Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Aug 23;16(1):133–149. doi: 10.1007/s12273-022-0926-8

Development of a Bayesian inference model for assessing ventilation condition based on CO2 meters in primary schools

Danlin Hou 1, Liangzhu (Leon) Wang 1,✉, Ali Katal 1, Shujie Yan 1, Liang (Grace) Zhou 2, Vicky Wang 2, Mark Vuotari 2, Ethan Li 1, Zihan Xie 1
PMCID: PMC9395798  PMID: 36035815

Abstract

Outdoor fresh air ventilation plays a significant role in reducing airborne transmission of diseases in indoor spaces. School classrooms are considerably challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic because of the increasing need for in-person education, untimely and incompleted vaccinations, high occupancy density, and uncertain ventilation conditions. Many schools started to use CO2 meters to indicate air quality, but how to interpret the data remains unclear. Many uncertainties are also involved, including manual readings, student numbers and schedules, uncertain CO2 generation rates, and variable indoor and ambient conditions. This study proposed a Bayesian inference approach with sensitivity analysis to understand CO2 readings in four primary schools by identifying uncertainties and calibrating key parameters. The outdoor ventilation rate, CO2 generation rate, and occupancy level were identified as the top sensitive parameters for indoor CO2 levels. The occupancy schedule becomes critical when the CO2 data are limited, whereas a 15-min measurement interval could capture dynamic CO2 profiles well even without the occupancy information. Hourly CO2 recording should be avoided because it failed to capture peak values and overestimated the ventilation rates. For the four primary school rooms, the calibrated ventilation rate with a 95% confidence level for fall condition is 1.96±0.31 ACH for Room #1 (165 m3 and 20 occupancies) with mechanical ventilation, and for the rest of the naturally ventilated rooms, it is 0.40±0.08 ACH for Room #2 (236 m3 and 21 occupancies), 0.30±0.04 or 0.79±0.06 ACH depending on occupancy schedules for Room #3 (236 m3 and 19 occupancies), 0.40±0.32,0.48±0.37,0.72±0.39 ACH for Room #4 (231 m3 and 8–9 occupancies) for three consecutive days.

Keywords: COVID-19, Bayesian calibration, Markov Chain Monte Carlo, ventilation rate, school, CO2

Acknowledgements

The research is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada through the Discovery Grants Program [#RGPIN-2018-06734] and the National Research Council Canada contract [#980615].

