.
To improve air quality, experts say that classrooms should have a combination of increased ventilation and air filtration by increasing airflow, upgrading HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) systems with high-quality MERV 13 air filters, and using standalone HEPA filter units in individual classrooms.
But implementing many of these changes, particularly in older schools, is an expensive task. Despite large budgetary announcements, it is unclear exactly how much money has been spent to improve air quality in schools. Some experts also have raised concerns that even where appropriate filtration systems have been implemented, they may not be used effectively.
But how important is air ventilation and filtration in classrooms? Is air quality something that should be a budgetary priority for school boards and provincial and federal governments?
This is what the experts had to say.
The comments section is closed.
And then there’s this – https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/7/e072284
Treating schools HVAC is a first step.
HVAC like all other tech relies on air circulation. In a full classroom, you don’t have the luxury of waiting for an air exchange to protect the kids from aerosolized viral particles. Far-UV when configured properly, can provide that level of protection.
222nm light is the only tech that does not rely on air circulation to destroy airborne viruses. Safe for students in classrooms and other spaces.
“We always think it’s a huge missed opportunity if all you do is replace a ventilation system.”
222nm light is the only tech that does not rely on air circulation to destroy airborne viruses.
Equates to >128 air changes/hour
https://go.nature.com/3sDFqJP
As one of the commentators, I don’t disagree with your. But I think a complete comment would include two additional things. The current cost of this technology – many thousands per room, I believe? – is way out of reach. We need government investment to change that.
Also, conflicts of interest declarations are vital to an authentic conversation. Mr. Neister appears to be the CEO of High Energy Ozone LLP, with a financial interest in far-UV technologies. This doesn’t invalidate his comments, but it is important context for a transparent debate.
Think outside the box. There is a method right now for better IAQ. Our company has a developed a cold plasma O3 method to reduce pathogens. It was tested at a Biosafety level 3 lab to reduce SARS COV2 (the virus responsible for Covid) by 99.998% (4 log reduction.) Ozone created via cold plasma would operate when a building is unoccupied. It inactivates airborne viruses, bacteria and mold spores. Ozone is frowned upon by some parts of the government, in part because of a confusion with ozone pollution. With a short half-life of 20-30 minutes, there could be negligible amounts of O3 when a school opens for the day. The USDA deems ozone GRAS, generally recognized as safe, for agricultural applications. Plus it does not change the organic status of organic produce. Used indoors correctly it reduces pathogens on surfaces and airborne. I believe you can get ventilation benefits without opening a window.
I appreciate these comments, as someone who isn’t expert in the chemistry of ozone.
But I worry about your last sentence. By definition “ventilation” is a change of air, not a change in the chemistry of the same air. A room full of people consumes oxygen, and actual ventilation is needed to replace that oxygen. I will continue to rail against classrooms with windows that don’t open for this very reason.
Clarification: the Improving Air Quality for Children Act is a private members bill (NDP introduced), not currently supported by the Ontario government, and very unlikely to pass.