This is a great question. I've submitted this credit as an ID credit on NC projects 10 times (same type of building, same furniture package) in the last 2-3 years (6 of these in only the last year, so my experience is very current) and have gotten varied results/interpretations. 6 of my projects have gone through fine, 3 are still pending, and one had interpretations that I don't necessarily agree with.

My initial answers to your questions are:

1. You are right. I have been asked to provide documentation for all of the items in a specific office, for example, from the desk 'system' to the metal filing cabinets and the seating as they are all working in concert. Only recently have I been asked for items from the conference room. I will go into that more below.

2. I have never been asked for lobby furniture documentation compliance. I think in this regard, the definition of 'in concert' goes too far. That case could be made for all pieces of furniture throughout the space. At this point, LEED might as well be asking for compliance from every stick of furniture in the project.

Which leads me to the idea that this definition has become nebulous and some reviewers are taking it to another level that I do not think was intended, nor does the credit language currently support.

For example, this one project of the 10 I refer to above is the first time the reviewer has asked me for documentation on the conference room table. I am more than happy to oblige as it meets requirements. The other two items in question are two pieces that were to be built by the millwork subcontractor.

The first was a dry erase board/cabinet. I do not agree with a dry erase cabinet being classified as 'systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert.,' and additionally, it would not be freestanding and would be installed permanently in the conference room. Thankfully, it was never installed, so I do not have to prove compliance.

The other item in question is a 'booth' manufactured by the millwork subcontractor. The booth appears in these particular projects when there is not enough space to program a room for the bank patron to take him safe deposit box to privately view. The booth is put in another room as an ad hoc solution. It sometimes is built with wheels and sometimes is installed as you would any other piece of millwork. I also do not consider this as a piece of 'systems furniture' either by current credit language definition. I feel that this demonstrates the reviewers are not consistent and taking the request for compliance too far in some cases.

I know some will argue under LEED that "systems furniture and seating is EXPLICITLY this or that," when in my experience it seems that there is not a general consensus when it comes to meeting the credit for reviewers.

Severine,

There have been some changes in the ANSI/BIFMA methods from 2007 to 2011, but those changes were done and communicated to USGBC thru the IEQ TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system.. Any test report done by a lab that has the BIFMA method in their accreditation, any of the accepted 3rd party certifications listed on the BIFMA website, or stated above should be allowed by the reviewer to show compliance to EQ 4.5 criteria.

The conference table is included in the definition of system's furniture. The safe is not - you will need to highlight what this actually is to the reviewer.

I've always listed the furniture by the name on the order - this corresponds with the MR credits. I make an explanatory note of any furniture which is included in MR but is not systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert. to avoid comment such as this.

Thank you.

I am submitting it as an ID credit for an NC project, so I did not have the MR credit info to cross reference. I am surprised about the conference table. It has never been requested of the last few of these projects I've had go through that earned this credit. What about the random file cabinet(s)?

I am surprised about the conference tables, too. I have always treated these as ancillary furniture with no challenges. Free standing conference tables are not necessarily part of a system. File cabinets could go either way I guess.

No, this is not enough information to allow the determination of compliance with this credit.

IEQ c4.5 requires fully assembled "systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert." to meet the maximum VOC emission limits. Greenguard certification of the fully assembled "panels" may be sufficient for those parts of the workstations, but the remaining parts of the workstations must also be demonstrated compliant when fully assembled (either by Greenguard certification or by testing per the ANSI/BIFMA standards).

If you have work surfaces (e.g. desk tops, table tops) or other parts of the workstation constructed with particleboard and partially or fully covered with Greenguard certified laminate, it is very likely there is adhesive present between the particleboard and laminate. A proper test of the fully assembled work surface (or other component) would address the potential VOC emissions from all sources present (e.g., particleboard wood substrate, adhesives, any uncovered particleboard edges or grommet holes, etc.). It is also possible that some surfaces of the particleboard (such as the bottom of the work surface) are covered with something other than the certified laminate, and other materials may be present in drawer bodies, inside cabinet structures, etc.

