Air Quality, Comfort, Health & Wellbeing

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 AIR QUALITY, COMFORT, HEALTH & WELLBEING

Buildings that induce adequate environmental qualities within their interior spheres, bestow occupants the opportunity to benefit on multiple fronts. While this is often a result of proper collaboration between various environmental facets - the condition of air quality indoors, in particular - underpins numerous contributions towards conducive comfort, health, and wellbeing. It is nevertheless important to highlight that the extent to which comfort, health and wellbeing of an individual is affected, depends more broadly on the individual’s physiological, psychological, and psychosocial condition and potential, their life’s demands, and their inclusive exposure to environmental conditions (Bircher and Kuruvilla, 2014; Bircher and Hahn, 2016; Sorensen et al., 2021). To put better frame this in context of the built environment, Hanc, McAndrew and Ucci (2018) present conceptual themes and subthemes informed from the definition(s) of wellbeing in the context of buildings (figure 1.1) – while this conceptualisation places wellbeing in the centre, as the product of multiple contributing factors, it more importantly emphasizes the heterogeneity of it as a construct.

Similarly, the interplay between indoor air quality and other environmental factors, governs the quality and performance of the indoor environment and the impact this has on individuals. Table 1.1 expands on key findings regarding how indoor air quality, along with interrelated environmental factors, impact occupant comfort, health, and wellbeing.

Environmental Factor

Indoor Air Quality Impact on

Comfort, Health & Wellbeing Poor air quality can contibute to the transmission of infectious disease and cases of respiratory illness, allergies, asthma and increase the likelihood of sick building syndrome.

Regarding adults, exposure to air pollution can lead to asthma, coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes.

High levels of CO2 have negative effects on memory performance, subjective workload, perceived fatigue and motivation.

High levels of CO2 have a negative effect on decision making performance.

CO2 levels at 1000ppm compared to 600ppm had a detrimental impact of 1123% (worse) on decision making.

Extreme levels of CO2 result in symptoms of hyper-ventilation, rapid heart rate, clumsiness, emotional upset and drowsiness.

Exposure to a pollutant source (old used carpet) and a fresh air supply of 10 l/s per person, caused subjects to type 6.5% more slowly, make 18% more typing errors, and experience more headaches. (Fisk, 2000)

(RCP, 2016)

(Maula et al., 2017)

(Satish et al., 2012)

(Alker et al., 2014)

(Oseland, 2022)

(Wargocki and Wyon, 2017) 5 out of 10 of the studies reviewed by the source took place in atypical settings - bias estimates of potential respiratory illness.

Depends on extent of exposure and the individual.

Experiment focused on tasks with high concentration and eliminated noise. Results cannot be generalised in cases of teamwork.

Questions the extent to which outdoor air supply can be reduced.

Lab-based study using simulated decision making tasks - may differentiate from real world scenarios.

CO2 is a proxy measure of poor air quality.

70% of the subjects were quality when the used carpet was present - questions the role of dissatisfaction on task performance.

Supporting Reference Limitation / Bias / Argument

Ventilation 15 reviewed studies linked improved ventilation with up to 11% gains in productivity, due to a higher delivery of fresh air and reduced levels of pollutants.

With the presence of airborne VOCs, increasing ventilation from 5 l/s to 20 l/s per person improved performance by up to 8%.

Increasing the outdoor air supply rate is more prone to improve occupant performance.

Performance improves in tasks requiring cognitive activity when ventilation rates is increased. (Alker et al., 2014)

(Alker et al., 2014)

(Wargocki and Wyon, 2017)

(Seppanen and Fisk, 2006) Increased productivity may be heavily dependant on reduced levels of pollutants.

Conducted in a lab test - may differentiate from real world scenarios.

Varying level of results for each context analysed - in the ventilation systems played a role.

Results begin to plateau at around 40 l/s of outdoor air supply per person.