Abstract
OBJECTIVE. This study tested the hypothesis that recirculated air in mechanically ventilated buildings causes symptoms commonly referred to as the sick building syndrome and perceptions of poor indoor air quality. METHODS. A blinded, four-period crossover trial was carried out in two identical buildings, contrasting 70% return air (index phase) with 0% of return air (reference phase). Each period lasted 1 work-week. The study population comprised 75 workers who had reported symptoms related to the work environment or perceptions of poor indoor air quality. Participants reported their ratings of symptoms, their perceptions, and related information in a daily diary. The outcome criteria included aggregative symptom scores for mucosal irritation, skin reaction, allergic reaction, and general symptoms formed of ratings of component symptoms. Perceptions of unpleasant odor, stuffiness, or dustiness were additional outcome criteria. RESULTS. All 75 participants returned their diaries. For no symptoms did the scores differ between the two phases more than could be expected by chance. Mean rating of unpleasant odor was significantly smaller during the index phase, but mean ratings of dustiness and stuffiness did not differ materially between the two phases. CONCLUSIONS. Our results suggest that 70% recirculated air, when accompanied by an adequate intake of outdoor air, can be used without causing adverse effects.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Burge S., Hedge A., Wilson S., Bass J. H., Robertson A. Sick building syndrome: a study of 4373 office workers. Ann Occup Hyg. 1987;31(4A):493–504. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/31.4a.493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Finnegan M. J., Pickering C. A., Burge P. S. The sick building syndrome: prevalence studies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Dec 8;289(6458):1573–1575. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6458.1573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Menzies R., Tamblyn R., Farant J. P., Hanley J., Nunes F., Tamblyn R. The effect of varying levels of outdoor-air supply on the symptoms of sick building syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1993 Mar 25;328(12):821–827. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199303253281201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Norbäck D., Torgén M., Edling C. Volatile organic compounds, respirable dust, and personal factors related to prevalence and incidence of sick building syndrome in primary schools. Br J Ind Med. 1990 Nov;47(11):733–741. doi: 10.1136/oem.47.11.733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reinikainen L. M., Jaakkola J. J., Seppänen O. The effect of air humidification on symptoms and perception of indoor air quality in office workers: a six-period cross-over trial. Arch Environ Health. 1992 Jan-Feb;47(1):8–15. doi: 10.1080/00039896.1992.9935938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Skov P., Valbjørn O., Pedersen B. V. Influence of indoor climate on the sick building syndrome in an office environment. The Danish Indoor Climate Study Group. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990 Oct;16(5):363–371. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Skov P., Valbjørn O., Pedersen B. V. Influence of personal characteristics, job-related factors and psychosocial factors on the sick building syndrome. Danish Indoor Climate Study Group. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1989 Aug;15(4):286–295. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sterling E., Sterling T. The impact of different ventilation levels and fluorescent lighting types on building illness: an experimental study. Can J Public Health. 1983 Nov-Dec;74(6):385–392. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]