One the most fascinating, important, but difficult-to-understand features of indoor environmental chemistry is how the human occupants of an indoor space shape the chemical processes taking place within it.  In response to this challenge, a group of European researchers led by Jonathan Williams at the Max Plank Institute for Chemistry came together in 2018 to study this issue.  Williams’s Indoor Chemical Emissions and Reactivity (ICHEAR) project designed a series of experiments set in twin stainless steel climate chambers that aimed to measure the chemicals emissions from human breath and skin across a variety of conditions.  ICHEAR set important baseline data about human emissions to the indoor environment and how those emissions vary depending on common environmental variables like room temperature, humidity, abient ozone levels, and the type of clothing being worn. This grant funds a second round of the ICHEAR experiments (known as ICHEAR2), allowing Williams and his co-investigator, Pawel Wargocki of the Technical University of Denmark, to build on their initial results.  In a new set of experiments using the same twin-climate-chamber design, Williams and Wargocki will probe how a new set of variables affect human emissions in indoor air, including exercise, hygiene (washing frequency, clothing), and deodorant and fragrance use. This experiments will inform how indoor emissions and chemistry associated with humans are altered by real-world lifestyle choices.

This grant provides three years of support to MOCCIE, the Modeling Consortium for Chemistry of Indoor Environments. Led by Nicola Carslaw of the University of York and Manabu Shiraiwa of UC Irvine, MOCCIE is a consortium of theoretical and experimental chemists, statisticians, computer scientists, and building experts devoted to creating high quality models of indoor chemical processes across various size and time scales. Over the next three years, MOCCIE researchers will use a variety of cutting edge techniques, including molecular dynamics simulations, kinetic process modeling, gas-phase chemistry and particle-phase modeling, thermodynamic modeling, and computational fluid dynamics in an attempt to develop  comprehensive, integrated physical-chemical models of indoor environmental chemical processes.  The models will include a detailed representation of gas-phase, particle-phase, and surface chemistry in indoor environments that simulates how occupants, indoor activities, and buildings influence indoor chemical processes. Model design will be driven by three fundamental questions. One, can we understand indoor chemical and physical processes well enough to predict them quantitatively with computer models? Two, what are the major uncertainties in these models? Three, what experiments or field measurements would improve those predictions or reduce those uncertainties? Findings will be shared through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences and meetings, and the developed models will be made freely available through an easily accessible open access repository.

This grant funds an extended field experiment, Chemical Assessment of Surfaces and Air (CASA), that will bring together a dozen research groups from across the country to advance the state of understanding of indoor chemistry. Led by Delphine Farmer of Colorado State University and Marina Vance of UC Boulder, CASA will occur at  the Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility, a test house laboratory managed by the National Institute of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland. CASA will consist of a diverse series of experiments that revolve around disturbing a well-controlled, heavily-sensored, indoor environment in a variety of ways and observing how those disturbances affect the evolution of the chemical processes going on inside.  Questions for investigation involve how perturbations in indoor environmental conditions, such as temperature, relative humidity, and ventilation rate, affect indoor surface and air composition; how the introduction of novel molecules like ozone or volatile organic compounds influence the chemical transformations happening in the air and on surfaces; and how changes to the acidity, reactivity, or other properties of indoor surfaces like countertops and floors affect indoor chemical processes.  Grant funds will support the organization of CASA, coordination of the research teams, and associated data infrastructure and community-building activities aimed both at participating research groups and at connecting findings with the growing body of indoor chemistry research.  The project will result in at least 10 new peer-reviewed publications and 20 conference presentations, a more developed website with links to an accessible data archive, data analysis tutorials, a set of unified datasets, and a conference for study participants to discuss preliminary findings.

Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are water-soluble organic (WSO) chemicals used industrial and consumer products, particularly those designed to be grease-resistant.  This includes non-stick cookware, stain resistant fabrics, indoor-outdoor carpeting, and longlasting cosmetics. However, several studies have show that human exposure to PSAS, may lead to a range of adverse health outcomes. Airborne exposure has not been, up to know, thought to be a primary vector for PFAS exposure, but in 2008, a study of PFAS by University of North Carolina chemist Barbara Turpin documented PFAS concentrations in both indoor and outdoor air, with preliminary results showing compounds existing in both environments, though with higher concentrations indoors. Funds from this grant support the continuation and extension of Turpin’s work, as she attempts to more rigoursly quantify the concentration, fate, and behavior of WSO compounds in indoor air with a focus on these substances.  Turpin’s workplan will pay special attention to the role surfaces play in determining PFAS concentration, including how surface composition and other factors, like its age or dampness, affect the absorption of airborn PFAS.  Research findings will be shared through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences, and three graduate students will be trained.

This grant funds a series of experiments designed by University of California, Berkeley economist Dmitry Taubinsky, to examine the welfare effects of nonfinancial policy interventions (NPIs). NPIs, more commonly known as “nudges,” are policy interventions designed to increase the attractiveness of prosocial behaviors through means other than decreasing the financial cost of that behavior. Examples include informational labels on products, salient reminders, default options, and praise and public recognition for desired behavior. Because nudges involve motivating people using nonfinancial means, quantifying the costs and benefits of NPIs is conceptually challenging. What if some people really liked what they were doing before they were nudged? What if some people don’t like being nudged at all, regardless of whether what is suggested would be good for them? What’s needed is a larger theoretical framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of nudges, a framework that includes the larger psychological costs that nudging may impinge on those who find themselves subject to it. In a series of experiments, Taubinsky will begin to develop such a framework, focusing on three issues.  First, what is the proper way to measure whether information nudges are well targeted in the sense that they change the behavior of people making the biggest mistakes? Second, what is the proper way to measure the psychological costs and benefits of motivating behavior by leveraging shame and pride through public recognition?  And third, what is the proper way to measure the discomfort that some people experience when moral suasion and other social factors create demands to act in prosocial ways? Grant funds will allow Taubinsky to field a series of experiments on each topic, along with a detailed analysis of his findings. Three peer-reviewed articles are anticipated.

Funds from this grant support the launch of a large-scale longitudinal field study aimed at understanding the “scientific productivity function,” the process that transforms research inputs (including grants, expertise, and equipment) into research outputs (including papers, patents, and students). Designed by Kyle Myers of Harvard Business School, Karim Lakhani, founding director of the Laboratory for Innovation at Harvard, Jerry and Marie Thursby, and with input from Dashun Wang, founding director of the Center for Science of Science and Innovation at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, the effort will survey working scientists across the United States about how they conduct their work. Questions will focus on tracking and measuring four major determinants of scientific productivity: researcher preferences; resource allocation; management practices; and collaborative vs. competitive behaviors. In order to make sure the survey reaches a large, diverse, and representative sample of both physical and social scientists, the team has partnered with professional societies like the American Association for the Advancement of Science to help administer and promote it. The collected data will provide useful and necessary groundwork for the rigorous study of the determinants of scientific productivity that can be used to inform public discussion and policy about the most effective ways to support science and science-driven innovation.