0:01

Air quality matters inside

0:03

our buildings and out . I

0:05

believe we already have many

0:08

of the tools we need to deliver better

0:10

outcomes for many . The conversations

0:13

we have and how we share this knowledge

0:15

is the key to our success . I'm

0:18

Simon Jones and this is episode

0:20

30 of the Air Quality Matters

0:23

podcast Coming

0:44

up a conversation with Sotirius Papathanassio . I've been following Sotirius

0:46

for years and his

0:48

blog See the Air is really

0:51

a must follow . He

0:53

is an electrical engineer by trade

0:55

, but it's safe to say he

0:57

has been one of the leading voices in the air

0:59

quality community in Europe and

1:01

the States for several years . He

1:04

recently worked for a very well-known

1:06

PM sensor manufacturer and

1:08

is now off on ventures new . We

1:11

discussed how the view of air

1:13

quality has changed since he started writing

1:15

and what he sees in its trajectory

1:18

. Next we discussed this

1:20

middle tier of sensor technology

1:22

that sits above low-cost sensors

1:24

and what value they bring and

1:27

much more . Thanks for listening

1:29

. As always , do check out the sponsors

1:31

in the show notes and at airqualitymattersnet

1:34

. This is a conversation

1:37

with Sotirius Papathanassio

1:40

.

1:42

When we talk about air quality and PM2.2

1:44

values in general , we

1:47

generally try

1:49

to describe how good or bad the air quality

1:51

is right . But with

1:53

mass concentration values , unfortunately

1:56

, we lose information about the smaller sizes

1:58

of particulates , even though if

2:00

your sensor technology supports and can

2:02

measure those particles , by

2:05

converting now those numbers

2:07

into mass you have

2:09

zero visibility of how

2:11

extent . The problem was Okay

2:15

, interesting . So basically what I propose , and other

2:17

experts out there , is that we have

2:19

to look at the number of particles for the different

2:21

sizes that

2:23

we can measure with the available technology and

2:25

of course , if we have technology that they can

2:27

go to the ultra fine spectrum

2:30

, even better . But even

2:33

you know concentrations

2:35

of particulates . Let's

2:37

say that we have like 1000 particles

2:40

at 0.3 micron

2:42

in diameter . Once you convert that number

2:45

into mass , you're going to get something

2:47

0.0 , something

2:50

very small . It doesn't give

2:52

you any understanding , right ? But if you

2:54

have a particle of 2.5 microns

2:57

in diameter and then you convert it to PM

2:59

, to mass concentration values

3:02

, then you will get a very high number

3:04

and that's like

3:06

a false alarming . Why is

3:08

the biggest sizes of particles translated

3:11

? Let's say , well , enough in order to understand

3:13

the impact they have on human health

3:16

and why the smaller particles they can penetrate

3:20

deeper inside us don't

3:23

get so much attention when we convert

3:25

them into the mass spectrum .

3:27

You're a fellow communicator around

3:31

air quality and I've been following you for

3:33

years now , it seems particularly

3:36

through your blog See

3:38

the Air . How have you seen

3:40

public awareness change

3:43

in that time , both public-public

3:45

but also the business

3:47

of air quality awareness

3:49

change in that period of time ?

3:52

Right . When I first started , there

3:55

wasn't much of awareness out there

3:57

. I don't want to say that I created

3:59

the awareness out there , but indeed

4:02

from the everyday

4:05

people , you will see that they had

4:07

very little knowledge on the on the matter

4:09

. I will remember like when

4:12

I was on a younger age , at school

4:14

, and teachers will try to explain

4:17

us about air pollution and

4:19

they will only focus you know , I'm coming

4:21

from greece , so they will only focus on

4:24

the effects that air pollution has on

4:26

the marbles of the ancient marbles , because

4:29

they create , you know , acid rain and they

4:31

will destroy the marble

4:33

eventually , but they will never talk about

4:36

the impact air pollution has on human

4:38

health , right ? So a few

4:40

years later , I got into

4:42

the university electronic engineering

4:45

has nothing to do with environmental . But around

4:48

2010 , I realized

4:50

that something has to

4:52

happen in the environmental sector and

4:55

how we perceive air pollution and

4:57

sensors is the best way to

5:00

understand air pollution , because in most cases

5:02

, we cannot quantify

5:04

how bad the air quality is based on

5:06

our senses . So

5:09

at this journey

5:12

on merging those two things

5:14

, I decided at the same time that it's time

5:16

to educate people somehow on

5:18

the matter . And

5:20

very , very

5:22

little happened back then . And very , very little happened back then

5:25

, but I insisted because I really liked the matter , so

5:27

why not ? So

5:29

then something happened around 2016,

5:33

. I will say the

5:35

technology became

5:37

more accessible with low-cost

5:39

sensors , so

5:50

people started to invest time and effort in understanding

5:52

more air quality by purchasing low-cost air quality sensors or monitors , and

5:54

then I gained more traction . Then COVID hit

5:56

and it was an explosion

5:58

, right , like

6:02

you will hear about air quality everywhere , it was directly correlated

6:04

with you know , aerosol

6:07

transmission , pathogens , and

6:10

from then to

6:13

now , I see an explosion in

6:15

the business-wide , not only for me , but

6:17

many people got interested

6:20

right , and they wanted to explore better

6:22

air quality , especially indoor , and

6:24

they wanted to explore better air quality , especially indoor . However

6:26

, lately , like the last two

6:29

years , a year ago , I have also

6:31

noticed a decline in the technology

6:34

that is available

6:36

out there , like

6:45

, for example , many companies wanted to jump into the air quality industry . They

6:47

will invest lots of money , but at the end of the day , they will create the same sensor

6:49

but in a different enclosure . So

6:52

eventually , with this

6:54

recipe in mind , you fail

6:56

. You won't succeed . But

6:59

the scientific

7:01

community is still

7:03

holding very strong . They

7:06

still keep pushing

7:08

the governments into doing the right thing

7:10

towards indoor air quality and

7:12

how important is ventilation . And

7:15

that's the good side of the

7:17

story .

7:19

Yeah , so it's a very good point . Actually , there's

7:21

definitely two tracks . The academic

7:24

track is very strong . I

7:27

don't think I've ever seen more

7:30

research and publications on

7:32

air quality across the spectrum of disciplines

7:34

than I've seen today

7:37

. You brought back

7:39

amazing memories , actually when you said that Sartorius

7:41

about acid rain . Actually , when you said

7:43

that Sartorius about acid rain , I mean that's probably my memory

7:45

and most of us of my generation's

7:48

memory of air quality was , particularly

7:50

if you lived in historic parts of

7:52

the world , the

7:57

impact acid rain was having on historic buildings was a real thing in the 80s

7:59

. I certainly remember that . So

8:04

it's really funny that you mentioned that . I'd never

8:06

thought of that . I must actually try and get somebody on from

8:09

the I don't know , the acid rain community

8:11

. Is it still a thing ? Um , have we

8:13

changed , you know , have we changed something

8:15

in pollution from cars that stops

8:17

acid rain now , or something ?

8:20

because we used to talk about nothing but it

8:22

yes , the chemistry is a bit

8:24

different right now when it comes to the

8:26

pollutants out there . Sulfuric

8:28

acid or

8:31

gases create the acid rain in

8:33

most cases . So , yes , there is some

8:35

change there , but you know there

8:37

was also a change in the attention

8:40

Like people are more important

8:42

than marbles in ancient ancient

8:44

greece , so let's focus on

8:46

the effects of air pollution on people

8:48

yeah , yeah , I mean , I suppose the

8:50

only thing that trumped acid

8:53

rain at one point was ozone

8:56

depletion was another thing we saw

8:58

, you know .

8:59

So when you look back historically , actually

9:01

we've got some very good examples

9:04

of understanding the impacts of air

9:06

pollution both on environmental health and

9:08

on personal health , from smoking

9:11

to acid rain , to

9:13

impacts on the upper atmosphere

9:15

. We've got quite a

9:17

good history of getting it into public

9:19

awareness . Maybe we'll look back at the COVID period

9:22

and it will be a similar blip where

9:24

there was a massive interest in a

9:26

particular sub , this one being bioaerosols

9:29

and infectious aerosols

9:31

in the air around us um makes

9:34

makes you wonder what will be the next big

9:36

air quality thing to think about

9:38

. Perhaps it's particular matter

9:41

, to be fair .

9:43

I think the awareness is growing increasingly

9:45

on that yes , and

9:47

if you've seen , like this year alone

9:49

we had epa from the us

9:52

, uh , lowering the

9:54

standards right , like what ? What they consider

9:56

um a safe limit of pm

9:58

2.5 . Then europe

10:01

came along and recently also

10:03

Taiwan came along

10:05

by lowering the upper

10:08

limits of PM2.5 . So

10:11

I see some trajectory

10:13

there on trying to decrease

10:15

the PM values for

10:18

the ambient air quality

10:20

.

10:23

Yeah , and the National Academies came out

10:25

with a report recently on indoor particulate

10:28

matter and I think that's starting to ratchet

10:30

up the awareness of the

10:32

impact on the indoor environment as well

10:34

. So it certainly seems to be something that's certainly

10:37

got a lot of evidence behind it . Even if it is

10:39

general ambient environmental PM

10:42

, we do seem to have a lot of evidence

10:44

of the impacts on health . So

10:47

, aside from that academic track , you

10:50

also get the sense that there's been a

10:52

shift at the other end of the scale , at

10:54

the the business production

10:56

of low-cost sensor end

10:58

of the market post , post pandemic

11:01

that there was

11:03

a lot of products hit the market

11:05

. It was the world

11:07

, to start with , of some fairly specialist

11:09

producers of that type of technology

11:12

, but we're seeing more and more Asian

11:15

manufacturers coming into play now

11:17

. Low-cost electronics , that

11:19

kind of race to the bottom sector where

11:22

there's as much on the Amazon-type

11:24

sites as there are from the specialist producers

11:27

. It's a , it's quite a heady mix out

11:29

there now of of low-cost

11:31

sensors , isn't it ? In one way or another ?

