Abstract
Background:
Energy crisis in 1973 led to smaller residential and office buildings with lower air changes. This resulted in development of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS). The objective of this study was to assess the association of SBS with individual factors and indoor air pollutants among employees in two office buildings of Petroleum Industry Health Organization in Tehran city.
Materials and Methods:
The association between personal and environmental factors and SBS symptoms was examined by a reliable and valid combined questionnaire. Environmental parameters were measured using calibrated instruments.
Results:
The results suggested that SBS symptoms were more common in women than men. Malaise and headache were the most common symptoms in women and men. Throat dryness, cough, sputum, and wheezing were less prevalent among employees in both offices. Light-intensity was significantly associated with some symptoms such as skin dryness (P = 0.049), eye pain (P = 0.026), and malaise (P = 0.043). There were no significant differences in prevalence of SBS symptoms between female workers of the two offices (P>0.05)
Conclusion:
The main causes of SBS among the employees were recycling of air in rooms using fan coils, traffic noise, poor lighting, and buildings located in a polluted metropolitan area.
Keywords: Sick Building Syndrome, Offices, Indoor air, Parameters
INTRODUCTION
In industrialized countries, people spend about 90% of their life indoors (office, home, sport centers, transportation vehicles, etc.) (1). Energy crisis in 1973 led to less air changes in offices and homes. Number of air changes per hour decreased from 2 to 0.2 or 0.3. The fresh air for each person also decreased from 20 – 30 ft3/person to 5 ft3/person. This led to lower ventilation capacities, indoor accumulation of air pollutants, increased exposure of occupants and resultantly compromised health (2). Application of double glazing to save energy minimized natural ventilation. On the other hand, indoor air pollution sources also increased due to the use of new office equipment, decoration and facilities. Modern office equipment such as laser printers, fax machines, copiers, etc. also produce air pollutants (2, 3). Studies have shown that exposure of occupants to indoor air pollutants is 100 times higher than their exposure to outdoor air pollutants. Concentration of indoor air pollutions was found to be 2–4 times higher than that of outdoor air pollutants. In 1983, the world health organization (WHO) used the term “Sick Building Syndrome” for the first time to describe situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to the time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified (4). Many, including the WHO, believe that SBS is the main cause of absence from work and low efficiency of staffs and employees.
According to Rohles et al (1989), if ≥ 20% of employees suffer from symptoms that are relieved when they leave work at the end of the day, SBS needs to be considered for further investigations (5). The United States National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (US NIOSH) calls improper air quality, insufficient ventilation, outdoor air pollutants, biological agent, indoor pollutant, building materials, noise, lighting, and other unknown factors as possible reasons for SBS (6). The targeted subsidies plan in Iran in 2010 and increase in prices of energy carriers are believed to be the initiation point for SBS in Iran. To date, there has been little discussion about SBS in Iran. Only three studies on SBS were found that investigated the related symptoms in Tehran and Mashhad (7–9). The purpose of this study was to assess the symptoms of SBS and their correlation with employees’ personal characteristics and indoor environmental parameters in two office buildings of Petroleum Industry Health Organization in Tehran.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All 170 employees of the two office buildings of Petroleum Industry Health Organization in Tehran city participated in this cross-sectional study. To determine the prevalence of SBS among office employees in two office buildings, HSE questionnaire (1995) was combined with Skov’s (1987) and Fanger’s (2000) questionnaires (10–13). The questionnaire included demographic information (including age, weight, height, work experience and BMI), job information, workplace conditions, and SBS symptoms such as mucosal and skin symptoms, headache, and nausea. Experts reviewed the questionnaire and the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were tested on 30 participants in a pilot study (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.75). There were four answer choices: “always”, “often”, “sometimes” and “never” for questions. If the answer to a question was “always” or “often”, symptoms were considered to be present in participant and if the answer to a question was “sometimes” or “never”, symptoms were considered absent in the subject. Indoor environmental parameters of the buildings were measured using proper equipment. Carbon dioxide concentration was measured using CO2 direct-reading METER-1370 (14, 15); CEL-440 sound level meter with ±0.05 dB accuracy equipped with octave frequency analysis (16) was used to measure the noise level in the offices and the noise levels were compared using the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineer’s (ASHRAE) recommended noise criteria for offices (17). Light intensity was assessed with Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) 5035 method and Hong Kong Labor Department principles for lighting assessment in workplaces (18) using Hagner digital luxmeter EC1 with ±0.05 lux accuracy (18, 19). Humidity, temperature and air velocity were measured with standard devices for two weeks in January (18). Health effects of electromagnetic fields were also evaluated as a new aspect of environmental factors affecting SBS in our study. Electromagnetic field was measured by HI-3603 (18, 20) based on the method of measuring electromagnetic field developed by Swedish Standards Institute (18, 21). Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and independent-sample t-test with SPSS 16 for windows (Microsoft, Chicago, IL, USA). Independent sample t-test was used to compare the personal characteristics of employees in the two offices.
