This analysis examines the survey data from 52 expert participants in the GO AQS Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Monitor Recommendations.

1. Respondent Demographics & Expertise

Primary Professional Role (N=52)

• Academic / IAQ Researchers: 21 respondents (40.4%)
• Hardware / Sensor Manufacturers: 15 respondents (28.8%, including general and specialized engineering respondents)
• IAQ / Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) Consultants: 6 respondents (11.5%)
• Mechanical / HVAC Engineers: 2 respondents (3.8%)
• Specialized Advisors / Operations / Software / Building Owners / Other: 8 respondents (15.4%)

Building Types Primarily Managed / Analyzed (N=52, Multi-Select)

• Educational (K–12, Higher Ed): 34 respondents (65.4%)
• Single-Family Residential: 30 respondents (57.7%)
• Commercial Offices: 29 respondents (55.8%)
• Multi-Family Residential: 20 respondents (38.5%)
• Other (Healthcare, Industrial, Clinics, Transport): 6 respondents (11.5%)

2. Educational Facilities Guidance

Proposed Rules:

• Classrooms / Instructional Spaces: 1 dedicated monitor per classroom.
• Shared / Large Spaces (Gyms, Cafeterias, Libraries): 1 monitor per 325–460 m² (3,500–5,000 sq ft) or 1 per HVAC zone.

Q3: 1 Dedicated Monitor per Classroom in K–12 Facilities (N=52)

• Agree (Necessary due to high occupancy and variable door/ventilation conditions): 42 respondents (80.8%)
• Disagree (Sampling a percentage of representative classrooms is sufficient): 5 respondents (9.6%)
• Neutral / Unsure: 3 respondents (5.8%)
• Conditional / Specific Modifications (Write-in): 2 respondents (3.8%)
  • Note: One respondent highlighted that radon requires at least two detectors if a room is under 200 m², while another emphasized that density should depend on HVAC zoning, ventilation conditions, and monitoring purpose.

Q4: Feasibility of Shared School Areas Rule (325 – 460 m² per Monitor) (N=52)

• Fully practical and achievable: 34 respondents (65.4%)
• Too sparse / Needs higher density: 11 respondents (21.2%)
• Too dense / Cost-prohibitive: 7 respondents (13.5%)

3. Commercial Office Guidance

Proposed Rules:

• Open Workspaces (General Best Practice): 1 monitor per 232–456 m² (2,500–5,000 sq ft).
• Enclosed Spaces: 1 dedicated monitor for large conference rooms (10+ capacity); 1 monitor sampled across every 4–6 private offices on the same HVAC handler.
• Specialty Areas: Dedicated monitors in copy rooms and breakrooms for localized VOCs/particulate matter.

Q5: Recommended Density for Open-Plan Office Spaces (232 – 456 m² per Monitor) (N=52)

• Ideal balance between spatial data accuracy and hardware cost: 38 respondents (73.1%)
• Too lenient (Needs finer spatial resolution): 8 respondents (15.4%)
• Too strict (1 monitor per 232 – 500 m² is too expensive to scale): 6 respondents (11.5%)

Q6: Mandatory Dedicated Monitors for Large Conference Rooms (10+ People) (N=52)

• Yes (High CO₂ spikes occur quickly during crowded meetings): 49 respondents (94.2%)
• No (General floor coverage is adequate): 3 respondents (5.8%)

4. Residential Buildings Guidance (Scale: 1-10)

Proposed Rules:

• Single-Family: 1 monitor per bedroom, 1 in the main living area, and optional 1 in the primary home office, 1 near the kitchen/cooking zone.
• Multi-Family (Private Units): Baseline 1 monitor per unit (living area); 2nd monitor in primary bedroom for units > 90–140 m² (1,000–1,500 sq ft).
• Multi-Family (Shared Amenities):
  • Fitness Centers: 1 monitor per 230–325 m² (2,500–3,500 sq ft).
  • Lounges / Co-Working: 1 monitor per 325–460 m² (3,500–5,000 sq ft).
  • Lobbies / Entrances: 1 monitor near main entry threshold.

Q7a: Rate the clarity and practicality of our residential recommendations: Single-Family (Bedroom/Living focus) (N=52)

• Mean Rating:  7.38/10
• Rating Distribution: Rating 8 (15), Rating 10 (11), Rating 9 (6), Rating 5 (6), Rating 7 (5), Rating 6 (3), Ratings 1 – 4 (6).
• Favorable consensus (≥7/10): 37 out of 52 respondents (71.2%).