11:34

um , yeah , many players . But if

11:36

you open the devices you know I really like opening

11:38

devices because of my electronic background

11:41

um , you will see at

11:43

the end of the day that they have the same technology

11:45

a low cost sensor that is

11:47

worth around 15 bucks , let's say

11:50

US dollars , and

11:53

it's limited

11:55

on what it can do and

11:57

measure and how you can use the data

11:59

as well . Like , in some cases

12:02

, I will say , okay , you want to

12:04

build a device with these local sensors

12:06

, but then you have to realize

12:08

that you have to build around this product

12:10

a way to inform

12:12

the people in a more

12:15

curative way . Like , people

12:19

don't understand what's 10

12:21

micrograms per cubic meter , right

12:23

? So you have to give

12:25

them a better context

12:28

on how and when

12:30

they have to improve air quality . And

12:33

especially nowadays with

12:35

AI , machine learning and all of these

12:37

technologies , it's very easy

12:39

actually to do this kind of work and

12:42

inform people better

12:44

on air quality . Like , for example

12:46

, if you have a

12:49

sensor and you cook in

12:51

your house , you will see

12:53

that during the cooking process you

12:56

raise the PM values inside your house . That's

12:59

normal , especially if you're frying

13:01

food tons of particles

13:04

. So by using

13:06

, let's say , a machine learning model , it's

13:08

easy to say to the device and to the

13:10

user eventually , hey , before

13:12

you go to cook today , make sure

13:14

you have the fan open , use

13:17

some leads so you work

13:20

in a proactive way in order to

13:22

avoid this pollution be created

13:24

in an indoor environment . So

13:27

this is , for example , a simple example

13:29

. And then you mentioned

13:31

something about those

13:34

companies out there like Amazon . Yeah

13:38

, they just wanted to play along

13:40

and see if they're going to get any traction

13:42

and earn some bucks , and

13:44

that's all that they care . So that's

13:47

the reason it's very important to investigate

13:49

, before purchasing products , see

13:51

if the company is going to be around next

13:55

year , because if the company is not

13:57

available next year , this product won't

14:00

work either . Especially IoT products

14:02

. They rely on a cloud platform

14:04

and without this platform around , they

14:07

are useless .

14:08

Yeah , absolutely . And you touched on a really important

14:11

point there about this communicating

14:14

risk to people , that at

14:17

the end of the day , we're not going to stop people

14:19

from cooking , nor would we want them to . In fact

14:21

, we want to encourage people to cook right

14:23

. Otherwise we'd be encouraging a takeaway society

14:26

which does nobody any favours

14:28

apart from the deliverers of

14:30

the world . But the

14:33

challenge therein is

14:36

where we seem to come up against the wall and

14:38

I wonder where the solution for that comes

14:41

from , in what

14:43

we can lean on and learn to

14:45

leverage , how to communicate

14:48

this risk better to people . Because

14:50

it's not , it's a tolerable

14:52

risk to a lot of people cooking

14:54

. You know the smell of food in the house

14:57

is not unpleasant sometimes and

14:59

it's indicative of . You

15:01

know smells are very evocative

15:03

of growing up and that

15:06

your favourite smells of cooking all

15:08

can be quite nice , you know

15:10

. So people will see the risk

15:12

in a different way . So we have to

15:14

find ways of both translating

15:16

that risk in the moment to

15:18

say to people there are some actions

15:21

that you can take to eliminate

15:23

that . There are some actions that you can take to eliminate that . But also we need to get

15:25

better , I think , at communicating the chronic risk

15:27

of some of these pollutants

15:29

, that we find a way of getting

15:31

people to understand that while

15:34

we're not saying , don't do something , you've

15:36

got to understand the compound effect of

15:38

being exposed to some of

15:41

these pollutants over the longer term

15:43

. Exposed to some of these pollutants over the longer

15:45

term and

15:47

I think a lot of that comes from storytelling and framing and changing habits

15:49

over time and general education . There's

15:51

a lot to be done there .

15:54

You are absolutely right . That's the number one

15:56

pain point of air pollution . In

16:00

most cases there are some exceptions the

16:04

effects are in the long term . So

16:07

people are not very smart

16:11

, I would say , into getting analyzing

16:15

or understanding the patterns that they are

16:17

created in order to deteriorate

16:20

their health . So

16:22

you may notice effects of air pollution

16:24

by living many years in

16:26

a very polluted area and

16:29

unfortunately your brain does not correlate

16:31

that this illness may

16:33

be a result of your

16:36

exposure to the air pollution

16:38

. And

16:41

yeah , it's tough

16:43

to convince people

16:45

on that subject . I've tried

16:48

myself especially

16:51

when people let's go

16:53

back again to cooking people

16:56

that they really like

16:58

barbecues and stuff like that , right

17:00

, and they stand on top

17:03

of the fire or the burning

17:05

of the coal and they inhale every single

17:07

particle that comes out of this pit

17:10

of a fire . Are

17:13

there alternatives ? I won't

17:15

disagree that the food

17:17

is very flavor . I'm

17:19

not going to fall into that direction

17:21

. But you also have to realize that

17:23

are you exposing

17:27

yourself to those pollutions and

17:30

is it worth the

17:32

effort at the end of the day , or are

17:35

there any other alternatives that

17:37

you can cook the same

17:39

meal and

17:41

they won't , you know , create any

17:43

problems ? Uh , to you in a long

17:45

term ? that's something

17:48

very common and another common

17:50

problem yeah , another

17:52

super common problem is I'm sure

17:55

you know that uh very well , especially in

17:57

the uk um , wood

17:59

fires , right , um , for heating

18:01

purposes , wood stoves and

18:04

all of those devices that they use

18:06

out there to heat

18:08

their houses by burning biomass

18:11

right , unfortunately

18:13

, we were sold like

18:15

it's going to be a sustainable way

18:17

, but it's not . Of

18:21

course , this is not a sustainable way

18:23

to live or heat your house , and

18:27

when you heat

18:29

your house by burning wood

18:31

, you not only deteriorate

18:33

the air quality inside your house there are

18:35

plenty of studies that support that idea but

18:38

you also pollute everyone

18:40

around you , right , and you

18:42

create a harsh environment for

18:45

some people that especially have difficulties

18:48

or more needs

18:50

for better air quality than other

18:52

people . For example

18:55

, I'm part of the Safer

18:57

Air Project . It's

18:59

an Australian nonprofit

19:01

organization that wants

19:04

to bring awareness on the fact that

19:06

there are people with disabilities

19:08

in the breathing , so

19:12

they require better quality than other

19:14

people , and people

19:16

with disabilities , uh , breathing

19:19

disabilities , uh , they need

19:21

access to , you

19:23

know , good air quality in indoor places

19:25

and other places as well . Um

19:28

, and no one looks after uh

19:31

, after them people with asthma

19:33

, people with cancer , uh

19:35

, coppd , etc

19:38

. They all suffer and they have more

19:41

strict requirements when it comes to air

19:43

quality and , unfortunately

19:46

, when you burn wood , you

19:50

basically don't take into

19:52

account their lives and you make their lives

19:55

even more miserable .

19:58

Yeah , it's an interesting one . I can't remember

20:00

I think it was a conversation I had with Yela

20:02

Laverge . He was talking

20:05

about a consideration in Belgium

20:07

about the

20:09

legalities of allowing people

20:11

to smoke in their own homes , and we

20:14

were talking about the difficulty

20:16

in crossing a threshold legally , of

20:18

saying what

20:20

people can and can't do from a risk perspective

20:23

in their own homes , and he was saying the position

20:25

in Belgium was rather that

20:27

you have an obligation as a parent

20:29

not to put

20:32

ill health on your children . You

20:35

know that there are some things that

20:37

there's a public good you know

20:39

nature to air quality . We all share

20:41

the air . You

20:44

know , and as much of an

20:46

exclusive as it is , that Soterios

20:49

on this podcast would like

20:51

to ban barbecuing and wood

20:53

burning in stoves and immediately

20:56

turn off half of North America

20:58

and the UK and Ireland . That's

21:01

the challenge we have , isn't it ? Is

21:04

that there are things that are objectively

21:06

harmful at a population

21:09

level . It's very difficult to

21:11

say to somebody that having

21:13

a barbecue and standing over

21:15

it for an afternoon with all your friends and

21:17

having fun is going to do you a defined

21:20

amount of harm . Um

21:22

, but that's kind of where we

21:24

need to get to . I guess , in the same way that

21:26

we used to have this metric for smoking

21:28

, that every cigarette costs you seven seconds

21:30

of your life , that we need to

21:33

start quantifying the , the harm

21:35

that this stuff does in a way that resonates

21:37

with people so they can say okay

21:40

, I recognize barbecuing

21:42

is going to accumulatively do

21:44

me harm over my lifetime . Is

21:46

this something I should change

21:49

my habits or behavior

21:51

around to minimize that risk

21:53

? Um , in the same way

21:55

that if I have a stove , is that a decision

21:58

I'd make a second time around

22:00

in my lifetime to put another stove

22:02

in ? It's

22:04

a really interesting one . Do

22:07

you get much feedback from your blogs and

22:09

things when you're communicating on air quality

22:11

, do you ? get that kind of engagement

22:14

from community with the things that you say

22:16

and what resonates and what doesn't .