RESULTS
Demographic Characteristics
Of the study population, 170 subjects completed and returned the questionnaires. The response rate was 94.3% in both offices. Comparison of the demographic characteristics of employees in the two offices is presented in Table 1. There were significant differences in demographic characteristics such as height and weight of the male and female employees between the two offices. There were no significant differences in demographic features between male and female employees in each office except for the height of male workers.
Table 1.
Comparison of demographic characteristics of employees between the two offices
| Office No.1 (n=68) | Office No.2 (n=102) | P-value for comparison of the two offices | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual characteristics | Men (33) | Women (35) | P-value | Men (60) | Women (42) | P-value | Men | Women |
| μ±σ | μ±σ | μ±σ | μ±σ | |||||
| Age (year) | 40±9 | 33±5.7 | 0.393 | 38±9 | 32±6.3 | 0.397 | 0.308 | 0.471 |
| Weight (kg) | 76.5±8.3 | 61.5±8.6 | <0.05 | 79±9 | 64±6.3 | <0.05 | 0.191 | 0.146 |
| Height (cm) | 179.5±5.7 | 160±18.4 | 0.001 | 174±6.3 | 164±9 | <0.05 | <0.001 | 0.246 |
| Job experience (year) | 7±5.21 | 6.3±3.7 | 0.150 | 6.4±3.6 | 6±3.1 | 0.464 | 0.559 | 0.700 |
Indoor Environmental Parameters
The results obtained from measuring indoor environmental parameters in the two offices are shown in Table 2. Significant differences were reported in some environmental parameters such as lighting, air velocity, relative humidity, and noise levels (P<0.001) between the two offices. No significant differences were found in air temperature and CO2 concentration between the two offices.
Table 2.
The results of measuring indoor environmental parameters in the two offices
| Parameter | Office No.1 (n=68) | Office No.2 (n=102) | Exposure limits | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | μ±σ | Range | μ±σ | |||
| Lighting (lux) | 189–815 | 402±135 | 102–740 | 301±140 | 300–600 | <0.001 |
| Air velocity (m/s) | 0.45–0.7 | 0.52±0.049 | 0.09–0.35 | 0.17±0.01 | 0.05–0.2 | <0.001 |
| Temperature (°C) | 19–26.3 | 23±1.3 | 20–26.7 | 23±2.4 | 20–24 | >0.90 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 45–75 | 51±4.51 | 25–66 | 53.9±5.19 | 40–60 | <0.001 |
| CO2 concentration (ppm) | 389–1160 | 701±163 | 501–1060 | 741±124 | 450–675 | 0.088 |
| Noise level (dBA) | 23–59 | 40±5.5 | 37–51 | 42.73±2.93 | 40–45 | <0.001 |
The results of measuring electromagnetic field at 30, 50 and 60 cm distances from computer monitors in both offices indicated that the exposure level of employees to electromagnetic field based on distance was higher than the exposure limit values. Also, there were significant differences in exposure to the electric field at 30 cm distance between workers of the two offices (P=0.006). Recommended limit values for exposure to electric and magnetic fields are 10 volts per meter (22); and 80 amperes per meter (23), respectively (Table 3).
Table 3.
The results of electromagnetic field measurements in both offices
| Parameter | Distance from the source, cm | Office No.1 (n=62) | Office No.2 (n=90) | Exposure limits | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| μ±σ | Range | μ±σ | Range | ||||
| Electric fields | 30 | 63.90±5 | 6–275 | 52.60±37.60 | 3–194 | 10 | 0.006 |
| 50 | 48.12±3 | 5–153 | 42.89±32.80 | 3–153 | 0.136 | ||
| 60 | 34.37±26.80 | 3–106 | 42.76±27.17 | 3–106 | 0.062 | ||
| Magnetic fields | 30 | 89.42±53.05 | 5–153 | 96.49±37.6 | 13–194 | 80 | 0.368 |
| 50 | 83.85±48.70 | 3–106 | 93.95±48.70 | 11–153 | 0.211 | ||
| 60 | 77.11±47.89 | 4–96 | 84.18±56.12 | 9–106 | 0.420 | ||
The prevalence of sick building symptoms
In office No.1, malaise had the highest prevalence among symptoms with a prevalence of rate of 71.4% and 84.8% among men and women, respectively (Table 4). Dry throat and dyspnea had the lowest prevalence among men and women (18.2% each). In building No. 2, headache (72%) and malaise (62%) were the most common symptoms. While wheezing and cough with phlegm had the lowest prevalence (15%) among women. Cough with phlegm had the lowest prevalence (15%) among men.
