Symptoms prevalence among office workers of a sealed versus a non-sealed building: Associations to indoor air quality
An increasing number of complaints related to time spent in artificially ventilated buildings have been progressively reported and attributed, at least in part, to physical and chemical exposures in the office environment. The objective of this research was to investigate the association between the...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Environment international 2009-11, Vol.35 (8), p.1136-1141 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1141 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1136 |
| container_title | Environment international |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães Boechat, José Laerte Gioda, Adriana Santos, Celeste Yara dos Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de Lapa e Silva, José Roberto |
| description | An increasing number of complaints related to time spent in artificially ventilated buildings have been progressively reported and attributed, at least in part, to physical and chemical exposures in the office environment. The objective of this research was to investigate the association between the prevalence of work-related symptoms and the indoor air quality, comparing a sealed office building with a naturally ventilated one, considering, specially, the indoor concentration of TPM, TVOCs and the main individual VOCs.
A cross-sectional study was performed to compare the prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms among 1736 office workers of a sealed office building and 950 of a non-sealed one, both in Rio de Janeiro's downtown. The prevalence of symptoms was obtained by a SBS standardized questionnaire. The IAQ of the buildings was evaluated through specific methods, to determine the temperature, humidity, particulate matter and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations.
Upper airways and ophthalmic symptoms, tiredness and headache were highly prevalent in both buildings. Some symptoms were more prevalent in the sealed building: “eye dryness” 33.3% and 27.1% (p: 0.01); “runny nose” 37.3% and 31.3% (p: 0.03); “dry throat” 42% and 36% (p: 0.02); and “lethargy” 58.5% and 50.5% (
p: 0.03) respectively. However, relative humidity and indoor total particulate matter (TPM) concentration as well as total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) were paradoxically greater in the non-sealed building, in which aromatic compounds had higher concentration, especially benzene. The analysis between measured exposure levels and resulting symptoms showed no association among its prevalence and TPM, TVOCs, benzene or toluene concentration in none of the buildings.
Other disregarded factors, like undetected VOCs, mites, molds and endotoxin concentrations, may be associated to the greater prevalence of symptoms in the sealed building. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.005 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_34936504</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0160412009001548</els_id><sourcerecordid>1692302051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-ede64752ac6538bb3c7b71b308b537b53924ae9c292f4e57dded43d7c6eef8033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUGL1DAUx4so7uzqNxDJRfHS-pI0SetBWBZXhQUP6jmkyeuSsU1mk3Zkvr0ZZtDbegjh__i9vEd-VfWKQkOByvfbBsPeh6VhAH0DqgEQT6oN7RSvpRLwtNoUDOqWMrioLnPeAgBrO_G8uqC9lEL1YlOt3w_zbolzJruEezNhsEjMHMM9iePoS_gd0y9MuURiSMaCOLIvhTWXHGKoz7Vh9ZPz4f4Duc45Wm8WH0MmSyQ-uBgTMT6Rh9VMfjm8qJ6NZsr48nxfVT9vP_24-VLfffv89eb6rrZC0KVGh7JVghkrBe-GgVs1KDpw6AbBVTk9aw32lvVsbFEo59C13CkrEccOOL-q3p7e3aX4sGJe9OyzxWkyAeOaNW97LgW0_wUZFFDSroDvHgWp7BkHBoIWtD2hNsWcE456l_xs0kFT0EeFeqtPCvVRoQali8LS9vo8YR1mdP-azs4K8OYMmGzNNCYTrM9_Ocago0oeV_144rD88N5j0tn6o1_nE9pFu-gf3-QPR0e9Tg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1692302051</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Symptoms prevalence among office workers of a sealed versus a non-sealed building: Associations to indoor air quality</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães ; Boechat, José Laerte ; Gioda, Adriana ; Santos, Celeste Yara dos ; Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de ; Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães ; Boechat, José Laerte ; Gioda, Adriana ; Santos, Celeste Yara dos ; Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de ; Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</creatorcontrib><description>An increasing number of complaints related to time spent in artificially ventilated buildings have been progressively reported and attributed, at least in part, to physical and chemical exposures in the office environment. The objective of this research was to investigate the association between the prevalence of work-related symptoms and the indoor air quality, comparing a sealed office building with a naturally ventilated one, considering, specially, the indoor concentration of TPM, TVOCs and the main individual VOCs.