22:19

Absolutely engagement from community with the things that you say and what

22:21

resonates and what doesn't . Absolutely , uh , you know people reach me through social

22:23

media , through my blog , by sending

22:25

out an email . Uh

22:28

, you bet

22:30

, like it's , they're there , they're

22:32

waiting there . I I've

22:35

see . Also , you know , when you track

22:37

, uh , the traffic on your blog , you

22:39

see exactly where they're landing , what they're

22:41

looking for and

22:45

you can understand better what they're

22:47

trying to do with the information

22:49

that you share . And

22:51

, yeah , absolutely

22:54

. And I think something else that

22:56

I wanted to talk about , about

22:58

what you said earlier , like restricting

23:03

people from smoking indoors . Like

23:05

that's not the same for

23:08

all the countries , though . Like here in

23:10

the US , for example , because of the rights

23:12

people have inside their houses

23:15

, no one is allowed to tell them

23:17

what they're supposed to do indoors

23:19

, so they can smoke

23:21

or cook or whatever they want

23:23

, and it's very

23:25

difficult for the government to put

23:28

a stop on that . But

23:30

you don't want to force something

23:32

like that to people . You want to educate

23:34

them right , like throughout their lives

23:37

, uh , by advertising

23:39

or any other means that

23:41

is possible . That this

23:43

is the right thing to do for you , for your kids

23:46

and also for the community that you're living

23:48

. Right , because humans

23:50

cannot survive on their own . We need the community

23:52

of people and it's very important

23:55

to be very respectful of the communities around

23:57

us .

24:03

Particularly in different cultures . You know we've seen how that line has been crossed

24:06

, particularly in North America , around your obligation to the community

24:08

when it came to infectious diseases . You

24:11

know it really divided

24:13

a nation on what

24:15

you should be obliged to do and how

24:17

serious something may or may not be

24:19

. It's a very difficult

24:21

line to tread and you can see if

24:23

you go too far some

24:26

people within the spectrum

24:29

of the community will rail against

24:31

that kind of restriction

24:33

or enforcement . And

24:36

yet in other cultures people align

24:38

with that kind of thing much more quickly

24:40

. You know I I grew up through

24:42

the smoking bans of

24:44

both the island

24:47

and the uk and

24:51

you look back on it now and it was as

24:53

if it was nothing , absolutely

24:55

nothing . People complained

24:57

and then when it was in place , everybody went

25:00

yeah , fair enough . You

25:02

know it makes , makes a lot

25:04

of sense , I suppose .

25:06

And people just got on with it in

25:08

general yeah , yeah

25:10

, it's an interesting one

25:13

not only air quality , like

25:15

. They don't like chains , they afraid

25:17

of the chains , they think it's something that's going

25:19

to make their lives more difficult , but

25:21

instead we are trying to do

25:23

something better for the world , right

25:25

.

25:27

Yeah , no , I agree . And practically

25:29

when we're talking about and

25:32

I talk about this a lot , particularly

25:35

when we're talking about air quality in

25:37

the built environment , there

25:40

are only so many things we can do in

25:42

the built environment to minimize that risk

25:44

anyway . So there's a whole body of work

25:46

trying to understand the

25:48

complexities of air quality and there's

25:51

a lot and their

25:53

impact on our health . But

25:56

ultimately , when it comes down to the control

25:58

of those risks in a space , we're

26:01

fairly limited to a handful of things

26:03

that we can do . So as long

26:05

as we understand well what they

26:09

are , we can do a pretty good

26:11

job of eliminating most of the risks

26:14

that we come across . You know just

26:16

good ventilation and decent

26:18

local exhaust ventilation . You

26:20

know cooking pollution from hoods or

26:23

sorry , cooking pollution from cooking

26:25

, would be far less of

26:27

a problem if cooker hoods were any good

26:29

. You know and used

26:32

but that's half the

26:34

problem in our part of the world anyway

26:36

that the risks that we see from cooking

26:38

pollution is pollutants hanging

26:41

around in the space because they're not exhausted

26:44

well enough . I appreciate in parts

26:46

of the southern parts of the

26:48

globe a lot of that is down to your exposure

26:51

with the type of fuels that you use to

26:53

cook with and your direct exposure

26:55

to those particulates . But particularly

26:57

in this part of the world , most of the risk

26:59

is down to the fact we just don't exhaust

27:02

pollutants very effectively in

27:04

the home and a change

27:06

in understanding and habit

27:08

around that could have a massive impact

27:11

at a public health level .

27:14

I don't know what's the situation in the UK , but

27:17

here in the US , for example . I

27:21

don't know what's the situation in the UK , but here in the US , for example , we have

27:23

a huge problem with exhaust of fumes from

27:25

the cooking process because

27:27

most houses here are equipped

27:29

with microwave rangers

27:31

, hoods or whatever

27:33

you want to call them . Their name change

27:36

all the time . So basically , what ? What

27:38

it is ? It's like a microwave on top of

27:40

your stove and

27:42

it just take the air , passes

27:45

it through an aluminum mess

27:48

with hole of

27:51

that size and then spill

27:54

all the air on on the ceiling inside

27:56

the house in the same location . So basically

27:59

, you spend electricity to

28:02

operate this device and

28:04

, in order to recirculate the air through a

28:06

mess , a whole aluminum

28:09

filter and

28:11

people think that this works right . They

28:14

don't have the understanding that this is useless

28:17

and misinformation , misleading

28:20

and should be banned .

28:22

But no , it's , it's there in all the houses

28:24

and there is nothing I can do yeah

28:27

, it's a horror show , to be honest

28:29

, from as far as I

28:31

can see , in most jurisdictions I look

28:33

at . You know we have the same here those

28:35

very cheap recirculating hoods

28:38

. Um , the decisions

28:40

on cooker hoods generally are

28:42

aesthetic . Is it wood for my

28:44

country kitchen or metal for my

28:46

modern kitchen ? It's an aesthetic

28:49

choice . Or if it's being installed

28:52

by a developer , what's the cheapest possible

28:55

piece of crap that I can put in ? Because

28:57

nobody's going to spend any more on

28:59

this apartment or house based

29:02

on the type of range hood that

29:04

I put in , so why would I spend any

29:06

money on it at all ? And we

29:08

see very little guidance

29:10

on regulation other than the flow rates

29:12

that those devices achieve

29:15

. So

29:17

is it any wonder Yet ? Yet , ironically

29:19

, it could be one of the biggest public

29:22

health measures we could put into place

29:24

in homes is decent cooker

29:26

hoods but you very rarely

29:28

see a specification on one . I don't

29:30

. There are a few high-end german

29:33

kind of bosh melee type products

29:36

that are advertised

29:39

as quiet and demand controlled

29:41

and will come on when you start cooking and

29:43

things like that . So it's a start . I think

29:45

it's . There are . There are some solutions

29:47

out there . But we need , as you

29:49

say , we need to be far more robust on that

29:51

direct exhaust to atmosphere of

29:54

particulate matter from the home . And

29:56

it's not hard to be fair , most cookers are on external

29:58

walls or have reasonable access to home . And it's not hard to be fair . Most cookers are on external walls or have reasonable

30:01

access to an external wall . It's

30:03

not hard to duct a cooker hood to

30:05

outside and exhaust it , it's just people

30:07

don't care .

30:10

Yeah , there is no framework in order

30:12

to guide them what they supposed to

30:14

do and build for the people that are going to

30:16

spend their life and cook and eat

30:18

inside this particular apartment

30:20

. Right , in my case , for example

30:22

, I struggle with this house as well . I'm

30:27

lucky enough because next to

30:29

my kitchen there is the bathroom with a real

30:31

exhaust , so I will have to turn

30:33

on the exhaust from the bathroom in order to

30:35

mitigate some of the pollutants

30:37

that I create during the cooking processes through

30:40

the bathroom outside . But

30:42

again , I have also adapted the

30:45

means that I cook and what I cook . I

30:48

will never fry anything , never

30:50

. It's like . If I fry here , it's

30:53

unlivable , it's

30:56

tremendous . I will have to cook in

30:58

the oven or by

31:00

boiling stuff safe ways

31:03

not

31:05

to create , you know , tremendous amount of

31:07

pollution indoors it .

31:09

It is frightening , isn't it ? The moment you start

31:11

measuring particularly

31:14

particulate matter and some of the some

31:16

of the chemicals that are produced when you cook

31:18

. It is amazing

31:21

how big an impact frying has

31:23

, and the

31:26

numbers do not lie . It's horrific

31:28

, yet

31:30

evocatively , that's the

31:32

smell of bacon wafting up the stairs

31:34

in the morning or the lovely smells

31:36

coming from the kitchen is actually

31:38

what you're . What it is is a

31:40

load of pollution coming

31:42

from the kitchen , and I think what people struggle

31:45

to join the dots

31:47

on is that those cooking

31:49

smells , um , aren't

31:52

healthy to inhale necessarily

31:55

. You know , particularly when they're attached to microfine

31:57

particles , that we

32:00

were never designed to breathe those

32:02

in and absorb them straight into our bloodstream

32:04

. So what might be safe enough to eat or

32:06

come into contact with on

32:08

your skin is not necessarily safe

32:10

to be breathing into the deep parts of your lungs

32:12

, right ?

32:14

right , right , exactly , and

32:16

it's okay if you do it once , no

32:19

harm there . But we talk about

32:21

every day , you eat every day , right

32:23

like . And if you start doing

32:25

that constantly , then it

32:28

accumulates over time .

32:29

It's yeah

32:32

, and I think that translates to the dahlies

32:34

that we see , the disability , adjusted life years

32:36

, uh , per 100 000 of

32:38

the population of particular matter , these frequent

32:41

exposures to particular matters

32:44

is what drives the harm . Um

32:46

, like you could

32:48

argue , you know , particularly here , if you live in

32:50

ireland , you know we might have three or four barbecues

32:53

a year because realistically

32:55

the weather isn't suitable for it . So am

32:58

I going to get too concerned about

33:00

two or three exposures of

33:02

high levels of particulates once or twice

33:04

a year ? Probably not . But

33:06

if I live on the mediterranean or in

33:08

sunnier parts of the world and it's a daily

33:11

part of our cuisine

33:14

and cooking is putting things

33:16

on the barbecue , particularly solid fuel barbecues

33:19

. You know you

33:22

, there's , there's a frequent frequency to that

33:24

risk .

