I was reading an article about how CO2 builds up in room bedroom when there isn't any window or doors open.

You know what they say about what you read on the internet - it's worth what you pay for it!
There'd be a lot of dead people in this world if you couldn't sleep with your windows closed!

Air isn't going to circulate behind a closed door unless there's a window open or forced air heat/AC coming on during the night.

I think you'll probably live to see the sunrise but the air could get stale. How about leaving the door open and getting earplugs?

No appliance should be emitting CO2 and advising people to keep windows open so you won’t be poisoned is absurd and reckless.

I'd think sleeping with open doors and windows in the hood would be far more dangerous than keeping them closed AND LOCKED.

I assumed the door open or closed he was talking about was an interior door.

"No appliance should be emitting CO2 and advising people to keep windows open so you won’t be poisoned is absurd and reckless."

Except the appliances sleeping in the room.

How would that advice be absurd and reckless?

The conventional wisdom had been that CO2 levels of about 1000ppm or below were good, up to 1300ppm OK, and above that beginning to be somewhat harmful. We now know that levels above 600ppm negatively affect cognitive function and sleep. How harmful what levels are though we're still not sure but ideally you want the air you are breathing to be near or below 600ppm.

CO2 is also a proxy for other VOC's so when CO2 is high then other VOC's are likely high as well (and vice-versa). E.G., if you're not getting enough air to maintain lower CO2 levels then you're not getting enough to maintain lower levels of other VOCs.

One thing you can do is get a IAQ analyzer. Both Foobot and Air Visual are considered fairly good options.

Leaving windows open when you can it good. Next best seems to be leaving interior doors open to get as much air movement as possible.

The best way to limit CO2 in a room is to devoid it of humans. Stop letting people go in the room you're depleting all the oxygen!

Seriously if your that worried go out and buy some house plants. They love CO2!

And as bonus the plants emit oxygen! Another additional bonus is you find out if you have a green thumb or not.

Any structure built has air leaks, known as air exchange rate. The newer the building the tighter this envelope is, even with that there are still air leaks. Otherwise OSHA would be making their rounds issuing confined space permits before people enter their bedrooms at night.

When I first read the post I thought OP had read an article about CO levels and not CO2. Now I see I was mistaken.

"Otherwise OSHA would be making their rounds issuing confined space permits before people enter their bedrooms at night."

Don't give them any ideas. :-)

Plants help but even a quite large houseplant can only convert about 30ppm of CO2 at best and that is only for a small portion of the year when they are growing and heavily converting sugars.

Two informal studies have indicated that current ASHRAE standards for ventilation do not result in achieving their 1000ppm target, particularly in bedrooms at night. There are now two formal studies taking place to quantify this better. As well there is ongoing research to better quantify what is fresh air - is 1000ppm good enough?

My guess is that the result will be adoption of the 2012 IECC standards that require fresh air, typically from an ERV/HRV, be provided directly to bedrooms and requires greater amounts of fresh air than current ASHRAE standards.

The U.S. HVAC industry has typically lagged behind Europe and Canada by about 10 years. Most states have only recently adopted parts of 2006 IECC so we are seemingly falling even further behind.

Worse is that many or most HVAC contractors in the U.S. don't have a good basic understanding of the issues. They shoot for meeting code minimums or as Brian Just says "the worst they can legally get away with". This isn't raised as much of an issue because consumers don't understand it either. People don't associate their inability to get a good nights sleep or their illnesses with poor indoor air quality. Our poor IAQ is a contributor to our having the least healthy population of all developed countries.

This is not unlike our having the highest road fatality rates of all developed countries. Stuff in the news laments two high school girls being killed but people aren't looking deeper and wondering why our roads aren't designed to the same safer standards as those in The Netherlands or Sweden or elsewhere.

I'm going to disagree with the reasoning behind part of your comments, opaone, and not out of a false "patriotism".

As far as international standards are concerned, the mostly smaller countries of Europe (as an example) are much more energy and environment friendly and conscious than the US is, in general. Why? Energy is much more expensive there and has been for a long time.

The housing stock in much of Europe is much older than here. Structures are built more solidly, and newer ones have better insulation, but many people don't live in places like that.