Further, the requirements for Greenguard certified laminate may not ensure that an entire workstation covered with the laminate would always comply with the requirements of this credit. Importantly, this credit calls for compliant furniture, not compliant laminate, fabric, particleboard, or other single materials tested or certified alone.

NAUF particleboard may still contain or emit VOCsA volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate. (other than formaldehyde1. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring VOC found in small amounts in animals and plants but is carcinogenic and an irritant to most people when present in high concentrations, causing headaches, dizziness, mental impairment, and other symptoms. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm, it can cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and asthmatic and allergic reactions. 2. A known carcinogen with no known safe exposure level. Formaldehyde occurs naturally, but appears in unnaturally high concentra­tions in many buildings because it is an ingredient in binders used in many building materials and furnishings.) at significant levels. You do not need particleboard certified compliant alone to this credit, but you do need a claim of compliance for all of the fully assembled systems furniture components.

I concur with Randy's statements above. One thing to note is that a product that has the described attributes (pieces are certified/pass requirements, but not all) should not be marketing itself as showing compliance. With most of the certification programs that show compliance to this criteria you are able to check on a free online product guide to see/ensure that the complete product that you are specing or purchasing is certified. If you are using a test report, the report should tell you specifically what was certified.

Severine,

If the furniture is not GREENGUARD Certified, then the LEED reviewer would be able to confirm through a test report if the furniture met the desired levels through option 2. The only thing that you must be sure of in that case is that the furniture in question has been tested per the ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 methodology. In the proposed version of LEED v4 projects outside of the US would also be able to utilize the German AgBB Testing and Evaluation Scheme, but I don't know if enough LEED Reviewers currently know about that at this time.

Can someone review a ECC report to see if that could comply for Option 2?

Severine,

Probably not, as the test report would need to show that the product was tested according to one of the accepted test methodologies in the credit. This means the product would need to be collected, staged, tested, and emissions modeled in compliance with one of the methodologies in the credit. A lot of these product emission methodologies from around the globe are fairly different in most if not all of these areas. In future versions of LEED the USGBC is looking to hopefully address this by allowing some of the other global test methodologies to show compliance for projects outside the US.

As long as the furniture was purchased during the certification period, then that should work for the review teams.

Great, that makes sense to me, and what I was hoping to hear! Thank you for your prompt response, Josh!

Petr, this question is addressed in the second paragraph above, under the heading "Know what does and does not have to comply."

Michele,

In CI EQ Credit 4.5 the SCS certification that would be relevant simply for passing the criteria would be Indoor Advantage as this certification program shows compliance to the BIFMA criteria. Indoor Advantage Gold would be used to show compliance to Schools EQ Credit Option 5 as that certificiation program shows compliance to the CA 01350 criteria. Hopefully the products that have shown compliance to Indoor Advantage Gold also have shown compliance to the Indoor Advantage criteria as well - you can look on SCS' website to find out.

This is similar to GREENGUARD being the compliance level for CI, but GREENGUARD Children & Schools being the certification that you would look for if you were looking for furniture in LEED for Schools.

thanks Josh
somewhere I had heard that Indoor Advantage Gold was needed for wood-based products to meet EQc4.4. But that cannot be right because furniture is excluded from EQc4.1, c4.3, and c4.4 correct?

Michele,

EQc4.4 is about urea formaldehydeUrea formaldehyde is a combination of urea and formaldehyde used in some glues and adhesives, particularly in composite wood products. At room temperature, ureaformaldehyde emits formaldehyde, a toxic and possibly carcinogenic gas. content minimization (or not allow it at all) and EQc4.5 is about true product emission minimization. EQc4.1 is about content minimization - except in LEED for Schools, which can be used as a compliance pathway for other rating systems - so IAG would not show compliance for 4.1 or 4.4, but 4.3 is about emission minimization from flooring and IAG would help show compliance to that as it meets the requirements of CA 01350.