33:24

All of a sudden , I used

33:26

to live in spain and you

33:29

know , especially in the region of malaga , uh

33:31

, lots of people know from um

33:34

, you know they , they have

33:36

like a tradition there and

33:38

like a tourist attraction

33:41

as well . They cook fish on

33:43

an open fire and

33:46

you sit like next to it and

33:48

supposedly you enjoy food and

33:51

you know the environment , but all

33:53

of those fumes they come to you and it's okay

33:55

if you do it once , but if you do it

33:57

like for living , like people

34:00

there , they really um

34:02

do that every day , right , like uh cooks

34:04

and uh the employees that

34:06

they work on those restaurants .

34:08

they they do expose them , their self-seeing

34:10

, uh lots of particulates

34:12

yeah , I

34:15

, I wonder , I wonder if there's anything

34:17

to learn as we

34:19

see what the impacts of monitoring

34:21

things like CO2

34:24

more and more , that people get used

34:26

to those kind of numbers . You're

34:29

seeing a general awareness in the population

34:31

now for knowing

34:34

that there's something important about a

34:36

thousand parts per million . They don't really

34:38

understand why , but they understand that

34:40

bigger numbers are a problem and

34:42

we like to keep things below

34:44

a thousand parts per million Generally . It's quite

34:46

amazing when you talk to people , particularly

34:49

if they're exposed to school environments

34:51

or education environments or

34:53

office environments where these things are

34:55

starting to be monitored , you're

34:59

seeing that recognition appear still

35:01

at low levels . I mean , I'm not saying you know

35:03

, if you speak to my mother-in-law that she'll

35:05

have a clue what parts per million of co2

35:08

is , but , like , particularly in the

35:10

younger generation , you're starting to see it

35:12

more and more . And I and I wonder if we'll

35:14

learn some things from

35:16

that general population exposure

35:19

to those kind of numbers that we can translate

35:21

more effectively downstream to

35:23

some of these specific pollutants of interest

35:26

so that people start to instinctively

35:28

know that pm

35:31

2.5 above 15 starts

35:34

to be problematic . You know , and if I see something

35:36

, at 60 . I know that something's got

35:38

to change , or you know , whatever

35:40

it ends up being yeah

35:43

, co2 is a bit different than pm

35:46

2.5 .

35:47

Um , you know , some communities were created

35:49

out of covid and they really

35:51

try to educate others

35:54

as well . Uh , by measuring

35:56

their quality wherever they go from

35:58

a CO2 standpoint . So

36:00

you will see them everywhere having

36:03

a small device that measures carbon

36:06

dioxide and they will try to keep

36:08

themselves as

36:10

safe as possible from airborne diseases

36:12

, especially inside

36:15

closed spaces

36:17

, airplanes , libraries

36:19

or bars . I

36:22

find it very challenging sometimes

36:24

because eventually , even

36:26

in a flight , let's say you are on a plane

36:28

and you wear a mask , you have to

36:30

drink water , you have to eat something , so

36:33

you will take off the mask eventually , right

36:35

? So if there is host

36:38

of a pathogen inside

36:40

the plane , I think it's very difficult

36:42

to protect yourself based

36:46

only by wearing a mask and keep

36:48

track of the co2 , and that's the

36:50

reason in most cases , airplanes have

36:53

very good filters , so

36:55

you will see very low PM values

36:57

because they are they trying to

36:59

trap every particle

37:01

possible and

37:03

unfortunately , in a very high altitude

37:05

, air is not so easy to get

37:08

from outside , so that's the

37:10

reason you will see higher levels of CO2

37:12

.

37:19

But that doesn't mean that the air is not safe inside the

37:21

airplane . Yeah

37:25

, and I know what you speak to . There is context and it's very hard

37:27

to translate threshold or basic numbers into context

37:29

for people that they can use meaningfully

37:32

. And we see this with co2

37:34

all the time , people misunderstanding

37:36

it as a proxy for

37:38

risk , um

37:41

. But then you

37:43

know , we also have

37:45

to get over ourselves a little bit . I think

37:47

about the imperfectness of field measurement

37:50

. Anybody that does field measurements of

37:52

particularly air quality

37:54

knows how difficult it is to get accurate

37:57

, meaningful measurements

37:59

, even if you know what you're doing . And

38:01

sometimes it's just

38:03

about translating risk and building

38:06

awareness . Even if somebody

38:08

is stood in a

38:10

an environment where it's just them in a small room

38:13

and the co2 is going up and they're then panicking

38:15

that the air quality is bad and they don't really understand

38:17

what that risk really translates from

38:19

and to um , at least

38:22

somebody's thinking about it and

38:24

it can help . It's it's an intro

38:26

, I know what you mean . It's a frustrating thing to

38:28

watch sometimes when you see people misinterpret

38:31

air quality . Um

38:34

, I think we have to use that and

38:36

turn it around and understand how we

38:38

can frame it and create action that

38:41

helps . Because if we're

38:43

seeing that with something as simple as co2

38:45

, it's going to get really hard when

38:47

we get down to things like formaldehydes

38:50

and ozones and you

38:53

know particulate matters and so on . Um

38:55

, talking somebody about ozone the other

38:57

day , about measuring ozone

39:00

, and what one of the common misconceptions

39:02

is , is that if we see low

39:04

ozone in a space , that somehow that's

39:06

a good thing , but actually what could have happened is

39:09

is all that ozone could have turned into other

39:11

pollutants ? So the low reading is

39:13

actually an indication that some chemistry

39:15

has gone on and it's turned

39:17

into other stuff . So just because

39:19

you're not measuring ozone doesn't mean

39:21

ozone hasn't had a really nasty impact

39:24

in the space . So

39:26

we've got quite a long way to go

39:28

, I think , when it comes to how we communicate this

39:30

in a way that somebody can take something and do

39:32

something positive with it to

39:35

get a better outcome .

39:38

Yes , air quality is quite complex , and

39:40

the chemistry behind it as well . Right , like

39:42

pollutants , they will change form over time

39:44

If there is sunlight or there is not

39:46

sunlight . Many factors

39:48

are going to influence what

39:51

eventually you consider air quality

39:53

, and you cannot say

39:55

that only by measuring CO2 or only

39:57

measuring particulates . You

40:00

have good or bad air quality . It's

40:02

a parameter , yes , but it's not

40:04

the whole picture of what's

40:06

going on . So

40:11

when you dive now deep into the ozone that you mentioned , or formaldehyde

40:13

or any other gas , then it

40:15

becomes even more complicated and

40:18

you then need more

40:21

tools , more instruments to measure accurately

40:23

the conditions

40:25

inside the room or outside

40:27

, even yeah , but

40:31

also I mean , I suppose on the positive side

40:33

and you must have seen this in the years that you've

40:35

been looking at , it's particularly somebody with an interest

40:37

in electronics how

40:39

fast this sector is moving forward at

40:41

the moment .

40:44

In electronics , how fast this sector is moving forward at the moment , stuff that we just

40:46

didn't think was possible even five years ago is starting to appear on our

40:48

horizon as a possibility of measuring

40:50

and monitoring and translating

40:52

information . I mean , you

40:55

and I are from a time where

40:57

indoor air quality monitoring was really

40:59

done with data loggers and academic equipment

41:02

was incredibly expensive to do

41:04

and we've seen , literally in

41:06

the last few years , the evolution

41:08

of that low-cost sensor technology

41:10

. Really come on . And yes

41:13

, there's all sorts of limitations

41:15

around it , but compared to

41:17

where we were even five years ago , it's

41:20

astonishing what we can fit in a

41:22

little white box now .

41:24

Yeah , and we

41:27

do have the low-cost sensors , but we also have

41:30

lower-cost

41:32

sensors which are like the middle ground

41:34

of technology

41:36

. That allows academics

41:39

, if you want researchers , to get

41:41

their hands into monitoring solutions

41:43

, but without spending like 20

41:46

grand or 30 grand in just

41:49

buying one equipment . Industrial

42:03

hygienists or other professionals that they need a better grade of instrument

42:05

that you know can report back to something and

42:07

it's not going . No one is going to

42:09

question the accuracy , which is very

42:11

important , especially with low-cost sensors

42:13

. You can question how accurate they are

42:15

, but now , when we talk about the middle

42:18

range of products of sensor

42:20

technology , those

42:22

sensors are , yeah

42:24

, they are more expensive , but because they

42:26

go through a process of validation right

42:28

, and this is very important as well that's

42:32

a really good point .

42:33

Actually , it's something we've not touched on much

42:35

on this podcast . Is that layer

42:38

above low-cost sensors that

42:40

is generally in the hands of professionals

42:43

, I would say , and academics that

42:45

understand not

42:47

only their capabilities but their limitations

42:50

well , so can apply

42:52

something that has a much tighter

42:55

reference on accuracy

42:57

than the low cost sensors but

43:00

has gone through a process and is being used

43:03

, typically in a process

43:05

that means you can stand

43:07

over much more the kind of results

43:09

you're getting . Um , where

43:13

is that kind of technology at at the moment

43:15

? What are the kinds of things

43:18

that it's starting to be able to do ? Well

43:20

, that kind of middle tier of monitoring

43:22

? Um , particulate matter is one

43:24

of them . I guess it's starting to break

43:26

apart particulate matter

43:28

in a much more defined way than what

43:30

we would see typically in a low-cost optical

43:33

reader . That's , that's , making a guess

43:35

roughly at

43:38

a reference point of around 2.5

43:40

micrograms and making some calculated

43:42

assumptions on what's above it and below it

43:44

.

