Skip to main content
EPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to EPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Dec 18.
Published in final edited form as: Build Environ. 2019 Dec 18;170:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106589

Ten questions concerning the implications of carpet on indoor chemistry and microbiology

Sarah R Haines a, Rachel I Adams b, Brandon E Boor c, Thomas A Bruton d, John Downey e, Andrea R Ferro f, Elliott Gall g, Brett J Green h, Bridget Hegarty i, Elliott Horner j, David E Jacobs k, Paul Lemieux l, Pawel K Misztal m, Glenn Morrison n, Matthew Perzanowski o, Tiina Reponen p, Rachael E Rush h,q, Troy Virgo r, Celine Alkhayri s, Ashleigh Bope a, Samuel Cochran a, Jennie Cox p, Allie Donohue s, Andrew A May s, Nicholas Nastasi a, Marcia Nishioka s, Nicole Renninger s, Yilin Tian t, Christina Uebel-Niemeier p, David Wilkinson u, Tianren Wu c, Jordan Zambrana v, Karen C Dannemiller w,*
PMCID: PMC7017391  NIHMSID: NIHMS1550118  PMID: 32055099

Abstract

Carpet and rugs currently represent about half of the United States flooring market and offer many benefits as a flooring type. How carpets influence our exposure to both microorganisms and chemicals in indoor environments has important health implications but is not well understood. The goal of this manuscript is to consolidate what is known about how carpet impacts indoor chemistry and microbiology, as well as to identify the important research gaps that remain. After describing the current use of carpet indoors, questions focus on five specific areas: 1) indoor chemistry, 2) indoor microbiology, 3) resuspension and exposure, 4) current practices and future needs, and 5) sustainability. Overall, it is clear that carpet can influence our exposures to particles and volatile compounds in the indoor environment by acting as a direct source, as a reservoir of environmental contaminants, and as a surface supporting chemical and biological transformations. However, the health implications of these processes are not well known, nor how cleaning practices could be optimized to minimize potential negative impacts. Current standards and recommendations focus largely on carpets as a primary source of chemicals and on limiting moisture that would support microbial growth. Future research should consider enhancing knowledge related to the impact of carpet in the indoor environment and how we might improve the design and maintenance of this common material to reduce our exposure to harmful contaminants while retaining the benefits to consumers.

Keywords: Carpet, Flooring, Dust, Resuspension, Indoor microbiology, Indoor chemistry

1. Introduction

Carpet constitutes about half of flooring in the United States and is thus prevalent in the indoor environment [1]. Carpet can benefit an indoor space through sound reduction, aesthetics, comfort (both softness and temperature under foot), and injury prevention. It has also received higher comfort ratings compared to solid floors like concrete [2], and in occupational settings, workers who spend 10% of their time standing on hard surface floors compared to soft floors have a 30% increased risk of developing plantar fasciitis [3]. At the same time, use of this material influences indoor environmental quality through impacts on gas-phase air pollutants and particulate matter, including microbiological and chemical components. For example, the mass loading of dust is generally greater in carpets than a comparable area of hardwood floors [4]. The resuspension of particles containing microbes following the physical disturbance of carpets is an important source of human exposure to indoor particles [5,6]. The prevalence of this flooring material dictates the need to better understand the implications of its use in the indoor environment and on sustainability. In this manuscript, we explore questions about the use of carpet related to five general topics: (1) chemistry, (2) microbiology, (3) resuspension and exposure, (4) standards and guidelines, and (5) sustainability (Fig. 1). This report is the result of the workshop “Implications of Carpets on Indoor Chemistry and Microbiology” held on July 30–31, 2019, at The Ohio State University.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Carpet has important implications for indoor microbiology, indoor chemistry, human exposure from dust resuspension, guidelines/standards, and environmental sustainability. The question(s) that discuss each of these topics are indicated on the figure.

2. Ten questions

2.1. Q1: What materials are used to make carpets, why are carpets used, and what is carpet’s share of the flooring market?

Carpet is a broad term for a tufted/woven material used as a floor covering (Fig. 2). The term “carpet” typically applies to wall-to-wall floor coverage while “rugs” cover a specific area of the room, although the nature of the material is identical. Current manufacturing practices produce carpets of diverse composition. Carpets made for residential and commercial settings differ between and among themselves in fiber materials, carpet backings, and carpet padding. Of all carpet, over 95% is made of synthetic fibers, including nylon, polyester and olefin [710], and the remainder include natural fibers such as wool. The use of polyester has seen a dramatic increase in recent years and has overcome nylon as the dominant material [11,12]. Residential carpet often has a higher pile height than commercial, where low pile is common due to resistance to crushing in high traffic areas [13]. The tufted/woven loops can remain looped (so-called loop pile), or they can be cut to create vertical strands (so-called cut pile, as in Fig. 2). Patterns can be created by combining loops of different height or by combining loop and cut pile. Carpet density can also be manipulated by changing how closely the different fibers are tufted into the carpet backing. Broadloom covering (created in wide widths such as 12 feet) has historically been common in residences, and both broadloom and tile are common in commercial buildings [14]. Backing in commercial carpets is often based on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyurethane, while residential carpets commonly use latex backing [14]. Carpet padding may be made of fiber, sponge rubber, or urethane foam. Fiber carpet padding, which has a firm feel, could be natural (e.g., animal hair, jute), synthetic (e.g., nylon, olefin), or resonated recycled textile fiber. Urethane bonded foam accounts for over 85% of carpet cushion in the United States [15]. The use of carpet pad underlayment is typical of residential installations, while the use of adhesives for installation predominates in commercial settings.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Structure of an example cut pile carpet.

Common factors for selecting carpet as a flooring material may include sound dampening, comfort under foot (including softness and thermal response), injury prevention, aesthetic preferences, stain resistance, strength, durability, and cost. Within the United States, carpet and rugs make up about 54% of the flooring market [16], which is down from 66.9% a decade ago [17]. This downward trend is often attributed to the growing hard surface flooring market, though rug sales have grown with an increase in popularity of hard surface flooring [17].

2.2. Q2: How does carpet influence indoor chemistry?

Carpets can influence indoor chemistry through several mechanisms: as a primary source of chemical emissions, as a reservoir for the uptake and re-emission of chemicals (sorption/desorption), and as a medium that supports transformations among indoor chemicals, such as oxidation, hydrolysis, and acid-base reactions.

2.2.1. Carpets as sources of chemicals in the indoor environment

Carpets act as a primary source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the indoor environment [18]. The term primary refers to chemicals that are present in the material when installed and are then released indoors, and thus primary emissions are present from most building materials. Many studies have contributed to our understanding that hundreds of VOCs and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) are emitted from carpet, underlayment, and adhesives [1925]. Some identified VOCs include 4-phenylcyclohexene (4-PCH, the source of new carpet smell), aromatic compounds (styrene, benzene, toluene, xylenes), and formaldehyde [24,26]. Primary emissions from carpet can impact overall indoor VOC levels [27], and can contribute adversely to sensory evaluations of indoor spaces compared to other indoor building materials [28]. Studies of carpets report emission factors or concentrations of specific or total VOCs (TVOC) resulting from carpet pile or backings and adhesives that range over several orders of magnitude; various studies report emission factor ranges that span 10–10000 μg m−2 h−1 [24,29].

Numerous SVOCs are (or have been) used in the manufacture of carpets. For example, some compounds include fluorinated soil retardants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) [30,31], antimicrobials such as triclosan [32], and phthalate plasticizers, which may either be in the dust or could result from PVC used as backing in commercial applications [14,33]. Organohalogen and organophosphorus flame retardants are present, as contaminants, in bonded carpet padding made of recycled polyurethane furniture foam [34]. Of these SVOCs, PFAS are perhaps the most studied, and correlations have been observed between the presence or amount of carpet in buildings and concentrations of PFAS in dust [35] and on interior surfaces [36]. PFAS are currently being phased out of construction of new carpets, but turnover of installed carpet and stock of carpet in stores can take years, if not decades.

In addition to chemicals that are part of the carpet material, after-market application of products can introduce chemicals into the indoor environment through the carpet matrix. For example, carpet cleaning and pest control practices result in the application of chemicals to carpet. In one noteworthy example, frequent application of after-market stain-protector by a family was shown to lead to elevated concentrations of perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) in carpet, dust, and blood serum of the residents [37].

2.2.2. Carpets as sorptive/desorptive surfaces

Carpets have substantial surface area that can increase chemical surface reactivity. Carpets may cover an entire building floor area, and the presence of fleecy, porous mats comprised of small diameter textile fibers greatly increases material surface area compared to that of estimates via aerial projections of the material. Estimates of indoor surface area to volume ratio are approximately 300 times greater surface area per unit volume in indoor than outdoor environments [38]. Note these estimates do not consider the complex geometry of materials like carpets; indoor surface area to volume ratios that included carpet fiber and pore area would be substantially greater than estimates that consider only floor area.

Carpet surfaces impact indoor chemistry through reactive uptake, sorption/desorption, and particle deposition processes. Sorption and desorption of VOCs and SVOCs can alter indoor air chemistry by 1) attenuating peak concentrations of an emission event that emits air pollution into the indoor space and 2) prolonging exposure to the event through subsequent exposure after re-emission [3941].

The relative importance of the attenuation vs. re-emission phases of these sorption/desorption processes depend on the specific sorbent/sorbate interaction and the environmental conditions. At equilibrium, the sorption capacity of carpets appears to be inversely correlated to the VOC vapor pressure [39,42,43], and for some carpet-VOC combinations, sorptive processes may be relatively unimportant. However, in residential buildings where the outdoor air ventilation rate is often low, the VOC removal rate from sorption to carpets can be comparable in magnitude to the removal rate from ventilation [41,44,45] and can be relatively higher than removal rates from other building materials and furnishings [4648] due to its greater normalized surface area [49,50]. In one study comparing wool carpet, nylon carpet and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coverings, adsorption of α-pinene was higher in both carpet types than the PVC coverings [46]. Carpet padding tends to contribute more to sorptive interactions with VOCs than other components of the carpet system [39]. Several models have been developed to simulate the sorption process of VOCs to carpet [43,45,48,5154]. A wide range of SVOCs sorb effectively to clothing textiles, and by extension, to carpet textiles [55,56]. Carpets are known to be a strong sink for low volatility compounds such as nicotine and phenanthrene [47,57], organophosphorus flame retardants [57], as well as phthalates and adipates [58]. These SVOCs may then be slowly re-emitted from carpets to the indoor space over periods of years or more, perhaps for the remaining life of the carpet.

In addition to specific sorbent/sorbate interactions, environmental conditions also affect the sorption/desorption processes. Indoor relative humidity (RH) can significantly influence the degree of sorption for soluble VOCs due to absorption into the condensed water within the porous carpet fiber media [39]. Also, at elevated relative humidities (>80%), elevated concentrations of common indoor gases, such as CO2 and NH3, can influence the VOC sorption capacity of carpet [59]. Along with RH, temperature can affect the extent of VOC sorption to carpet. Temperature is expected to affect the gas-carpet equilibrium partitioning in a manner analogous to its effect on gas-particle partitioning [49]. The change of room temperature can lead to the redistribution of organic vapor between the bulk air and indoor surfaces, such as carpets.

2.2.3. Carpets as surfaces for chemical transformations

Carpets interact with oxidants in indoor spaces, through reactive uptake processes [60] where carpet materials or compounds stored in the carpet are oxidized by reactive indoor air pollutants. Most extensively studied to date is the interaction of carpet with ozone. The removal effect of carpet on indoor ozone can be substantial: a wall-to-wall carpeted room provides an ozone scavenging effect equivalent to ~0.4 air changes per hour (ACH) of airflow through an efficient ozone-scavenging filter [50]. Hard floors are generally much less reactive with ozone, though unglazed tile floors can have comparable uptake of ozone to that of carpet [61]. For comparison, a similar scaling calculation to that performed by Morrison and Nazaroff [50], using ozone deposition velocities for two types of bamboo flooring (0.04, 0.11 m/h), ceramic tiles (0.14 m/h), and linoleum (0.25 m/h) [62,63], show that these hard flooring materials provide ozone scavenging equivalent to ~0.01–0.1 ACH. While the greater ozone removal effect to carpet serves to reduce indoor oxidant levels, ozone reactions with carpets also contributes to the production of secondary byproducts [64,65]. An early study of carpets, ozone, and VOCs [64], found that ozone-carpet interactions resulted in the formation of carbonyl compounds, including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and C5–10 aldehydes. Spinning oil residue on carpet fibers may be responsible for these secondary oxidation products for new carpet [65]. Since this study, the sink effect of ozone for carpets and the resulting byproduct formation has been extensively studied. Carpet remains an efficient ozone scavenger and producer of carbonyls under varying carpet type, temperatures, relative humidities, and airflow conditions [50,6570]. Over time, reactive coatings on carpet may become depleted, thus reducing ozone uptake rates and secondary emission rates [71].

2.3. Q3: What more should we know about how carpet influences indoor chemistry?

We need to continue to refine our understanding of chemical emissions from carpets into the indoor environment, especially for emerging contaminants. We also need to better understand the chemical reactions occurring on the carpet, including aqueous reactions in water films on porous indoor surfaces. Additionally, work measuring VOC emissions from carpet to characterize new materials and manufacturing processes as they are introduced into the market will continue to be important.

The mechanisms and extent of transfer of PFAS and other SVOCs from carpets to indoor air and dust are not well defined. Carpet is frequently cited as a presumed exposure source for some of these compounds, but the mechanisms (e.g. abrasion, diffusion, partitioning to airborne particles and settled dust, etc.) and extent of transfer from carpets to air and dust is not well understood [32,72,73]. Similarly, the relative contribution of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal uptake routes to occupant exposure is still unknown.