Christi,

If the furniture is going in the building prior to occupancy and is being taken in to account in other credits, then it must be used for EQ 4.5.

If the designer has proof that the products meet GREENGUARD, then the certification period on it and the manufacturer should be able to tell them when the product was manufactured. For a BIFMA test report the test date should be on the report that was provided.

Thank you, Josh. Regarding credit IEQ 4.5, should I include items that are owner furnished/ owner installed?

Christi,

If they are going to be included in the scope of the project, then they have to be included.

Christi,

With respect to IEQc4.5 furniture and the earliest and latest manufacturing and certification dates, I believe you need to supply the relevant dates on the form.

The period of manufacture, earliest date and latest date, are intended to reflect the time period when the furniture was manufactured. For many manufacturers these dates are essentially the installation date, as many products are built-to-order.

The period of certification, earliest and latest date, reflect the time period when the claim of compliance (made by the certificate) covered furniture being manufactured.

The ANSI/BIFMA option, like the Greenguard option, requires that the furniture must have been manufactured during the time period covered by the relevant certification (SCS Indoor Advantage, Greenguard, etc.).

Providing the dates in a summary on the form allows the reviewer to quickly verify that all of the furniture was manufactured during a time period covered by a certification of compliance.

Your question about EAc1.4 is better answered here:

http://www.leeduser.com/credit/CI-2009/EAc1.4

I think you will see others have asked similar questions. Appliance name plate electrical ratings that only specify voltage and current (in amps) can be used to calculate power (in watts) but this may reflect peak power use for short periods and thus overstate the actual power used over longer periods of time.

Where do you recommend we obtain the manufacturing date info? Would this be on a cutsheet? or would you need to specifically ask the manufacturer?

Nena,

The manufacturer rep should be able to get you that information if you need it.

William,

From my understanding if you are going to include furniture in the 'scope of the project' for one area of the rating system it must be taken in to account/included in the other areas of the rating system. So my answer would be yes, if you are getting credit for low-emitting furniture (great job by the way), then it must be taken in to account for the MR credits as well.

Thanks Josh,

I assumed that to be the case, but was looking for confirmation. Unfortunately, given the reluctance (or unwillingness) of the owner/vendor to release cost information, it means I will have to unattempt this credit.

I am wondering if anyone has used this credit as an innovation credit for LEED-NC v2009. Specifically, do you think that the cost of the furniture will need to be included in the other MR credits for that rating system as well? I looked in the NC ID credit 1 forum but thought this would be a better place to ask the question. Thanks!

In today’s On Your Team, I found a thread in LEED-NC v2.2 IDc1 (http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-v2.2/IDc1) highlighted. It answers my question from earlier this week.

There are now 5 LI’s in the LEED Interpretations and Addenda Database - ID#10149, ID#10150, ID#10151, ID#10152, and ID#10153 - under MRc3, MRc4, MRc5, MRc6, and MRc7, respectively. All are dated 4/1/2012 and state: “No, LEED NC projects are not required to include furniture in their calculations for MR credit 3-7 if using low emitting furniture for an ID strategy…” Check out the post on http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-v2.2/IDc1 or read the LIs in the database - https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/LISearch.aspx?liaccessid=10153.

Certification to the standards you mention does not demonstrate compliance to LEED-CI EQc4.5-2009. There is furniture available in the Asia-Pacific region that is directly compliant with this credit, as can be found on the Scientific Certification Systems and Greenguard websites.

With respect to other options internationally, it may be helpful for you to consider the LEED 2012 2nd public comment versions, which contain a credit for "low-emitting interiors" that is available now as a pilot credit. This credit is updated to no longer specify any single proprietary certification program brand by name, but rather requires compliance with the newest American National Standards for furniture emissions and furniture sustainability (expanding on the current ANSI/BIFMA option).

