Sick building syndrome

Sick building syndrome (SBS) is a common worldwide health concern, where people in a building suffer from symptoms of illness or become infected with chronic disease from the building in which they work or reside.[1] The outbreaks may or may not be a direct result of inadequate cleaning or inappropriate cleaning methods.[2] SBS has also been used to describe staff concerns in post-war brutalist-style buildings with defects in the construction materials or assembly process and-or inadequate maintenance.[2] Certain symptoms tend to increase in severity with the time people spend in the building; often improving over time or even disappearing when people are away from the building.[2] Exposure to toxic black mold might be a problem.[3] SBS is also used interchangeably with "building-related symptoms", which orients the name of the condition around patients symptoms rather than a "sick" building.[4] A 1984 World Health Organization (WHO) report suggested up to 30% of new and remodeled buildings worldwide may be subject of complaints related to poor indoor air quality.[5] Other causes have been attributed to contaminants produced by outgassing of some types of building materials, volatile organic compounds (VOC), molds (see mold health issues),[6][7] improper exhaust ventilation of ozone (byproduct of some office machinery), light industrial chemicals used within, or lack of adequate fresh-air intake/air filtration (see minimum efficiency reporting value).[2]

Sick building syndrome
SpecialtyEnvironmental medicine, immunology 

The main identifying observation is an increased incidence of complaints of symptoms such as headache, eye, nose, and throat irritation, fatigue, and dizziness and nausea. In fact the 1989 Oxford English Dictionary defines SBS in that way.[2] The World Health Organization created a 484-page tome on indoor air quality back in 1984 when SBS was attributed only to non-organic causes, and suggested that the book might form a basis for legislation or litigation.[8]

A Swedish researcher named Thörn states that "the case study methodology can contribute to a better understanding and management of sick building syndrome." In the particular case that he studied, after many years the building itself was condemned.[9] Sick building causes are frequently pinned down to flaws in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. However, there have been inconsistent findings on whether air conditioning systems result in SBS or not.[10]

More recently, sick building was confirmed as a vector for the transmission of SARS in 2003.[11][12] Norovirus has also been linked with buildings because of "the small inoculum required to produce infection (<100 viral particles), prolonged viral shedding, and its ability to survive in the environment."[13] Many cases of Norwalk virus and Norovirus outbreak have been traced back to cruise ships with food service in unsanitary conditions,[14][15][16] or filthy personal hygiene around the toilet.[17]

In many cases the building itself is too damaged to recover, as the materials themselves (wood structural members) are decaying from mold or rot. The phenomenon is found worldwide in buildings with lower than adequate maintenance or other economic concerns. Some health professionals recommend anyone living in an older building with medical conditions, to use HEPA air filters for indoor use to minimize airborne particulate introduced from outside the living space. Some symptoms are linked to the average amount of time spent in a building, such as mold spore and dust inhalation.

Signs and symptoms

Human exposure to aerosols has been documented to give rise to a variety of adverse health effects.[18] Building occupants complain of symptoms such as sensory irritation of the eyes, nose, or throat; neurotoxic or general health problems; skin irritation; nonspecific hypersensitivity reactions; infectious diseases;[19] and odor and taste sensations.[20] Exposure to poor lighting conditions has led to general malaise.[21]

Extrinsic allergic alveolitis has been associated with the presence of fungi and bacteria in the moist air of residential houses and commercial offices.[22] A very large 2017 Swedish study correlated several inflammatory diseases of the respiration tract with objective evidence of damp-caused damage in homes.[23]

The WHO has classified the reported symptoms into broad categories, including: mucous membrane irritation (eye, nose, and throat irritation), neurotoxic effects (headaches, fatigue, and irritability), asthma and asthma-like symptoms (chest tightness and wheezing), skin dryness and irritation, gastrointestinal complaints and more.[24]

Several sick occupants may report individual symptoms which do not appear to be connected. The key to discovery is the increased incidence of illnesses in general with onset or exacerbation within a fairly close time frame – usually within a period of weeks. In most cases, SBS symptoms will be relieved soon after the occupants leave the particular room or zone.[25] However, there can be lingering effects of various neurotoxins, which may not clear up when the occupant leaves the building. In some cases – particularly in sensitive individuals – there can be long-term health effects.