Studies investigating the mechanisms and impacts of carpet-oxidant interactions beyond ozone are needed. The importance of heterogeneous chemistry in impacting levels of reactive nitrogen species in outdoor atmospheres [74] compels further investigation of carpet as a high surface area material that may impact levels of reactive nitrogen species indoors. Several studies report nitrogen dioxide (NO2) deposition rates to carpets and show evidence for the formation of nitrous acid (HONO) due to the interaction of NO2 and surface-sorbed water on carpet [63, 7476]. The studies note that the ability of a surface to sorb water may drive longer-term HONO release after an NO2 injection event. A recent field study in a residence appears to confirm this, indicating indoor HONO levels are driven by gas-surface equilibrium [77]; though flooring type was not indicated, carpets are a porous material that can absorb water during high air humidity conditions. A recent study also points to the potential for HONO production from indoor surfaces to be impacted by the presence of cleaning products [78]. Given that indoor nitrous acid is both a direct health concern and an important source of the hydroxyl radical (•OH) indoors [79], further study into the role of carpets in influencing indoor HONO and reactive nitrogen species is warranted.

Research into HONO implies accumulation of chemicals in or on carpets may have broader impacts on indoor chemistry. This sink effect, where carpets accumulate VOCs, SVOCs, and particles [80,81], de-couples sorbed chemicals from air exchange, enabling longer indoor residence times and more opportunity for chemistry to occur. In other words, by holding greater amounts of dust and surface-sorbed compounds compared to other flooring materials, carpets might serve as a facilitator of indoor chemistry by “storing” chemicals for future reactions. These chemicals stored in carpets may become available for interaction with short-lived indoor oxidants that are present only under specific or transient conditions [82]. The rate of reaction of oxidants with surface-sorbed chemicals has been shown to be hundreds of times greater than that of gas-phase chemistry [8284], and reaction products and yields may differ between the two [85]. Reaction sites on carpets are also affected by acid-base chemistry [59].

Due to the presence of esters in carpet materials and adhesives, more attention should be given to the possibility of hydrolysis reactions. Humidity and the presence of an alkaline surface, such as concrete, can promote hydrolysis of esters, thereby generating smaller, more volatile species. Hydrolysis of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) is thought to be a dominant source of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (2 EH) indoors [86], which is an irritant even at relatively low concentrations. Emissions of 2 EH increased when carpet was attached to flooring with a high water content, using a phthalate containing adhesive [87]. The use of PVC (which contains the plasticizer DEHP) as a carpet adhesive is no longer common. However, DEHP originating from other sources may be present in carpet dust [88,89]. Apart from the well-known microbial and corrosion concerns associated with moisture, this emphasizes how crucial moisture issues are in the built environment.

2.4. Q4: How does carpet influence microbiology and the presence of other biological agents in the indoor environment?

The main routes by which carpets influence indoor microbiology are by 1) accumulating microorganisms and microbial products as part of the dust milieu and 2) potentially creating an environment that is conducive for biological proliferation. Biological agents in house dust can be an important component of building-associated exposures that elicit both protective [90,91] and detrimental [92] health responses in occupants.

Biological components of dust are theoretically as diverse as the complex ecology of outdoor environments, and include microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, algae, protista) as well as pollen, dust mites, pet dander, and arthropods [9397]. Most research on the biology of indoor environments has focused on either allergens or microorganisms, predominantly fungi. Next-generation sequence-based technology applied to indoor environments has revealed that the fungal communities within carpet dust reservoirs are composed of a vast array of fungi, representing a much more diverse pool than previously estimated when using traditional exposure assessment methods [98100]. Previously overlooked fungi include many yeast species, including Cryptococcus, and outdoor-derived fungi, such as plant-pathogenic rusts [98,100]. Because the mass of dust is greater per unit area of carpet than it is for hard, smooth surfaces [4][see Question 6], the presence of carpet increases the potential for our exposures to these biological agents. Additionally, the presence of carpet may alter the microbial concentration in dust on a per dust mass basis. Most studies have shown that concentrations of endotoxin and 1–3-beta-d-glucan per gram of dust are higher in carpet dust compared to dust from other flooring types [101105], but one study observed the opposite result [106]. Culturable fungi were also found to be higher in dust from carpeted floors [107].

2.4.1. Moisture and microbial growth

Additionally, carpets may create conditions hospitable to microbial growth and dust mites, mainly through increased moisture content [107, 108]. Research done, typically in the context of dust mites, conveyed that carpets can show RHs higher than the surrounding environment [94,109,110]. The three-dimensional, fibrous nature of carpet laying on the ground can create thermodynamic conditions that promote the retention of water. For example, Cunningham et al. (1998) identified a gradient in RH that increased from the top of the carpet in contact with room air to the base of the carpet. This RH gradient is related to temperature gradients in the carpet, while absolute humidity was the same in room air, on the top of the carpet and at the base of the carpet [110]. The carpet showed a dampened response to changing RH values compared to the room air. While the RH in the base of carpet hovered around 70%, the RH of the room air fluctuated between 50 and 75% RH. In addition to retaining moisture from the ambient air in the room, in buildings with defective design or construction elements, carpets can also encounter moisture due to leaks from waterproofing installation issues, plumbing or the ground below [111]. Water from the soil or cement foundation, for example, can migrate to the floor surface [112]. This water can moisten carpet surfaces, as is commonly observed in carpeted basements.

Beyond the simple parameter of growth [113], the moisture condition in carpet has also been found to influence the type of microbial genes that are expressed. Chamber experiments of dust embedded in carpet and incubated at various water activities (aw) revealed systemic changes in fungal gene expression between fungi grown at a water activity of either 0.85 or 0.5 and 1.0 aw. At 1.0 aw the up-regulation of many allergen-encoding genes, general pathogenicity pathways, mycotoxins, and secondary metabolites occurred [114]. Mycotoxins are non-volatile secondary fungal metabolites capable of causing negative health effects [115], and are also influenced by the RH and aw at which microorganisms grow [116118]. Some mycotoxins have been identified in carpet and indoor dust [119121], but the related health effects of this exposure are still unclear. For example, the production of aflatoxin, a type of mycotoxin, increased when Aspergillus flavus was grown at a water activity of 0.99 compared to 0.93 [116], and production of ochratoxin, another type of mycotoxin, increased in both Aspergillus carbonarius and Aspergillus niger at water activities of 0.95–0.98 compared to a water activity of 0.92 [118]. The increase in mycotoxin production was accompanied by an increase in mycotoxin-related gene expression both in pure culture [116] and in a mixed culture of fungi isolated from house dust [114,116]. If the water activity of the dust in the carpet were to reach these high levels, we may see this type of gene expression or mycotoxin production. It should be noted however, that in a well-designed, constructed and operated building these levels of water activity typically would not be encountered.

2.4.2. Carpet cleaning and decontamination

Indoor house dust is a heterogeneous mixture that contains both inorganic and organic materials and varying particles sizes [122]. Vacuuming carpets does remove biological agents (as well as dust in general), but the methods used in academic studies are likely much more rigorous than typically used in homes. In a laboratory-based study, dust was artificially embedded on different flooring types in order to test the removal efficiency of vacuum cleaners [123]. The results showed that most of the dust was collected during the first ten vacuuming cycles, where a vacuuming cycle was 5 min on a 0.63 m2 carpet. After 60 vacuuming cycles, 90% of embedded dust was found in the vacuum cleaner bag when using the rotating brush on the bottom of the vacuum, whereas only 75% when using a plain nozzle in the vacuum cleaner. One study found about 50% of the fungi, dust mites and dust allergens were removed from carpet when vacuumed by 4 passes at a rate of 55 cm/s [124]. Vacuuming at a rate of 0.5–1 min/m2, depending on the floor type, resulted in a steady state quantity of dust removed after six cleanings [125]. Another study found that it took vacuuming 6–45 min/m2 to remove deep dust loading from older carpets [126].

Lastly, carpets have demonstrated resistance to decontamination processes following an accidental or intentional release of spore-based biological agents such as Bacillus anthracis. The characteristics of carpet make it difficult to decontaminate using wipe methods due to the penetration of spores deep into the carpet matrix. Even immersion of carpet in pH-adjusted bleach (a mixture of household bleach, water, and acetic acid [vinegar]), a combination that has been shown to be highly effective in the sporicidal decontamination of biological threat agents like Bacillus anthracis, for up to 60 min, did not achieve the 6-Log reduction generally desired for biological decontamination [127].

2.5. Q5: What more should we know about how carpet influences indoor microbiology?

We need more fundamental information on how the presence of carpet changes microbial communities, microbial function, and microbial exposure in indoor environments – both in comparing carpets to other flooring types, and between different types of carpets. We then need to understand the implications of changes to microbial exposure on human health.

First, we need to better understand the water availability to microbes in carpet. The mechanism that yields available water for microbes in carpet and other indoor surfaces – apart from super-saturated RH conditions (e.g., a hot shower inducing condensation on bathroom walls) – remains unclear. It is also not well known how often elevated RH conditions occur under realistic building scenarios. Cunningham et al. (2004) developed a model to predict equilibrium RH (ERH) at indoor surfaces, but this model does not describe the water that may be available for microbes on the surfaces, which is a key factor for their growth [128]. To our knowledge, the only published study that relates ERH and dust moisture content is a thesis document [129], which draws upon insights from the aerosol science community, where there have been considerable efforts to understand how ambient dust particles interact with atmospheric water [130,131]. Understanding the nature and intensity of water uptake is critical for predictions of microbial growth, as it enables the linkage between indoor RH and the time-of-wetness model for carpet. Given the shift to newer polyester-based carpets, it is similarly important to understand how different carpet materials behave when subjected to different moisture conditions. Additionally, we need to understand the efficacy of antimicrobial coatings and consider their use in a risk-benefit analysis.

Likewise, we also need to understand whether and how the microbial portion of dust is altered depending on the matrix in which it is found. For example, little is known about how the microbial components of dust on a non-porous, hard surface, such as hardwood floors, changes over time relative to dust embedded in a carpet; similarly, how the dust changes within carpet made of different materials is not known.

Currently, there is a dearth of studies that have examined the association between allergy/asthma symptom reduction in homes with or without carpet. Some studies have indicated that carpet may contribute to adverse health effects for individuals with asthma and allergies [6, 132137]. Carpets can serve as a reservoir for inhalant allergens from not only fungi, but dust mites, pets, rodents, cockroaches and other plants and animals [138]. Carpet removal interventions have been shown to be effective at lowering asthma prevalence when combined with other allergen reduction measures [139,140]. Understanding the specific effect of carpet may be a fruitful area for further research.

Certain studies have not been able to detect a significant difference in exposure to carpet and asthma symptom reduction [141,142], though the homes in the Morgan et al. inner city asthma study (ICAS) did have a low prevalence of carpet [143]. Another study found that fewer asthma symptoms were associated with carpet or rugs in bedrooms. However, this association most likely resulted from highly symptomatic asthmatic individuals previously removing the carpet in their bedrooms due to medical advice [144], which has also been demonstrated elsewhere [145]. An alternative speculative explanation for this association is that carpet in the bedrooms helps to prevent allergens from entering the bed by removing particles tracked-in on feet, such as cockroach allergen from kitchens, but this needs additional research [146].

Lastly, we need efforts to develop a robust definition of a “healthy” indoor microbiome [147]. This should include a definition of what species are present, but also how this impacts chemistry. Carpet microbiomes can interact with phthalates in carpet [148], but it is unclear what other chemical interactions can occur between the hundreds of chemicals and thousands of microbes present. Generally, studies have focused on fungal growth from carpets exposed to high moisture [113], but research exploring the slow growth processes by fungi (including yeasts) and bacteria tolerating lower water activities may offer further insights [149]. Additionally, we need to understand how different carpet types and dust loadings influence microbial communities [150]. We need to build upon existing knowledge of how carpet influences health [6] by studying how carpet, compared to other flooring types, affects human health through immunomodulatory stimulation, allergenic, toxicological and other combined synergistic and antagonistic effects.

2.6. Q6: What do we know about resuspension and implications for exposure in relation to biological and chemical agents?

Particle resuspension from flooring occurs due to human activity. For most published studies, resuspension of coarse-mode particles (particles with diameters > 2.5 μm) has been found to be higher from carpet compared to solid flooring [6,151]. The resuspension of dust from carpet has important implications for human exposure to microbes, chemicals, and allergens.

2.6.1. Carpets are reservoirs that act as both a source and a sink for indoor dust

Human-driven resuspension from carpets and hard flooring can be a significant indoor emission source of coarse-mode biological and abiotic particles in the indoor environment. An adult walking across the floor can resuspend 10–100 million particles per minute [152], many of which are likely to be of biological origin [153]. PM10 (all particles smaller than 10 μm) mass emission rates can exceed 10 mg per minute [154]. Walking-induced resuspension can be the dominant source of biological particles indoors, accounting for more than two-thirds of biological particle emissions [155,156]. Besides walking, vacuuming can induce the resuspension of PM10, including airborne allergens, from carpets and hard flooring [151,157,158]. For the vacuum cleaner tested, approximately half of the resuspended mass during vacuuming might be attributable to walking on carpet [158]. Thus, resuspension may contribute meaningfully to our inhalation exposures to the microbial and allergenic content of carpet dust and can be influenced by the style of human movement across the floor, with bacterial and fungal levels 8- to 21- fold higher for crawling infants than walking adults [159].

Most studies have found that carpets resuspend more particles than hard flooring during human walking under typical building conditions due to both a higher typical dust loading and a higher resuspension fraction. Carpets tend to have higher floor loading of particles, that is, the mass of particles per area of flooring is higher in carpets [4,160]. Also, carpets have a higher resuspension fraction (the fraction of particles on the surface that resuspend) compared to hard surfaces under a typical range of dust loadings, as demonstrated by nearly all studies that have compared resuspension fractions of carpets and hard flooring during walking, even when the floor loading of particles is the same [152,154,157,161,162]. One peer-reviewed study has found increased resuspension from hard flooring compared to carpet for 0.8–1.5 μm particles, with a relatively high dust loading of 18 g/m2, but larger particle sizes were not reported [163].