Please note the pilot credit also requires compliance for walls, insulation, flooring, and ceilings in addition to furniture. However, it also includes an international compliance option that allows LEED projects outside of North America to use compliance to the German AGBB criteria for everything except furniture, if the AGBB results also demonstrate compliance with a tougher formaldehyde1. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring VOC found in small amounts in animals and plants but is carcinogenic and an irritant to most people when present in high concentrations, causing headaches, dizziness, mental impairment, and other symptoms. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm, it can cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and asthmatic and allergic reactions. 2. A known carcinogen with no known safe exposure level. Formaldehyde occurs naturally, but appears in unnaturally high concentra­tions in many buildings because it is an ingredient in binders used in many building materials and furnishings. limit (details are spelled out in the credit).

See "Pilot Credit 21: EQ - Low Emitting Interiors" available in the USGBC pilot credit library at this link: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2104

The criteria are for the whole furniture or whole chair. You can show this either by testing the different combinations of materials into the whole product, or by making sure that the alternative fabric does not show higher emissions than the original fabric.
I am not familiar with how Greenguard certifiers will handle this issue, but this here is the approach the would make sense from the testing viewpoint.

Reinhard has hit the nail on the head. The products that are certified by GREENGUARD in either of our low-emitting product programs are as they come out of the manufacturers facility. If you are using a different fabric then what the manufacturer puts on them or has specified, then the full product is not technically certified. I can not speak for other certification programs, but that is how we would look at it.

If you use that fabric and panel together frequently in projects then I would suggest a CA 01350 test at a qualified product emission lab. This test would entail you submitting a representative of the final full product. This would include the panel system that you are looking to place in the LEED space(s) with the fabric that you intend to use. You would then receive a lab report that hopefully confims that the final full system passes the CA 01350 requirements. This lab report could be used to show that the final product that you are installing passes the criteria for EQc4.5. As product emission testing involves a complex process you may want to get some quotes though and do some cost analysis of garnering 1 point.

Of course you could always just work with the panel system manufacturer and see if they can get a fabric that they currently use (and is on certified products) that matches what you are hoping for in the space.

Some of the labs that are qualified to do this test are listed here: http://www.cal-iaq.org/vocs/voc-links

Sorry - I thought that this was in reference to a LEED for Schools question and now that I look closer it is for CI. Let me correct some issues in my above post.

You would need to show that the complete product - panel system & your choosen fabric - passes the GREENGUARD Certification Criteria (which can be found here: http://greenguard.org/Libraries/GG_Documents/GGPS_001_GREENGUARD_Standar...) by using the GREENGUARD Test Methodology (which can be found here: http://greenguard.org/Libraries/GG_Documents/GGTM_P066_BUILDINGMATERIALS...). Their are two labs that I know have the GREENGUARD Test Method in their ISO 17025 scope: Air Quality Sciences (www.aqs.com) and Berkeley Analytical Associates (www.berkeleyanalytical.com). This would not have to pass CA 01350 criteria.

You could also have the complete product go through a BIFMA Emission Test. This would entail testing the product in accordance with BIFMA M7.1-2007 so that you can show that it passes criteria that is listed in BIFMA X7.1-2007. The labs for this test can be found here: http://www.bifma.org/standards/testlabs.html

This is just to add that also Eurofins Product Testing A/S has the GREENGUARD Test Method in its ISO 17025 accreditation scope (www.eurofins.com/voc-testing).

This raises a good question;

Option 1 of this credit as currently written requires Greenguard(TM) certification, not just testing by an independent laboratory that includes the Greenguard test method within the scope of their ISO 17025 accreditation.

The Greenguard documents referenced also include the Greenguard certification program requirements for laboratories. These call for audits by the Greenguard Environmental Institute (GEI), approval by GEI of the lab's quality assurance project plan, and other details in addition to ISO 17025 accreditation.

