Fig 1.
IoT sensors used in the study: Clarity outdoor node (right); Clarity indoor note (middle); Senseware indoor node (left).
Table 1.
Surveyed topics and response scales provided to survey respondents.
Fig 2.
Hourly averaged outdoor PM measurements for the two study sites, and CARB aquatic park (closes to both sites), Laney College, West Oakland and International Blvd: a) hourly PM2.5 concentrations; b) cumulative box plot that includes the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile, and the whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles.
Fig 3.
Comparison of hourly PM2.5 concentrations between the two sites for the entire period of air pollution episode.
The box plot represents the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile, and the whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles.
Fig 4.
Exceedance index PM2.5 heat map calculated for WHO 24 h exposure threshold: a) 4th Street and b) Wurster Hall.
Fig 5.
Hourly distribution of I/O ratios for the whole duration of the air pollution episode caused by the Chico Camp fire (sliding temporal window).
Fig 6.
Instantaneous I/O ratios comparing median building operation and specific locations: a) operation of portable filter in room 348 and comparison to the building median I/O ratio; b) I/O ratio for the room 232 adjacent to the building exit door.
Fig 7.
Instantaneous I/O ratio for the entire building.
They are presented for the entire pollution episode with each point represents one hour period a) 4th Street; b) Wurster Hall.
Fig 8.
Spatial variability of PM2.5 levels represented as percent deviations from the mean level calculated with all the deployed sensors for each building.
The red dashed line represents the sensor measurement uncertainty of ±10%: a) 4th Street; b) Wurster Hall.
Fig 9.
Occupant satisfaction with indoor air quality during typical conditions and during the Chico Camp fire in the: a) 4th Street (mechanically ventilated) and b) Wurster Hall (naturally ventilated).
Fig 10.
Occupant self-reported impact of IAQ on their productivity and ability to get their work done a) 4th Street (mechanically ventilated) and b) Wurster Hall (naturally ventilated).
Fig 11.
Occupant responses to “When you entered your workspace from the outdoors did you feel relief regarding the air quality?” during the Chico Camp fire.
The question assumes that respondents were negatively impacted by outdoor conditions; we included a response for “I was not affected by the outdoor conditions”, indicated as “not affected”.
Fig 12.
Personal and building features that occupants reported using in their workplace: a) 4th Street (mechanically ventilated) and b) Wurster Hall (naturally ventilated).
The option for a face mask was only listed in the forest fire section, and a branching question allowed respondents to indicate if they wore a face mask in their workplace or outdoors. NR is no response given.
Table 2.
Summary of tools proposed for building resilience evaluation.