Table 4.
The prevalence (%) of sick building syndrome among men and women
| Symptoms | Office No.1 | Office No.2 | P-value for comparing the two offices | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | P-value | Men | Women | P-value | Men | Women | |
| Sneezing | 62.9 | 54.5 | 0.486 | 28.6 | 45 | 0.097 | 0.003 | 0.548 |
| Itchy nose | 45.7 | 51.5 | 0.632 | 30.4 | 35 | 0.631 | 0.213 | 0.220 |
| Nasal irritation | 42.4 | 48.4 | 0.611 | 19.6 | 25 | 0.531 | 0.035 | 0.058 |
| Nasal congestion | 51.4 | 45.5 | 0.622 | 32.1 | 32.5 | 0.971 | 0.109 | 0.351 |
| Dyspnea | 18.2 | 34.3 | 0.132 | 26.8 | 27.5 | 0.405 | 0.498 | 0.692 |
| Wheezing | 28.6 | 24.2 | 0.686 | 14.3 | 15 | 0.696 | 0.163 | 0.465 |
| Cough | 34.1 | 37.3 | 0.7 | 17.9 | 17.5 | 0.694 | 0.133 | 0.089 |
| Cough with phlegm | 28.6 | 33.3 | 0.584 | 10.7 | 15 | 0.393 | 0.056 | 0.105 |
| Dizziness | 40 | 48.5 | 0.481 | 35.7 | 50 | 0.162 | 0.852 | 0.922 |
| Headache | 54.3 | 57.6 | 0.758 | 30.6 | 72.5 | 0.05 | 0.043 | 0.258 |
| Nausea | 37.1 | 42.4 | 0.656 | 19.6 | 22.5 | 0.734 | 0.110 | 0.104 |
| Malaise | 71.4 | 84.8 | 0.182 | 62.5 | 70 | 0.164 | 0.524 | 0.208 |
| Throat dryness | 31.4 | 18.2 | 0.207 | 25 | 40 | 0.118 | 0.675 | 0.068 |
| Skin dryness | 48.6 | 57.6 | 0.457 | 37.5 | 57.5 | 0.053 | 0.412 | 0.824 |
| Itchy skin | 48.6 | 48.5 | 0.994 | 39.4 | 40 | 0.697 | 0.523 | 0.605 |
| Skin redness | 34.3 | 45.5 | 0.347 | 33.9 | 32.5 | 0.884 | 0.849 | 0.351 |
| Eye pain | 54.3 | 60.6 | 0.546 | 42.9 | 70 | 0.09 | 0.403 | 0.532 |
| Eye redness | 57.1 | 51.5 | 0.553 | 50 | 52.5 | 0.809 | 0.661 | 0.887 |
| Itchy eyes | 62.9 | 54.5 | 0.327 | 52.5 | 47.5 | 0.246 | 0.337 | 0.560 |
Women presented more sick building symptoms than men in both offices. Statistical analysis of sick building symptoms showed a significant association between headache and the prevalence of SBS among men and women in office No. 2 (P = 0.05). In general, results showed a greater prevalence of headache among women than men. Table 4 illustrates the incidence and statistical relationship of SBS among women and men in the two office buildings. Comparison of the prevalence of SBS between men and women of the two offices revealed significant relationships between sneezing, nasal irritation, and headache among men in the two offices (P<0.05) and the prevalence of these symptoms among men in office No. 1 was greater than that in office No. 2. There were no significant differences in prevalence of symptoms between female workers of the two offices (P>0.05).