Dust loading can also impact the fraction of particles that are resuspended. Dust loading on typical flooring has been observed to range from <1 g/m2 to over 20 g/m2 based on sampled dust loads [164]. The change in resuspension fraction as a function of the amount of dust loading suggests that the architecture of deposits affects resuspension. At low loadings, the deposit is expected to be a sparse monolayer, in which particles are thinly deposited along a surface and are not in significant contact with one another. High loadings are likely multilayer particle deposits, in which particles are deposited on top of one another and there is particle-to-particle adhesion and interaction. There are fundamental differences in the resuspension process between monolayer and multilayer deposits, with greater resuspension observed from multilayer deposits [165,166].

Ultimately, carpets are a complex reservoir system that act as both a source and a sink for dust in the indoor environment. Deposition rates of particles into carpet are higher than solid floors (the “sink” effect) [167]. Airborne particles are deposited and stored in carpets, altering the balance and type of pollutants (including particle-bound SVOCs) present in the carpet over periods of years to decades [168]. Some industry reports emphasize the sink aspect of carpets, suggesting that carpets can reduce particle concentration in the air [169]. However, resuspension (the “source” effect) is also higher. Most studies have found that the fraction of settled dust that is resuspended during a resuspension event is higher for carpets than for hard flooring. Because of this storage and increased resuspension fraction, these combined factors generally result in higher particle concentrations in the air compared to hard flooring, especially under occupied conditions [5,155,167,170]. Thus, carpets are an important reservoir of indoor contaminants for exposure [6].

2.6.2. Resuspension is influenced by particle size, humidity, and carpet properties

Particle resuspension is strongly size dependent, and the difference in resuspension fractions among floorings are more pronounced for coarse particles than for fine particles. For example, for the size range of 0.4–10 μm, statistically significant differences based on carpet versus hard flooring were observed for particles >3 μm in diameter [161]. Tian et al. (2014), found no statistically significant differences between the resuspension fractions for carpet and hard flooring for particles sizes between 0.4 and 3 μm in diameter. In addition, multiple studies have demonstrated that within the particle size range of 0.4–10 μm, resuspension fractions and resuspension rates increase with particle size, consistent with theoretical predictions of size-resolved particle detachment [152].

Important resuspension factors include surface roughness and RH. Surfaces with micro-roughness smaller than the particle diameter decreases the contact area and associated adhesive forces between the particle and surface [171]. Humidity effects are complicated and depend on the composition of both the flooring and particles. For example, Salimifard et al. (2017) [172] found that the resuspension of hydrophilic biological particles decreased with increased RH, but RH did not affect the resuspension of hydrophobic particles.

Carpet type and condition likely influence resuspension. The resuspension fraction from high-density level loop carpet was found to be intermediate between that of cut pile carpet and hard flooring [161], indicating that resuspension rates can be manipulated by carpet choice. Also, the surface chemistry of old/worn and new carpet can be quite different. The organic films built up on the carpet fiber over time might alter the surface chemistry, and therefore impact adhesion and resuspension. Rosati et al. (2008), reported that new carpet was associated with higher emission factors compared to older, worn carpet [173]. This was likely due to the fact that at higher RH conditions new carpets release more particles due to the dampening of static electricity, while older carpets become “sticky” at high RH and trap in particles. It may have also been attributed to difference in dust loading, surface chemistry and carpet fiber condition. These results suggest that the carpet condition, construction, nature of organic films and moisture should be taken into consideration in the discussion of resuspension.

2.6.3. Exposure and exposure assessment from carpet dust

Microbial and chemical exposures may occur via different exposure routes such as inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact [174]. Inhalation is likely the most common exposure route of microbes in house dust among adults, while inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact are common among infants and children, due to hand-to-mouth and crawling behavior. Skin contact may be especially important in considering asthma development [175]. However, the health risks posed by these different exposure routes need to be better assessed. For microbes, some limited evidence in an animal study suggests that exposure via different routes may be additive [176].

Carpets serve as a reservoir for dust containing some key exposures, especially inhalant allergens [138]. The prevalence of allergic diseases has increased during the 20th century, with hay fever increasing earlier in the century and asthma increasing in the latter half of the century [177]. Asthma development and disease exacerbations can be caused by domestic environmental exposures [178]. In the 1980s, the confluence of the building of warmer and tighter homes and more carpets in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, where asthma has become common, led to the hypothesis that exposure to dust mites and their excreta could be one of the causes of the asthma epidemic in these communities [177]. Most notably, not only do carpets serve as a reservoir for dust mite allergens, but dust mites can live in carpets. Interventions to reduce asthma through dust mite reduction, including acaricide use in carpets, date back more than 30 years [179], yet to our knowledge, no studies have solely targeted carpets. Still, it is well established that carpets can serve as reservoirs for allergens that cause asthma exacerbations, including those from dust mites, cockroaches, mice and furry pets [6]. Homes with carpets have also been found to have higher levels of other chemicals that have been associated with asthma, including the phthalate DEHP, which was associated with asthma symptoms in a study in Sweden [180,181]. While it is clear that carpets can serve as reservoirs for exposures relevant to asthma [6], ongoing research is still investigating links between carpets and asthma, including a recent large study of children living in 7 cities in China where having a carpet in the home was one of the stronger risk factors identified with current asthma [182].

Exposure assessment in the indoor environment is complicated by a variety of factors, but research indicates that measuring dust from carpets and floors can be a better surrogate for long-term exposure than short-term air samples. Short-term air sampling and collecting vacuumed floor dust often yield different exposure assessment, likely because microbial communities in the air change rapidly with time and particle size distributions of the dust will vary [152,183,184]. For instance, in a study conducted in 176 homes in the Midwest region of the United States, endotoxin and β-glucan were sampled by using inhalable and PM1 (particulate matter smaller than 1 μm) aerosol samplers for 24 h and by vacuuming floor dust. Correlations between the three sample collection methods were poor: the correlation in endotoxin concentration varied from 0.26 to 0.34 and for β-glucan concentration from 0.04 to 0.18 [106]. In another study, 5-day air samples were compared with vacuum samples from floor and bed after analyzing the samples by ITS amplicon sequencing. The taxa in air samples clustered separately from bed and floor, whereas the two vacuumed samples had some overlap in taxa [185]. In one study, specific fungal taxa were well correlated between settled dust and indoor air, although the relationship was weaker for all fungi [186]. In another study, all the dust collection methods (settled and vacuumed dust) correlated with each other and did not have significant differences in concentrations or detected fungal species [187]. The ten most common fungal species were the same in all the dust sample types as well in inhalable air samples, collected for 48 h indoors. However, the proportions of the different taxa in indoor air samples were more similar to the simultaneously collected outdoor air samples. The results indicate that in addition to being a reservoir for dust resuspension, vacuumed floor dust can reflect long-term exposure and is less affected by the changes in the outdoor air concentrations.

2.6.4. Fungal growth in dust and implications for exposure

Microbial growth under elevated RH conditions in carpet has the potential to substantially impact human exposure through resuspension [113]. Resuspension of dust from the floor can contribute to about 83% of airborne bacteria and 66% of airborne fungi [188]. There is some limited toxicological data on the consequences of long-term respiratory exposures to fungi. An improved rodent model of nose-only exposure [189] has shown that common indoor fungi elicit varying pulmonary immune responses and target tissues include the larynx, lung, and bronchial lymph nodes. Mice repeatedly exposed to Aspergillus fumigatus resulted in allergic inflammation that was dependent on the viability of fungal conidia [189192] whereas repeated subchronic exposure to Stachybotrys chartarum resulted in a mixed T-cell response that was dependent on the production of submicronic fragments [193]. The varying pulmonary immune responses are elicited based on the viability, metabolic activation, and type of particle inhaled. Interestingly, histological examination of lung tissue derived from mice exposed to fungal test articles revealed, for the first time, a continuum of pulmonary arteriole hyperplasia that could result in modulating downstream cardiac endpoints and is the subject of continued research. Utilization of rodent models of repeated fungal exposure may provide further insight into the pulmonary immunological responses to various fungi identified in molecular analyses that may be aerosolized following abiotic or biotic disturbance to carpet dust reservoirs.

The traditional paradigm of indoor fungal exposure has considered the inhalation of fungal propagules such as spores and conidia, but, as noted above, cellular fragments can also impact health. Fragmentation of fungal spores, chlamydospores, yeasts, and hyphae can also result from abiotic and biotic processes including fungal autolysis, mechanical severing of spore/hyphae cross walls or septa, grazing of fungi by other microorganisms, protozoans and micro arthropods as well as mechanical and vibration stresses [100,194]. These fragments of fungi have been termed non-gonomorphic particles due to the lack of morphologically discernible features [194]. In vitro chamber studies have shown that fungi frequently detected in indoor environments and carpet are capable of producing non-gonomorphic particles [195198] and in some cases of abiotic or biotic disturbance, the concentration of these particles can be greater than spores [199]. The clinical relevance of non-gonomorphic particles has also been described in the peer reviewed literature and shown to be immunostimulatory as the particles contain cell wall components such as (1 → 3)-β-D-glucan [200], high molecular weight antigens [196], mycotoxins [201], and allergens [201,202].

2.7. Q7: What more should we know about this resuspension of dust and implications for exposure to carpet?

A number of experimental and modeling studies have been conducted to characterize human-associated particle resuspension from indoor surfaces. Despite this, many fundamental research questions remain on identifying the important factors that influence dust resuspension from carpets, how to improve resuspension models, and understanding associated inhalation exposures.

2.7.1. How particles and carpet influence resuspension

We need to better understand how the biological and chemical content of settled dust and resuspended dust vary with particle size. Particle size strongly impacts the adhesion force, resuspension rate/fraction, mass emission rate, inhalation exposure, and deposition in the human respiratory system. Size-dependent processes can influence the redistribution of microorganisms and particle-bound chemical contaminants within an indoor space. Little is known with regard to the factors that affect changes in the size distribution of carpet dust over time, such as deposition, agglomeration, dissolution, hygroscopic growth at elevated RH, and partitioning of SVOCs. Additionally, we need to consider the sources of indoor particles because different sources will contain varying microbial communities. We also need to learn how particle adhesion and resuspension vary among the vast diversity of microorganisms found in carpet dust. There exists very limited empirical data on adhesion forces and resuspension fractions for bacteria and fungi in contact with different types of carpets [152]. Intrinsic properties of bacteria and fungi are expected to influence their adhesive interactions with carpet fibers. Such properties include: bulk geometry and aerodynamic diameter; shape (e.g. cocci bacteria, elongated fungal spores); surface morphological features (such as pili along bacterial cell surfaces); the nano-scale surface roughness of the microorganism; and surface hydrophobicity, which can be species dependent [203205].

We also do not yet understand how resuspension and exposure are impacted by variability among carpets of different fiber types, backing types, and construction differences (cut pile vs. loop, stitch rate, density, denier [fiber thickness], etc.). A better understanding of the differences in resuspension between carpet types and between different carpet types and hard surfaces for the same dust loading would be helpful in directing improved future design and for making recommendations for different indoor settings. However, quality assurance in these studies is of utmost importance. For instance, a pair of industry-funded resuspension studies that were not peer-reviewed did not include a statistical analysis or quality assurance measures of particle seeding/loading, particle embedment, or reproducibility of resuspension. The high variability in the results and lack of statistical comparison precludes making a definitive statement about the flooring effect for the samples tested or generalizing the findings from these studies [206,207].

It is also unclear how electrostatic effects influence particle adhesion and resuspension from carpets under variable RH. Electrostatics and moisture are two factors that are dynamically related to one another. The relative importance of capillary and electrostatic adhesion forces varies with RH [204]. Both forces can be influenced by the hydrophobicity and wettability of the particles and carpet fiber, the charge carried by the particle and carpet fiber, and contact electrification due to the repeated contact and separation of feet with the carpet. If the particle and carpet fiber carry charge of the same polarity, the particle may experience an electrostatic repulsive force from the carpet, thereby making the particle easier to detach. Future research is needed to better characterize the impact of electrostatic effects on the resuspension of biological and abiotic particles from carpets.

2.7.2. Improved modeling of resuspension

We need further research on how to model particle resuspension from carpet fibers. Current models perform reasonably well for evaluating resuspension from hard flooring due to human walking, but these models do not directly apply to carpets. Research into the complex airflow patterns across and within porous carpet fiber media during footfalls must accompany these modeling efforts. Specifically, new experimental data on the friction velocity across the carpet fiber surface is needed to model aerodynamic lift and drag forces induced by different types of human-carpet contacts, such as infant crawling and adult walking. These models also need to consider the structure of dust deposits within carpets [173] and how the structure affects size-resolved resuspension fractions/rates and particle adhesion forces.

It is also unclear how to link known resuspension mechanisms and models for individual particles to estimate resuspended particle size distributions in both the breathing zone of occupants and bulk air of the room. Also, in order to accurately estimate human exposure to resuspended dust from carpets, new research is needed to characterize the transport and dispersion of resuspended particles around the human body during different forms of locomotion, such as between crawling and walking [153]. Such research can be aided by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations with Lagrangian particle tracking [208].

2.7.3. Research on the implications of resuspension for human exposure

We need to better understand the contribution of carpet dust resuspension to daily-integrated inhalation exposures. It has yet to be determined what fraction of PM10 mass inhaled throughout the day can be directly attributed to floor dust resuspension.

