Study 1: “Cellulosic building insulation versus mineral wool, fiberglass or perlite: Installer's exposure by inhalation of fibers, dust, endotoxin and fire-retardant additives.” Breum, N. O., T. Schneider, O. Jørgensen, T. Valdbjørn Rasmussen, and S. Skibstrup Eriksen /29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49102

Research Designs used-Study 1: True Experiment with a Control Group, in a Controlled Environment (Laboratory), designed to test cause- effect relationships. Correlational field study (survey), that is interpretable and conducted rigorously. Case Study that details specific investigation of one or more settings. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49103

Summary and General Characteristics-Study 1: A task specific exposure matrix (experiment) was used to test insulation installer levels of exposure to the airborne particles during install. Types of Insulation examined: Cellulose, Fiberglass, Mineral Wool, and Perlite. Setting: laboratory mock up of a single family home used for installation practices of the types of insulation used for this study. Measurement: personal exposure to fibers of each insulation. Analysis: dust fibers were analyzed for endotoxins, and trace elements of chemicals (boron and aluminum) used for fire retardants and/or mold. Extraction: a drum roller where the insulations were placed was used to for measurement of airborne dust. Risk Assessment Results in open Attics: fiberglass and mineral wool batts (slabs) showed lower exposure risk. Slab materials using Flax showed high exposure risk to endotoxins. Loose fill insulations tested high for dust inhalation and some materials tested high for boron and aluminum. Cellulose assessment: tested high for inhalation risk of dust fibers, but little is known about the health implications, so risk assessment not possible. Conclusion: Loose fill (dry) materials naturally will create airborne dust particles, some of these particles have endotoxins. Batts (slabs) naturally will test showing less airborne particles. Flax, which is considered a “natural” alternative showed high levels of endotoxins. Cellulose showed high levels of airborne dust, but could not be proven a detriment to health. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49104

Study 2: “Thermal performance and embodied energy of cold climate wall systems.” Pierquet, Patrick, Jim L. Bowyer, and Pat Huelman /29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49105

Research Designs used-Study 2: True Experiment with a Control Group, in a Controlled Environment (Laboratory), designed to test cause- effect relationships. Correlational field study (survey), that is interpretable and conducted rigorously. Case Study that details specific investigation of one or more settings. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49106

Summary and General Characteristics-Study 2: A study of eleven different wall systems in cold climates in a traditional home was conducted. Total R-Value and Embodied Energy for a single heating season of energy calculated at two locations. Types of Insulation/Wall systems examined: Fiberglass, EPS-SIPS, EPS Foam, plastered straw bale, insulated concrete forms, cellular concrete, XPS foam, cordwood masonry, various foam boards, poly-iso sheathing. Setting: single family-ranch style home used as the base case for all calculations (24’x32’ – 8’high walls) Standard. Measurement: Thermal performance and embodied energy (EE). Thermal performance was measured using HOT-2000 energy modelling software. Analysis: detailed list of building materials to estimate total EE and long term energy savings for each wall system and overall long term home performance in two cold climate zones. Non- renewable materials were studied against the base standard (Conventional Materials). Analysis Methods: Embodied Energy analysis, Thermal Performance, Energy Modelling and Payback Periods. Conclusion: Conventional wall system materials showed the best long term energy savings. Walls made from non-renewable materials showed the worst long term energy savings. Strawbale building had the lowest EE. The wall systems that use the largest amount of concrete had the highest EE (See table 8). Advantage: Using Low Embodied Energy Building Materials: “For the same R-value, there is great variability in energy required to produce different insulation materials (See table 8). The insulation materials derived from renewable resources (cellulose and straw) rely to great extent on free energy for their production.” with cellulose based materials, the processing energy is free in the form of photosynthesis and solar energies. Risks: “The synthetic materials, particularly the plastic foams, require large expenditures of non-renewable energy for their production.” Paybacks are extremely longer for these materials. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49107

1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49108

Study 3: “Field performance of unvented cathedralized (UC) attics in the USA.” Rudd, Armin /29/2015Brian Firestone EPM-49109

Research Designs used-Study 3: Correlational field study (survey), that is interpretable and conducted rigorously, that examines real life settings, variables, and generalizes findings. Case Study that details specific investigation of one or more settings. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Summary and General Characteristics-Study 3: A set of studies (field test and monitoring) examining the relationship of construction patterns with different climate zones for Unvented Cathedralized (UC) attic systems. Types of UC Insulation systems examined: Spray Foam, Cellulose, Fiberglass Batts. Setting: Continental US-All Climatic Zones (Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry, Cold, Hot-Humid). Measurement: Thermal performance monitoring via temperature controls, thermostats, temperature probes, moisture probes, pressure readings, air leakage. Analysis: detailed list of building materials to estimate total EE and long term energy savings for each wall system and overall long term home performance in two cold climate zones. Non- renewable materials were studied against the base standard (Conventional Materials). Analysis Methods: Hygrothermal Performance, indirect conditioned UC space and conditioned space, location of thermal air distribution system monitoring, observation, and analysis. Conclusion: Performance of several UC attic systems were conducted quantifying the major differences between Cellulose and Fiberglass. Measured results show that UC spaces perform similar as conditioned space. Use of appropriate insulation (Cellulose) that restricts convective air movements will control RH (condensation). “If air permeable insulation is used, rigid insulation must be placed above the structural roof sheathing with specific exceptions.” Advantage: Moisture pulse rates are exponentially higher in fiberglass than cellulose due to the density and genetic makeup of the two insulations. Relative Humidity rates(RH) are greatly impacted by daily normal temperature swings. "Some of the moisture is stored in the insulation – more so for the Cellulose than fiberglass.” “the moisture storage capacity of cellulose insulation, shown in figure 7, moderated the near saturation moisture pulse observed where fiberglass insulation was used (Figure 8).” (see figures 7-8) Risks: High saturation (RH) rates in building structures are bad, if not normalized by air exchange, space conditioning, and the use of proper insulation that can aid in the elimination of moisture load by normalization or decrease in RH. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Study 4: “The variation of thermal conductivity of fibrous insulation materials under different levels of moisture content.” A. Abdou, I. Budaiwi /29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Research Designs used-Study 4: Case Study that details specific investigation of one or more settings. True Experiment with a Control Group, in a Controlled Environment (Laboratory), designed to test cause- effect relationships. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Summary and General Characteristics-Study 4: A set of heat/moisture experiments were conducted on three types of insulating materials with different densities, targeting fiberglass. Types of Fiberglass Insulation systems examined: Fiberglass and Rock Wool at five different densities and Mineral Wool at one density. Setting: Laboratory Measurement: 11 total test samples, thermal conductivity measurements, at different moisture levels at three operating temperatures. A heat flow meter and moisturizing container were used. Conclusion: “Examination of results revealed that higher operating temperature and higher moisture content are always associated with higher thermal conductivity for all densities.” “Higher initial moisture content is always associated with higher thermal conductivity at given reduced moisture content for all densities.” “Variation in behavior is noticed between different materials having the same density and exposed to similar initial conditioning of moisture content.” “The results should be of great importance to material manufacturers, building owners and designers when selecting suitable insulating materials and correctly predicting the thermal and energy performance of buildings and their energy-efficiency.” Advantage: we learned in study 3 that moisture pulse rates are exponentially higher in fiberglass than cellulose due to the density and genetic makeup of the two insulations. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Study 5: “Convective loss in Loose-Fill Attic Insulation.” Conover, David W /29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Research Designs used-Study 5: Case Study that details specific investigation of one or more settings. True Experiment with a Control Group, in a Controlled Environment (Laboratory), designed to test cause- effect relationships. 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

Summary and General Characteristics-Study 5: A set of experiments at a large testing facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). This is a report of the testing of low- density, loose-fill fiberglass attic insulation that occurred at the test facilities. Types of Insulation systems examined: Fiberglass and Rock Wool at five different densities and Mineral Wool at one density. Setting: Laboratory with a 14 ftx16 ft attic module built for this study and was constructed of conventional wood framing materials. Measurement: Large Scale Climate Simulator with three chambers: a climate chamber, a metering chamber, and a guard chamber. Baseline tests were conducted prior to create a baseline. Tests: two R-19 Fiberglass specimen tests were conducted from the same manufacturer. Validity: “To verify the accuracy of the attic module test measurements the researchers then substituted a 5 in.-thick panel of expanded polystyrene foam for the loose-fill fiber glass. Climate chamber temperatures of the Large Scale Climate Simulator ranged from 45 degrees F to -18 degrees F, with accuracy of 2.3% as compared to a simple straight-line path calculation of the known thermal conductivity of the foam.” Conclusion: “for new installations, cellulose alone, while less expensive, will out perform fiber-glass loose fill, especially in cold climates. Of course, only two types of insulation have been tested before and it is probably too soon to jump to conclusions.” 1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM

1/29/2015Brian Firestone EPM