A cross-sectional study was performed to compare the prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms among 1736 office workers of a sealed office building and 950 of a non-sealed one, both in Rio de Janeiro's downtown. The prevalence of symptoms was obtained by a SBS standardized questionnaire. The IAQ of the buildings was evaluated through specific methods, to determine the temperature, humidity, particulate matter and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations.
Upper airways and ophthalmic symptoms, tiredness and headache were highly prevalent in both buildings. Some symptoms were more prevalent in the sealed building: “eye dryness” 33.3% and 27.1% (p: 0.01); “runny nose” 37.3% and 31.3% (p: 0.03); “dry throat” 42% and 36% (p: 0.02); and “lethargy” 58.5% and 50.5% (
p: 0.03) respectively. However, relative humidity and indoor total particulate matter (TPM) concentration as well as total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) were paradoxically greater in the non-sealed building, in which aromatic compounds had higher concentration, especially benzene. The analysis between measured exposure levels and resulting symptoms showed no association among its prevalence and TPM, TVOCs, benzene or toluene concentration in none of the buildings.
Other disregarded factors, like undetected VOCs, mites, molds and endotoxin concentrations, may be associated to the greater prevalence of symptoms in the sealed building.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0160-4120</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6750</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19665795</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ENVIDV</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Air ; Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis ; Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis ; Air quality ; Benzene ; Biological and medical sciences ; Environmental Monitoring ; Environmental pollutants toxicology ; Epidemiological Monitoring ; Exposure ; Health Surveys ; Humidity ; Indoor ; Indoor pollution ; Inhalation Exposure - analysis ; Medical sciences ; Occupational Diseases - epidemiology ; Office buildings ; Offices ; Organic compounds ; Particulate Matter - analysis ; Prevalence ; Respiratory symptoms ; Sick Building Syndrome ; Temperature ; Toxicology ; Ventilation ; VOCs ; Volatile organic compounds ; Volatile Organic Compounds - analysis</subject><ispartof>Environment international, 2009-11, Vol.35 (8), p.1136-1141</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-ede64752ac6538bb3c7b71b308b537b53924ae9c292f4e57dded43d7c6eef8033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-ede64752ac6538bb3c7b71b308b537b53924ae9c292f4e57dded43d7c6eef8033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22081768$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19665795$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boechat, José Laerte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gioda, Adriana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Celeste Yara dos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</creatorcontrib><title>Symptoms prevalence among office workers of a sealed versus a non-sealed building: Associations to indoor air quality</title><title>Environment international</title><addtitle>Environ Int</addtitle><description>An increasing number of complaints related to time spent in artificially ventilated buildings have been progressively reported and attributed, at least in part, to physical and chemical exposures in the office environment. The objective of this research was to investigate the association between the prevalence of work-related symptoms and the indoor air quality, comparing a sealed office building with a naturally ventilated one, considering, specially, the indoor concentration of TPM, TVOCs and the main individual VOCs.
A cross-sectional study was performed to compare the prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms among 1736 office workers of a sealed office building and 950 of a non-sealed one, both in Rio de Janeiro's downtown. The prevalence of symptoms was obtained by a SBS standardized questionnaire. The IAQ of the buildings was evaluated through specific methods, to determine the temperature, humidity, particulate matter and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations.