43:45

These things are doing something differently , I guess they

43:48

actually do the same thing , but

43:51

there is a bad there . So

43:53

we have two type of technologies

43:55

, right ? Uh , we have the photometer

43:57

or an effelometer , if like , and

44:00

then we have an optical particle counter

44:02

, now an ephelometer . It's

44:05

going to do what exactly you've mentioned it sees

44:07

a cloud of particles and

44:09

then , based on algorithms and assumptions

44:12

, it calculates a mass . Those

44:15

numbers can be very forgiving , right

44:17

, especially for the smaller particles , like

44:20

I mentioned at the beginning of

44:23

this interview , like when

44:26

you have 0.3 microns and

44:28

you convert them into mass , it

44:31

doesn't matter if you are wrong

44:33

by a thousand of

44:35

them , or 2,000 , 10,000 of them , it

44:37

doesn't matter because they are so small . Their

44:40

conversion into mass won't

44:42

affect a lot the number , the final

44:44

number that you will get . So

44:47

that's the main problem with those

44:49

sensors , with nephelometers , they see

44:51

a cloud of particles , they make lots of assumptions

44:53

and they are targeting in one

44:56

specific PM value , in most cases

44:58

PM 2.5 . In

45:00

a recent conference that I was , they

45:03

were talking about why they are not able to

45:05

see pm 10 . They are

45:07

not able to give you good values on pm

45:09

10 for a various of reasons

45:11

. I don't know if you're interested in going

45:13

that route . And

45:16

then the other technology is

45:18

the optical particle counters , which

45:20

this technology they use again the light

45:22

scattering method , but now they

45:25

redirect . They have better , let's say

45:27

, chambers , better airflow

45:29

, steady airflow , which is very

45:31

important as well a better laser

45:33

. And then what

45:35

they try to do is that they try

45:37

to count every individual particle , it

45:40

doesn't matter of the size , count

45:42

it and size it and classify

45:44

it in different bins . And

45:46

they do that by complying to standards . There

45:49

are some standards out there from ISO

45:51

and GIS standard

45:53

from Japan , that they give instructions

45:56

on the manufacturers , on how they have to

45:58

produce this product and what they're

46:00

supposed to measure and what are the tolerances

46:03

of error , something you

46:05

don't see with the low cost sensors , but

46:07

you do see them with those

46:09

lower or middle rates sensors

46:13

.

46:14

And now , by having you know the exact number

46:17

of particles in the different

46:19

sizes 0.3 , 0.5,.5

46:21

, 1 micron , 2.5 , 5 and

46:23

10 then you are able to calculate

46:26

the mass , if this is the way you

46:28

want to use the data

46:30

, and an even more precise

46:32

way as well does

46:36

that standard then mean that if I get

46:38

effectively two

46:40

or three different products from two or three different manufacturers if they're following

46:42

that standard I get effectively two or three different products from two or three different manufacturers if they're following that standard

46:45

I should get broadly similar

46:47

results from the same environment ?

46:49

yes yeah yes , according to the

46:51

standard , they supposed to be plus

46:53

minus 20 , but I

46:55

can tell you from certainty because I've

46:57

been working with one of those companies , that

47:00

they , if you put like

47:02

different batches of the same sensor

47:05

, you will see that they are dead right

47:07

each time . And that happens

47:09

because those products are also calibratable

47:11

. You can calibrate them

47:14

by comparing exactly what

47:16

you're getting from this instrument to a standard

47:18

, something that you cannot do with lower-cost

47:21

sensors . In most cases , they will

47:23

take a room , they will fill it with a

47:25

bunch of sensors inside there , they

47:28

will put only one reference and

47:30

they will expect all of those sensors to

47:32

have the same value , something which

47:34

is not possible from physics

47:36

standpoint but they

47:39

consider that good enough

47:41

to do it , and then

47:43

they release the product into the

47:45

market , right ?

47:49

So what's the use

47:52

case for that type of technology

47:54

? We see low-cost sensors let's

47:56

just stick on particulate matter for the

47:58

moment that are getting deployed

48:01

at a low cost uh

48:03

across wide areas , uh

48:05

longitudinal in nature

48:07

. So they're going and being deployed over time

48:10

to give patterns , and I often

48:12

describe them as the health wearables of the

48:14

indoor environment . That they're useful . They show

48:17

patterns and some things

48:19

that are going on . But

48:21

, like health wearables , at some point you should probably

48:24

go to your GP and get a blood test and

48:26

see what's actually going

48:29

on with you . And similarly with low-cost

48:31

sensors , they'll give you an idea if

48:33

there's some patterns within the building , but they

48:35

won't necessarily tell you the nature of it . Where

48:39

did these types of sensors

48:41

start to come into the market ? That

48:43

they're the tools of the occupational hygienist

48:46

and the occupational health and safety

48:48

person that's coming in

48:50

and trying to troubleshoot ? Is it

48:53

or enabling companies

48:55

to meet a certain certification ? In

48:57

a pharmaceutical setting , I take

48:59

it it's that kind of a level .

49:01

Yes , exactly , you're right . So you

49:04

have the industrial hygienist

49:06

, for example , that they have to have some kind of

49:08

a certainty when they report data back

49:10

. But then you

49:12

also have the clean

49:14

room industry it doesn't matter

49:16

if it is a pharmaceutical or

49:19

even if it is a hospital that

49:21

has to verify

49:23

that the operation room is

49:26

free from particulates , which

49:28

, by the way , they're directly correlated

49:30

with outcomes from the surgery

49:33

. And then

49:35

you have the academics , which they

49:37

want to hire great instrument to do

49:39

some kind of research of their own . Like

49:42

, for example , I was talking the other day

49:44

with a researcher from the

49:46

Oklahoma University . He's using

49:48

those kinds of instruments to

49:50

measure exactly how

49:54

, you know , the

49:56

toilets disperse water

49:58

aerosols into

50:00

the environment , disperse

50:06

water aerosols into the environment . So he will place , like , many

50:08

of them inside the room and he will create patterns of how the particles

50:10

flow inside the room and how

50:12

far they can reach and

50:14

infect people with . You know , pathogens

50:18

that may are present in the

50:20

business that we're doing . Yeah

50:22

, nice .

50:23

There's no way , no nice way of framing

50:25

what you're describing there . So I think

50:27

, well , everybody can leave that one to their imagination

50:30

.

50:30

Yeah , indeed but it's very important

50:32

this kind of research right , because then

50:34

, once they understand the

50:36

patterns that they created with the aerosols inside

50:39

toilets , they can come with solutions

50:41

and create products or better

50:44

way to flush a toilet that

50:47

is going to mitigate that

50:50

issue .

50:52

Have you seen that sector expanding

50:56

at a similar trajectory to

50:58

the low-cost sector

51:01

? Was there a boom during

51:03

COVID period ? That's tailed off now

51:05

. Has it been more consistent ? What does that

51:07

sector look like compared

51:10

to what most of the listeners would

51:12

be familiar with , which is the the

51:14

low-cost sensor market um

51:18

?

51:18

you mean from the academic standpoint ?

51:20

well , from like , from general for like , if you're

51:22

, if you're a manufacturer now of that type

51:24

of technology in the space , is

51:26

it a market that is steadily growing

51:28

? That boomed out of nowhere

51:31

during COVID and then died a death ? How's

51:35

it kind of looking as a market , that

51:37

middle ground sensor ?

51:38

market . I don't think

51:40

COVID affects that kind of market a lot

51:42

. It was growing steadily

51:45

over the years either way . First

51:48

of all because they have to comply with some kind of

51:50

standards . So they have

51:52

to measure air quality either way . And

51:54

then if you want to build

51:56

a good product , you have

51:58

to measure the air quality as well because

52:01

it directly affects the yield . Let's

52:03

say , if we go to the semiconductor industry

52:05

, you know that if the air is contaminated

52:08

inside those fubs , those

52:10

particles can deposit on the wavers

52:13

and they will lead

52:15

to lower yield . And

52:18

it's not only about microchips , applies

52:21

everywhere , like even in the beverage

52:23

and food industry . If the air

52:25

is contaminated and those particles

52:27

, they can be harmless

52:30

or they can be full

52:32

of pathogens . If they land on the beverage

52:34

or the food they will spoil them faster . So

52:37

you need to keep those environments cleaner in

52:40

order to achieve better results

52:42

for your business .

52:47

And is it a sector

52:49

that we can learn something from

52:52

when it comes to how

52:54

we understand pollution

52:57

risk and communicate it , because

52:59

there's so much more detail ? And

53:04

communicate it because there's so much more detail ? Because , you know

53:06

, because our frame of reference for communication on indoor air quality typically

53:08

is being driven , I think it's fair to

53:10

say , from the low cost sensor end of things

53:13

. The what we can do with a heat

53:15

map and a ziggy zaggy line on a screen

53:17

and an alert in an email is

53:20

kind of driven from that , let's say

53:22

kind of reset , kind of

53:24

level perspective . Is

53:27

there something we can learn from that middle

53:29

ground on how to better communicate some

53:31

of this risk ? Because you were talking about , for example , the

53:33

particular difference between mass and numbers

53:36

of particulates in a space .

53:38

I guess there's so much more we can glean from

53:40

that type of information yes

53:43

, and you were right , like I think we have already

53:46

, uh , applying some things from

53:48

the clean room or contamination

53:50

space into the air quality , normal

53:53

air quality , um , and

53:55

you will see that by by exploring

53:57

all the green build , green

54:00

building certificates that are available

54:02

nowadays . So now you have to

54:04

comply to some kind of standard

54:06

, which they are not . But if

54:09

you want to achieve some certainty

54:11

of recognition that your building

54:13

is safe enough , you have to measure the air

54:15

quality and do some other things

54:17

as well . But

54:19

that comes actually from the contamination space

54:21

, where they have to test

54:24

the space , validate

54:26

that there is no pollution , and do that

54:29

frequently , not by only once and

54:31

quality day , but like by

54:33

having once

54:35

a month . I don't know how often do they do it , but

54:38

you know eventually

54:41

, monitor air quality in a continuous

54:43

way in order to understand better

54:45

the air quality and report back , inform

54:48

the public as well at the same time that , hey

54:50

, I have air quality monitors in my buildings

54:52

and this is the

54:54

air quality right now . We

54:56

have seen those big screens in big buildings . Those

54:59

big screens in big buildings

55:01

.

