Engineers reviewing building design plans to ensure compliance with ASHRAE Standards for indoor air quality and safety.

Bridging the Gap: How ASHRAE Standards Lead Building Codes and the Case for Early Adoption

The relationship between ASHRAE standards and building codes represents one of the most significant dynamics in modern construction and building performance. While building codes establish the minimum legal requirements for construction, ASHRAE standards often serve as the technical foundation that eventually shapes these codes. However, a critical lag time exists between when ASHRAE publishes updated standards and when these improvements are incorporated into enforceable building codes—creating both challenges and opportunities for forward-thinking building owners and designers. 

The Standards-to-Code Pipeline: Understanding the Lag 

ASHRAE continuously develops and updates technical standards based on the latest research, technology advances, and lessons learned from field experience. These standards undergo rigorous peer review and public comment periods before publication. However, the journey from ASHRAE standard to enforceable building code follows a complex path that can span several years. 

The process typically unfolds in stages: ASHRAE publishes or updates a standard, which then must be reviewed by code development bodies such as the International Code Council (ICC). These organizations evaluate the standard for incorporation into model codes like the International Building Code (IBC) or International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Even after inclusion in model codes, individual jurisdictions must adopt these updated codes—a process that varies significantly by location and can add additional years to implementation. 

This lag time means that newly constructed buildings designed to meet only current code requirements may already be using outdated technical approaches by the time they’re completed. The disconnect becomes more pronounced in rapidly evolving areas like energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and building resilience. 

ASHRAE Standards Early Adoption Advantage: Extending Facility Useful Life 

Building owners and designers who choose to implement current ASHRAE standards ahead of code requirements position themselves for significant long-term advantages. Early adoption serves as a form of future-proofing that can substantially extend a facility’s useful life and market relevance. 

When buildings incorporate advanced standards before they become mandatory, they avoid the costly retrofits that competitors may face when codes eventually catch up. This proactive approach also positions buildings to meet evolving tenant expectations, regulatory requirements, and market demands. Properties designed with forward-looking standards often command higher rents, attract quality tenants more easily, and maintain their value longer in competitive markets. 

Early adoption also provides operational benefits. Buildings designed to exceed current codes typically demonstrate superior energy performance, resulting in lower operating costs throughout their lifecycle. Enhanced indoor air quality and comfort features improve occupant satisfaction and productivity, creating value that extends far beyond initial construction costs. 

ASHRAE 62.1: The Ventilation Standard That Shapes Indoor Air Quality 

ASHRAE Standard 62.1, “Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality,” exemplifies how standards evolve to address emerging health and performance concerns. This standard has undergone numerous updates to incorporate new understanding about ventilation effectiveness, contaminant control, and the relationship between indoor air quality and occupant health. 

The standard’s evolution reflects growing awareness of indoor air quality’s impact on productivity, health outcomes, and overall building performance. Recent updates have addressed issues like demand-controlled ventilation, natural ventilation credits, and enhanced filtration requirements—improvements that often don’t appear in building codes until years after ASHRAE publication. 

Buildings designed to current 62.1 requirements rather than older code-mandated versions typically provide superior indoor environments that support occupant wellbeing and organizational productivity. This translates to reduced sick leave, improved cognitive performance, and enhanced overall satisfaction among building users. 

ASHRAE 241: The Game-Changer for Infection Control 

ASHRAE Standard 241, “Control of Infectious Aerosols,” represents a paradigm shift in how buildings address airborne disease transmission. Developed in response to lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, this standard provides comprehensive guidance for reducing infection risk through building design and operation. 

Standard 241 addresses ventilation, filtration, air cleaning, and other strategies for controlling infectious aerosols in buildings. It establishes equivalent clean airflow rates and provides frameworks for assessing and improving infection control in various building types and spaces. 

If applied to all new construction, Standard 241 would create buildings significantly more resilient to airborne disease transmission than those meeting only current building code requirements. The standard addresses gaps in traditional codes that focus primarily on comfort and basic air quality rather than specific infection control measures. 

Early adoption of Standard 241 principles offers building owners a competitive advantage in attracting tenants who prioritize health and safety. In a post-pandemic world, buildings that can demonstrate superior infection control capabilities often command premium rents and experience lower vacancy rates. The standard also positions buildings to adapt more easily to future health crises or evolving public health requirements. 

ASHRAE Standards Strategic Implementation: Making the Case for Excellence 

The decision to exceed current code requirements requires balancing additional upfront costs against long-term benefits. However, the most successful projects often find that implementing advanced ASHRAE standards during initial design phases adds minimal cost compared to retrofitting later. 

Design teams can leverage current standards to create buildings that remain relevant and valuable for decades rather than becoming obsolete as codes evolve. This approach requires collaboration between owners, designers, and contractors to identify which standards offer the greatest long-term value for specific project types and markets. 