Finally, another important question is how the use of walk-off mats at the entrance of buildings affects particulate matter exposure. Generally, walk-off mats are used for aesthetic purposes to avoid visible soiling of other flooring materials, but there are some preliminary data that indicate that the enhanced deposition of carpet used in the entryway could help prevent contaminants from entering the remainder of the building [209]. Open questions include requirements for the length or material to effectively reduce contamination of the indoor environment. Shoe removal at the entrance of a home may also reduce the amount of soil and other materials tracked inside [126,210,211].

2.8. Q8: What standards, guidelines etc. currently exist for use of carpets in US buildings?

Consensus standards are generally lacking on the recommended use of carpet indoors. The National Center for Healthy Housing, a national nonprofit organization in the US, produced a document in 2008 outlining facts about carpets and healthy homes [212]. Their recommendations included: 1) avoid wall to wall carpet in rooms where individuals with asthma or allergies may be present; 2) avoid carpeting rooms that may be exposed to moisture; 3) air out the carpet before installation to limit exposure to VOCs; and 4) use a vacuum that has a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter and use it weekly or every other week [212]. The Institute of Medicine, in their 2000 report entitled Clearing the Air, also recognizes carpet as a major reservoir for allergens [133]. A report compiled for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also recommends not installing wall-to-wall carpet close to toilets and bathing fixtures such as tubs and showers [213].

Carpet manufacturers and cleaners have also created voluntary standards. The Carpet and Rug Institute, the trade association for the North American carpet industry, developed the Green Label certification program in 1992, in which they tested and labeled carpets to let consumers know which ones meet low emissions criteria [214]. This program ended in 2009 and was replaced by the Green Label Plus™ (GLP) which includes testing requirements as outlined by the California Department of Public Health (California Section 01350 (version 1.1, followed by version 1.2 in 2017) [215]. To meet Green Label Plus™ Certification, the emission factors for various VOCs must be less than specified rates. For instance, formaldehyde emissions must be ≤ 17 μg m−2 h−1 [216].

For cleaning, the Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) is a trade association of the cleaning industry. Their ANSI/IICRC S100 is a standard for professional cleaning of textile floor coverings [217].

Indoor environmental quality standards are continuing to be developed and recognized for their importance. This is illustrated by ASHRAE Standard 62 on ventilation. This standard has addressed indoor air quality in all revisions since 1989 but was expanded in the 2019 revision, which greatly increases the level of detail on indoor environmental quality and, for the first time, considered a verification that the indoor air quality met the design intents. Standards related to sustainability concerns also exist and are described in Question 10.

2.9. Q9: What might we consider when developing future standards/guidelines/best practices etc.?

Science-based policy, laws, and regulations are an integral aspect of improving and maintaining public health. These policies are based on evidence that helps to inform the balance between risks and benefits. Typically, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of risks and benefits of building materials prior to their introduction into commerce, construction, and housing rehabilitation. Both public health and housing affordability are important aspects of making recommendations for housing [218220]. In some cases, additional knowledge of risks and benefits changed existing recommendations for building material use. For example, lead-based paint was permitted for decades as a material that promoted durability, a superior hiding and drying agent, and even improved sanitation. Additionally, formaldehyde was permitted in insulation and flooring as an agent that promoted greater durability and adhesion. These and other substances were studied and in some cases banned after the health risks were understood to outweigh any social and economic benefit [221,222].

Carpets are one aspect of an integrated building system that should be managed to encourage occupant health and safety. Therefore, new standards, guidance and best practices for carpet installation and maintenance should account for the variability of environments in which carpets exist and the multicomponent structure of carpet consisting of the top layer of fiber, backing materials, and adhesives. Each component will have its own contribution to the chemistry and microbiology of the carpet system. Environments can include different building types, such as residential, school or office. Moisture management is a fundamental part of all building design, construction, and operations, and may be particularly relevant for areas of carpet flooring.

Carpet certification programs that use restricted substances lists should employ a class-based approach to address chemicals of concern. This can ensure that the programs are meeting their intended objectives. For instance, multiple existing standards restrict the presence of long chain perfluorinated chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), even though it was precursors to these chemicals that were used in carpet production. Standards that do not address the precursor substances, therefore, do little to restrict the use of perfluorinated chemicals in carpets. One solution to this problem is to restrict the broader class of PFAS. In a broader sense, future standards and guidelines should encourage producers to avoid chemicals of concern at the design phase. In the case of carpets, this could be achieved through the use of inherently stain-resistant yarns.

Future evidence-based guidelines for flooring require that we understand the risks and benefits of using carpet under a variety of circumstances. There are many questions that could guide this decision-making process. Do the benefits of carpet (such as cushioning/prevention of falls, comfort, aesthetics) outweigh the risks (such as exposure to chemicals and biological agents, resuspension of particles)? The answer to this question may differ depending on any given set of circumstances and the risks/benefits of alternative flooring materials. How do other housing systems, such as ventilation, moisture and pest control, and typical cleaning practices, interact with carpeted surfaces? What are the financial and health implications of increased use of carpets of varying types on building maintenance, capital improvements, and overall sustainability? Most importantly, how will improved knowledge affect both consumer behavior and corporate marketing strategies? Ultimately, an improved understanding of the risks and benefits of different flooring materials will allow us to improve health, housing sustainability, and overall societal and economic benefit.

2.10. Q10: What types of sustainability practices are or may be implemented to reduce environmental impacts of the use of carpet in buildings?

Sustainability encompasses economic, social and environmental concerns [223]. In the United States, over 4 billion pounds of carpet enter the solid water stream each year [224] with only 5% of carpet recycled in 2016 [225]. Enhancements to carpet sustainability practices could help to reduce the environmental impact of this material. Sustainability of carpet should include consideration of proper maintenance, such as vacuuming and use of cleaning agents, as well as disposal and replacement of the carpet due to normal wear or from damage by flood waters or smoke exposure. The broad nature of carpet types, building types and human sensitivity will require collaboration of government, industry and academia to formulate new standards, guidance and best practices for carpets that best integrate them into building system while allowing for proper maintenance and sustainability.

2.10.1. Sustainability in industry

Carpets can have implications not only to human health, but to the environment as a whole. One study found that the production of one 0.09 m2 section of wool carpet requires 20.42 MJ of energy creating 6.35 kg CO2-equivalents of emissions, while a nylon carpet uses 25.42 MJ of energy and produces 4.80 kg CO2-e of emissions [10]. As such, all industries, including carpet manufacturers, are embracing sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) as a way to achieve a long-term competitive advantage in the marketplace [226,227]. The discovery that environmental conservatism, resource efficiency, and organizational identity could be tied together to profitability has led companies to adopt green business models [223,228].

The business model of Interface Inc, a global market leader in the modular carpet tile business, has been used in case studies on sustainability. This is to demonstrate that a firm which produced, per year, 10 tons of solid waste, 605 million gallons of contaminated water, 704 tons of toxic gases, and 62,800 tons of CO2, could be radically changed with a “Mission Zero” strategy and still maintain market profitability [229]. This multi-year effort entailed revised processes, new nylon formulations for ease in recycling, new material sourcing based on recycling of spent industrial fishing nets, an anaerobic digestion process from food waste to produce natural gas, and lease and recycling efforts [230232]. Challenges remain in carpet recycling efforts [233].

Industry-, NGO-, and government-driven research, guidelines and standards related to indoor exposures and disposal of post-consumer waste can become a part of sustainability initiatives for carpet. This might include consideration of proper maintenance and cleaning (e.g., wet and dry vacuuming), as well as appropriate cleaning agents for existing materials, and development of advanced materials which preclude the use of surface treatments, limit microbial growth under humid conditions, and avoid the introduction of chemicals with unintended adverse consequences.

2.10.2. Recycling

As carpet is made up of many different materials, some may be recovered, recycled, and used for new carpets or other applications [233,234]. Many manufacturers have carpet recycling programs. Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) is an organization that promotes and advances carpet recycling efforts [235,236].

The movement of carpet material through a recycling system is a labor-intensive process and usually requires activities be carried out manually [237]. Fibers can be reprocessed from carpet waste, but once the fiber is removed from the backing, the remaining carpet waste is usually sent to a landfill [233]. Carpet disposed of in an incinerator may emit emissions such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from stain-resistant coatings, though one study found only trace levels of PFCs from emissions due to the combustion of carpet [238].

Plastics can also be reprocessed separately from fibers and used for more carpets or molded to new plastics, though the resulting engineered plastics have poor mechanical properties [233]. Different polymers and fillers recycled from carpet have also been tested as feedstock materials for inclusion within structural composites for load-bearing applications, such as concrete [233,234]. Sustainable recycling of carpet will require screening and product design that prevents the reintroduction of harmful chemicals into the marketplace. Carpet design should eliminate these compounds that inhibit recycling efforts, such as phthalates [239]. In addition, the potential presence of PFAS, either in the carpet itself or subsequently applied to the carpet as a stain resistant coating, may affect the ability to recycle a given carpet [238].

2.10.3. Sustainable carpet materials

Wool carpet fiber is biodegradable, although the carpet backing may not be [240]. A biodegradable carpet backing made of lignin-based adhesive was created to replace the normal latex backings [241]. Using wool carpet with the lignin-based backing in the future could allow the carpet to be completely biodegradable and limit waste. Multiple carpet manufacturers have also created carpet utilized from recycled materials. For example, Mohawk Industries and Shaw Floors have each created carpets made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) taken from recycled plastic bottles [242,243]. Several companies have also created a recycled carpet backing. Tarkett created a carpet tile backing, DESSO EcoBase, made of at least 75% recycled content which can be removed from the carpet and recycled at the end of its lifetime [244].

2.10.4. Sustainability standards

In the first decade of this century, rating systems for sustainable buildings included an Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) component but were mostly known only to designers and owners of commercial buildings. In the past decade, multiple programs that address the impacts of IAQ have been created to provide information about products, their contents and components. Manufacturers and retailers are more often expected to provide such information to consumers. Some programs list forbidden materials, while other programs also estimate exposure under specified conditions. Transparency is increasingly becoming an expected feature of products used in the indoor environment.

Heightened interest in green buildings and indoor environmental quality have led to the creation of several carpet sustainability standards that go beyond the VOC emissions requirement of CRI’s Green Label Plus™ program [214]. Products that comply with these standards tend to be more expensive.

  • NSF/ANSI 140 – 2015: Sustainability Assessment for Carpet. This commercial carpet standard was developed by a multi-stakeholder process and is employed by government agencies interested in environmentally preferable procurement. It incorporates the VOC emissions requirements of Green Label Plus™, requires ingredient disclosure down to 1%, prohibits persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances greater than 0.1% as well as long-chain PFAS, and provides additional credits for further minimizing total VOCs, carcinogenic VOCs, formaldehyde, and PBTs. The standard does not address carpet adhesives or padding [245,246].

  • Cradle-to-Cradle Certified (C2C). C2C is a product certification standard that addresses multiple attributes of sustainability, including “Material Health.” Products that obtain the C2C Silver level must not contain greater than 1000 ppm of substances on the certifier’s restricted substances list, which includes heavy metals, flame retardants, phthalates, two long-chain PFAS and other chemicals of concern. Carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants are also prohibited above 100 ppm [247].

  • Oeko-Tex 100. The Oeko-Tex 100 standard bans or restricts certain chemicals in textiles, including carpet fibers. The list of restricted substances includes heavy metals, flame retardants, phthalates, certain long-chain PFAS and numerous other chemicals of concern [248].

  • Living Building Challenge. LBC is a green building certification standard that requires products used in construction of a building to avoid certain chemicals. Like C2C and Oeko-Tex 100, LBC’s restricted substances list includes heavy metals and a number of SVOCs [249].

3. Discussion

Carpet type, installation, and manufacturing has changed over the years, largely in response to consumer demands. Some chemicals have been removed from the manufacturing process through various programs (ex: Green Label Plus™), installation is moving towards modular products rather than large rolls, and the preferred fiber has changed from nylon to polyester carpet due to style preferences and cost. Sustainability concerns have led to efforts to promote carpet recycling and more sustainable carpet materials. However, manufacturers have not seen a large interest from residential consumers to create recyclable carpet products, and consumer education may be required on this issue.

Carpet maintenance should continue to be an important consideration prior to any carpet installation given the impact of carpet dust on human exposure highlighted here. There is a need for proper cleaning practices to be more thoroughly described to consumers on both a residential and commercial level. For example, it would be helpful to specify frequency and duration of carpet vacuuming required in order to meet a specific threshold of dust loading and/or resuspension from walking. These cleaning recommendations may differ widely under various circumstances due to variability including carpet type, traffic patterns, and commercial versus residential spaces. It is especially important to consider maintenance costs for low-income families [250], for whom high-quality vacuum cleaners may not be affordable [251, 252]. Within the professional cleaning industry, proper personal protective equipment needs to be used following exposure guidelines, which is especially important for disaster situations or demolition events.

3.1. The future of carpet

Designing carpets that have the ability to improve indoor environmental quality related to dust retention, resuspension, and microbial growth should be an environmental health goal. This goal also needs to involve consumer education on why these properties of carpet are important to the indoor environment and occupant health. Currently, consumers tend to assess the cleanliness of carpet through visual inspection, which may not be an accurate representation of cleanliness as some carpets are designed to appear clean even when they are not. Consumers need to understand the benefits of improvements in carpets for environmental health to warrant purchasing any products that may be developed. To provide this education, we also need a thorough understanding of how carpets impact indoor microbiology and indoor chemistry.

Future carpet designs could conceivably utilize specific properties to reduce potentially harmful exposures. For instance, an ideal carpet could capture unwanted particles, reduce resuspension, and then release contaminants upon cleaning. Specific target values, such as a certain resuspension rate associated with health outcomes, could help in achieving these goals and could mimic the Green Label Plus™ program. Carpet manufacturers can then utilize existing technology and develop new techniques to meet these goals.