Ventilation? Windows. You find transom windows and new windows where the top will tilt inward a few inches (to minimize rain incursion) all over the place. Europeans are very conscious of fresh air and light. Even office buildings are built narrowly and with light shafts because areas with strictly artificial lighting are not as well accepted as here.

Efficient air conditioning? Again, windows. A/C is rare in residential structures in most of Europe.

Is the US HVAC industry behind? I'd say that with most things overall, European countries are much more tech savvy and tend to adopt new ways of doing things sooner than we do here. But is HVAC ahead? No, just different, much of which is because the weather is different and the needs are different.

Yes, they are far more conscious of the importance of fresh air but they are more conscious about their health in general. They are, generally, massively more likely to spend time out of doors because they believe that the fresh air and the activity (which is usually walking or biking to get somewhere) are important for good health.

They are much more likely to open windows but they were also quick to reject the concept of close-up-the-house-completely-and-let-the-HVAC-system-do-everything approach that we took in the U.S. AC is less prevalent for a two reasons that I am aware of; it is costly and aesthetically offensive to add to older structures and in general they believe that if it is not absolutely necessary then it is not worth wasting the money (e.g., why pay for installation, operation and maintenance of something (+ installation, operation and maintenance of a mechanical ventilation system) when we can simply open windows?). And as you mentioned the cost of energy is a critical bit though even if it were not as expensive I'm not sure that would change things that much.

But even when it comes to structures that do have full HVAC systems they have been well ahead of us. They were ahead of us in building tighter structures. They were ahead of us in requiring Make Up Air and in requiring forced fresh air ventilation. They were ahead in requiring that fresh air be delivered directly to rooms, bedrooms primarily. They have long had much higher ventilation volume requirements.

But more to your point, we do use mechanical HVAC much more than Europeans (and Canadians and anyone else in the world) and we spend a lot more time inside in structures without open windows. SO, if anything we should be ahead simply because we use it more and our health is much more susceptible to problems caused by poor IAQ. Yet we're at least a decade behind. And we wonder why our health is so poor.

We spend over twice as much on healthcare as other developed countries and yet we have the highest rates of chronic disease and second lowest life expectancy. At the top of the causes list is lack of activity (really active transportation) with what we eat in second. We know that IAQ is a significant contributor but we don't know how much of a contributor. It is likely in 4th place behind stress (which includes a number of things like a our broken family rate that is over 5x higher than other developed countries, focus on money and status, high levels of judgmentalism, lack of purpose (people on welfare and older people), etc.).

Sorry for the long response.

Two books that some might find interesting:

The Happiest Kids in the World: How Dutch Parents Help Their Kids (and Themselves) by Doing Less

There's No Such Thing as Bad Weather: A Scandinavian Mom's Secrets for Raising Healthy, Resilient, and Confident Kids (from Friluftsliv to Hygge)

opa, the misinformation and misconceptions in your comment are too numerous to go through. I'll just leave it with this:

"they are far more conscious of the importance of fresh air but they are more conscious about their health in general. "

Contradicting this comment is the FACT that smoking and excessive alcohol consumption rates per capita are much higher in most of Europe than here. Just as a starter.

Here's another:

"We spend over twice as much on healthcare as other developed countries...... "

Yes. If you did an item by item comparison, you'd find that prices for almost all procedures and drugs all cost MUCH less abroad. Physician average income is considerably lower in Europe, for example, than here. That's why costs are less there and more here. Going in the other direction, there are countries where hypochondria is rampant (France is an example) and where people have "ailments" never heard of here. But treatment costs are so much lower that these idiosyncrasies are more tolerated.

Good points

"Contradicting this comment is the FACT that smoking and excessive alcohol consumption rates per capita are much higher in most of Europe than here. Just as a starter."

Smoking is definitely higher in Europe (except Sweden & Norway). We're doing fairly good on that. And hopefully we'll continue to do better.

As to drinking we are just about dead average in per capita consumption. However, indications are that we have a higher percentage of heavy drinkers (as well as a higher percentage of non-drinkers). As well, there's a question about how much is too much. Some bit of alcohol, 2-4 drinks per day, is likely more beneficial than detrimental.

