Assessment of indoor air quality in office buildings across Europe – The OFFICAIR study

Abstract

The European project OFFICAIR aimed to broaden the existing knowledge regarding indoor air quality (IAQ) in modern office buildings, i.e., recently built or refurbished buildings. Thirty-seven office buildings participated in the summer campaign (2012), and thirty-five participated in the winter campaign (2012-2013). Four rooms were investigated per building. The target pollutants were twelve volatile organic compounds, seven aldehydes, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <2.5μm (PM). Compared to other studies in office buildings, the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene concentrations were lower in OFFICAIR buildings, while the α-pinene and d-limonene concentrations were higher, and the aldehyde, nitrogen dioxide and PM concentrations were of the same order of magnitude. When comparing summer and winter, significantly higher concentrations were measured in summer for formaldehyde and ozone, and in winter for benzene, α-pinene, d-limonene, and nitrogen dioxide. The terpene and 2-ethylhexanol concentrations showed heterogeneity within buildings regardless of the season. Considering the average of the summer and winter concentrations, the acetaldehyde and hexanal concentrations tended to increase by 4-5% on average with every floor level increase, and the nitrogen dioxide concentration tended to decrease by 3% on average with every floor level increase. A preliminary evaluation of IAQ in terms of potential irritative and respiratory health effects was performed. The 5-day median and maximum indoor air concentrations of formaldehyde and ozone did not exceed their respective WHO air quality guidelines, and those of acrolein, α-pinene, and d-limonene were lower than their estimated thresholds for irritative and respiratory effects. PM indoor concentrations were higher than the 24-h and annual WHO ambient air quality guidelines.

Impact of Biomass Home Heating, Cooking Styles, and Bread Toasting on the Indoor Air Quality at Portuguese Dwellings: A Case Study

“…Moreover, the results for particulate matter for slightly toasted agree with the ones described by He et al [45] who reported a median PM 2.5 level of 35 µg·m −3 for the peak values, which are lower than the PM 2.5 levels of 62.6 ± 27.7 µg·m −3 and PM 10 levels of 125.6 ± 87.1 µg·m −3 found for the toasting bread experiment in controlled conditions [18]. Both levels of medium and heavily toasted bread contributed to concentrations above the limit values for CH 2 Particulate matter levels (both PM2.5 and PM10) during the frying process were significantly higher than the ones found during the boiling process in both dwellings. Moreover, the mean concentrations during the frying process were above the protection limit established by the Portuguese legislation [32] for all experimental conditions (gas or electricity, both dwellings) for both fractions (PM2.5 and PM10).…”

“…There has been extensive research on micro-environments where people spend their time with the aim of understanding exposure patterns. Initially, the studied micro-environments were mainly buildings in which people spend a significant fraction of the daytime such as offices [2,3], public buildings like schools [4][5][6], dwellings [7], and other indoor places where leisure activities [8][9][10] are developed. In recent years, the need to understand the exposure levels in an integrated perspective has started to gain consensus since individuals spend around 90% of their time in different indoor environments.…”

Indoor gaseous air pollutants determinants in office buildings—The OFFICAIR project

“…The research strategy consisted of three complementary phases: (a) “general survey” (167 buildings, winter of 2011‐2012), using questionnaires and checklists; (b) “detailed study” (37 buildings) with measurements carried out both in summer (2012) and winter (2012‐2013); and (c) “intervention study” (nine buildings) with more detailed measurements (eg, active sampling and online monitoring) carried out before and after an intervention related to the reduction in IAP. Further details on the project strategy and outcomes are reported in the project website (http://www.officair-project.eu) and in project‐related publications …”

“…During the field campaigns, some physical (temperature, relative humidity, and air change rate) and chemical parameters were measured; these last included particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), aldehydes (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, propanal, benzaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, and hexanal), and VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, n‐hexane, trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), α‐pinene, d‐limonene, 2‐butoxyethanol, 2‐ethylhexanol, and styrene). The investigated IAPs were chosen based on a literature review of IAPs in office environments and on their potential association with health outcomes (eg, sensory irritation symptoms, cardiovascular and pulmonary effects) . Most of them are also known to be emitted from building materials, cleaning products, and office equipment …”

Investigation of A Potted Plant (Hedera helix) with Photo-Regulation to Remove Volatile Formaldehyde for Improving Indoor Air Quality

“…Serious health problems are related to sick building syndrome, which is usually associated with the quality of indoor air (Mullen et al, 2016;Mandin et al, 2017). In urban areas, most citizens have long-term exposure to large amounts of harmful chemicals indoors, whether it's at home or working at the office (Zheng et al, 2011;Shi et al, 2015;Lukcso et al, 2016).…”