Q7b: 7b. Rate the clarity and practicality of our residential recommendations: Multi-Family Units (1 per unit baseline; 2 for >90 m²) (N=52)

• Mean Rating:  7.62/10
• Rating Distribution: Rating 8 (13), Rating 10 (12), Rating 7 (9), Rating 9 (7), Rating 5 (5), Ratings 1 – 4 (6).
• Favorable consensus (≥7/10): 41 out of 52 respondents (78.8%).

Q7c: 7c. Rate the clarity and practicality of our residential recommendations: Shared Amenities (Fitness, Lounges, Lobbies) (N=52)

• Mean Rating:  7.88/10
• Rating Distribution: Rating 8 (16), Rating 10 (13), Rating 9 (7), Rating 7 (6), Rating 5 (4), Rating 6 (3), Ratings 1 – 4 (3).
• Favorable consensus (≥7/10): 42 out of 52 respondents (80.8%).

5. Physical Placement Rules

Proposed Installation Rules:

• Breathing Zone Height: Mount sensors between 0.9 m and 1.8 m (3 to 6 ft) off the floor.
• Clearance Requirements: Keep at least 1.5 m (5 ft) away from openable windows, exterior doors, and supply air diffusers.
• Surface/Location: Mount on internal walls near central seating areas; avoid corners or behind curtains.
• Exceptions: Because indoor layouts vary widely and practical constraints like device tampering exist (e.g. school environments), air quality monitors should be strategically placed using professional judgment and occupant feedback.

Q9: 1.5 m (5 ft) Setback Distance from Supply Diffusers & Openings (N=52)

• Yes (Crucial to avoid data skewed by direct supply drafts): 43 respondents (82.7%)
• No (Setback distance should be larger): 5 respondents (9,6%)
• No (1.5 m is too restrictive in smaller rooms/offices): 4 respondents (7.7%)

Q10: Feasibility of 0.9 — 1.8 m Breathing Height Requirement (N=52)

• Highly feasible: 30 respondents (57.7%)
• Moderately difficult (frequently conflicts with wall outlets, thermostats, or vandalism concerns): 20 respondents (38.5%)
• Unfeasible: 2 respondents (3.8%)

6. Implementation Tools & Open Comments

Q11: Desired Resources to Facilitate Implementation (N=52, Multi-Select)

1. Diagrammed visual floor plans showing sample sensor placements: 42 selections (80.8%)
2. Guidance on sensor calibration frequencies and lifecycle management: 35 selections (67.3%)
3. Executive summary deck to present to building owners/clients: 26 selections (50.0%)
4. Interactive monitor count calculator based on floor plan inputs: 25 selections (48.1%)

Qualitative Feedback & Open Comments Summary (29 Residential Comments, 17 General Comments)

1. Kitchen Priority & Open-Plan Single-Family Homes

• Multiple experts noted that in modern open-plan homes, living rooms and kitchens are merged, making separate monitors redundant.
• Several experts argued that kitchens are the primary “crime scene” for indoor pollution (PM_2.5, NO₂, moisture) and should be prioritized over or alongside bedrooms.

2. Cost Resistance in Bedrooms

• Requiring one monitor per bedroom can trigger cost resistance among homeowners.
• Suggestions included recommending a single shared hallway monitor outside bedrooms or providing simpler CO₂-only monitors inside sleeping areas.

3. HVAC Zoning & Portable Solutions

• Respondents emphasized that sensor placement must reflect HVAC systems and air handling zones rather than strict floor area.
• In North America, homes with 2 – 3 distinct HVAC zones require sensors per zone. Some suggested an accurate portable monitor that occupants can move room to room

4. Outdoor Baseline & Monitor Placement Details

• Open comments highlighted the need for an outdoor reference monitor (e.g., near HVAC fresh air intakes or windows) to distinguish indoor pollutant sources from ambient outdoor penetration.
• Experts cautioned against mounting monitors on external walls due to mold detection needs or direct sunlight heating effects distorting readings, suggesting a minimum 2 m distance from windows.

Next Steps

All actionable feedback, empirical insights, and qualitative refinements gathered from this member survey will be systematically consolidated and incorporated into the upcoming update of the GO IAQS standard. By directly integrating expert consensus on zone-based monitoring, HVAC system alignment, outdoor baseline pairing, and nuanced residential placement, GO AQS ensures its evolving standard remains scientifically rigorous, economically viable, and practically actionable for building professionals worldwide.

For more information on GO AQS standards, whitepapers, and international working group initiatives, visit goaqs.org.