Sick building symptoms and environmental parameters
The results of investigating the relationships between sick building symptoms and indoor environmental parameters indicated that some sick building symptoms such as nausea, headache, nasal irritation, dyspnea, and throat dryness significantly increased with increasing CO2 concentration. The statistical test results also showed that exposure to high noise levels was associated with increases in prevalence of some symptoms such as headache (P = 0.036) and dizziness (P = 0.048) (Table 5). There was a significant relationship between light intensity and symptoms such as skin dryness, eye pain, and malaise. In some areas of both offices with temperatures higher than 20–24 °C, headache, skin redness, itchy eyes and sneezing were also observed. Eye and skin symptoms decreased, although cough significantly increased by an increase in relative humidity from 40–50% to 50–60%. The results also showed the significant effect of air velocity on some symptoms like cough and wheezing. Tables 5 and 6 show the association between the prevalence of sick building syndrome and indoor environmental parameters in office No. 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 5.
The association between symptoms and environmental parameters in office No. 1 (p-value)
| Symptoms | Noise | Light | Temperature | Humidity | Co2 concentration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasal irritation | 0.242 | 0.317 | 0.627 | 0.594 | 0.008 |
| Cough | 0.3 | 0.146 | 0.823 | 0.021 | 0.734 |
| Dizziness | 0.048 | 0.88 | 0.46 | 0.721 | 0.0312 |
| Headache | 0.036 | 0.046 | 0.005 | 0.186 | 0.0315 |
| Nausea | 0.67 | 0.642 | 0.350 | 0.697 | 0.049 |
| Malaise | 0.1 | 0.780 | 0.173 | 0.202 | 0.023 |
| Skin dryness | 0.472 | 0.049 | 0.459 | 0.332 | 0.113 |
| Skin redness | 0.306 | 0.642 | 0.632 | 0.013 | 0.081 |
| Eye pain | 0.684 | 0.036 | 0.183 | 0.044 | 0.805 |
Table 6.
The association between symptoms and environmental parameters in office No. 2 (p-value)
| Symptoms | Noise | Light | Temperature | Humidity | Co2 concentration | Air Velocity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sneezing | 0.542 | 0.71 | 0.045 | 0.331 | 0.678 | 0.266 |
| Dyspnea | 0.378 | 0.6 | 0.12 | 0.43 | 0.028 | 0.41 |
| Wheezing | 0.248 | 0.395 | 0.102 | 0.707 | 0.188 | 0.025 |
| Cough | 0.495 | 0.843 | 0.338 | 0.048 | 0.494 | 0.027 |
| Dizziness | 0.032 | 0.242 | 0.469 | 0.280 | 0.392 | 0.218 |
| Headache | 0.541 | 0.278 | 0.021 | 0.336 | 0.523 | 0.238 |
| Malaise | 0.222 | 0.0431 | 0.524 | 0.551 | 0.351 | 0.093 |
| Throat dryness | 0.587 | 0.710 | 0.122 | 0.331 | 0.028 | 0.579 |
| Skin redness | 0.542 | 0.90 | 0.014 | 0.187 | 0.453 | 0.527 |
| Eye pain | 0.178 | 0.026 | 0.307 | 0.141 | 0.382 | 0.425 |
| Itchy eyes | 0.339 | 0.323 | 0.008 | 0.447 | 0.351 | 0.509 |
DISCUSSION
The association of sick building syndrome with indoor air parameters was evaluated in the current study. The prevalence of sick building symptoms in both office buildings of Petroleum Industry Health Organization was high. The results were consistent with those of Bourbeau et al. (24). Our results showed that the prevalence of most sick building symptoms among men and women in office No.1 was higher than that in office building No.2.
Malaise was the most common symptom among men and women. The results of this study showed that poor lighting was the leading cause of malaise in the offices. The results also showed the higher prevalence of symptoms among women than men. This finding is in agreement with the results of Skov who showed that symptoms of fatigue and headache were more common among women than men (25). Some risk factors for gender-related symptoms included equipment of work place, job characteristics, job satisfaction, self reported allergy, number of individuals per room, and smoking cigarettes (26). Stenberg and Wall found that women in all age groups under the same conditions suffered discomfort and health problems more than men. Home responsibilities and participation in social activities were found to be the main reasons (27).
The main causes of SBS were recycling of air in rooms using fan coils, traffic noise, poor lighting, and buildings located in a polluted metropolitan area. Some symptoms such as dizziness and headache were associated with high level of noise exposure (Tables 5 and 6). This study produced results which corroborated the findings of other previous works in this field including the study by Pathak and Tripathi (28).
There was a significant correlation between light intensity and some symptoms like skin conditions, eye pain and malaise. These results were in accord with those of some observations including the one by Kholasezadeh et al. who showed that poor lighting can cause fatigue, headache, tiredness, depression, loss in productivity, and general discomfort (29).
