This image juxtaposes a volatile organic compound (VOC) “fingerprint” diagram from the 1991 Toronto Personal Exposure Pilot study with a blanket reading from the Atmotube. The PEP study captured data for 130 different VOCs over the period of eight days.While indoor and outdoor levels of VOCs are usually thought about and visualized separately, the study shown on the left illustrates the levels of a variety of toxic VOCs together side by side. What is immediately evident is how much higher exposure levels to VOCs in the “office” and “home” are compared to “downtown” and outdoor “residential.” Although the precise numerical values are challenging to decipher, it is clear that the later two have a majority of double-digit levels of VOCs, while the former two have only a minority of double-digit levels.
The ink in the diagram obscures the numerical values. Toxic levels, and the horizontal lines of their magnitude, blur together in places, which can be considered aesthetically indicative of the lacunae of quantifying indoor pollutants.
Reflections on the lacunae are prompted by the two Atmotube readings on the right. The top shows the period of an hour- and the difficulty of discerning the source of the patterned fluctuation in the source of high indoor VOCs, visible by three undulating lines. The bottom image also reflects on the difficulty of determining the source of the daily average level of VOCs shown here over the course of a week.
Something all three of these images prompt is a reflection on the spatiotemporal parameters used to frame measurements of toxicity. A toxic “place,” rather than being easily measured, is instead shown to be very much socio-culturally constructed through the ways in which these data values are both configured, measured, and made accessible for interpretation.
This image juxtaposes a volatile organic compound (VOC) “fingerprint” diagram from the 1991 Toronto Personal Exposure Pilot study with a blanket reading from the Atmotube. The PEP study captured data for 130 different VOCs over the period of eight days.While indoor and outdoor levels of VOCs are usually thought about and visualized separately, the study shown on the left illustrates the levels of a variety of toxic VOCs together side by side. What is immediately evident is how much higher exposure levels to VOCs in the “office” and “home” are compared to “downtown” and outdoor “residential.” Although the precise numerical values are challenging to decipher, it is clear that the later two have a majority of double-digit levels of VOCs, while the former two have only a minority of double-digit levels.
The ink in the diagram obscures the numerical values. Toxic levels, and the horizontal lines of their magnitude, blur together in places, which can be considered aesthetically indicative of the lacunae of quantifying indoor pollutants.
Reflections on the lacunae are prompted by the two Atmotube readings on the right. The top shows the period of an hour- and the difficulty of discerning the source of the patterned fluctuation in the source of high indoor VOCs, visible by three undulating lines. The bottom image also reflects on the difficulty of determining the source of the daily average level of VOCs shown here over the course of a week.
Something all three of these images prompt is a reflection on the spatiotemporal parameters used to frame measurements of toxicity. A toxic “place,” rather than being easily measured, is instead shown to be very much socio-culturally constructed through the ways in which these data values are both configured, measured, and made accessible for interpretation.