In the end though, whatever the good/bad of smoking and alcohol, they are healthier and live longer. As I've told my wife many times, it's better for me to ride my bike to the pub for a pint than to sit on the sofa and drink a glass of water.

Opa, my assessment is from living in Europe and travelling there regularly over my adult lifetime. If you want stats, I've attached a link below confirming what I said - per capita alcohol consumption is higher in Europe than here. Know why it's lower in Scandinavia? The alcohol taxes are so high, it's unaffordable. They make up for their relative temperance at home when they travel.

2-4 drinks per day is NOT viewed as beneficial to health, that's bordering on an alcoholic range for some. I'm not sure where your notions come from.

".....they are healthier and live longer. "

Another example where you think internet searches from a distance provide you with insights. You know why European life expectancies are higher? It's a consequence of having health coverage for all in most countries and conveniently located medical services. Our numbers are skewed because of the large segment of the American population without access to regular and adequate medical care.

Alcohol consumption by country

Elmer, firstly, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Second, if you didn't notice I 'liked' your post. Third, my job is research on US vs other OECD countries - where we are doing well and where we need to improve. As to Google, it is actually a great resource that most people doing research at any level will use extensively. Even though I do this research as a core part of my career, I frequently learn stuff in comments from 'amateurs' on the internet who I frequently find know more about some particularly topic than I do. Finally, living somewhere can certainly give insight but rarely gives understanding. How many people who live in the U.S. understand why we have the highest road fatality and injury rates of all developed countries? Or even know that we do? Or understand our poor IAQ issues? I spend a lot of time outside of the U.S. doing research and it's important but I actually do not consider that very critical to most of our research.

Now, alcohol. You have to look below macro level numbers. There is a vast difference in a population all having 2 or 3 drinks per day and one that has the same or even less per capita consumption but where half the population doesn't drink at all and the other half has 4-6 drinks per day. That's an extreme example but hopefully makes my point.

What we are seeing is that in the U.S. the 20% heaviest drinkers are consuming about 73% of the total alcohol consumed in the country. In Finland the top 20% consume 67% and in France the top 20% consume 49%. When all of the numbers or run we find that the 20% heaviest drinkers in Finland consume the most, those in the U.S. are a surprisingly close second and those in France are a quite distant third (of these three countries). This even though per capita France consumes more (11.8 liters/yr) than the U.S. (9.7 liters/yr). Alcohol consumption in the U.S. is much more concentrated than it is in France.

Is alcohol good or bad? There is increasing scientific information about the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption though we still don't fully understand why it's good. Perhaps a much better bit to consider is that if you look at the healthiest populations in the world (the Blue Zones of; Ikaria Greece, Sardinia Italy, Okinawa Japan, Loma Linda US and the Nicoya Peninsula Costa Rica) you'll find that one thing they have in common and that is believed to contribute to their good health is a few drinks of alcohol per day. (Loma Linda is a partial exception as they don't drink as much so there's research being done to see if there is something else providing the same benefit or if it's simply an issue of here are 11 healthy things - pick 9).

How much alcohol is good and when is it too much? We actually don't know. Just when we think it has to do with someone's size or what they eat or when they drink relative to when they eat... we seem to find too many exceptions to call it a rule. And then layered on top of this are concerns about liability in the U.S. Science now seems to point to any alcoholic drink or most alcoholic drinks as providing similar benefits but among the healthiest populations it's almost purely red wine (which we use to think was the healthiest before deciding that it wasn't but maybe we should reconsider?).

What we do know is that there is very strong evidence that 2-4 glasses of red wine per day appear to be beneficial.

Similarly, there is growing evidence that any level of CO2 above 600ppm is not good. If so, then how bad is 610? Or 700? or 1000? For how long of exposure? Is any harm cumulative or temporal? And something interesting brought up to me this morning - can a glass of red wine cancel out any harm caused by sleeping in a room with 1200ppm of CO2?

Now, I'm going to ride my bike to the pub for a healthy pint rather than continue to sit here drinking water.

"You know why European life expectancies are higher? It's a consequence of having health coverage for all in most countries and conveniently located medical services. Our numbers are skewed because of the large segment of the American population without access to regular and adequate medical care."