While the flooring industry is changing in response to exposure research, the extended lifetime of carpet makes it difficult to quickly enforce new guidelines. Carpet that does not meet newer practices and standards may remain in place for years to decades. Information must be accessible and understandable to consumers so that informed decisions can be made about sustainability and exposure issues.

4. Conclusion

Carpets are an integral part of our indoor environments. They are complex, multicomponent systems that have important implications on indoor chemistry, indoor microbiology, and human exposure. Eventually, we need to be able to use what we know about carpet to complete a risk/benefit analysis of carpet in a given circumstance, for instance by comparing the risk of increased microbial exposure from carpets versus the reduction of the risk of injury from falls. This risk/benefit analysis could also indicate situations where a carpet should be removed or cleaned. This analysis could potentially change with future development of carpets that promote environmental health by reducing resuspension and therefore occupant exposure. Ultimately, this information can lead to better carpet design and improved recommendations for flooring selection in the indoor environment to improve human health.

Acknowledgements

Both the workshop and the development of this manuscript were supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, grant G-2018-11240. The authors would also like to thank Ginger Chew (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for reviewing the manuscript. We also would like to thank workshop participants Joe Hughes (IAQ Training Institute), Jim Williams (Mohawk Industries), Julie Brumbelow (Shaw Industries), Paul Tucker (Carpet and Rug Institute), Heather Allen (The Ohio State University), and Jordan Clark (The Ohio State University) for sharing their perspectives.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Footnotes

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Troy Virgo is an employee of and has financial interests in Shaw Industries, which manufactures carpet. David Wilkinson is an employee of and has financial interests in Tarkett, which manufactures carpet. John Downey is associated with the Cleaning Industry Research Institute, which is a 501c3 nonprofit research institute and professional technical institute. All other authors declare no competing interests.