Upper airways and ophthalmic symptoms, tiredness and headache were highly prevalent in both buildings. Some symptoms were more prevalent in the sealed building: “eye dryness” 33.3% and 27.1% (p: 0.01); “runny nose” 37.3% and 31.3% (p: 0.03); “dry throat” 42% and 36% (p: 0.02); and “lethargy” 58.5% and 50.5% (
p: 0.03) respectively. However, relative humidity and indoor total particulate matter (TPM) concentration as well as total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) were paradoxically greater in the non-sealed building, in which aromatic compounds had higher concentration, especially benzene. The analysis between measured exposure levels and resulting symptoms showed no association among its prevalence and TPM, TVOCs, benzene or toluene concentration in none of the buildings.
Other disregarded factors, like undetected VOCs, mites, molds and endotoxin concentrations, may be associated to the greater prevalence of symptoms in the sealed building.</description><subject>Air</subject><subject>Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis</subject><subject>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</subject><subject>Air quality</subject><subject>Benzene</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring</subject><subject>Environmental pollutants toxicology</subject><subject>Epidemiological Monitoring</subject><subject>Exposure</subject><subject>Health Surveys</subject><subject>Humidity</subject><subject>Indoor</subject><subject>Indoor pollution</subject><subject>Inhalation Exposure - analysis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Occupational Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Office buildings</subject><subject>Offices</subject><subject>Organic compounds</subject><subject>Particulate Matter - analysis</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Respiratory symptoms</subject><subject>Sick Building Syndrome</subject><subject>Temperature</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Ventilation</subject><subject>VOCs</subject><subject>Volatile organic compounds</subject><subject>Volatile Organic Compounds - analysis</subject><issn>0160-4120</issn><issn>1873-6750</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUGL1DAUx4so7uzqNxDJRfHS-pI0SetBWBZXhQUP6jmkyeuSsU1mk3Zkvr0ZZtDbegjh__i9vEd-VfWKQkOByvfbBsPeh6VhAH0DqgEQT6oN7RSvpRLwtNoUDOqWMrioLnPeAgBrO_G8uqC9lEL1YlOt3w_zbolzJruEezNhsEjMHMM9iePoS_gd0y9MuURiSMaCOLIvhTWXHGKoz7Vh9ZPz4f4Duc45Wm8WH0MmSyQ-uBgTMT6Rh9VMfjm8qJ6NZsr48nxfVT9vP_24-VLfffv89eb6rrZC0KVGh7JVghkrBe-GgVs1KDpw6AbBVTk9aw32lvVsbFEo59C13CkrEccOOL-q3p7e3aX4sGJe9OyzxWkyAeOaNW97LgW0_wUZFFDSroDvHgWp7BkHBoIWtD2hNsWcE456l_xs0kFT0EeFeqtPCvVRoQali8LS9vo8YR1mdP-azs4K8OYMmGzNNCYTrM9_Ocago0oeV_144rD88N5j0tn6o1_nE9pFu-gf3-QPR0e9Tg</recordid><startdate>20091101</startdate><enddate>20091101</enddate><creator>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães</creator><creator>Boechat, José Laerte</creator><creator>Gioda, Adriana</creator><creator>Santos, Celeste Yara dos</creator><creator>Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de</creator><creator>Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091101</creationdate><title>Symptoms prevalence among office workers of a sealed versus a non-sealed building: Associations to indoor air quality</title><author>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães ; Boechat, José Laerte ; Gioda, Adriana ; Santos, Celeste Yara dos ; Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de ; Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-ede64752ac6538bb3c7b71b308b537b53924ae9c292f4e57dded43d7c6eef8033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Air</topic><topic>Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis</topic><topic>Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis</topic><topic>Air quality</topic><topic>Benzene</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring</topic><topic>Environmental pollutants toxicology</topic><topic>Epidemiological Monitoring</topic><topic>Exposure</topic><topic>Health Surveys</topic><topic>Humidity</topic><topic>Indoor</topic><topic>Indoor pollution</topic><topic>Inhalation Exposure - analysis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Occupational Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Office buildings</topic><topic>Offices</topic><topic>Organic compounds</topic><topic>Particulate Matter - analysis</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Respiratory symptoms</topic><topic>Sick Building Syndrome</topic><topic>Temperature</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Ventilation</topic><topic>VOCs</topic><topic>Volatile organic compounds</topic><topic>Volatile Organic Compounds - analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boechat, José