So to be clear, testing of the complete product (with chosen fabric) by Berkeley Analytical Associates or Eurofins, even following the Greenguard test method, would not be sufficient to attain Greenguard(TM) certification, and would therefore not meet option 1 of this credit, correct?

However, while Air Quality Sciences (the Greenguard partner laboratory) is still the only laboratory in North America that is allowed by Greenguard to test for Greenguard certification under Option 1, Option 2 uses the American National Standards (ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 and X7.1), which are open to multiple, competing laboratories and certifiers.

Therefore, testing of the complete product (with chosen fabric) by Berkeley Analytical Associates, Eurofins, Air Quality Sciences, or other qualified laboratories following the ANSI/BIFMA standards could demonstrate compliance under Option 2.

Additionally, if the product is seating or an open office product (like a work station) and meets 7.6.2 in the BIFMA E3 standard, it would pass the requirements of CA 01350, therefore qualifying the product for points under LEED for Schools' EQ 4.5.

Full disclosure - I am the Technical Information & Public Affairs Manager for GREENGUARD Environmental Institute.

Lauren - contact SCS and ask them if they have a copy of the old certificate. If the product was certified they should be able to get you a pdf of the certificate. As GREENGUARD does, SCS may also have it listed somewhere on the product listing in their product guide how long the product has been certified - we call it the certification period, but they may call it something different. If that doesn't work, then I'm sure if you contact Steelcase directly they would have the independent test lab report that covers that period of time that would prove that the product passes the criteria.

EQc4.5 is focused on Systems FurnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert. and Seating. Seating is just what is sounds like, but Systems Furniture is defined as, "Systems furniture is defined as either a panel-based workstation comprised of modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components and
drawer/filing components, or a freestanding grouping of furniture items and their components that have been designed to work in concert.
Furniture other than systems furniture and task and guest chairs used with systems furniture is defined as occasional furnitureOccasional furniture is located in lobbies and in conference rooms. and is excluded
from the credit requirements." So your blinds/screens would have to be sold as part of the panel-based work stations that you are using to be considered within EQc4.5. As an example if you are using some of the full-length movable wall systems then those would not be considered under EQc4.5. They may be considered under EQc4.6 as a wall system, but not as system furniture.

The CI EQc4.5 technically only covers System Furniture (workstations or case goods in commercial office terms) and Seating. So I think your dinig tables would be exempt from this credit as occasional furnitureOccasional furniture is located in lobbies and in conference rooms.. The custom-built wood benches however may be interpreted as seating however (although the seating that they were referencing within the credit was task seating, like a desk chair). Covering them in low-emitting or low VOC content paints would be good for the indoor air quality, but would not show qualification for EQc4.5 as that is a complete piece of furniture credit. Are the benches going to be 'built-ins'? If they are going to be part of the structure of the building - almost like cabinets - then I could see them not being considered within the furniture credit. Then you would just need your seating (bar stools & chairs) to pass the criteria.

The wood benches are not fixed in place so they may be moved to customize seating. The chairs and bar stools are steel (new manufacture). The tables, if it matters, are not fixed in place either. The tables and benches are made from the same reclaimed wood.

You may want to also look at submitting the tables and benches as being over 1 year old as you are stating that they are completely reclaimed wood. As long as you are not adding anything new to the piece that was not there that could be high-emitting - such as stain or other coatings - that may be the best way to show compliance. Obviously the new products would need to pass the stated EQ 4.5 criteria.

Given the clear credit language, I would probably say you can't earn the credit using only the furniture purchased in 2008. If it's important to you I suppose you could try documenting it, include a narrative, and hope that it gets approved?

Thanks Tristan. Well, my reasoning is, that if at the time of manufacture & occupancy both, the Greenguard certification is valid, why can't the credit be earned? Like you said, we'll document it and see how it goes.