References

  • [1].Research and Resources, The carpet and rug institute. https://carpet-rug.org/resources/research-and-resources/, 2019. accessed September 25, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Rys M, Konz S, Standing work: carpet vs. Concrete, in: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting 32, 1988, pp. 522–526, 10.1518/107118188786762892. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Werner RA, Gell N, Hartigan A, Wiggerman N, Keyserling WM, Risk factors for plantar fasciitis among assembly plant workers, Pharm. Manag. PM R 2 (2010) 110–116, 10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Adgate JL, Weisel C, Wang Y, Rhoads GG, Lioy PJ, Lead in house dust: relationships between exposure metrics, Environ. Res. 70 (1995) 134–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Qian J, Hospodsky D, Yamamoto N, Nazaroff WW, Peccia J, Size-resolved emission rates of airborne bacteria and fungi in an occupied classroom, Indoor Air 22 (2012) 339–351, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00769.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Becher R, Øvrevik J, Schwarze PE, Nilsen S, Hongslo JK, Bakke JV, Do carpets impair indoor air quality and cause adverse Health outcomes: a review, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15 (2018), 10.3390/ijerph15020184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].The Carpet and Rug Institute, The Carpet Primer, The Carpet and Rug Institute (2003). https://carpetswalltowall.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/029_The_Carpet_Primer1.pdf. (Accessed 10 July 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Carpet fiber type, sustainable carpet selection project. https://sohe.wisc.edu/projects/carpet/fiber.html, 2014. accessed July 10, 2019.
  • [9].Simmons C, Types of synthetic carpet, the spruce. https://www.thespruce.com/guide-to-synthetic-carpet-fibers-2908813, 2019. accessed July 10, 2019.
  • [10].Sim J, Prabhu V, The life cycle assessment of energy and carbon emissions on wool and nylon carpets in the United States, J. Clean. Prod. 170 (2018) 1231–1243, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Ryan K, Carpet: category maintains dominant market position, Floor Covering News 30 (2016). https://fcnews.net/2016/06/carpet-category-maintains-dominant-market-position/. (Accessed 21 August 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Herlihy J, Carpet fiber systems make the difference, Floor Covering Weekly. (2018). https://www.floorcoveringweekly.com/main/features/carpet-fiber-systems-make-the-difference-24852 accessed August 21, 2019.
  • [13].Önder E, Berkalp ÖB, Effects of different structural parameters on carpet physical properties, Text. Res. J. 71 (2001) 549–555, 10.1177/004051750107100613. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Vallette J, Stamm R, Lent T, Eliminating toxics in carpet: lessons for the future of recycling, Healthy Build. Netw. (2017). https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/docs/cr/carpet/status/toxics/hbnreport.pdf. (Accessed 10 July 2019).
  • [15].Bonded Carpet Cushion Profile, Carpet cushion council. http://www.carpetcushion.org/bonded-cushion.cfm, 2019. accessed June 23, 2019.
  • [16].Scoring flooring, Industry stats for 2018, Floor Covering News 35 (2019). https://fcnews.net/2019/07/scoring-flooring-industry-stats-for-2018/. (Accessed 29 July 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Scoring flooring, Industry stats for 2017, Floor Covering News 34 (2018). https://fcnews.net/2018/07/scoring-flooring-industry-stats-for-2017/. (Accessed 10 July 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Yu C, Crump D, A review of the emission of VOCs from polymeric materials used in buildings, Build. Environ. 33 (1998) 357–374, 10.1016/s0360-1323(97)00055-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Schaeffer VH, Bhooshan B, Chen S-B, Sonenthal JS, Hodgson AJ, Characterization of volatile organic chemical emissions from carpet cushions, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 46 (1996) 813–820, 10.1080/10473289.1996.10467516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Sollinger S, Levsen K, Wünsch G, Indoor air pollution by organic emissions from textile floor coverings. Climate chamber studies under dynamic conditions, Atmos. Environ. Part B - Urban Atmos. 27 (1993) 183–192, 10.1016/0957-1272(93)90004-p. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Sollinger S, Levsen K, Wünsch G, Indoor pollution by organic emissions from textile floor coverings: climate test chamber studies under static conditions, Atmos. Environ. 28 (1994) 2369–2378, 10.1016/1352-2310(94)90491-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Wilke O, Jann O, Brodner D, VOC- and SVOC-emissions from adhesives, floor coverings and complete floor structures, Indoor Air 14 (2004) 98–107, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00314.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Cox SS, Little JC, Hodgson AT, Predicting the emission rate of volatile organic compounds from vinyl flooring, Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002) 709–714, 10.1021/es010802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Katsoyiannis A, Leva P, Kotzias D, VOC and carbonyl emissions from carpets: a comparative study using four types of environmental chambers, J. Hazard Mater. 152 (2008) 669–676, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Hodgson AT, Rudd AF, Beal D, Chandra S, Volatile organic compound concentrations and emission rates in new manufactured and site-built houses, Indoor Air 10 (2000) 178–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Hodgson AT, Wooley JD, Daisey JM, Emissions of volatile organic compounds from new carpets measured in a large-scale environmental chamber, Air Waste 43 (1993) 316–324, 10.1080/1073161x.1993.10467136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Dietert RR, Hedge A, Toxicological considerations in evaluating indoor air quality and human health: impact of new carpet emissions, Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 26 (1996) 633–707, 10.3109/10408449609037480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Sakr W, Weschler CJ, Fanger PO, The impact of sorption on perceived indoor air quality, Indoor Air 16 (2006) 98–110, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00406.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Guo H, Murray F, Lee SC, Wilkinson S, Evaluation of emissions of total volatile organic compounds from carpets in an environmental chamber, Build. Environ. 39 (2004) 179–187, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.08.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Kissa E, Fluorinated surfactants and repellents, second ed., CRC Press, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Prevedouros K, Cousins IT, Buck RC, Korzeniowski SH, Sources, fate and transport of perfluorocarboxylates, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (2006) 32–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Petersen RC, Triclosan antimicrobial polymers, AIMS Mol. Sci 3 (2016) 88–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Langer S, Weschler CJ, Fischer A, Bekö G, Toftum J, Clausen G, Phthalate and PAH concentrations in dust collected from Danish homes and daycare centers, Atmos. Environ. 44 (2010) 2294–2301, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Curits K, Wilding BC, Hulick A, LaBo K, Schuler K, Flame retardants in furniture, foam, floors, clean and healthy New York, Clean. Water Action Conserv. Minn. (2015). https://www.conservationminnesota.org/redesign/wp-content/uploads/SafeMattressReport-final.pdf. (Accessed 19 August 2019).
  • [35].Kubwabo C, Stewart B, Zhu J, Marro L, Occurrence of perfluorosulfonates and other perfluorochemicals in dust from selected homes in the city of Ottawa, Canada, J. Environ. Monit. 7 (2005) 1074–1078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Gewurtz SB, Bhavsar SP, Crozier PW, Diamond ML, Helm PA, Marvin CH, Reiner EJ, Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in window film: indoor/outdoor, urban/rural, and winter/summer contamination and assessment of carpet as a possible source, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 7317–7323, 10.1021/es9002718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Beesoon S, Genuis SJ, Benskin JP, Martin JW, Exceptionally high serum concentrations of perfluorohexanesulfonate in a Canadian family are linked to home carpet treatment applications, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 12960–12967, 10.1021/es3034654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Nazaroff WW, Weschler CJ, Corsi RL, Indoor air chemistry and physics, Atmos. Environ. 37 (2003) 5451–5453, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.09.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Won D, Corsi RL, Rynes M, New indoor carpet as an adsorptive reservoir for volatile organic compounds, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 4193–4198, 10.1021/es9910412. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Won D, Corsi RL, Rynes M, Sorptive interactions between VOCs and indoor materials, Indoor Air 11 (2001) 246–256, 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.110406.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Singer BC, Revzan KL, Hotchi T, Hodgson AT, Brown NJ, Sorption of organic gases in a furnished room, Atmos. Environ. 38 (2004) 2483–2494, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Wal JF, Hoogeveen AW, Leeuwen L, A quick screening method for sorption effects of volatile organic compounds on indoor materials, Indoor Air 8 (1998) 103–112, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1998.t01-2-00005.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Colombo A, Bortoli M, Knoppel H, Pecchio E, Vissers H, Adsorption Of Selected Volatile Organic Compounds On A Carpet, A Wall Coating, And A Gypsum Board In A Test Chamber, Indoor Air 3 (1993) 276–282, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1993.00009.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Deng Q, Yang X, Zhang JS, Key factor analysis of VOC sorption and its impact on indoor concentrations: the role of ventilation, Build. Environ. 47 (2012) 182–187, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Elkilani AS, Baker CGJ, Al-Shammari QH, Bouhamra WS, Sorption of volatile organic compounds on typical carpet fibers, Environ. Int 29 (2003) 575–585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Jørgensen RB, Bjørseth O, Malvik B, Chamber testing of adsorption of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on material surfaces, Indoor Air 9 (1999) 2–9, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1999.t01-3-00002.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Van Loy MD, Riley WJ, Daisey JM, Nazaroff WW, Dynamic behavior of semivolatile organic compounds in indoor air. 2. Nicotine and phenanthrene with carpet and wallboard, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2001) 560–567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Tichenor BA, Guo Z, Dunn JE, Sparks LE, Mason MA, The interaction of vapour phase organic compounds with indoor sinks, Indoor Air 1 (1991) 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Weschler CJ, Indoor/outdoor connections exemplified by processes that depend on an organic compound’s saturation vapor pressure, Atmos. Environ. 37 (2003) 5455–5465. [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Morrison GC, Nazaroff WW, The rate of ozone uptake on carpets: experimental studies, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 4963–4968, 10.1021/es001361h. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Won D, Sander DM, Shaw CY, Corsi RL, Validation of the surface sink model for sorptive interactions between VOCs and indoor materials, Atmos. Environ. 35 (2001) 4479–4488. [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Dunn JE, Chen T, Critical evaluation of the diffusion hypothesis in the theory of porous media volatile organic compound (VOC) sources and sinks, Model. Indoor Air Expo (1993) 64–80. [Google Scholar]
  • [53].Axley JW, Adsorption modelling for building contaminant dispersal analysis, Indoor Air 1 (1991) 147–171. [Google Scholar]
  • [54].Jørgensen RB, Dokka TH, Bjørseth O, Introduction of a sink-diffusion model to describe the interaction between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and material surfaces, Indoor Air 10 (2000) 27–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [55].Saini A, Okeme JO, Mark Parnis J, McQueen RH, Diamond ML, From air to clothing: characterizing the accumulation of semi-volatile organic compounds to fabrics in indoor environments, Indoor Air 27 (2017) 631–641, 10.1111/ina.12328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [56].Morrison G, Li H, Mishra S, Buechlein M, Airborne phthalate partitioning to cotton clothing, Atmos. Environ. 115 (2015) 149–152, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.05.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [57].Liu X, Allen MR, Roache NF, Characterization of organophosphorus flame retardants’ sorption on building materials and consumer products, Atmos. Environ. 140 (2016) 333–341, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [58].Uhde E, Varol D, Mull B, Salthammer T, Distribution of five SVOCs in a model room: effect of vacuuming and air cleaning measures, Environ. Sci.: Processes & Impacts (2019), 10.1039/c9em00121b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [59].Ongwandee M, Morrison GC, Influence of ammonia and carbon dioxide on the sorption of a basic organic pollutant to carpet and latex-painted gypsum board, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008) 5415–5420, 10.1021/es071935j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [60].Cano-Ruiz JA, Kong D, Balas RB, Nazaroff WW, Removal of reactive gases at indoor surfaces: combining mass transport and surface kinetics, Atmos. Environ. Part A. General Topics 27 (1993) 2039–2050, 10.1016/0960-1686(93)90276-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [61].Simmons A, Colbeck I, Resistance of various building materials to ozone deposition, Environ. Technol. 11 (1990) 973–978, 10.1080/09593339009384949. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [62].Hoang CP, Kinney KA, Corsi RL, Ozone removal by green building materials, Build. Environ. 44 (8) (2009) 1627–1633, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.10.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [63].Grøntoft T, Raychaudhuri MR, Compilation of tables of surface deposition velocities for O3, NO2 and SO2 to a range of indoor surfaces, Atmos. Environ. 38 (2004) 533–544, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.10.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [64].Weschler CJ, Hodgson AT, Wooley JD, Indoor chemistry: ozone, volatile organic compounds, and carpets, Environ. Sci. Technol. 26 (1992) 2371–2377, 10.1021/es00036a006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [65].Morrison GC, Nazaroff WW, Ozone interactions with carpet: secondary emissions of aldehydes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002) 2185–2192, 10.1021/es0113089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [66].Klenø JG, Clausen PA, Weschler CJ, Wolkoff P, Determination of ozone removal rates by selected building products using the FLEC emission cell, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2001) 2548–2553, 10.1021/es000284n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [67].Nicolas M, Ramalho O, Maupetit F, Reactions between ozone and building products: impact on primary and secondary emissions, Atmos. Environ. 41 (2007) 3129–3138, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.06.062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [68].Cros CJ, Morrison GC, Siegel JA, Corsi RL, Long-term performance of passive materials for removal of ozone from indoor air, Indoor Air 22 (2012) 43–53, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00734.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [69].Gall E, Darling E, Siegel JA, Morrison GC, Corsi RL, Evaluation of three common green building materials for ozone removal, and primary and secondary emissions of aldehydes, Atmos. Environ. 77 (2013) 910–918, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [70].Abbass OA, Sailor DJ, Gall ET, Effect of fiber material on ozone removal and carbonyl production from carpets, Atmos. Environ. 148 (2017) 42–48, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.10.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [71].Wang H, Morrison G, Ozone-surface reactions in five homes: surface reaction probabilities, aldehyde yields, and trends, Indoor Air 20 (2010) 224–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [72].Fraser AJ, Webster TF, Watkins DJ, Strynar MJ, Kato K, Calafat AM, Vieira VM, McClean MD, Polyfluorinated compounds in dust from homes, offices, and vehicles as predictors of concentrations in office workers’ serum, Environ. Int. 60 (2013) 128–136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [73].Sukiene V, Gerecke AC, Park Y-M, Zennegg M, Bakker MI, Delmaar CJE, Hungerbühler K, von Goetz N, Tracking SVOCs’ transfer from products to indoor air and settled dust with deuterium-labeled substances, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 4296–4303, 10.1021/acs.est.5b05906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [74].Lammel G, Neil Cape J, Nitrous acid and nitrite in the atmosphere, Chem. Soc. Rev. 25 (1996) 361, 10.1039/cs9962500361. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [75].Spicer CW, Coutant RW, Ward GF, Joseph DW, Gaynor AJ, Billick IH, Rates and mechanisms of NO2 removal from indoor air by residential materials, Environ. Int 15 (1989) 643–654, 10.1016/0160-4120(89)90087-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [76].Wainman T, Weschler CJ, Lioy PJ, Zhang J, Effects of surface type and relative humidity on the production and concentration of nitrous acid in a model indoor environment, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2001) 2200–2206, 10.1021/es000879i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [77].Collins DB, Hems RF, Zhou S, Wang C, Grignon E, Alavy M, Siegel JA, Abbatt JPD, Evidence for gas–surface equilibrium control of indoor nitrous acid, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018) 12419–12427, 10.1021/acs.est.8b04512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [78].Alvarez EG, Sörgel M, Gligorovski S, Bassil S, Bartolomei V, Coulomb B, Zetzsch C, Wortham H, Light-induced nitrous acid (HONO) production from NO2 heterogeneous reactions on household chemicals, Atmos. Environ. 95 (2014) 391–399, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [79].Gligorovski S, Nitrous acid (HONO): An emerging indoor pollutant, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 314 (2016) 1–5, 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2015.06.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [80].Weschler CJ, Nazaroff WW, Growth of organic films on indoor surfaces, Indoor Air 27 (2017) 1101–1112, 10.1111/ina.12396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [81].Diamond ML, Gingrich SE, Fertuck K, McCarry BE, Stern GA, Billeck B, Grift B, Brooker D, Yager TD, Evidence for organic film on an impervious urban surface: characterization and potential teratogenic effects, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 2900–2908, 10.1021/es9906406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [82].Alwarda R, Zhou S, Abbatt JPD, Heterogeneous oxidation of indoor surfaces by gas-phase hydroxyl radicals, Indoor Air 28 (2018) 655–664, 10.1111/ina.12476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [83].Shu S, Morrison GC, Surface reaction rate and probability of ozone and alpha-terpineol on glass, polyvinyl chloride, and latex paint surfaces, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 4285–4292, 10.1021/es200194e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [84].Ham JE, Raymond Wells J, Surface chemistry of dihydromyrcenol (2,6-dimethyl-7-octen-2-ol) with ozone on silanized glass, glass, and vinyl flooring tiles, Atmos. Environ. 43 (2009) 4023–4032, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.05.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [85].Waring MS, Siegel JA, Indoor secondary organic aerosol formation initiated from reactions between ozone and surface-sorbed D-limonene, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 6341–6348, 10.1021/es400846d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [86].Wakayama T, Ito Y, Sakai K, Miyake M, Shibata E, Ohno H, Kamijima M, Comprehensive review of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol as an indoor air pollutant, J. Occup. Health 61 (2019) 19–35, 10.1002/1348-9585.12017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [87].Chino S, Kato S, Seo J, Kim J, Measurement of 2-ethyl-1-hexanol emitted from flooring materials and adhesives, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 27 (2013) 659–670, 10.1080/01694243.2012.690656. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [88].Abb M, Heinrich T, Sorkau E, Lorenz W, Phthalates in house dust, Environ. Int. 35 (2009) 965–970, 10.1016/j.envint.2009.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [89].Bornehag C-G, Lundgren B, Weschler CJ, Sigsgaard T, Hagerhed-Engman L, Sundell J, Phthalates in indoor dust and their association with building characteristics, Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (2005) 1399–1404, 10.1289/ehp.7809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [90].Kirjavainen PV, Karvonen AM, Adams RI, Täubel M, Roponen M, Tuoresmäki P, Loss G, Jayaprakash B, Depner M, Ege MJ, Renz H, Pfefferle PI, Schaub B, Lauener R, Hyvärinen A, Knight R, Heederik DJJ, von Mutius E, Pekkanen J, Farm-like indoor microbiota in non-farm homes protects children from asthma development, Nat. Med. 25 (2019) 1089–1095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [91].Fujimura KE, Demoor T, Rauch M, Faruqi AA, Jang S, Johnson CC, Boushey HA, Zoratti E, Ownby D, Lukacs NW, Lynch SV, House dust exposure mediates gut microbiome Lactobacillus enrichment and airway immune defense against allergens and virus infection, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 111 (2014) 805–810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [92].Stark PC, Celedón JC, Chew GL, Ryan LM, Burge HA, Muilenberg ML, Gold DR, Fungal levels in the home and allergic rhinitis by 5 years of age, Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (2005) 1405–1409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [93].Cho S-H, Reponen T, Bernstein DI, Olds R, Levin L, Liu X, Wilson K, LeMasters G, The effect of home characteristics on dust antigen concentrations and loads in homes, Sci. Total Environ. 371 (2006) 31–43, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.09.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [94].van Bronswijk JEMH, House Dust Biology for Allergists, Acarologists and Mycologists, The University of Michigan, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • [95].Zock JP, Brunekreef B, House dust mite allergen levels in dust from schools with smooth and carpeted classroom floors, Clin. Exp. Allergy 25 (1995) 549–553, 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1995.tb01093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [96].Tranter DC, Indoor allergens in settled school dust: a review of findings and significant factors, Clin. Exp. Allergy 35 (2005) 126–136, 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02149.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [97].Madden AA, Barberán A, Bertone MA, Menninger HL, Dunn RR, Fierer N, The diversity of arthropods in homes across the United States as determined by environmental DNA analyses, Mol. Ecol. 25 (2016) 6214–6224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [98].Dannemiller KC, Mendell MJ, Macher JM, Kumagai K, Bradman A, Holland N, Harley K, Eskenazi B, Peccia J, Next-generation DNA sequencing reveals that low fungal diversity in house dust is associated with childhood asthma development, Indoor Air 24 (2014) 236–247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [99].Dannemiller KC, Gent JF, Leaderer BP, Peccia J, Indoor microbial communities: influence on asthma severity in atopic and nonatopic children, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 138 (2016) 76–83, 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.11.027,e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [100].Green BJ, Lemons AR, Park Y, Cox-Ganser JM, Park J-H, Assessment of fungal diversity in a water-damaged office building, J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 14 (2017) 285–293, 10.1080/15459624.2016.1252044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [101].Douwes J, Zuidhof A, Doekes G, van der ZEE S, Wouters I, Marike Boezen H, Brunekreef B, (1 → 3)- β -d-Glucan and endotoxin in house dust and peak flow variability in children, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 162 (2000) 1348–1354, 10.1164/ajrccm.162.4.9909118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [102].Holst G, Høst A, Doekes G, Meyer HW, Madsen AM, Sigsgaard T, Determinants of house dust, endotoxin, and β-(1→3)-D-glucan in homes of Danish children, Indoor Air 25 (2015) 245–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [103].Gehring U, Douwes J, Doekes G, Koch A, Bischof W, Fahlbusch B, Richter K, Wichmann HE, Heinrich J , INGA Study Group, Indoor Factors and Genetics in Asthma, Beta(1–>3)-glucan in house dust of German homes: housing characteristics, occupant behavior, and relations with endotoxins, allergens, and molds, Environ. Health Perspect. 109 (2001) 139–144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [104].Perzanowski MS, Miller RL, Thorne PS, Barr RG, Divjan A, Sheares BJ, Garfinkel RS, Perera FP, Goldstein IF, Chew GL, Endotoxin in inner-city homes: associations with wheeze and eczema in early childhood, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 117 (2006) 1082–1089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [105].Bouillard L, Michel O, Dramaix M, Devleeschouwer M, Bacterial contamination of indoor air, surfaces, and settled dust, and related dust endotoxin concentrations in healthy office buildings, Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 12 (2005) 187–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [106].Singh U, Levin L, Grinshpun SA, Schaffer C, Adhikari A, Reponen T, Influence of home characteristics on airborne and dustborne endotoxin and β-d-glucan, J. Environ. Monit. 13 (2011) 3246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [107].Chew GL, Rogers C, Burge HA, Muilenberg ML, Gold DR, Dustborne and airborne fungal propagules represent a different spectrum of fungi with differing relations to home characteristics, Allergy 58 (2003) 13–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [108].Chew GL, Burge HA, Dockery DW, Muilenberg ML, Weiss ST, Gold DR, Limitations of a home characteristics questionnaire as a predictor of indoor allergen levels, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 157 (1998) 1536–1541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [109].De Boer R, Explaining house dust mite infestations on the basis of temperature and air humidity measurements, mites, asthma and domestic design III, 2000, pp. 13–19. Wellington. [Google Scholar]
  • [110].Cunningham MJ, Direct measurements of temperature and humidity in dust mite microhabitats, Clin. Exp. Allergy 28 (1998) 1104–1112, 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1998.00351.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [111].Othman NL, Jaafar M, Harun WMW, Ibrahim F, A case study on moisture problems and building defects, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 170 (2015) 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  • [112].Ahmed GN, Hurst JP, Modeling the thermal behavior of concrete slabs subjected to the astm E119 standard fire condition, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 7 (1995) 125–132. [Google Scholar]
  • [113].Dannemiller KC, Weschler CJ, Peccia J, Fungal and bacterial growth in floor dust at elevated relative humidity levels, Indoor Air 27 (2017) 354–363, 10.1111/ina.12313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [114].Hegarty B, Dannemiller KC, Peccia J, Gene expression of indoor fungal communities under damp building conditions: implications for human health, Indoor Air 28 (2018) 548–558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [115].Bennett JW, Klich M, Mycotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 16 (2003) 497–516, 10.1128/cmr.16.3.497-516.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [116].Zhang F, Guo Z, Zhong H, Wang S, Yang W, Liu Y, Wang S, RNA-Seq-Based transcriptome analysis of aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus in response to water activity, Toxins 6 (2014) 3187–3207, 10.3390/toxins6113187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [117].Nielsen KF, Holm G, Uttrup LP, Nielsen PA, Mould growth on building materials under low water activities. Influence of humidity and temperature on fungal growth and secondary metabolism, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 54 (2004) 325–336. [Google Scholar]
  • [118].Leong S-LL, Hocking AD, Scott ES, Effect of temperature and water activity on growth and ochratoxin A production by Australian Aspergillus carbonarius and A. Niger isolates on a simulated grape juice medium, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 110 (2006) 209–216, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [119].Engelhart S, Loock A, Skutlarek D, Sagunski H, Lommel A, Färber H, Exner M, Occurrence of toxigenic Aspergillus versicolor isolates and sterigmatocystin in carpet dust from damp indoor environments, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68 (2002) 3886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [120].Piecková E, Wilkins K, Airway toxicity of house dust and its fungal composition, Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 11 (2004) 67–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [121].Smoragiewicz W, Cossette B, Boutard A, Krzystyniak K, Trichothecene mycotoxins in the dust of ventilation systems in office buildings, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 65 (1993) 113–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [122].Lanzerstorfer C, Variations in the composition of house dust by particle size, J. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox. Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng 52 (2017) 770–777. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [123].Reponen T, Trakumas S, Willeke K, Grinshpun SA, Choe KT, Friedman W, Dynamic monitoring of the dust pickup efficiency of vacuum cleaners, AIHA J. 63 (2002) 689–697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [124].Ong K-H, Lewis RD, Dixit A, MacDonald M, Yang M, Qian Z, Inactivation of dust mites, dust mite allergen, and mold from carpet, J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 11 (2014) 519–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [125].Salares VR, Hinde CA, David Miller J, Analysis of settled dust in homes and fungal glucan in air particulate collected during HEPA vacuuming, Indoor Built Environ. 18 (2009) 485–491. [Google Scholar]
  • [126].Roberts JW, Clifford WS, Glass G, Hummer PG, Reducing dust, lead, dust mites, bacteria, and fungi in carpets by vacuuming, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 36 (1999) 477–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [127].Richter WR, Wood JP, Wendling MQS, Rogers JV, Inactivation of Bacillus anthracis spores to decontaminate subway railcar and related materials via the fogging of peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide sporicidal liquids, J. Environ. Manag 206 (2018) 800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [128].Cunningham MJ, Roos C, Gu L, Spolek G, Predicting psychrometric conditions in biocontaminant microenvironments with a microclimate heat and moisture transfer model - description and field comparison, Indoor Air 14 (2004) 235–242, 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00237.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [129].Kormos D, Modeling water uptake of dust in the indoor environment, BS, the Ohio state university. https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/87417/David_Kormos_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, 2019. accessed August 5, 2019.
  • [130].Kreidenweis SM, Asa-Awuku A, Aerosol hygroscopicity: particle water content and its role in atmospheric processes, Treatises Geochem. (2014) 331–361, 10.1016/b978-0-08-095975-7.00418-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [131].Tang M, Cziczo DJ, Grassian VH, Interactions of water with mineral dust aerosol: water adsorption, hygroscopicity, cloud condensation, and ice nucleation, Chem. Rev. 116 (2016) 4205–4259, 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [132].Skov P, Valbjorn O, Pedersen BV, Influence of indoor climate on the sick building syndrome in an office environment. The Danish indoor climate study group, Scandinavian journal of work, Environ. Health 16 (1990) 363–371, 10.5271/sjweh.1772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [133].Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air, Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures, Natl. Acad. Press (2000). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [134].Jaakkola JJK, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola MS, Interior surface materials and asthma in adults: a population-based incident case-control study, Am. J. Epidemiol. 164 (2006) 742–749, 10.1093/aje/kwj249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [135].Chen Y-C, Tsai C-H, Lee YL, Early-life indoor environmental exposures increase the risk of childhood asthma, Int. J. Hyg Environ. Health 215 (2011) 19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [136].Ekici M, Ekici A, Akin A, Altinkaya V, Bulcun E, Chronic airway diseases in adult life and childhood infections, Respiration 75 (2008) 55–59, 10.1159/000102952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [137].Ferry OR, Duffy DL, Ferreira MAR, Early life environmental predictors of asthma age-of-onset, Immun. Inflamm. Dis. 2 (2014) 141–151, 10.1002/iid3.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [138].Salo PM, Wilkerson J, Rose KM, Cohn RD, Calatroni A, Mitchell HE, Sever ML, Gergen PJ, Thorne PS, Zeldin DC, Bedroom allergen exposures in US households, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 141 (2018) 1870–1879, e14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [139].Bryant-Stephens T, Li Y, Outcomes of a home-based environmental remediation for urban children with asthma, J. Natl. Med. Assoc 100 (2008) 306–316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [140].Crocker DD, Kinyota S, Dumitru GG, Ligon CB, Herman EJ, Ferdinands JM, Hopkins DP, Lawrence BM, Sipe TA, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Effectiveness of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus for reducing asthma morbidity: a community guide systematic review, Am. J. Prev. Med 41 (2011) S5–S32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [141].Freeman NCG, Schneider D, McGarvey P, Household exposure factors, asthma, and school absenteeism in a predominantly Hispanic community, J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 13 (2003) 169–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [142].Morgan WJ, Crain EF, Gruchalla RS, O’Connor GT, Kattan M, Evans R, Stout J, Malindzak G, Smartt E, Plaut M, Walter M, Vaughn B, Mitchell H, Results of a home-based environmental intervention among urban children with asthma, N. Engl. J. Med. 351 (2004) 1068–1080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [143].Crain EF, Walter M, O’Connor GT, Mitchell H, Gruchalla RS, Kattan M, Malindzak GS, Enright P, Evans R, Morgan W, Stout JW , Home and allergic characteristics of children with asthma in seven U.S. urban communities and design of an environmental intervention: the Inner-City Asthma Study, Environ. Health Perspect. 110 (2002) 939–945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [144].Zock J-P, Jarvis D, Luczynska C, Sunyer J, Burney P, Housing characteristics, reported mold exposure, and asthma in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 110 (2002) 285–292, 10.1067/mai.2002.126383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [145].Verhoeff AP, Van Strien RT, Van Wijnen JH, Brunekreef B, House dust mite allergen (Der p I) and respiratory symptoms in children: a case-control study, Clin. Exp. Allergy 24 (1994) 1061–1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [146].Wilson J, Dixon SL, Breysse P, Jacobs D, Adamkiewicz G, Chew GL, Dearborn D, Krieger J, Sandel M, Spanier A, Housing and allergens: a pooled analysis of nine US studies, Environ. Res. 110 (2010) 189–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [147].Dannemiller KC, Moving towards a robust definition for a “healthy” indoor microbiome, mSystems 4 (2019), 10.1128/msystems.00074-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [148].Bope A, Haines SR, Hegarty B, Weschler CJ, Peccia J, Dannemiller KC, Degradation of phthalate esters in floor dust at elevated relative humidity, Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts (2019), 10.1039/c9em00050j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [149].Konya T, Koster B, Maughan H, Escobar M, Azad MB, Guttman DS, Sears MR, Becker AB, Brook JR, Takaro TK, Kozyrskyj AL, Scott JA, CHILD Study Investigators, Associations between bacterial communities of house dust and infant gut, Environ. Res. 131 (2014) 25–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [150].Nastasi N, Haines SR, Xu L, da Silva H, Divjan A, Barned M, Rappleye C, Perzanowski MS, Green B, Dannemiller KC, Morphology and quantification of fungal growth in residential dust and carpets, N.A (2019). In revision. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [151].Lewis RD, Ong KH, Emo B, Kennedy J, Kesavan J, Elliot M, Resuspension of house dust and allergens during walking and vacuum cleaning, J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 15 (2018) 235–245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [152].Qian J, Peccia J, Ferro AR, Walking-induced particle resuspension in indoor environments, Atmos. Environ. 89 (2014) 464–481, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [153].Wu T, Täubel M, Holopainen R, Viitanen A-K, Vainiotalo S, Tuomi T, Keskinen J, Hyvärinen A, Hämeri K, Saari SE, Boor BE, Infant and adult inhalation exposure to resuspended biological particulate matter, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018) 237–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [154].Qian J, Ferro AR, Resuspension of dust particles in a chamber and associated environmental factors, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 42 (2008) 566–578. [Google Scholar]
  • [155].Bhangar S, Adams RI, Pasut W, Huffman JA, Arens EA, Taylor JW, Bruns TD, Nazaroff WW, Chamber bioaerosol study: human emissions of size-resolved fluorescent biological aerosol particles, Indoor Air 26 (2016) 193–206, 10.1111/ina.12195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [156].Adams RI, Bhangar S, Pasut W, Arens EA, Taylor JW, Lindow SE, Nazaroff WW, Bruns TD, Chamber bioaerosol study: outdoor air and human occupants as sources of indoor airborne microbes, PLoS One 10 (2015), 10.1371/journal.pone.0128022e0128022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [157].Ferro AR, Kopperud RJ, Hildemann LM, Source strengths for indoor human activities that resuspend particulate matter, Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (2004) 1759–1764, 10.1021/es0263893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [158].Corsi RL, Siegel JA, Chiang C, Particle resuspension during the use of vacuum cleaners on residential carpet, J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5 (2008) 232–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [159].Hyytiäinen HK, Jayaprakash B, Kirjavainen PV, Saari SE, Holopainen R, Keskinen J, Hameri K, Hyvärinen A, Boor BE, Täubel M, Crawling-induced floor dust resuspension affects the microbiota of the infant breathing zone, Microbiome 6 (2018) 25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [160].Bramwell L, Qian J, Howard-Reed C, Mondal S, Ferro AR, An evaluation of the impact of flooring types on exposures to fine and coarse particles within the residential micro-environment using contam, J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 26 (2016) 86–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [161].Tian Y, Sul K, Qian J, Mondal S, Ferro AR, A comparative study of walking-induced dust resuspension using a consistent test mechanism, Indoor Air 24 (2014) 592–603, 10.1111/ina.12107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [162].Paton S, Thompson K-A, Parks SR, Bennett AM, Reaerosolization of spores from flooring surfaces to assess the risk of dissemination and transmission of infections, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81 (2015) 4914–4919, 10.1128/aem.00412-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [163].Shaughnessy R, Vu H, Particle loadings and resuspension related to floor coverings in chamber and in occupied school environments, Atmos. Environ. 55 (2012) 515–524. [Google Scholar]
  • [164].Boor BE, Siegel JA, Novoselac A, Monolayer and multilayer particle deposits on hard surfaces: literature review and implications for particle resuspension in the indoor environment, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 831–847. [Google Scholar]
  • [165].Boor BE, Siegel JA, Novoselac A, Wind tunnel study on aerodynamic particle resuspension from monolayer and multilayer deposits on linoleum flooring and galvanized sheet metal, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 848–857. [Google Scholar]
  • [166].Lee HH, Cheung YS, Fu SC, Chao CYH, Study of particle resuspension from dusty surfaces using a centrifugal method, Indoor Air (2019), 10.1111/ina.12576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [167].Thatcher TL, Lai ACK, Moreno-Jackson R, Sextro RG, Nazaroff WW, Effects of room furnishings and air speed on particle deposition rates indoors, Atmos. Environ. 36 (2002) 1811–1819, 10.1016/s1352-2310(02)00157-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [168].Roberts JW, Wallace LA, Camann DE, Dickey P, Gilbert SG, Lewis RG, Takaro TK, Monitoring and reducing exposure of infants to pollutants in house dust, Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 201 (2009) 1–39, 10.1007/978-1-4419-0032-6_1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [169].Berry MA, Carpet in the Modern Indoor Environment: Summary of a Science-Based Assessment of Carpet, University of North Carolina, 2003. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.584.7675&rep=rep1&type=pdf. (Accessed 7 July 2019).
  • [170].Li DW, Kendrick B, Indoor aeromycota in relation to residential characteristics and allergic symptoms, Mycopathologia 131 (1995) 149–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [171].Goldasteh I, Chang S-I, Maaita S, Mathur G, Numerical simulation of airflow distribution on the automobile windshield in defrost mode, SAE Tech. Pap. Ser (2015), 10.4271/2015-01-0330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [172].Salimifard P, Rim D, Gomes C, Kremer P, Freihaut JD, Resuspension of biological particles from indoor surfaces: effects of humidity and air swirl, Sci. Total Environ. 583 (2017) 241–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [173].Rosati JA, Thornburg J, Rodes C, Resuspension of particulate matter from carpet due to human activity, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 42 (2008) 472–482. [Google Scholar]
  • [174].Butte W, Heinzow B, Pollutants in house dust as indicators of indoor contamination, Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 175 (2002) 1–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [175].Redlich CA, Skin exposure and asthma: is there a connection? Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 7 (2010) 134–137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [176].Marsella R, Nicklin C, Lopez J, Studies on the role of routes of allergen exposure in high IgE-producing beagle dogs sensitized to house dust mites, Vet. Dermatol 17 (2006) 306–312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [177].Platts-Mills TAE, The allergy epidemics: 1870–2010, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 136 (2015) 3–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [178].Eder W, Ege MJ, von Mutius E, The asthma epidemic, N. Engl. J. Med 355 (2006) 2226–2235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [179].Mitchell EB, Wilkins S, Deighton M, Platts-Mills TAE, Reduction of house dust mite allergen levels in the home: use of the acaricide, pirimiphos methyl, Clin. Exp. Allergy 15 (1985) 235–240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [180].Bi C, Maestre JP, Li H, Zhang G, Givehchi R, Mahdavi A, Kinney KA, Siegel J, Horner SD, Xu Y, Phthalates and organophosphates in settled dust and HVAC filter dust of U.S. low-income homes: association with season, building characteristics, and childhood asthma, Environ. Int. 121 (2018) 916–930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [181].Bornehag C-G, Sundell J, Weschler CJ, Sigsgaard T, Lundgren B, Hasselgren M, Hägerhed-Engman L, The association between asthma and allergic symptoms in children and phthalates in house dust: a nested case-control study, Environ. Health Perspect. 112 (2004) 1393–1397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [182].Liu F, Zhao Y, Liu Y-Q, Liu Y, Sun J, Huang M-M, Liu Y, Dong G-H, Asthma and asthma related symptoms in 23,326 Chinese children in relation to indoor and outdoor environmental factors: the Seven Northeastern Cities (SNEC) Study, Sci. Total Environ. 497–498 (2014) 10–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [183].Emerson JB, Keady PB, Clements N, Morgan EE, Awerbuch J, Miller SL, Fierer N, High temporal variability in airborne bacterial diversity and abundance inside single-family residences, Indoor Air 27 (2017) 576–586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [184].Leese KE, Cole EC, Hall RM, Berry MA, Measurement of airborne and floor dusts in a nonproblem building, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 58 (1997) 432–438, 10.1080/15428119791012676. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [185].Coombs K, Taft D, Ward DV, Green BJ, Chew GL, Shamsaei B, Meller J, Indugula R, Reponen T, Variability of indoor fungal microbiome of green and non-green low-income homes in Cincinnati, Sci. Total Environ. 610–611 (2018) 212–218. Ohio. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [186].Leppänen HK, Täubel M, Jayaprakash B, Vepsäläinen A, Pasanen P, Hyvärinen A, Quantitative assessment of microbes from samples of indoor air and dust, J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 28 (2017) 231–241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [187].Cox J, Indugula R, Vesper S, Zhu Z, Jandarov R, Reponen T, Comparison of indoor air sampling and dust collection methods for fungal exposure assessment using quantitative PCR, Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 19 (2017) 1312–1319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [188].Hospodsky D, Yamamoto N, Nazaroff WW, Miller D, Gorthala S, Peccia J, Characterizing airborne fungal and bacterial concentrations and emission rates in six occupied children’s classrooms, Indoor Air 25 (2015) 641–652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [189].Buskirk AD, Green BJ, Lemons AR, Nayak AP, Goldsmith WT, Kashon ML, Anderson SE, Hettick JM, Templeton SP, Germolec DR, Beezhold DH, A murine inhalation model to characterize pulmonary exposure to dry Aspergillus fumigatus conidia, PLoS One 9 (2014) e109855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [190].Nayak AP, Green BJ, Lemons AR, Marshall NB, Goldsmith WT, Kashon ML, Anderson SE, Germolec DR, Beezhold DH, Subchronic exposures to fungal bioaerosols promotes allergic pulmonary inflammation in naïve mice, Clin. Exp. Allergy 46 (2016) 861–870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [191].Croston TL, Nayak AP, Lemons AR, Goldsmith WT, Gu JK, Germolec DR, Beezhold DH, Green BJ, Influence of Aspergillus fumigatus conidia viability on murine pulmonary microRNA and mRNA expression following subchronic inhalation exposure, Clin. Exp. Allergy 46 (2016) 1315–1327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [192].Nayak AP, Croston TL, Lemons AR, Goldsmith WT, Marshall NB, Kashon ML, Germolec DR, Beezhold DH, Green BJ, Aspergillus fumigatus viability drives allergic responses to inhaled conidia, Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 121 (2018) 200–210, e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [193].Croston TL, Green BJ, Lemons AR, Barnes MA, Goldsmith WT, Orandle MS, Nayak AP, Jackson BP, Germolec DR, Beezhold DH, Fungal fragmentation influences pulmonary immune responses following repeated exposure to Stachybotrys chartarum, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 141 (2018), 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.12.588.AB185. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [194].Green BJ, Schmechel D, Summerbell RC, Aerosolized fungal fragments, fundamentals of mold growth in indoor environments and strategies for healthy living, 2011, pp. 211–243, 10.3920/978-90-8686-722-6_8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [195].Johanning E, Bioaerosols, Fungi and Mycotoxins: In Indoor and Outdoor Environments and Human Health, Fungal Research Group, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • [196].Gorny RL, Reponen T, Willeke K, Schmechel D, Robine E, Boissier M, Grinshpun SA, Fungal fragments as indoor air biocontaminants, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68 (2002) 3522–3531, 10.1128/aem.68.7.3522-3531.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [197].Kanaani H, Hargreaves M, Ristovski Z, Morawska L, Fungal spore fragmentation as a function of airflow rates and fungal generation methods, Atmos. Environ. 43 (2009) 3725–3735, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.043. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [198].Afanou KA, Straumfors A, Skogstad A, Nilsen T, Synnes O, Skaar I, Hjeljord L, Tronsmo A, Green BJ, Eduard W, Submicronic fungal bioaerosols: high-resolution microscopic characterization and quantification, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80 (2014) 7122–7130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [199].Cho S-H, Seo S-C, Schmechel D, Grinshpun SA, Reponen T, Aerodynamic characteristics and respiratory deposition of fungal fragments, Atmos. Environ. 39 (2005) 5454–5465, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [200].Seo S-C, Grinshpun SA, Iossifova Y, Schmechel D, Rao CY, Reponen T, A new field-compatible methodology for the collection and analysis of fungal fragments, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 41 (2007) 794–803, 10.1080/02786820701459940. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [201].Brasel TL, Douglas DR, Wilson SC, Straus DC, Detection of airborne Stachybotrys chartarum macrocyclic trichothecene mycotoxins on particulates smaller than conidia, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71 (2005) 114–122, 10.1128/aem.71.1.114-122.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [202].Green B, Sercombe J, Tovey E, Fungal fragments and undocumented conidia function as new aeroallergen sources, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 115 (2005) 1043–1048, 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [203].van der Mei HC, de Vries J, Busscher HJ, Weibull analyses of bacterial interaction forces measured using AFM, Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 78 (2010) 372–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [204].Chung E, Yiacoumi S, Lee I, Tsouris C, The role of the electrostatic force in spore adhesion, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 6209–6214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [205].Dufrêne YF, Sticky microbes: forces in microbial cell adhesion, Trends Microbiol. 23 (2015) 376–382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [206].Final Report Part 1 & 2. https://shawinc.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=936377f5-ce20-4fb2-a40f-33f6f5376785&lang=en-US, 2010. accessed September 13, 2019.
  • [207].Shaw 2 final report - residential carpets. https://shawinc.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=1dd2b863-943f-4a7b-a731-5f372b63435f&lang=en-US, 2012. accessed September 13, 2019.
  • [208].Oberoi RC, Choi J-I, Edwards JR, Rosati JA, Thornburg J, Rodes CE, Human-induced particle Re-suspension in a room, aerosol sci, Technol. 44 (2010) 216–229. [Google Scholar]
  • [209].Battelle, Review of Studies Addressing Lead Abatement Effectiveness: Updated Edition, US EPA, 1998. https://www.epa.gov/lead/review-studies-addressing-lead-abatement-effectiveness-updated-edition-epa-747-b-98-001. (Accessed 10 July 2019).
  • [210].Nishioka MG, Burkholder HM, Brinkman MC, Lewis RG, Distribution of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in floor dust throughout homes following homeowner and commercial lawn applications: quantitative effects of children, pets, and shoes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 33 (1999) 1359–1365, 10.1021/es980580o. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [211].U.S. Epa, OAR, controlling pollutants and sources: indoor air quality design tools for schools. https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/controlling-pollutants-and-sources-indoor-air-quality-design-tools-schools, 2014. accessed November 15, 2019.
  • [212].Jacobs DE, Morley R, Neltner T, Ponessa J, Carpets and Healthy Homes, National Center for Healthy Housing, 2008. https://nchh.org/resource-library/fact-sheet_carpets-and-healthy-homes.pdf. accessed April 25, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • [213].Mudarri DH, Building codes and indoor air quality, US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/building_codes_and_iaq.pdf, 2010. accessed August 26, 2019.
  • [214].Green Label Plus, The carpet and rug institute. https://carpet-rug.org/testing/green-label-plus/, 2019. accessed September 25, 2019.
  • [215].Smith K, Dooley D, Brown EG, Standard Method For The Testing And Evaluation Of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions From Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers Version 1.2, California Department of Public Health, 2017. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CDPH-IAQ_StandardMethod_V1_2_2017_ADA.pdf. (Accessed 3 May 2019).
  • [216].GreenGuard Environmental Institute, Standard method for the evaluation of chemical emissions from flooring products using environmental chambers, GreenGuars Environ. Inst (2008). https://cdnmedia.eurofins.com/corporate-eurofins/media/2329/ggtmp056r4_flooring.pdf. (Accessed 9 September 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • [217].ANSI/IICRC, Standard for professional cleaning of textile floor coverings - sixth edition, IICRC (2015). https://webstore.iicrc.org/index.php/ansi-iicrc-s100-standard-for-professional-cleaning-of-textile-floor-coverings-sixth-edition-2015.html. (Accessed 19 August 2019). [Google Scholar]
  • [218].Pollack CE, Griffin BA, Lynch J, Housing affordability and health among homeowners and renters, Am. J. Prev. Med. 39 (2010) 515–521, 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [219].Meltzer R, Schwartz A, Housing affordability and health: evidence from New York city, Housing Policy Debate 26 (2016) 80–104, 10.1080/10511482.2015.1020321. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [220].Jacobs DE, Reddy AL, The Housing Environment, The Housing Environment, Environmental Public Health: the Practitioner’s Guide, American Public Health Association, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • [221].Lanphear BP, Childhood lead poisoning prevention: too little, too late, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 293 (2005) 2274–2276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [222].Salthammer T, Mentese S, Marutzky R, Formaldehyde in the indoor environment, Chem. Rev 110 (2010) 2536–2572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [223].Hart SL, Milstein MB, Creating sustainable value, Acad. Manag. Perspect 17 (2003) 56–67. [Google Scholar]
  • [224].United States environmental protection agency, identifying greener carpet. https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/identifying-greener-carpet, 2014. accessed July 9, 2019.
  • [225].Carpet America Recovery Effort, CARE 2016 annual report, Carpet America Recovery Effort (2017). https://carpetrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CARE-2016-Annual-Report-FINAL-003.pdf (Accessed 12 July 2019).
  • [226].Esty DC, Winston AS, Green To Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy To Innovate, Create Value, And Build Competitive Advantage, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • [227].Hansen EG, Grosse-Dunker F, Reichwald R, Sustainability innovation cube — a framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations, Int. J. Innov. Manag 13 (2009) 683–713. [Google Scholar]
  • [228].Gioia DA, Patvardhan SD, Hamilton AL, Corley KG, Organizational identity formation and change, Acad. Manag. Ann 7 (2013) 123–193. [Google Scholar]
  • [229].Rajala R, Westerlund M, Lampikoski T, Environmental sustainability in industrial manufacturing: re-examining the greening of Interface’s business model, J. Clean. Prod 115 (2016) 52–61. [Google Scholar]
  • [230].Nelson E, How Interface innovates with suppliers to create sustainability solutions, Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell 28 (2009) 22–30. [Google Scholar]
  • [231].Sustainability: our progress ecometrics, Interface Global (2019). http://www.interfaceglobal.com/Sustainability/Our-Progress.aspx. (Accessed 20 August 2019).
  • [232].Luqmani A, Leach M, Jesson D, Factors behind sustainable business innovation: the case of a global carpet manufacturing company, Environ. Innovat. Soc. Transit 24 (2017) 94–105. [Google Scholar]
  • [233].Sotayo A, Green S, Turvey G, Carpet recycling: a review of recycled carpets for structural composites, Environ. Technol. Innovat 3 (2015) 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  • [234].Ucar M, Wang Y, Utilization of recycled post consumer carpet waste fibers as reinforcement in lightweight cementitious composites, Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol 23 (2011) 242–248, 10.1108/09556221111136502. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [235].Closing the loop/Circular Economy, Tarkett. https://www.tarkett.com/en/content/closing-loop-circular-economy, 2019. accessed August 20, 2019.
  • [236].Carpet America Recovery effort, about CARE, carpet America Recovery effort. https://carpetrecovery.org/about-care/, 2018. accessed August 20, 2019.
  • [237].Choi T, Environmental impact of voluntary extended producer responsibility: the case of carpet recycling, Resour. Conserv. Recycl 127 (2017) 76–84, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [238].Lemieux PM, Strynar M, Tabor DG, Wood J, Cooke M, Rayfield B, Kariher P, Emissions of fluorinated compounds from the combustion of carpeting, in: 2007 International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Air & Waste Association, 2007. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHSRC&dirEntryId=166464. (Accessed 12 September 2019).
  • [239].Pivnenko K, Eriksen MK, Martin-Fernandez JA, Eriksson E, Astrup TF, Recycling of plastic waste: Presence of phthalates in plastics from households and industry, Waste Manag. 54 (2016) 44–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [240].Johnson NAG, Wood EJ, Ingham PE, McNeil SJ, McFarlane ID, Wool as a technical fibre, J. Text. Institue (2003), 10.1080/00405000308630626. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [241].Aracri E, Díaz Blanco C, Tzanov T, An enzymatic approach to develop a lignin-based adhesive for wool floor coverings, Green Chem. 16 (2014) 2597. [Google Scholar]
  • [242].Mohawk Industries, Eco friendly carpet, Mohawk flooring. https://www.mohawkflooring.com/carpet/brand/everstrand, 2019. accessed July 15, 2019.
  • [243].Shaw Industries Group Inc, Cleartouch carpet collection, Shaw floors. https://shawfloors.com/inspiration/special-collections/carpet-design/cleartouch/cleartouch, 2019. accessed August 20, 2019.
  • [244].Our certifications, Tarkett. https://professionals.tarkett.com/en_EU/node/our-certifications-806, 2019. accessed August 20, 2019.
  • [245].NSF/ANSI, Sustainability assessment for carpet. https://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/SU_NSF140_Carpet_Standard_Insert_LT_EN_LSU27020812.pdf, 2015. accessed July 15, 2019.
  • [246].The Carpet and Rug Institute, Green Building and the Environment, The Carpet and Rug Institute, 2019. https://carpet-rug.org/carpet-for-business/green-building-and-the-environment/. (Accessed 15 July 2019).
  • [247].Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, About the institute, Cradle to Cradle products innovation institute. https://www.c2ccertified.org/about, 2019. accessed July 15, 2019.
  • [248].OEKO-TEX, standard 100. https://www.oeko-tex.com/importedmedia/downloadfiles/STANDARD_100_by_OEKO-TEX_R__-_Standard_en.pdf, 2019. (Accessed 15 July 2019).
  • [249].Living Building Basics, International Living Future Institute, 2019. https://living-future.org/lcc/basics/. (Accessed 15 July 2019).
  • [250].Wu F, Takaro TK, Childhood asthma and environmental interventions, Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (2007) 971–975, 10.1289/ehp.8989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [251].Macdonald C, Sternberg A, Hunter P, A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions used to reduce exposure to house dust and their effect on the development and severity of asthma, Cien, Saúde Coletiva 13 (2008) 1907–1915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [252].Takaro TK, Krieger JW, Song L, Effect of environmental interventions to reduce exposure to asthma triggers in homes of low-income children in Seattle, J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol (2004) S133–S143, 14 Suppl 1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES