California Air Resources Board

Background

Indoor air quality (IAQ) is a significant concern due to its impact on human health and comfort. Various pollutants, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and odors, contribute to indoor air pollution. H2S is a colorless gas with a characteristic foul odor, commonly associated with wastewater treatment plants, industrial processes, and decaying organic matter. VOCs are a component of wildfire smoke, and are also emitted from building materials, household products, and combustion processes. They can lead to adverse health effects such as headaches, dizziness, and respiratory issues. Odors, whether from cooking, pets, or chemical sources, can affect occupant comfort and productivity.

Portable air cleaners (PACs) and high efficiency HVAC filters with activated carbon or other chemisorbants have emerged as viable solutions for improving IAQ by filtering and adsorbing airborne contaminants. While PACs are widely used for particulate matter removal, their effectiveness in removing gaseous pollutants such as H2S, VOCs, and odors, and non-particulate pollutants in wildfire smoke requires further investigation. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of PACs in addressing these pollutants is crucial for their effective deployment in residential, commercial, and industrial settings.

For this study, investigators would first conduct a literature review on the variety of products marketed to remove odors, VOCs and other pollutants and summarize what is currently known regarding the effectiveness and limitations of these devices.  They would then test the effectiveness of these devices using chamber and/or real-world locations and evaluate factors such as costs, pollutant removal effectiveness, and need for maintenance (filter/charcoal replacement) to determine which technologies work the best and under what conditions. Field deployments for the study would be located in communities which have historically been subjected to emission sources of VOC and odor causing compounds.  Results will then be summarized regarding the pros and cons of each device or panel filters including effectiveness and costs under a variety of real-world scenarios.

The results from this study would provide information on best strategies to reduce indoor VOCs, odors, and other non-particulate air pollutants in impacted communities for a variety of scenarios including wildfire smoke, landfills, industry, and biogenic emissions.  This study would inform CARB’s Indoor Air Quality Programs, incentive programs for AB 617 and other impacted communities, Community Emissions Reduction Programs, Supplemental Environmental Projects program, and Wildfire response assistance and response messaging. In addition, the results of this study could be used by CARB and other agencies to provide improved guidance regarding the use of these technologies and support future mitigation strategies. These can include updated building standards or incentive programs to further improve indoor air quality in homes, schools, and other locations, especially in areas vulnerable to wildfire smoke, and VOCs, such as communities located near oil and gas facilities, and odors such as communities near landfills and the Salton Sea region.

Objective

The primary objectives of this research study are:

• To quantify the effectiveness of various air cleaning filters in removing VOCs and odor-causing compounds from indoor air using controlled chamber studies and real-world field deployments.
• To compare the efficiency of different filtration technologies (e.g., activated carbon, carbon with chemisorbants).
• To analyze the retention capacity and longevity of carbon air filters in capturing VOCs and odors.
• To provide recommendations for selecting the most effective air filtration solutions based on specific indoor air quality needs.
• To evaluate how affordable and accessible air cleaning technologies can benefit residents in disadvantaged communities suffering from poor indoor air quality.
• To develop a guidance document of best practices for buildings with vulnerable populations such as schools, senior or day care facilities, and hospitals located in areas with intermittent or constant high VOC or odor issues. 

Scope of Work

Task 1: Literature Review

• Review of existing research on VOCs and odor-causing compounds in indoor air.
• Identify most common VOCs of health concern in wildfire smoke.
• Identify knowledge gaps and limitations in current research.
• Analysis of air cleaning technologies and their effectiveness in VOC and odor removal.
• Review of costs associated with various air cleaning strategies and technologies including the costs of filter replacement and increased energy use over time.
• Summary of regulatory guidelines and air quality standards relevant to indoor environments.

Investigators would first conduct a literature review on the variety of products marketed to remove odors, VOCs and other pollutants and summarize what is currently known regarding the effectiveness, associated costs, and limitations of these devices.  Conduct a comprehensive review of existing studies on the performance of PACs in removing, VOCs (such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylene oxide), PAHs, Dioxins, and other gaseous pollutants such as NO2 and odor causing compounds such as H2S.

Interim Deliverable

The literature review will be due within 6 months after the contract is executed.

Task 2: Identification of Impacted Community and Community Recruitment

• Determine potential communities impacted by VOC emissions or odor-causing air pollutant emissions for real-world testing.
• Engage with communities to determine interest for testing in their community. 
• Work with community members or groups to develop community engagement plan for field portion of study
• Recruitment of additional community members to participate in performance evaluations of air cleaning filters in residential and commercial settings.
• Development of a testing protocol for real-world assessments in homes, schools, and workplaces.
• Collection of feedback from participants regarding air quality improvements and usability of filtration systems.

Task 3: Experimental Design

• Selection of representative VOCs and odor compounds for study based upon available monitoring technology, feedback from community groups, and discussion with CARB staff.
• Defining criteria for the selection of air cleaning filters and technologies to be tested.
• Designing a controlled chamber-testing environment to quantitatively analyze the performance of different carbon matrices and their ability to remove VOCs (from wildfire smoke and other sources) and odor causing chemicals from the air. Variables to be considered will be the best chemistry for general removal of chemicals, and also the amount of carbon needed. 
• Determination of key performance indicators (e.g., removal efficiency, breakthrough time, saturation rate).  This will include an estimate of the amount of carbon needed for use in residential settings.
• Determination of key performance indicators in real-world settings. Removal of chemical species and participants reported improvements in odor, perceived air quality.
• Determination of costs associated with the use of devices and technologies tested

Task 4: Reporting and Recommendations

• Compilation of research findings into a comprehensive report.
• Guidelines and best practices for reducing exposure to non-particulate wildfire smoke related pollutants.
• Development of guidelines for selecting air filters for specific indoor environments including residential locations, schools and other facilities.
• Recommendations for future research and improvements in air cleaning technologies.
• Analysis of how air cleaning solutions can be made more affordable and accessible to disadvantaged communities facing higher exposure to indoor air pollution.

Interim Deliverable

• Interim progress report due within 12 months of executing the contract.

Task 5: Report Findings

• Data analysis report with comparative results.
• Final research report with recommendations and practical applications.
• Technical seminar and plain language seminar
• Community outreach strategy for plain language seminar, white paper, and dissemination of findings
• Plain language summary of practical solutions to underserved populations and how they can best use air cleaning technology to mitigate exposure to VOCs and odor causing compounds.

Project Deliverables

The project proposal shall include but not be limited to the following deliverables:

At the Pre-Proposal Stage

• If applicable, provide a cultural competency statement in the pre-proposal.
• If applicable, provide a community engagement plan in the pre-proposal.

At the Beginning of the Contract

• All researchers must undergo cultural competency training (e.g., implicit bias training and racial equity training). Training should be completed or scheduled within 30 days of contract execution.

During the Active Contract Period

• The Contractor must submit Quarterly Progress Reports. These reports shall include plain-language summaries that can be posted publicly. CARB will provide the progress report template.
• The Contractor shall engage in frequent (e.g., monthly) consultation calls with CARB and key stakeholders.
• For community engagement efforts, the contractor must collaborate with CARB staff to co-create meeting materials, including presentation slides, flyers, prompts, and speaking notes. The contractor must also ensure that CARB policies are accurately represented to the public. CARB participation in community meetings is preferred, provided that CARB’s presence does not negatively impact community engagement efforts.
• The contractor shall submit Interim reports to keep CARB staff informed. These reports are expected at the end of each task, at CARB staff’s request, to ensure that progress is being made.

Prior to Contract Close

• The contractor shall submit all data, analyses, and analytical tools generated during this project.
• The contractor shall produce plain-language fact sheets, including recommendations for preventative actions (if available). The fact sheets will be translated into Spanish.
• The contractor shall satisfy the following requirements of the Draft Final Report (DFR):
  • DFR will be copy-edited, reviewed, and approved by the Principal Investigator.
  • Include a plain language summary in DFR
  • Include an equity implications section in DFR
  • If applicable, have the DFR reviewed by community representatives.
• The contractor must work with CARB to create plain-language outreach deliverables for the public, summarizing the results and impact of the project.
• The Final Report submitted to CARB must be ADA-compliant.
• The contractor will participate in a virtual or in-person seminar to present the project findings.
• Peer-reviewed publications should be publicly available (please budget for this expense; submission-ready publications shall be reviewed by CARB staff).
• Additional deliverables shall be determined in consultation with CARB staff.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in 24 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $600,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the proposal solicitation (15 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The proposal should present a clear research question or testable hypothesis, consider various aspects of the research need, and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation. The draft proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Research Solicitation:

The primary objectives of this research study are:

• To quantify the effectiveness of various air cleaning filters in removing VOCs and odor-causing compounds from indoor air.
• To compare the efficiency of different filtration technologies (e.g., activated carbon, PCO, ionization, hybrid systems).
• To analyze the retention capacity and longevity of air filters in capturing VOCs and odors.
• To provide recommendations for selecting the most effective air filtration solutions based on specific indoor air quality needs.
• To evaluate how affordable and accessible air cleaning technologies can benefit disadvantaged communities suffering from poor indoor air quality.
• To develop a guidance document of best practices for buildings with vulnerable populations such as schools, senior or day care facilities, and hospitals located in areas with intermittent or constant high VOC or odor issues.

Community Engagement (10 points)

Meaningful community engagement will be essential to ensure that the study is relevant, inclusive, and beneficial to those most affected by air quality concerns. The proposal should include the following elements (where applicable):

• Engage community members from the outset in the research design process.
• Partner with local organizations, public health officials, and advocacy groups.
• Prioritize the inclusion of vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory conditions.
• Regular community meetings, both virtual and in-person.
• Culturally appropriate materials (e.g., flyers, infographics, and digital content).
• Open channels for feedback through surveys and focus groups.
• Co-developing research questions and study goals with residents.
• Adapt methodologies based on community preferences and accessibility needs.
• Offer training workshops on air quality monitoring and health literacy.
• Provide paid opportunities for community liaisons and data collectors.
• Provide actionable recommendations for air filtration interventions.
• Advocate for policy changes based on research findings.
• Develop accessible educational resources to support community health improvements.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state (10 points)

Does the proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support CARB in achieving its mission?

The results from this study would provide information on what is the best strategies to reduce indoor VOCs, odors, and other non-particulate air pollutants in impacted communities for a variety of scenarios including wildfire smoke, landfills, industry, and biogenic emissions.  This study would inform CARB Indoor Air Quality Programs, AB 617 incentive programs, and Community Emissions Reduction Programs.

Previous work (15 points)

Do the researchers have relevant experience in this area? Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations? If community engagement is included, the relevant research partner should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefited communities. Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out. The proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one draft proposal for development into a full proposal. If this draft proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided (15 points)

Does the proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (20 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.

Back to main solicitation page.