Laerte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gioda, Adriana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Celeste Yara dos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environment international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rios, José Luiz de Magalhães</au><au>Boechat, José Laerte</au><au>Gioda, Adriana</au><au>Santos, Celeste Yara dos</au><au>Aquino Neto, Francisco Radler de</au><au>Lapa e Silva, José Roberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Symptoms prevalence among office workers of a sealed versus a non-sealed building: Associations to indoor air quality</atitle><jtitle>Environment international</jtitle><addtitle>Environ Int</addtitle><date>2009-11-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1136</spage><epage>1141</epage><pages>1136-1141</pages><issn>0160-4120</issn><eissn>1873-6750</eissn><coden>ENVIDV</coden><abstract>An increasing number of complaints related to time spent in artificially ventilated buildings have been progressively reported and attributed, at least in part, to physical and chemical exposures in the office environment. The objective of this research was to investigate the association between the prevalence of work-related symptoms and the indoor air quality, comparing a sealed office building with a naturally ventilated one, considering, specially, the indoor concentration of TPM, TVOCs and the main individual VOCs.
A cross-sectional study was performed to compare the prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms among 1736 office workers of a sealed office building and 950 of a non-sealed one, both in Rio de Janeiro's downtown. The prevalence of symptoms was obtained by a SBS standardized questionnaire. The IAQ of the buildings was evaluated through specific methods, to determine the temperature, humidity, particulate matter and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations.
Upper airways and ophthalmic symptoms, tiredness and headache were highly prevalent in both buildings. Some symptoms were more prevalent in the sealed building: “eye dryness” 33.3% and 27.1% (p: 0.01); “runny nose” 37.3% and 31.3% (p: 0.03); “dry throat” 42% and 36% (p: 0.02); and “lethargy” 58.5% and 50.5% (
p: 0.03) respectively. However, relative humidity and indoor total particulate matter (TPM) concentration as well as total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) were paradoxically greater in the non-sealed building, in which aromatic compounds had higher concentration, especially benzene. The analysis between measured exposure levels and resulting symptoms showed no association among its prevalence and TPM, TVOCs, benzene or toluene concentration in none of the buildings.
Other disregarded factors, like undetected VOCs, mites, molds and endotoxin concentrations, may be associated to the greater prevalence of symptoms in the sealed building.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>19665795</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.005</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0160-4120 |
| ispartof | Environment international, 2009-11, Vol.35 (8), p.1136-1141 |
| issn | 0160-4120 1873-6750 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_34936504 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Air Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis Air quality Benzene Biological and medical sciences Environmental Monitoring Environmental pollutants toxicology Epidemiological Monitoring Exposure Health Surveys Humidity Indoor Indoor pollution Inhalation Exposure - analysis Medical sciences Occupational Diseases - epidemiology Office buildings Offices Organic compounds Particulate Matter - analysis Prevalence Respiratory symptoms Sick Building Syndrome Temperature Toxicology Ventilation VOCs Volatile organic compounds Volatile Organic Compounds - analysis |
| title | Symptoms prevalence among office workers of a sealed versus a non-sealed building: Associations to indoor air quality |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T08%3A56%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Symptoms%20prevalence%20among%20office%20workers%20of%20a%20sealed%20versus%20a%20non-sealed%20building:%20Associations%20to%20indoor%20air%20quality&rft.jtitle=Environment%20international&rft.au=Rios,%20Jos%C3%A9%20Luiz%20de%20Magalh%C3%A3es&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1136&rft.epage=1141&rft.pages=1136-1141&rft.issn=0160-4120&rft.eissn=1873-6750&rft.coden=ENVIDV&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1692302051%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1692302051&rft_id=info:pmid/19665795&rft_els_id=S0160412009001548&rfr_iscdi=true |