Building a New Standard, Why Current IAQ Framework Fall Short and What Science Demands

A critical evaluation of indoor air quality guidelines, their historical limitations, and the need for evidence-based revision

Abstract

Despite growing scientific evidence linking indoor air quality (IAQ) to cognitive performance, mental health, and chronic disease, existing air quality standards remain outdated or insufficient. Most are based on comfort thresholds or occupational safety metrics rather than long-term health outcomes or pediatric vulnerability. This article dissects current IAQ norms from global organizations, identifies key gaps, and proposes a new framework grounded in contemporary environmental science, human biology, and sensor-enabled feedback.

1. Introduction

What does it mean when a room meets air quality standards but still makes people sick, tired, or unfocused? This contradiction lies at the heart of the current failure of IAQ regulation. Most standards,  from ASHRAE, WHO, BIS, or NBC,  set minimum thresholds based on ventilation rates, comfort, or acute toxicity. They do not account for neurotoxicity at low concentrations, long-term exposure, synergistic pollutant effects, or real-time fluctuations. The air may be “compliant” and yet biologically harmful. To address this, IAQ standards must shift from static thresholds to dynamic, health-oriented design.

2. Historical Basis and Its Shortcomings

Early IAQ guidelines were based on occupational health and industrial hygiene. CO₂ limits (e.g., 1000 ppm in ASHRAE 62.1) were tied to ventilation sufficiency rather than cognitive impact. VOC standards focus only on individual compounds, ignoring cumulative load. PM2.5 thresholds often derive from outdoor ambient guidelines, not recognizing that people spend most of their lives indoors. The assumption has long been: if no acute symptoms arise, the air is safe. This ignores decades of research showing that even “low” levels of indoor pollution contribute to cognitive fatigue, hormonal imbalance, and immune dysfunction.

3. Health Science Has Outpaced Regulation

Recent studies from Harvard, Stanford, and WHO have shown that IAQ directly affects brain performance, decision-making, sleep quality, and emotional regulation. CO₂ at 800 ppm can impair cognitive function. PM2.5 at levels below current standards still increases cardiovascular and neurological risk. VOCs and semi-volatile compounds like phthalates and flame retardants,  rarely regulated indoors,  disrupt endocrine systems and are linked to developmental delays. The gap between scientific evidence and standard-setting bodies leaves millions exposed to preventable harm in “safe” environments.

4. One-Size-Fits-All Approaches Ignore Vulnerability

Most IAQ norms assume a healthy adult occupant. They do not adjust for children, elderly individuals, immunocompromised patients, or pregnant women,  all of whom have distinct physiological needs. In classrooms, for example, ventilation is often underdesigned, with CO₂ levels frequently exceeding 1500 ppm. In hospitals, VOCs from disinfectants and building materials may affect recovery, yet go unmonitored. Standards must evolve to consider the most vulnerable first, not last.

5. Absence of Real-Time Accountability

Standards typically measure compliance via one-time testing or annual audits. They do not require continuous monitoring, leaving buildings blind to daily fluctuations, occupancy changes, or cleaning-induced pollution spikes. Without real-time data, occupants cannot respond, and operators cannot optimize. Smart buildings track temperature, energy, and security 24/7,  but rarely air quality. This lack of sensing enforces outdated models of environmental control.

6. Toward a New IAQ Framework

Science-based IAQ should be dynamic, personalized, and regenerative. New guidelines must include:

• Continuous monitoring of CO₂, PM2.5, VOCs, RH, and temperature

• Thresholds based on cognitive, immune, and developmental research,  not just toxicity

• Differentiated standards for schools, homes, clinics, and high-risk zones

• Requirements for sensor-integrated, responsive ventilation systems

• Integration with ESG, WELL, and LEED frameworks as core health metrics

• Lifecycle analysis of filters, purifiers, and HVAC materials to prevent secondary pollutionClean air must be seen not as a technical detail, but a health infrastructure right.

7. Conclusion

Air standards that ignore biology are no longer acceptable. The time has come to rebuild our definitions of safe, healthy, and breathable air,  not by comfort metrics or outdated chemical models, but by human outcomes. Just as food and water regulations evolved with science, so too must IAQ standards reflect what modern health research knows: the air we breathe shapes how we think, feel, grow, and age. A new standard is not an upgrade. It is a moral correction,  one that redefines environmental responsibility in every breath.

To explore how sensor-driven, health-centric air ecosystems are redefining indoor standards, visit: www.justbreathe.in