55:01

I don't know how common are they in the UK , but here

55:03

in the US , when you go , for example on a conference

55:06

, you will always see that they are

55:08

trying their best to deliver

55:15

better air quality for the occupants , and it's the same logic right , you

55:17

have to comply to some kind of a standard , yeah , and we're seeing increasingly regulation

55:20

starting to describe a

55:22

minimum entry point for particularly public

55:25

spaces , that there's at least some

55:28

monitoring going on of

55:30

detailed air quality assessments and the lower cost longitudinal

55:32

kind of public

55:35

facing data

55:47

that we see on the screens that we

55:49

see the likes of well had

55:52

introduced in v2 where

55:54

you know there's the longitudinal

55:56

element that the permanent monitoring and

55:58

an annual I think it is inspections

56:01

for a range of pollutants

56:03

. I'm

56:06

guessing the , the pharmaceutical

56:08

spaces and the medical spaces have been

56:10

operating in that way for a long time that

56:13

there's a . They've had to find what the right

56:15

balance is between the frequency of detailed

56:17

measurements and the and

56:19

the proliferation of lower cost monitoring

56:22

in those spaces . So

56:24

it's how we see that translate down to the rest

56:27

of the built environment , because at the moment most

56:30

of it is just the minimum entry point

56:32

. You know how many co2 sensors are you going

56:34

to stick in a public building and do you have to

56:36

display one of them on a screen somewhere to say

56:38

that it's below a thousand parts per million ? That's kind

56:40

of where we've got to with the stick , the

56:43

carrot at the other end , at the

56:45

kind of the well end of things where they're saying

56:47

okay , there's a methodology , we'd like you

56:49

to do this and do this at

56:51

least once a year and report and

56:54

upload those results . But

56:56

it's a big gap between those two in

56:59

the built environment , isn't there ?

57:01

yes , and you know

57:03

. First of all , I would like to say that air

57:06

quality is something dynamic . It changes

57:08

over time . Uh , it's not

57:10

going to be the same today and tomorrow . Um

57:13

, it's not going to be the same now and in an hour

57:15

. You never know why it's going

57:17

to change , maybe because

57:20

I , I don't know a wildfire

57:22

happened and wind blew

57:24

all of those particles into your building . So

57:28

I do believe in continuous monitoring . However

57:32

, I do understand at the same time that there

57:34

are some limitations on the budgetary

57:37

side , like how much money can

57:39

you spend or can you afford having all of

57:41

those monitors in your building that they're going to

57:43

monitor air quality all the time

57:46

? So I do understand that

57:48

. So I believe there is . Uh

57:50

, the solution is finding the middle

57:52

ground there and and

57:55

having like a continuous monitor

57:57

, but doing the periodic inspections

58:01

as well . But

58:05

it's not like you need to have monitors in every single room inside your building

58:07

.

58:08

Yeah , I agree , and I think

58:10

it's like most risk , it's a process

58:13

of workflows . If you find

58:15

risk increases , then you increase the frequency

58:17

of detailed assessment . If you find the risk

58:20

is decreasing and minimal , then you may be able to back off the frequency

58:22

of detailed assessment . If you find the risk is decreasing and minimal , then you may be able to back off the

58:24

frequency of detailed monitoring

58:26

. It's a risk , is a dynamic

58:28

thing , particularly , as you say , air

58:31

quality , and some environments will present

58:33

a higher risk or have more highly

58:35

vulnerable people than others . I

58:37

think what we've just not been very good at is doing

58:40

those risk assessments and understanding

58:42

what that building and those

58:44

stakeholders that use that building need

58:46

. I mean , if

58:49

Soterios was the

58:52

mayor of a US city

58:54

and you got to write the

58:56

rules , where

58:59

do you think that middle ground is ? If you

59:01

were , if you were writing the

59:03

rules for all public buildings , uh

59:06

, for air quality monitoring , what

59:08

would you mandate ? What would be the

59:10

? Where do you think the sweet spot is for

59:13

monitoring ?

59:15

um , that's a great question

59:17

, um , but okay . Um

59:19

, if I was the mayor and I had

59:21

to implement new rules for buildings

59:24

, it's gonna be the following having

59:26

an outdoor monitor , having

59:29

an indoor monitor and trying to see

59:31

the difference , deciding

59:33

between the conditions outdoors

59:35

and indoors and seeing if

59:37

it makes sense to recirculate the air or

59:39

bring more fresh air from outside , filtration

59:48

systems in place as well , and

59:53

I will definitely write some standards about what I consider good air quality and acceptable

59:55

air quality and so on .

59:57

Would you mandate annual

59:59

inspection with an occupational

1:00:02

hygienist to measure

1:00:05

the top 10 VOCs

1:00:07

and particulate matter ? And

1:00:10

you know , would you say , okay , we

1:00:12

want all public spaces to have some

1:00:14

form of low-cost monitoring . I

1:00:17

would also like all public

1:00:19

spaces to at least conduct a test

1:00:21

in both seasons , maybe

1:00:23

of air quality .

1:00:27

Yes , I do believe in

1:00:30

industrial hygienists and

1:00:32

similar professors professions sorry

1:00:34

, I think

1:00:36

we need experts that

1:00:38

they make sense of the data

1:00:42

. I do believe that they have to go annually

1:00:44

and do inspections and

1:00:47

see if what they are measuring with the

1:00:49

continuous monitoring systems are

1:00:51

accordingly and correct

1:00:53

.

1:00:54

So , yes , yeah

1:00:57

, I , I'd live in your city . Uh

1:01:00

, that's very good , and you raise a really

1:01:02

good point about the difference between indoor and

1:01:04

outdoor . I think

1:01:07

that's an often missed opportunity because it's

1:01:09

not expensive to do and , if you're lucky , often

1:01:11

you'll have very good reference instruments

1:01:13

quite close to you and more and more we see

1:01:15

that now or at least a network

1:01:18

of lower cost sensors that

1:01:20

can be referenced against

1:01:22

a decent sensor somewhere in your locality

1:01:25

. So , like a lot of buildings , to

1:01:27

be fair , can get a reasonable idea

1:01:29

In some

1:01:31

parts of the world . You know there are other parts of the world where

1:01:34

this isn't done , but certainly in a

1:01:36

lot of Europe and North America you

1:01:38

can get a good idea of the air quality

1:01:40

america

1:01:44

. You can get a good idea of the air quality locally to your building and if you can't , deploying

1:01:46

one sensor for a whole building outside to get

1:01:48

a good idea of outdoor air quality is not

1:01:50

an expensive thing to do comparatively

1:01:52

and can give very useful

1:01:54

information for making decisions

1:01:56

. Like we said earlier , those levers that you

1:01:58

can pull do Do I recirculate

1:02:00

? Do I need to increase the filtering ? Is there certain

1:02:02

conditions that I need to prepare

1:02:05

for it is

1:02:07

a very powerful tool .

1:02:10

I will disagree a little bit , though , with

1:02:12

what you said by relying on

1:02:14

air quality stations

1:02:16

, government air quality stations for

1:02:19

the data for the outdoor data , air quality stations for the data

1:02:21

for the outdoor data . The reason is because I have seen

1:02:23

many examples , even in Europe , where

1:02:31

they will have placed the air quality station inside the

1:02:33

forest or inside the park with many trees surrounded , and

1:02:36

then they will call that an urban air

1:02:39

quality station and

1:02:41

supposedly that reflects the air quality

1:02:43

on the streets . But it doesn't

1:02:45

, because all of the trees are going

1:02:48

to create

1:02:50

a barrier for the pollution to reach the station

1:02:52

and measure appropriately

1:02:55

the levels of the pollutants

1:02:57

. So for that reason alone

1:02:59

, I will suggest having an instrument

1:03:02

outside your building , near

1:03:04

the ventilation system

1:03:07

as possible , and

1:03:09

going from

1:03:11

there if you really want ICRE

1:03:14

data , the

1:03:18

environment around an air quality sensor

1:03:20

can make a big difference , which is a which

1:03:22

is a very fair point .

1:03:23

Yeah , you know , and damn

1:03:25

it , I'll have to start asking people to deploy

1:03:28

more sensors . But let's say at

1:03:31

least one of the things we we

1:03:33

are starting to see the deployment of these

1:03:35

networks and meshes of

1:03:38

low quality sensors outdoors

1:03:40

that are making a big difference to the granularity

1:03:43

of the data that we see , that you can at least reference

1:03:46

to things . But , um , yeah , it's a

1:03:48

very good point about locating them particularly

1:03:50

near the intake to a building , so you

1:03:52

understand the air that's coming

1:03:54

into the building yeah

1:03:57

, yeah , the

1:03:59

other day , for example , example

1:04:01

, a warning was issued here

1:04:04

for high ozone

1:04:07

levels .

1:04:09

So the government said stay indoors

1:04:11

. Okay , you stay indoors , but

1:04:13

if you want to keep track

1:04:15

of your CO2 as well , you're going to bring

1:04:17

air from the outside as well . So

1:04:20

what do you do there ? Are you going to bring

1:04:22

the outdoor air inside , or

1:04:25

are you going to keep the

1:04:28

levels of the CO2 rising indoors

1:04:30

? So what's the right solution there

1:04:32

? Right ? Maybe this

1:04:34

is not the right message to say to people , but

1:04:36

in my perspective , it

1:04:38

will be like avoid

1:04:40

doing exercise indoors

1:04:42

and outdoors , because you never know how

1:04:45

ozone is going to infiltrate inside the building

1:04:47

and avoid any

1:04:49

, you know activity

1:04:51

that is going to force you to

1:04:54

breathe deeper and inhale

1:04:56

this ozone and , you know

1:04:58

, deplete some of the cells inside your

1:05:01

lungs .

