Adjustment of ventilation rates in buildings is widely practised, both to provide good air quality on a proactive basis and to mitigate air quality problems associated with occupant complaints. However, both cross‐sectional and experimental epidemiological studies have reported mixed results and have for the most part failed to establish definitive relationships between ventilation rates and symptom prevalence or dissatisfaction with air quality. The difficulties involved in establishing such relationships may be due to a variety of confounding factors which include limitations in study design and interaction effects; difficulties in controlling ventilation rates in experimental studies; inadequate mixing of supply air in occupied spaces; high source strengths for some contaminants; dynamic interactions between sources and ventilation rates that result in increased contaminant emissions; contaminant dose‐response sensory effects which are log‐linear; potential contaminant generation within ventilation systems themselves; and multifactorial genesis of sick building symptoms. There is limited evidence to suggest that ventilation rate increases up to 10 L/s person may be effective in reducing symptom prevalence and occupant dissatisfaction with air quality and that higher ventilation rates are not effective. Because of complex relationships between ventilation rates, contaminant levels, and building‐related health complaints/dissatisfaction with air quality, the use of ventilation as a mitigation measure for air quality problems should be tempered with an understanding of factors which may limit its effectiveness.

No abstract

No abstract