We do need better coverage, but that actually has very little to do with it. Our unhealthy population is not limited to only people who do not have medical coverage. Our health problem isn't lack of coverage, lack of access, or poor care.

Our problem is what we put in to our system - us. We are sedentary, eat poorly, create stressful lives for ourselves and often live or work in environments with poor indoor air quality.

"living somewhere can certainly give insight but rarely gives understanding"

Wrong, wrong wrong. You've got data myopia. Get away from your numbers, get on a plane and go have your own eyewitness experiences. Sorry to say, your comments are so uninformed as to be laughable. You really don't know much about what your talking about, but you think otherwise.

"We do need better coverage, but that actually has very little to do with it. "

Oh my, it has everything to do with it. Since you like data, look at the stats for infant mortality and you'll see a similar trend. But it won't tell you why. I can suggest one reason - it's because of how many pregnant women on the lower end of the US socio-economic ladder get little or no prenatal medical care nor prenatal education. That's very different in Europe. And in many other countries too that have a broader span of health care for their populations.

The ratio of bars to each person residing in the state of Nebraska is the highest of all states in the country. When I came across that bit of information all I wanted to know was how the bars manage to stay in business with all the options each individual wishing to consume alcohol and the cost of said alcohol isn't terribly high for wholesale - nor are the prices of quantities being served to customers by whoever is employed to tend bar by the proprietors of these establishments.

They clearly make enough to keep their tinted windowed-doors open, the mystery is *how* (and possibly whether the amount of money that is coming in is significant enough to make me personally consider opening and running a bar myself, as unlikely as that is - lol).

Did this thread get hijacked along the way? 'Although I did used to tell my children that we'd leave the Screened windows open at night when we were out to sea..."

Salti, I believe it 'might' have occurred when you 'kind of' implied that you had screened windows on a sub. LOL.

I enjoyed the screen door comment. (and my wife use to listen to a song about a screen door on a submarine that I quite liked.)

I'll ignore any more from Elmer for now.

---------

There is still likely much more unknown than known about the effects of CO2.

There have been enough studies of cognitive function to know that levels above 600ppm do affect cognitive function and in some cases quite significantly. The higher the CO2 the worse the problem. Was this due to sudden exposure more than general exposure? E.G., if the test subjects spent a full day in a higher CO2 environment would they adjust to it and perform as well as they had earlier in a low CO2 environment? Unlikely but possible. A medical friend once mentioned that in higher CO2 environments that our bodies excrete some of the harmful bits through urine. One of the tests appeared to be in sequential order so the results may have had as much to do with people performing less well in the afternoon as it did with CO2 levels. Other tests seemed better designed.

Similarly, several studies have indicated that CO2 levels above 600ppm decrease sleep and again the higher the CO2 the worse the problem. Could this also be an acclimatization issue?

Basic health also plays a critical role. Healthier people are known to be less susceptible to high CO2 or low O2 than less healthy people, perhaps primarily due to more efficient blood absorption. There are two studies ongoing about air in commercial airplanes. The current standard is 8000' which was for young soldiers and studies seem to indicate that for a general population of healthy people that 5500-6000' would be better and that for a less healthy (sedate, obese, etc.) population it should be lower still to perhaps 3000'.

Do submariners acclimate to higher CO2 levels over time? Submariners are generally quite young, are they less susceptible? In better health?

--------

On top of this is VOCs in general. What other stuff is in our air? CO2 is often used as a proxy with the thought being that higher CO2 levels (regardless of the health issues of CO2) indicate lower levels of ventilation and thus higher levels of other VOCs.

More stuff that we still don't know enough about.

--------

So, is the OP going to suffocate with closed doors and windows? Not likely. Not sleep as well? Quite possible. Be dumber for the first bit of the morning? Possibly. Other health problems? Again, quite possible. Sleep is critical and if we don't get good sleep then that affects our long term health.

It kind of comes down to the weight of the evidence. For some people there is not enough evidence for concern. For me I'm increasingly leaning towards much greater levels of fresh air ventilation - more along the lines of 2012 IECC rather than current ASHRAE.

" I'll ignore any more from Elmer for now. "

Good idea. You'll feel better not letting real insights contradict your stream of consciousness data inventions gleaned from Google searches of information you otherwise have little understanding of.