1:05:02

Yeah and I you know that . Some of the cells inside your lungs ? Yeah and I you know that . That's

1:05:04

the challenge of balancing risk and

1:05:06

it's something that I think

1:05:08

the academic

1:05:11

arenas , particularly as they

1:05:13

become much more closely aligned

1:05:15

with public health and health which

1:05:17

they seem to be doing much

1:05:19

more now than they were before we'll

1:05:22

start to understand where those balance of

1:05:24

risks lie . You know

1:05:26

, on balance , the advice

1:05:29

you receive as to whether to exercise

1:05:31

outdoors or not will be based on

1:05:33

the health benefits

1:05:35

and mental well-being benefits of

1:05:37

exercising versus the potential

1:05:40

long-term chronic harm of being exposed

1:05:42

to a range of pollutants , from

1:05:44

NOx to ozones , to

1:05:46

particulate matter and so on . It's

1:05:48

going to be very difficult for an individual to

1:05:50

make those kind of decisions

1:05:53

, but as we get more advanced models

1:05:55

and we understand those balance of probabilities

1:05:57

, we can automate those

1:05:59

, those pieces of advice , much better

1:06:01

. And , particularly if you're in a controlled environment

1:06:03

like indoors , demand-controlled

1:06:07

ventilation will start to factor

1:06:09

a lot more than it does currently in making

1:06:12

the right decisions for a building . You

1:06:14

know , am I more at risk being exposed to

1:06:16

1,500 , 2,000 parts per million

1:06:18

in a meeting room right now because

1:06:21

, because the ventilation system

1:06:23

is shut down , outdoor air , because pollution

1:06:25

outdoors is so high . You know where

1:06:27

does that risk sit . You cannot

1:06:29

rely on the technology .

1:06:31

someone with knowledge needs always

1:06:33

to give an input on what's

1:06:35

going on . And you know every building I mean I know

1:06:37

you know that for sure Like every building

1:06:40

is different . It's like

1:06:42

unique , with different characteristics

1:06:44

and different

1:06:46

HVAC system , so you cannot

1:06:48

have like a universal formula for

1:06:50

all of them .

1:06:51

No , I agree , and it's one of the

1:06:54

powerful things that Ireland did , actually

1:06:56

in the last couple of years , was introduce

1:06:59

this code of practice for indoor air quality

1:07:02

in the workplace . What's quite powerful

1:07:04

about it , even though it's a very simple document

1:07:07

, is it in

1:07:09

theory , forces employers

1:07:11

to think

1:07:13

about their building from a risk perspective

1:07:16

? Uh , through the air quality and

1:07:18

ventilation . How you said earlier

1:07:20

that you know you've rarely

1:07:22

been into a conference or a hotel

1:07:24

in North America that isn't displaying

1:07:26

air quality in some

1:07:29

way , is that something you're really

1:07:31

seeing in the States ? Is that public

1:07:34

display of air quality in at

1:07:37

least the kind of hotels and spaces that you're

1:07:39

going to in conferences , because we don't

1:07:42

necessarily see that yet in Europe , not

1:07:45

to that extent , not so much from hotels

1:07:47

but from spaces that

1:07:49

they are designed specifically for

1:07:51

accommodation of

1:07:53

conferences .

1:07:54

They do have in place air

1:07:57

quality monitors and a display

1:07:59

at the entrance where

1:08:01

the people that they visit they can see

1:08:04

the different stats

1:08:06

for the pollutants and

1:08:08

you also see the

1:08:10

logos from well buildings or

1:08:12

reset or any

1:08:15

other green building certificate .

1:08:17

Yeah , that's encouraging . How

1:08:19

long have you been over there now in

1:08:22

the States ? Two years actually

1:08:24

how long Two years , two years . Okay

1:08:26

, so post-COVID predominantly

1:08:29

.

1:08:30

Yes , 2022 . I came here .

1:08:33

And where were you before that ? Where were you working out of

1:08:35

? Before ? That was Spain , wasn't it ?

1:08:37

I was in Spain . Yes , south Spain .

1:08:41

How did you find moving over there and working

1:08:43

? It's a big country

1:08:45

to be . They

1:08:47

found me . Yeah , have

1:08:52

you enjoyed your time over there ? Has it been interesting

1:08:54

?

1:08:56

I mean , yeah , you know

1:08:58

we are different from Americans

1:09:00

. I think Europeans and people

1:09:03

from the UK say a

1:09:05

little bit more than common

1:09:08

, you know ground than the American

1:09:10

people . So

1:09:12

, yeah , at the beginning it was like difficult

1:09:16

because you have to adjust yourself in

1:09:18

different ways that they perceive

1:09:20

life here . Like , for example , I

1:09:24

still to this day I don't drive , I

1:09:26

walk to my office . And

1:09:28

for Americans

1:09:31

this is alarming . They

1:09:34

cannot understand it At first . They cannot understand it

1:09:36

. So a funny story here

1:09:39

imagine I go to the gym here

1:09:41

as well . So some of my friends that

1:09:43

I eventually made at the gym

1:09:45

, they will see me walking to

1:09:47

work every day . So they assumed

1:09:50

that I was poor and I

1:09:52

walked to work because

1:09:54

I didn't have money . So they

1:09:56

didn't know where I work or nothing like

1:09:58

that . So they came to me

1:10:00

and they offered me a work at

1:10:03

their business that they had like , and

1:10:05

to me that was very funny . Like I'm

1:10:08

working because I choose to work . My

1:10:10

office is like seven minutes from my home

1:10:12

, uh , so I can walk

1:10:15

. I don't need a vehicle to go there . Yeah

1:10:17

, but at the same time I will see colleagues

1:10:19

at my office , for example , that they live in . The same time . I will see colleagues at my office

1:10:21

, for example , that they live in the same household and

1:10:23

they work in the same office and they

1:10:25

will come with two separate vehicles at

1:10:27

the office . Yeah

1:10:37

, but don't spend

1:10:40

uh , you know gas

1:10:42

and don't create so much pollution

1:10:44

just because you have the commodity here

1:10:46

. Just because gas is cheaper in the us

1:10:48

than it is in europe and uk , I

1:10:50

assume , I will assume right . Um

1:10:53

, so yes , there

1:10:56

are some differences , for sure whereabouts

1:10:58

are you in the states ?

1:11:00

where are you working ? I

1:11:02

am in . Massachusetts , outside of Boston oh okay

1:11:04

, yeah , so a city really designed for cars

1:11:07

as well . So that's the

1:11:09

challenge , isn't it often is that a

1:11:12

lot of the cities in the States are really car

1:11:14

cities and it's very difficult to whereas

1:11:16

a lot of Mediterranean and European

1:11:18

cities are really not car cities

1:11:21

. So everything's set up very

1:11:23

hyper localized , you know . So

1:11:25

there's that , just that mentality of walking

1:11:28

to the supermarket and walking to

1:11:30

the gym , and you know walking to public

1:11:32

transport is just the way it is . What's

1:11:35

what's next for your blog and

1:11:37

your kind of communication around

1:11:39

air quality . You know your output

1:11:41

is incredible and incredibly consistent

1:11:44

. I have to say you've been doing

1:11:46

this solidly now for two

1:11:49

or three years at a really high

1:11:51

level . Is that something

1:11:53

you continue planning to do , because

1:11:56

it's a very well-read blog

1:11:58

post , I think , in the community .

1:12:02

Thank you . Yes , I

1:12:04

really enjoy uh writing . You know

1:12:06

pieces uh and articles on

1:12:08

my blog . Sometimes

1:12:11

it comes naturally

1:12:13

to me to write something that I have

1:12:15

observed and I want other people

1:12:17

to learn about , and course , I'm

1:12:20

going to continue with that , hopefully

1:12:23

for many years . There

1:12:25

are some new exciting things coming this

1:12:27

summer . I cannot reveal

1:12:29

much now , but I'm

1:12:31

working on a personal level on some

1:12:33

great news for

1:12:36

everyone out there related to air quality

1:12:39

, always specifically

1:12:41

indoor air quality . Uh

1:12:43

, that hopefully , uh

1:12:46

, many people will appreciate

1:12:48

and help me as well . Um

1:12:51

, building it , oh , that's exciting

1:12:53

.

1:12:53

As far as I can go , well

1:12:56

, I'll share the link on the uh podcast

1:12:58

notes so people can keep keep in contact with you

1:13:01

, because that sounds intriguing .

1:13:02

Um , oh , very cool yeah

1:13:04

yes , you know , it's for me

1:13:07

like , um , lots

1:13:09

of people are following my blog right now

1:13:11

and it's very I'm

1:13:14

getting . I'm getting such an euphoria when I

1:13:17

see other experts in the industry

1:13:19

following my blog . Like you will see people

1:13:21

from the US EPA or the EPA

1:13:23

from Ireland or the

1:13:25

European Environmental Agency

1:13:28

following the blog , which means that they're going

1:13:30

to receive an email from me every

1:13:32

week about a specific topic that

1:13:34

I'm going to discuss or write about , and

1:13:37

that gives me lots of energy and

1:13:39

power to continue writing and that gives

1:13:41

me lots of energy and power to continue writing .