References

  1. Ahmadi A, Nabipour M, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, et al. Ensemble learning-based dynamic line rating forecasting under cyberattacks. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. 2022;37:230–238. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2021.3056055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alavi H, Zhong S, Lalanne D (2020). Predictive models of indoor carbon dioxide concentration to prevent daily decay of productivity and well-being in shared offices.
  3. Allen J, Cedeno-Laurent J, Miller S (2020). Harvard-CU Boulder Portable Air Cleaner Calculator for Schools.v1.3 — Google Sheets.
  4. ANSI/ASHRAE . Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  5. ANSI/ASHRAE . ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. ASHRAE. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arhonditsis GB, Papantou D, Zhang W, et al. Bayesian calibration of mechanistic aquatic biogeochemical models and benefits for environmental management. Journal of Marine Systems. 2008;73:8–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2007.07.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Asadi S, Bouvier N, Wexler AS, et al. The coronavirus pandemic and aerosols: Does COVID-19 transmit via expiratory particles? Aerosol Science and Technology. 2020;54:635–638. doi: 10.1080/02786826.2020.1749229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. ASTM (2018). Standard Guide for using indoor carbon dioxide concentrations to evaluate indoor air quality and ventilation. ASTM International. 10.1520/d6245-18
  9. Atkinson J, Chartier Y, Lúcia Pessoa-Silva C, et al. Natural ventilation for infection control in health-care settings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Batterman S. Review and extension of CO2-based methods to determine ventilation rates with application to school classrooms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14:145. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14020145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bayes TR. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 1763;53:370–418. [Google Scholar]
  12. Betancourt M (2017). A conceptual introduction to hamiltonian Monte Carlo. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1701.02434. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.02434.pdf
  13. Calì D, Matthes P, Huchtemann K, et al. CO2 based occupancy detection algorithm: Experimental analysis and validation for office and residential buildings. Building and Environment. 2015;86:39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.12.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. CDC (2020). Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [PubMed]
  15. Covid Écoles Québec (2020). Number of schools — Covid Écoles Québec. Available at https://www.covidecolesquebec.org/
  16. Du C, Wang SC, Yu MC, et al. Effect of ventilation improvement during a tuberculosis outbreak in underventilated university buildings. Indoor Air. 2020;30:422–432. doi: 10.1111/ina.12639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. ECCC (2020). Historical Data — Climate. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).
  18. Emmerich SJ, Persily AK. State-of-the-art review of CO2 demand controlled ventilation technology and application. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall JW, Manning LJ, Hankin RKS. Bayesian calibration of a flood inundation model using spatial data. Water Resources Research. 2011;47:W05529. doi: 10.1029/2009WR008541. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Han K, Zhang J. Energy-saving building system integration with a smart and low-cost sensing/control network for sustainable and healthy living environments: Demonstration case study. Energy and Buildings. 2020;214:109861. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109861. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Heo Y, Choudhary R, Augenbroe GA. Calibration of building energy models for retrofit analysis under uncertainty. Energy and Buildings. 2012;47:550–560. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hou D, Hassan IG, Wang L. Review on building energy model calibration by Bayesian inference. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2021;143:110930. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110930. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kennedy MC, O’Hagan A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2001;63:425–464. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00294. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuczera G, Kavetski D, Renard B, et al. A limited-memory acceleration strategy for MCMC sampling in hierarchical Bayesian calibration of hydrological models. Water Resources Research. 2010;46(7):W07602. doi: 10.1029/2009WR008985. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lehuger S, Gabrielle B, van Oijen M, et al. Bayesian calibration of the nitrous oxide emission module of an agro-ecosystem model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2009;133:208–222. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Li Q, Augenbroe G, Brown J. Assessment of linear emulators in lightweight Bayesian calibration of dynamic building energy models for parameter estimation and performance prediction. Energy and Buildings. 2016;124:194–202. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lim H, Zhai ZJ. Comprehensive evaluation of the influence of meta-models on Bayesian calibration. Energy and Buildings. 2017;155:66–75. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lofaro J (2021). Education ministry says 90,000 CO2 readers to be installed in classrooms across Quebec. CTV News.
  29. Matala A (2008). Sample size requirement for Monte Carlo simulations using Latin hypercube sampling. Independent Research Projects in Applied Mathematics. Available at http://www.sal.tkk.fi/vanhat_sivut/Opinnot/Mat-2.4108/pdf-files/emat08.pdf
  30. Menberg K, Heo Y, Choudhary R. Sensitivity analysis methods for building energy models: Comparing computational costs and extractable information. Energy and Buildings. 2016;133:433–445. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.10.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. McGee M (2016). Daily CO2. A Pro Oxygen wesite.
  32. Mumovic D, Palmer J, Davies M, et al. Winter indoor air quality, thermal comfort and acoustic performance of newly built secondary schools in England. Building and Environment. 2009;44:1466–1477. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.06.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. NIOSH (2020). CDC — The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
  34. Pantazaras A, Santamouris M, Lee SE, et al. A decision tool to balance indoor air quality and energy consumption: A case study. Energy and Buildings. 2018;165:246–258. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.01.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pantelic J, Liu S, Pistore L, et al. Personal CO2 cloud: laboratory measurements of metabolic CO2 inhalation zone concentration and dispersion in a typical office desk setting. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 2020;30:328–337. doi: 10.1038/s41370-019-0179-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Penman JM. An experimental determination of ventilation rate in occupied rooms using atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Building and Environment. 1980;15:45–47. doi: 10.1016/0360-1323(80)90028-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Persily A, de Jonge L. Carbon dioxide generation rates for building occupants. Indoor Air. 2017;27:868–879. doi: 10.1111/ina.12383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Persily A (2015). indoor carbon dioxide concentrations in ventilation and indoor air quality standards. In: Proceedings of the 36th AVIC, Conference on Effective Ventilation in High Preformance Buildings.
  39. Prather KA, Wang CC, Schooley RT. Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Science. 2020;368:1422–1424. doi: 10.1126/science.abc6197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Québec (2020). COVID-19: Measures in place as the holidays approach. Available at http://app.dialoginsight.com/T/OFSYS/SM2/365/2/S/F/1936/16667709/5P9DnIIH/734118.html. (in French)
  41. Rackes A, Ben-David T, Waring MS. Sensor networks for routine indoor air quality monitoring in buildings: Impacts of placement, accuracy, and number of sensors. Science and Technology for the Built Environment. 2018;24:188–197. doi: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1406274. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Remiorz R (2020). School COVID-19 cases consistent with community transmission, but Quebec could be in trouble, data show — The Globe and Mail.
  43. Sehulster L, Chinn RYW (2003). Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. Recommendations and Reports: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Recommendations and Reports/Centers for Disease Control. [PubMed]
  44. Steel D. Bayesian statistics in radiocarbon calibration. Philosophy of Science. 2001;68:S153–S164. doi: 10.1086/392905. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Strawderman RL. Markov Chain Monte Carlo: Stochastic simulation for Bayesian inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2000;95(449):346. doi: 10.2307/2669581. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Taheri S, Razban A. Learning-based CO2 concentration prediction: Application to indoor air quality control using demand-controlled ventilation. Building and Environment. 2021;205:108164. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108164. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Hinsbergen CPI, van Lint HWC, Hoogendoorn SP, et al. Bayesian calibration of car-following models. IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 2009;42:91–97. doi: 10.3182/20090902-3-US-2007.0049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Oijen M, Rougier J, Smith R. Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: Bridging the gap between models and data. Tree Physiology. 2005;25:915–927. doi: 10.1093/treephys/25.7.915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang L, Shu C. Assessment and mitigation of urban overheating impacts on buildings and communities. In: Enteria N, Santamouris M, Eicker U, editors. Urban Heat Island (UHI) Mitigation: Hot and Humid Regions. Singapore: Springer; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  50. Whyte S, Walsh C, Chilcott J. Bayesian calibration of a natural history model with application to a population model for colorectal cancer. Medical Decision Making. 2011;31:625–641. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10384738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilton K (2020). 12 Montreal teachers secretly tested classroom ventilation. The results are “problematic”. Montreal Gazette.
  52. Xu T, Valocchi AJ. A Bayesian approach to improved calibration and prediction of groundwater models with structural error. Water Resources Research. 2015;51:9290–9311. doi: 10.1002/2015WR017912. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yasuda T, Yonemura S, Tani A. Comparison of the characteristics of small commercial NDIR CO2 sensor models and development of a portable CO2 measurement device. Sensors. 2012;12:3641–3655. doi: 10.3390/s120303641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang J. Integrating IAQ control strategies to reduce the risk of asymptomatic SARS CoV-2 infections in classrooms and open plan offices. Science and Technology for the Built Environment. 2020;26:1013–1018. doi: 10.1080/23744731.2020.1794499. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Building Simulation are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES