Impact of psycho-social factors on perception of the indoor air environment studies in 12 office buildings

Abstract

The main function of a mechanically ventilated office building is to provide a healthy and comfortable working environment for occupants, while maintaining minimum energy consumption. Twelve mechanically ventilated buildings were selected. They varied greatly in surface area, number of floors, occupant density, and building use. The indoor air quality, thermal comfort, energy consumption, and perception of occupants were investigated in these buildings. A total of 877 subjects participated in the questionnaire survey during the hot summer months of June, July, and August, and during the cold winter months of January, February, and March. The questions included in the questionnaire dealt with health, environmental sensitivity, work area satisfaction, personal control of the workstations environment, and job satisfaction. Measured parameters concerning the quality of indoor air included ventilation rate, concentration of TVOC, CO 2, CO, RH, and formaldehyde. The thermal comfort parameters included room air, mean radiant, plane radiant asymmetry, and dew point temperatures, as well as air velocity and turbulence intensity. Monthly energy consumption data was also gathered for each building. Ventilation performance, in terms of air flow rate and indoor air quality, was compared with the ASHRAE Standard 62-89R (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. U.S.A. [1]). The measured and calculated thermal environmental results were also compared with the ASHRAE Standard 55-92 (Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. U.S.A. [2]). CO 2 and CO levels satisfied the recommended limits. The outdoor airflow rate was half that recommended in only one building. The formaldehyde and TVOC levels were moderately higher than suggested comfort levels. However, more than 56% of the occupants rated dissatisfaction with the indoor air quality. Only 63% of the indoor climatic observations fell within the ASHRAE Standard 55-92 summer comfort zone; 27% in the winter. However, only 69% of those surveyed agreed with the comfort zones. More symptoms were reported by workers who perceived IAQ to be poor. Positive relationships were observed between the job satisfaction and satisfaction with office air quality, ventilation, work area temperature, and ratings of work area environment. However, job dissatisfaction did not correlate with symptom reports. The occupants were more dissatisfied with IAQ when they preferred more air movement. In other words, the higher the perceived air movement, the greater the satisfaction with IAQ.