Intentional or accidental large-scale airborne toxic release (e.g. terrorist attacks or industrial accidents) can cause severe harm to nearby communities. Under these circumstances, taking shelter in buildings can be an effective emergency response strategy. Some examples where shelter-in-place was successful at preventing injuries and casualties have been documented [1, 2]. As public education and preparedness are vital to ensure the success of an emergency response, many agencies have prepared documents advising the public on what to do during and after sheltering [3, 4, 5]. In this document, we will focus on the role buildings play in providing protection to occupants. The conclusions to this article are: (1) Under most circumstances, shelter-in-place is an effective response against large-scale outdoor releases. This is particularly true for release of short duration (a few hours or less) and chemicals that exhibit non-linear dose-response characteristics. (2) The building envelope not only restricts the outdoor-indoor air exchange, but can also filter some biological or even chemical agents. Once indoors, the toxic materials can deposit or sorb onto indoor surfaces. All these processes contribute to the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. (3) Tightening of building envelope and improved filtration can enhance the protection offered by buildings. Common mechanical ventilation system present in most commercial buildings, however, should be turned off and dampers closed when sheltering from an outdoor release. (4) After the passing of the outdoor plume, some residuals will remain indoors. It is therefore important to terminate shelter-in-place to minimize exposure to the toxic materials.
[1]
J. H. Sorensen.
Will Duct Tape and Plastic Really Work? Issues Related to Expedient Shelter-In-Place
,
2002
.
[2]
Terje Grøntoft,et al.
Compilation of tables of surface deposition velocities for O3, NO2 and SO2 to a range of indoor surfaces
,
2004
.
[3]
William J. Fisk,et al.
Factors affecting the concentration of outdoor particles indoors (COPI): Identification of data needs and existing data
,
2001
.
[4]
M. S. Mannan,et al.
The pros and cons of shelter‐in‐place
,
2000
.
[6]
Michael D. Sohn,et al.
Analysis of U.S. residential air leakage database
,
2003
.
[7]
Max H. Sherman,et al.
Building airtightness: Research and practice
,
2004
.
[8]
William W. Nazaroff,et al.
Particle Penetration Through Building Cracks
,
2003
.
[9]
Nancy J. Brown,et al.
A Concentration Rebound Method for Measuring Particle Penetration and Deposition in the Indoor Environment
,
2002
.
[10]
Max H. Sherman.
Air infiltration in buildings
,
1980
.
[11]
Victor J. Arca,et al.
Experiments in Sheltering in Place: How Filtering Affects Protection Against Sarin and Mustard Vapor.
,
1999
.
[12]
De-Ling Liu,et al.
Modeling pollutant penetration across building envelopes
,
2001
.
[13]
E. Karlsson,et al.
Influence of desorption on the indoor concentration of toxic gases
,
1996
.