A correlation was found between the office temperature and some of sick building symptoms (sneezing, skin redness, itchy eyes, and headache). Skov and Valbjørn also showed that there was a significant association between indoor temperatures and mucosal symptoms such as sneezing, itching, and pain of the eyes (11).
Exposure to CO2 may cause dizziness, headache, nausea, nasal irritation, throat dryness, dyspnea, and malaise. However, these findings do not support those of Fanger et al. who showed no significant differences between CO2 concentration and sick building symptoms (13). These results are consistent with those of Norback et al. who showed that an increase in concentration of CO2 might worsen some symptoms like malaise and headache (30).
Relative humidity showed a significant association with sneezing, skin redness, and pain of the eyes. The findings of Wang confirm that relative humidity in indoor environments is associated with some sick building symptoms (31). The results of laboratory experiments carried out by Reinikainen in Finland indicated that lower prevalence of symptoms such as skin, nasal, and throat dryness and nasal congestion was expected at relative humidity in the range of 30–40% than relative humidity in the range of 20–30% (32). The findings of the current study may not be comparable to those of Reinikainen et al. because of the differences in the relative humidity range in the two studies (32).
Mahmodi et al. indicated that magnetic fields around 20% of the computer monitors were higher than the exposure limit values while electric fields around 52% of computer monitors were higher than the considered standard levels at 30 cm distance from the monitors (33).
The current study showed that the magnetic fields around 13% of computer monitors in office No. 1 and 16% of computer monitors in office No. 2 were higher than the exposure limit values. These results are consistent with those of Mahmodi et al. The results also indicated that electric fields around 95% and 80% of computer monitors in offices No. 1 and 2 were higher than standard levels which are much higher than those reported by Mahmodi et al.
Exposure to electromagnetic fields from the computer monitors was evaluated as a new aspect of SBS in the current study, but unfortunately the amount of occupational exposure to the electromagnetic fields at 30 and 60 cm distance from the computer monitors could not be measured exactly because there were great changes in these fields at 30 and 60 cm distance and thus, a relationship between the SBS and the electromagnetic field could not be established.
CONCLUSION
The present study was designed to determine the association of SBS with indoor air parameters. These findings suggested that in general, malaise was the most common symptom among men and women. The results indicated that there was a higher prevalence of some sick building symptoms among women than men in the two offices. Indoor environmental parameters and indoor air quality influence the prevalence of sick building symptoms in office environments. The main causes of SBS among the employees were recycling of air in rooms using fan coils, traffic noise, poor lighting, and buildings located in a polluted metropolitan area.
Acknowledgment
This paper was extracted from a thesis by AA Khajevandi supervised by Dr. MJ Jafari. The authors wish to thank Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences for supporting this work.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1. Zhang Y. Indoor air quality engineering: CRC press; 2004. P. 4. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Hess-Kosa K. Indoor air quality: Sampling methodologies: CRC Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 3. The use of ventilation and air conditioning in buildings. Part 2: Ventilation design for indoor air contaminant control (excluding requirements for the health aspects of tobacco smoke exposure). Australia Standards Australia International Ltd; 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Zhang X, Sahlberg B, Wieslander G, Janson C, Gislason T, Norback D. Dampness and moulds in workplace buildings: Associations with incidence and remission of sick building syndrome (SBS) and biomarkers of inflammation in a 10 year follow-up study. Science of the total environment 2012; 430: 75– 81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Rohles F, Jr, Woods J, Jr, Morey P. Indoor environment acceptability: the development of a rating scale. ASHRAE Transact 1989; 95: 23– 7. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Popay J, Bartley M, Owen C. Gender inequalities in health: social position, affective disorders and minor physical morbidity. Soc Sci Med 1993; 36 ( 1): 21– 32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Motesaddi S, Sheikhmohammadi A, Sardar Mahdieh JS, Akbarpour S. Investigation of sick building syndrome symptoms in inhabitants of Ekbatan town. Medical journal of Mashhad University of Medial Sciences 2012; 54( 4): 224– 9. [In Persian] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Ghanavati M. Study of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) prevalence in hospitals and other health care centers employees. Payavard Salamat 2008; 2( 1–2). [In Persian] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Asadi Seyedeh N, Seye Nouzadi S. Assesment of sick building syndrome symptoms and its risk factors in employees in some buildings of university. Medical journal of Mashhad University of Medial Sciences 2010; 33( 5): 98– 103. [In Persian] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) How to deal with Sick Building Syndrome. Guidance for employers, building owners and building managers. London: HMSO, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Skov P, Valbjørn O. The “sick” building syndrome in the office environment: the Danish Town Hall Study. Environ Int 1987; 13( 4): 339– 49. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Sundell J, Clausen G, Fanger PO. The effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity. Indoor Air 2000; 10 ( 4): 222– 36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fanger PO, Lauridsen J, Bluyssen P, Clausen G. Air pollution sources in offices and assembly halls, quantified by the olf unit. Energy Build 1988; 12: 7– 19 [Google Scholar]