The key lies in viewing ASHRAE standards not as optional enhancements but as insights into the future of building performance requirements. By implementing these standards before they become mandatory, building owners and designers create facilities that lead rather than follow market expectations. 

Conclusion: ASHRAE Standards Leading the Future of Building Performance 

The lag between ASHRAE standard updates and building code implementation creates opportunities for forward-thinking building owners and designers to create superior facilities that maintain their value and relevance longer. Standards like 62.1 and 241 demonstrate how technical excellence can translate into operational advantages, occupant satisfaction, and market competitiveness. 

Rather than viewing current building codes as targets to meet, successful projects increasingly treat them as minimum starting points while using current ASHRAE standards as guides to excellence. This approach creates buildings that serve occupants better, operate more efficiently, and adapt more readily to evolving requirements and expectations. 

The question for building owners and designers isn’t whether to exceed current codes, but rather which standards offer the greatest value for creating facilities that will thrive throughout their intended lifespans. In an era of rapid technological advancement and evolving understanding of building performance, early adoption of ASHRAE standards represents sound risk management and strategic positioning for long-term success. 

Gloved hand holding petri dish used to study microbes for understanding the pathogen elimination hierarchy in disinfection.

Understanding Pathogen Elimination: A Hierarchy of Resistance

Effective pathogen elimination and control is critical in healthcare settings, food safety, and water treatment. As the lab results demonstrate, different microorganisms exhibit varying levels of resistance to disinfection methods. This resistance hierarchy has important implications for infection prevention strategies. 

The Pathogen Elimination Hierarchy 

The test results reveal a clear progression from “easiest to kill” to “hardest to kill” pathogens: 

  1. Enveloped Viruses (Easiest to Kill) 
    • Enveloped viruses like SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) and H1N1 influenza have a lipid membrane that’s vulnerable to disruption. These pathogens are relatively fragile and typically respond well to most disinfection methods. Importantly, enveloped viruses are often much more contagious than their non-enveloped counterparts, which is part of what makes them particularly dangerous in community settings. Their higher transmissibility means they can spread rapidly through populations despite being relatively easy to eliminate with proper disinfection. 
  2. Bacteria (Moderate Difficulty) 
    • Moving up the difficulty scale, bacteria require more robust disinfection approaches. This category includes common pathogens such as MRSA (Staph infections), Escherichia coli, Listeria, Pseudomonas (Pneumonia), and Enterococcus faecalis. 
  3. Fungi (Higher Difficulty) 
    • Fungi present greater challenges due to their cell walls and adaptive capabilities. Examples shown in the results include Candida Auris and Trichophyton interdigitale (Tinea Pedis or athlete’s foot). 
  4. Non-enveloped Viruses (Very Difficult) 
    • These viruses lack the lipid envelope that makes their enveloped counterparts vulnerable. They show significant resilience to many disinfection methods. This category includes MS2 Bacteriophage (commonly used as a coronavirus surrogate) and Feline calicivirus. Non-enveloped viruses are generally less contagious than enveloped viruses, which makes them safer to work with in laboratory settings. Their reduced transmissibility, combined with their greater resistance to disinfection, makes them ideal candidates for surrogate testing. 
  5. Bacterial Spores (Hardest to Kill) 
    • At the far end of the spectrum, bacterial spores like Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) represent the ultimate challenge for disinfection technologies. 

The Cascading Effectiveness Principle 

A fundamental concept in disinfection strategy is the “cascading effectiveness principle”: if your disinfection method can effectively eliminate pathogens higher on the difficulty scale, it will generally be even more effective against those lower on the scale. 

This is why the ASHRAE 241 standard uses MS2 bacteriophage as a surrogate organism for testing. As a non-enveloped virus, MS2 is significantly more resistant to disinfection than many common pathogens like coronaviruses. When a disinfection system demonstrates effectiveness against MS2, you can be confident it will perform well against less resistant organisms. 

Practical Implications 

Understanding this hierarchy offers several advantages: 

  • Strategic Disinfection Planning: Target your approaches to address the most resistant organisms relevant to your environment. 
  • Cost-Effective Solutions: By knowing which pathogens pose the greatest challenge, resources can be allocated efficiently. 
  • Validation Methods: Using resistant organisms like MS2 bacteriophage as testing surrogates provides confidence in disinfection system performance. 
  • Comprehensive Protection: A system proven effective against non-enveloped viruses or bacterial spores will likely provide robust protection against the full spectrum of microbial threats. 

Pathogen Elimination Hierarchy

By understanding this hierarchy, infection control professionals can implement more effective strategies that account for the full spectrum of microbial threats. 

For facilities implementing disinfection technologies, this cascading effectiveness principle offers reassurance: a system validated against highly resistant organisms like MS2 bacteriophage or C. difficile spores will almost certainly provide exceptional protection against less resilient pathogens. 

This science-based approach to pathogen control ensures more comprehensive protection and better outcomes in healthcare environments, food processing facilities, and other settings where infection prevention is critical.