Abstract
Green buildings are designed to have low environmental impacts and improved occupant health and well-being. Improvements to the built environment including ventilation, lighting, and materials have resulted in improved indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in green buildings, but the evidence around occupant health is currently centered around environmental perceptions and self-reported health. To investigate the objective impact of green buildings on health, we tracked IEQ, self-reported health, and heart rate in 30 participants from green and conventional buildings for two weeks. 24 participants were then selected to be relocated to the Syracuse Center of Excellence, a LEED platinum building, for six workdays. While they were there, ventilation, CO2, and volatile organic compound (VOC) levels were changed on different days to match the IEQ of conventional, green, and green+ (green with increased ventilation) buildings. Participants reported improved air quality, odors, thermal comfort, ergonomics, noise and lighting and fewer health symptoms in green buildings prior to relocation. After relocation, participants consistently reported fewer symptoms during the green building conditions compared to the conventional one, yet symptom counts were more closely associated with environmental perceptions than with measured IEQ. On average, participants had 4.7 times the odds of reporting a lack of air movement, 43% more symptoms (p-value = 0.019) and a 2 bpm higher heart rate (p-value < 0.001) for a 1000 ppm increase in indoor CO2 concentration. These findings suggest that occupant health in green and conventional buildings is driven by both environmental perceptions and physiological pathways.
Highlights
Over the past century building design and operation has changed in response to social and economic stressors with unanticipated impacts to human health and well-being
Research conducted by the Center for Indoor Environments and Energy at the Danish Technological University has demonstrated that increased symptoms and decreased performance are associated with a number of indoor design, operating, maintenance, and environmental exposure issues [7]
Reports of too little air movement were reduced by 91%, chemical odors by 22%, tobacco smoke odors by 88%, other unpleasant odors by 28%, dryness by 63%, and high indoor temperatures by 79% among participants in green buildings
Summary
Over the past century building design and operation has changed in response to social and economic stressors with unanticipated impacts to human health and well-being. The resulting health effects from exposures to these chemicals spurred the Building Biology field of study [1]. In the United States, two decades later, the oil crisis led to the construction of increasingly air-tight buildings, which require less energy to heat and cool [2]. The economic costs of SBS in poorly ventilated buildings are significant and far exceed the energy savings [5, 6]. Research conducted by the Center for Indoor Environments and Energy at the Danish Technological University has demonstrated that increased symptoms and decreased performance are associated with a number of indoor design, operating, maintenance, and environmental exposure issues [7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