Depending upon the furniture and who makes it, it may still be certified. Obviously that piece was made years ago, but GREENGUARD requires quarterly and annual testing on a representative product for all product categories that have certification. So find out if they still have certification on the product, this would show that they have had consistently low-emitting materials over a long time - which should help you with your case for a credit.

Also - even if you don't get the credit, try and unwrap the furniture from its shipping material as sometimes the material that it is shipped in (cardboard) can act like a sponge and therefore keep the potentially bad VOCsA volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate., which should off-gas and dissipate, around for a while.

Good luck.

You do not need to provide any proof of equivalency. Scientific Certification Systems SCS Indoor Advantage(TM) or Indoor Advantage Gold certificates are acceptable documentation to show compliance with EQc4.5 and have been used successfully on hundreds of projects to achieve this credit.

The USGBC EQ TAG ruled in 2006 that, for the purposes of the EQc4.5 credit, the ANSI/BIFMA method was equivalent to Greenguard. Thus a 2006 CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide ruling defined the BIFMA option under EQc4.5, which became the ANSI/BIFMA option in LEED 2009. SCS certification demonstrates compliance to the ANSI/BIFMA option. Other third-party certifications also demonstrate compliance to the ANSI/BIFMA option, like BIFMA level(TM) if the product earns the low-emitting furniture point (BIFMA e3 Section 7.6.1). See www.levelcertified.org.

SCS and Greenguard each have strengths and weaknesses. For example, SCS requires independent testing of furniture in accordance with the ANSI/BIFMA standards and does not make any money from the recurring laboratory testing. Greenguard requires testing following their proprietary test methods and requires all North American manufacturers to use their for-profit partner laboratory, Air Quality Sciences.

Greenguard (founded in 2001) was written into the original EQc4.5 credit and is now widely known for certifying low-emitting products and materials. Scientific Certification Systems (founded in 1984) is well known for independent verification of a wide variety of environmental claims, including FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts. wood, recycled & material content, VOC emissions, Floorscore, carbon offsetA fiscal unit measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) representing six main categories of greenhouse gases. Aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, one carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases). Carbon offsets are typically purchased by consumers of fossil fuels or products using fossil fuels, as a way to "offset" or negate their negative environmental impact., food & agriculture, life cycle impact assessment, and more.

There are many other differences between these two competing organizations and both offer multiple benefits to users.

thanks for your reply, Randy.
In this case, with the SCS certificate, do I need to provide the VOC levels for the product to get the point? Greenguard certificates list them, however SCS does not, therefore there is no way to tell the exact VOC levels numbers of the product, which are what is needed for the credit, if I'm not mistaken?

My apologies, we are not following the LEED CI 2009 version, where compliance with BIFMA furniture emissions is an option. The first version doesn't have that option and that is why i was confused about the lack of information on the SCS certificate.

The BIFMA option is available as an alternative compliance path under LEED v2. Third-party certificates demonstrating compliance to the ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 and X7.1 standards (like SCS Indoor Advantage or Indoor Advantage Gold) are still acceptable documentation. You can also attach a copy of the CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide, available on the USGBC website or at this link: http://www.bifma.org/news/newsrelease.pdfs/USGBC%20Ruling%2019Dec06.pdf.

Be sure to verify the certification dates include the manufacturing dates of the furniture for the project. You do not have to provide the VOC levels along with the SCS certificates under LEED v2 or v3.

Certificates vary. In this case, the important details are the products covered by the claim of compliance, the dates covered by the claim, and the details of the claim. Details include what standards the products complied with, and any applicable restrictions or exclusions to the claim. The standards include the VOC levels and many other details.

SCS certificates do not list the specific VOC criteria, but they do state what exposure scenario was used, e.g., open plan, private office, classroom, etc. Greenguard certificates list the VOC criteria but do not state which exposure scenario was used. Products that are compliant in one scenario may not be compliant in another, even when the VOC levels are the same, because the ventilation rates are different.