- 14. Htar SH, Zhu W, Huang J, Nkrumah PN. Effect of rising atmospheric CO2 on sediment and water 15N interactions in experimental riparian wetland. Environ Earth Sci 2013; 70( 7): 3185– 95. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Huang J, Zhu W, Htar SH, editors. The impact of elevated CO2 changes carbon and nitrogen cycle for different wetland plant species in shallow lake wetlands in the East China. Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE), 2010 4th International Conference on; 2010: IEEE. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Yousefi Rizi HA, Dehghan H. Effects of occupational noise exposure on changes in blood pressure of workers. ARYA Atherosclerosis Journal. 2012. p. 8 Special Issue in National Hypertension Treatment. http://www.arya.mui.ac.ir/index.php/arya/issue. [Google Scholar]
- 17. ASHRAE Hand Book Fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta: 2001; 111. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Khajevandi A. An investigation of the relationship between symptoms of sick building syndrome and personal and work environment characteristics in two administrative buildings of Petroleum Industry Health Organization: [Thesis]. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, 2010. p. 56– 69. [In Persian] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Tetervenoks O, Avotins A, editors. Implementation of Wireless Communication for LED Luminary Light Efficiency Evaluation Stand. Student Forum Proceedings of the 7th International Conference-Workshop Compatibility and Power electronics CPE; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Orimoto H, Ikuta A. Signal processing for noise cancellation in actual electromagnetic environment. Progress Electromagnet Research 2009; 99: 307– 22. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Swedish Standards Institution : Computers and office machines - Measuring methods for electric and magnetic near fields. Svensk Standard SS 46 14 90; Stockholm, December 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Krawczyk A. Electromagnetic Field, Health and Environment: Proceedings of EHE’07: Ios Press; 2008.
- 23. Sandström M. Electromagnetic fields in offices. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2006; 12 ( 2): 137– 47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Bourbeau J, Brisson C, Allaire S. Prevalence of the sick building syndrome symptoms in office workers before and after being exposed to a building with an improved ventilation system. Occup Environ Med 1996; 53 ( 3): 204– 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Skov P, Valbjørn O, Pedersen BV. 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; 15 ( 4): 286– 95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Brasche S, Bullinger M, Morfeld M, Gebhardt HJ, Bischof W. Why do women suffer from sick building syndrome more often than men?--subjective higher sensitivity versus objective causes. Indoor Air 2001; 11 ( 4): 217– 22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Stenberg B, Wall S. Why do women report ‘sick building symptoms’ more often than men? Soc Sci Med 1995; 40 ( 4): 491– 502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Pathak V, Tripathi B. Evaluation of traffic noise pollution and attitudes of exposed individuals in working place. Atmos Environ 2008; 42( 16): 3892– 8. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Kholasezadeh G, Mirmohammadi Meybodi S, Mehrparvar A, Tafti F, Abedinzadeh M, Nourani Yazdi F. Assessment of sick building syndrome among office workers in Shahid Sadoughi University of medical sciences in 2008. Iran Occupational Health. 2011; 8( 1): 70– 6. [In Persian] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Norbäck D, Michel I, Widström J. Indoor air quality and personal factors related to the sick building syndrome. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990; 16 ( 2): 121– 8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Wang BL, Takigawa T, Yamasaki Y, Sakano N, Wang DH, Ogino K. Symptom definitions for SBS (sick building syndrome) in residential dwellings. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2008; 211 ( 1–2): 114– 20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Reinikainen LM, Jaakkola JJ, Heinonen OP. The effect of air humidification on different symptoms in office workers—An epidemiologic study. Environment International 1991; 17( 4): 243– 50. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Mahmodi A, Nassiri P, Zerati H, Farzaneh Nejad A. Health assessment effect of EMF of viusal display terminal on User’s camputer in Tehran University of Medical Science. J Environ Sci Tech. 2008; 10( 1): 91– 102. [In Persian] [Google Scholar]