1:13:42

Yeah , particularly when you get such positive feedback

1:13:45

and it's worth

1:13:47

checking People

1:13:54

. Do go and check out Sartorius' blog because it's very wide-ranging . One week you'll be looking

1:13:56

at a new monitor that's come out and pulling it apart

1:13:58

and getting your screwdriver out , and

1:14:00

other times you'll be talking about an

1:14:02

EPA policy that's just been released and

1:14:04

some thoughts on that . So

1:14:07

it's very varied and sometimes

1:14:09

deep dives . Other times it's quite a

1:14:11

lighthearted look at something , so I'll

1:14:14

encourage people to check

1:14:17

it out . What

1:14:20

do you think the next

1:14:22

five years of this sector looks

1:14:24

like from from what you've seen so far

1:14:26

and where

1:14:29

it's going generally ? Um

1:14:31

, because it is . It does seem to

1:14:33

me to be at a bit of a crossroads at the moment

1:14:35

, and I'm everybody I speak

1:14:37

to has a different thought about where

1:14:39

the traction is going to come from . Next , what's

1:14:42

your thoughts ?

1:14:47

you know , I have more insight in

1:14:49

the technology , so I

1:14:51

see companies moving towards

1:14:54

new technology

1:14:56

like measuring ultrafine particles , which

1:14:58

is very important , especially nowadays

1:15:01

, when still the automotive

1:15:03

industry tries to pollute

1:15:06

the environment with different ways by breaking

1:15:08

the particles in a smaller size range in order

1:15:10

to pass undetectable with the conventional

1:15:12

sensor technology that we have currently

1:15:15

. So , yes

1:15:17

, ultra-fine particle measurement is very important

1:15:19

. I see that trending , especially in

1:15:22

conferences for aerosols Scientists

1:15:25

and researchers . They really want

1:15:27

to explore those

1:15:30

nanoparticles , but we

1:15:32

still don't have lots of information about the effects

1:15:34

on human health . We know that they travel

1:15:37

deeper and they distribute all over the

1:15:39

body . Deeper

1:15:44

and they distribute all over the body , but I haven't read many papers on . You know the actual

1:15:46

consequences on our health , so we will

1:15:48

see that developing as well . Then

1:15:50

I see that europe is moving away from

1:15:53

pm 2.5 values as well

1:15:55

. I think they're going to

1:15:57

invest more efforts into the

1:15:59

particle size distribution , which

1:16:02

eventually is going to come in the US as well , but

1:16:05

EPA here is a bit more

1:16:07

of a stubborn when it comes to that

1:16:09

space . I think they

1:16:12

may change . Who knows ? I have zero

1:16:14

influence on them apart

1:16:16

from my blog , but

1:16:20

yes , and then

1:16:22

for indoor spaces . They

1:16:25

they're still trying to release some

1:16:27

um standards

1:16:29

for indoor spaces in europe . I

1:16:32

think they're not ready yet . It's

1:16:34

gonna take one or two years

1:16:36

more , I think yeah , do

1:16:39

you think the changes will come with ? Yeah

1:17:04

, Do you think the changes will come with the pressure to the political system

1:17:06

and eventually you know , the police makers to

1:17:08

create some legislations

1:17:11

and frameworks around

1:17:13

indoor air quality ?

1:17:14

Yeah , and in

1:17:17

the meantime , because that's quite a slow process

1:17:19

, both academically

1:17:23

, getting those strong answers , but

1:17:25

also then politically , depending on where

1:17:27

in the cycle it is change

1:17:29

happening . Um , do

1:17:32

you think in the meantime we're building up the

1:17:34

business case and the public health case

1:17:36

effectively enough , or do you think

1:17:38

we could be pushing

1:17:41

awareness more strongly in certain

1:17:43

areas than we are ?

1:17:46

you know , it's not like one person has

1:17:48

the definitive answer to

1:17:50

this problem . Um , I

1:17:53

think it's a collaborative uh

1:17:56

work

1:17:58

and effort into

1:18:00

getting there . Like business

1:18:02

wise , I wouldn't suggest someone

1:18:05

right now like building

1:18:07

a new air quality monitor with

1:18:09

the same technology that it's available

1:18:11

. Then

1:18:14

, if we talk about businesses that they want

1:18:16

to create another

1:18:19

green building certificate

1:18:21

that we saw like an

1:18:23

explosion of them as well during

1:18:25

covid right , I wouldn't suggest

1:18:27

someone doing that either . But

1:18:32

I do think that , like , industrial hygienists

1:18:34

are gonna have a blast of

1:18:37

of work in the future like

1:18:39

this kind of works that they have

1:18:41

specific knowledge . Here

1:18:47

in the us are the things are a bit different

1:18:49

than europe . We have more businesses

1:18:51

around remediation as well , especially

1:18:54

because of the way buildings are built , like

1:18:57

in comparison with spain , let's

1:18:59

say , or g Greece , that the

1:19:01

building materials are different , so they're going

1:19:03

to influence as well the

1:19:07

outcome of air quality as well

1:19:09

. Currently , I'm also

1:19:11

inside the steering committee with

1:19:14

the University of Bath for

1:19:16

alternative sustainable material for buildings

1:19:18

. They are analyzing

1:19:21

different materials and how good they

1:19:23

are for indoor air quality

1:19:25

and how fast they will degrade

1:19:27

over time . So I'm

1:19:29

helping with that as well . Yes

1:19:35

, so many sectors . They are working towards

1:19:37

that direction . Eventually , everything is going to come together

1:19:39

, but it's not only one

1:19:42

thing . Yeah , right

1:19:44

, so , and they all , all

1:19:46

of them , have to align and

1:19:48

come , uh , in acceptance

1:19:50

and , uh , you know , work

1:19:53

together , yeah , in order

1:19:55

to achieve what we are trying to

1:19:57

educate here and it's hard to see

1:19:59

the momentum from inside .

1:20:01

Sometimes I think it can seem to

1:20:03

move very slowly when you're involved

1:20:05

daily in it

1:20:08

. But you know , I

1:20:10

keep reminding people . We only have to look back

1:20:12

to 2018 , 2019

1:20:15

, pre-pandemic , and where we were

1:20:17

really both from an awareness

1:20:19

perspective , from a technology perspective

1:20:21

, from a standards perspective , things

1:20:25

move on pretty significantly in

1:20:27

five-year chunks and

1:20:30

we are moving

1:20:32

relatively quickly , I'd say . The

1:20:34

built environment's a conservative old

1:20:36

place . It tends to move quite slowly

1:20:38

and air quality , comparatively

1:20:41

I think , has moved pretty fast in

1:20:44

the last five years , assisted

1:20:46

, of course , by a global pandemic . So

1:20:49

we wouldn't wish that on people again , um

1:20:52

, but nonetheless , I think it

1:20:54

has moved on and I , you know , I'm

1:20:57

firmly of the belief that within , certainly

1:21:00

within the decade and I've probably been saying this for

1:21:02

nearly a decade , so I'm gonna have to check myself at some

1:21:04

point but I think within

1:21:06

the decade , most of the spaces

1:21:08

we occupy will be monitored to

1:21:10

some degree and will

1:21:13

give a granularity

1:21:15

of performance of that space , even if it's

1:21:17

not very specific on certain pollutants

1:21:19

, we'll have a much better idea how spaces

1:21:21

are performing than we would have done

1:21:24

10 years previously , and that

1:21:26

changes the narrative . Rather , I think you

1:21:29

start to be judged on the ongoing performance

1:21:31

of the spaces you occupy or design

1:21:33

or manage , rather than on

1:21:36

whether you complied with a certain regulation

1:21:38

when it was built , and that that's an important

1:21:40

shift in perspective , and

1:21:42

I'll be interested to see how that translate

1:21:45

. And for communicators

1:21:47

like yourself , what I think is really interesting

1:21:49

is that I I

1:21:52

think we're moving into that period

1:21:55

of time where we're having to say okay

1:21:58

, what next ? I

1:22:00

think it's becoming easier to collect the

1:22:02

data . We're now having

1:22:04

to start starting to have to do something

1:22:07

with it , and that's a very

1:22:09

different ask . Well , look , I

1:22:11

. I wish you every success

1:22:13

. We'll keep a very close eye on you

1:22:15

as into the summer , as we figure out

1:22:17

what you're up to um , what's coming

1:22:19

um , because that's very intriguing

1:22:21

to see , and

1:22:25

I wish you all the best .

1:22:26

Hopefully you can be part of this process

1:22:29

. Of what I was talking

1:22:31

earlier , I cannot say much

1:22:33

, but hopefully you can be part as well

1:22:36

. Yeah , it's an open

1:22:38

platform .

1:22:40

Right Muting mics Right

1:22:43

we're back , I know , all about it now . Thanks

1:22:45

very much . Yeah

1:22:48

, no , really excited for that . Look forward to catching up

1:22:50

with you in a few months' time . Listen

1:22:52

, thanks a million . I really appreciate you coming

1:22:55

on to talk to me . It's been long overdue

1:22:57

, mostly on me for not finding

1:22:59

a time to sit down and chat with you .

1:23:01

But look , look , thanks again for chatting

1:23:03

and we'll catch up again soon thank

1:23:07

you so much , simon , and you know I've been listening

1:23:09

your podcast every morning when I walk uh

1:23:11

to my office back and forth

1:23:14

, um , so I really appreciate

1:23:16

the time you took to interview

1:23:18

me and other fellow air

1:23:20

quality experts , because I really

1:23:22

believe that it helps others

1:23:24

understand better what's going on

1:23:26

out there right now .

1:23:28

Brilliant Listen . Pleasure to talk to you . As always , we'll

1:23:31

chat soon . Thanks , civilian . Thanks

1:23:33

for listening . Before you go , can I

1:23:35

ask a favour ? If you enjoyed

1:23:37

the podcast and you know someone else who

1:23:40

might be interested , do spread the word and

1:23:42

let's keep building this community . This

1:23:44

podcast is brought to you in

1:23:47

partnership with 21 degrees , eco

1:23:50

, ultra protect and imbiot

1:23:52

all great companies who

1:23:54

share the vision of the podcast and

1:23:56

aren't here by accident . Your

1:23:58

support of them helps their

1:24:01

support of the podcast . Do

1:24:03

check them out in the links and at

1:24:05

airqualitymattersnet . See

1:24:07

you next time .