Just wanted to add some clarity to some things that Mr. Carter stated above. For full disclosure, I am the Technical Information & Public Affairs Manager for GREENGUARD Environmental Institute. There are some significant differences between some of the GREENGUARD and other organizations' emission programs.

1) GREENGUARD Certification Programs require ongoing quarterly and annual testing of products. This ensures that any changes to a product are not significantly effecting the chemicals off-gassing from the product. You would be amazed at the significant differences in chemical emissions that some small component or ingredient changes can make. Others only require these tests on a annual basis. We have been told by some manufacturers that they can resource components or ingredients multiple times within a 12 month time frame, so we don't feel every twelve months is protective enough.

2) GREENGUARD Certification Programs require the testing of a final full product. This is because this is what is going to be put in to the built environment. Other emission certification programs test pieces of a product and then add together what they are off-gassing. Yet there are reports that show that this can result in full product estimates that are 290% off from what the final product actually does off gas. We want to ensure that our label is on products that are truly low-emitting and for us to have complete faith in that, we need to test the full representative product.

3) GREENGUARD Certification Program and GREENGUARD Children & Schools have limits on around 360 individual chemicals and a protective measure on the other potential chemicals off-gassing from the product through a total volatile organic chemical (TVOCThe sum or total of all volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from a product or measured in a space under certain defined conditions.) limit. In addition to the individual chemicals the GREENGUARD certification program that is within EQc4.5 has a TVOC limit of 500, the GREENGUARD Children & Schools program that is within LEED for Schools has a TVOC limit of 220. Other low-emitting product standards or programs usually do one or the other. Mr. Carter mentioned the BIFMA X7.1-2007 which is in LEED EQc4.5 - this has a TVOC limit of 500, but only limits formaldehyde1. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring VOC found in small amounts in animals and plants but is carcinogenic and an irritant to most people when present in high concentrations, causing headaches, dizziness, mental impairment, and other symptoms. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm, it can cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and asthmatic and allergic reactions. 2. A known carcinogen with no known safe exposure level. Formaldehyde occurs naturally, but appears in unnaturally high concentra­tions in many buildings because it is an ingredient in binders used in many building materials and furnishings. and a chemical called 4 PCH on an individual basis. Mr. Carter also talks about BIFMA e3 (furniture sustainability standard) and its emission criteria. Within that it has a TVOC limit of 500 and individual limits on 32 chemicals. The CA 01350 method that is called out in LEED for Schools as well, only has individual limits of 35 chemicals.

We didn't feel that looking at 35 individual chemicals or looking at chemicals in a lump sum manner alone was being protective enough, especially with more than 10,000 individual chemicals having the potential to emit from man-made products. So that is why we wanted to make sure that our certification protected people from the known (the 360 individual chemicals where we have data that can negatively effect humans through emissions) and then from the unknown (the TVOC limit on other chemicals that just haven't had the research dollars committed to them yet to find out what they do to us).

Hopefully this is a little clearer picture to the differences. So while GREENGUARD certification and other low-emitting programs are accepted for LEED Credit, the programs are not equivalent in the amount that they protect the indoor occupants from chemical exposure.

The period of manufacture, earliest date and latest date, are intended to reflect the time period when the furniture was manufactured. For many manufacturers these dates are essentially the installation date, as many products are built-to-order.

SCS Indoor Advantage is a third-party certification that demonstrates compliance with the ANSI/BIFMA furniture emissions standards, and therefore the signed SCS certificates are acceptable documentation to demonstrate compliance with EQc4.5. Under Form of Compliance I would state: SCS Indoor Advantage third-party certification to ANSI/BIFMA option.

SCS and Greenguard are different in many ways, however EQc4.5 accepts either Greenguard certification or compliance to the ANSI/BIFMA furniture emissions standards, which can be demonstrated by SCS, other third-party certifications, or through other means.

Thanks for your very helpful comment Randy. That cleared up a lot for me. :)

I would probably also use the last date, and just check that the dates match up with all the relevant products.