3 ms·
I disagree. I feel a very steady and progressive deterioration starting at 600 ppm. It becomes significant at 800 ppm. The studies back up the latter threshold.
by OutOfHere 4mo ago
I disagree. I feel a very steady and progressive deterioration starting at 600 ppm. It becomes significant at 800 ppm. The studies back up the latter threshold.
- teiferer 4mo agoUnfortunately it will be hard for you to know how much of that effect is placebo. Unless you tested this with some kind of double-blind setup.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoYou're not wrong, but indoor CO2 at these sub-1000 levels is a useful proxy metric for bioeffluent VOCs which are an objectively tiring subset of total VOCs. Ventilation lowers both. This explains the observation better than nocebo theory. See https://www.aivc.org/resource/effects-carbon-dioxide-and-without-bioeffluents-humans https://www.aivc.org/resource/effects-carbon-dioxide-and-wit...
- quickthrowman 4mo agoYou would not notice a difference if you weren’t checking the CO2 ppm. You primed your brain to ‘feel’ the effects of higher CO2 by reading a study and are experiencing the nocebo effect. If it makes you feel better I don’t see a problem with it.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoIndoor CO2 is likely overrated here at these sub-1000 levels but it's a useful proxy metric for bioeffluent VOCs which are a tiring subset of total VOCs. Ventilation lowers both. This explains the observation better than nocebo theory. See https://www.aivc.org/resource/effects-carbon-dioxide-and-without-bioeffluents-humans https://www.aivc.org/resource/effects-carbon-dioxide-and-wit...
- quickthrowman 4mo agoInteresting study, thanks for sharing! I am starting to see more space temp/CO2 combo sensors in commercial office conference spaces, if the CO2 rises above the setpoint, the VAV opens to let air in to reduce CO2 (and bioeffluent VOCs, according to this study.)