Cause

ASHRAE has recognized that polluted urban air, designated within the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s air quality ratings as unacceptable requires the installation of treatment such as filtration for which the HVAC practitioners generally apply carbon-impregnated filters and their likes. Different toxins will aggravate the human body in different ways. Some people are more allergic to mold, while others are highly sensitive to dust. Inadequate ventilation will exaggerate small problems (such as deteriorating fiberglass insulation or cooking fumes) into a much more serious indoor air quality problem. Common products such as paint, insulation, rigid foam, Particle Board, plywood, duct liners, exhaust fumes and other chemical contaminants from indoor or outdoor sources, and biological contaminants can be trapped inside by the HVAC AC system. As this air is recycled using fan coils the overall oxygenation ratio drops and becomes harmful. When combined with other stress factors such as traffic noise, poor lighting, inhabitants of buildings located in a polluted urban area can quickly become ill as their immune system is overwhelmed.[21] Certain VOCs, considered toxic chemical contaminants to humans, are used as adhesives in all common building construction products. These aromatic carbon rings / VOCs can cause acute and chronic health effects on the occupants of a building, including cancer, paralysis, lung failure, and others. Bacterial spores, fungal spores, mold spores, pollen, and viruses are types of biological contaminants and can all cause allergic reactions or illness described as SBS. In addition, pollution from outdoors, such as motor vehicle exhaust, can infiltrate into poorly designed buildings and contribute to poor indoor air quality, high ppm of CO and CO2.[5] Adult SBS symptoms were associated with a history of allergic rhinitis, eczema and asthma.[26]

A 2015 study concerning the association of SBS and indoor air pollutants in office buildings in Iran found that, as carbon dioxide levels increase in a building, symptoms like nausea, headaches, nasal irritation, dyspnea, and throat dryness have also been shown to increase.[21] Certain work conditions have been found to be correlated with specific symptoms. For example, higher light intensity was significantly related to skin dryness, eye pain, and malaise.[21] Higher temperature has also been found to correlate with symptoms such as sneezing, skin redness, itchy eyes and headache, while higher relative humidity has been associated with sneezing, skin redness, and pain of the eyes.[21]

In 1973, in response to the oil crisis and conservation concerns, ASHRAE Standards 62-73 and 62-81 reduced required ventilation from 10 cubic feet per minute (4.7 L/s) per person to 5 cubic feet per minute (2.4 L/s) per person, but this was found to be a contributing factor to sick building syndrome.[27] As of the 2016 revision, ASHRAE ventilation standards call for 5 to 10 cubic feet per minute of ventilation per occupant (depending on the occupancy type) in addition to ventilation based on the zone floor area delivered to the breathing zone.[28]

Psychological factors

One study looked at commercial buildings and their employees, comparing some environmental factors suspected of inducing SBS to a self-reported survey of the occupants,[29] finding that the measured psycho-social circumstances appeared more influential than the tested environmental factors.[30] Limitations of the study include that it only measured the indoor environment of commercial buildings, which have different building codes than residential buildings, and that the assessment of building environment was based on layman observation of a limited number of factors.

Research has shown that SBS shares several symptoms common in other conditions thought to be at least partially caused by psychosomatic tendencies. The umbrella term "autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants" has been suggested. Other members of the suggested group include Silicosis, Macrophagic myofascitis, Gulf War syndrome, Post-vaccination phenomena.[31]

Workplace

Greater effects were found with features of the psycho-social work environment including high job demands and low support. The report concluded that the physical environment of office buildings appears to be less important than features of the psycho-social work environment in explaining differences in the prevalence of symptoms. However, there is still a relationship between sick building syndrome and symptoms of workers regardless of workplace stress.[32]

Excessive work stress or dissatisfaction, poor interpersonal relationships and poor communication are often seen to be associated with SBS, recent studies show that a combination of environmental sensitivity and stress can greatly contribute to sick building syndrome.

Specific work-related stressors are related with specific SBS symptoms. Workload and work conflict are significantly associated with general symptoms (headache, abnormal tiredness, sensation of cold or nausea). While crowded workspaces and low work satisfaction are associated with upper respiratory symptoms.[33]

Specific careers are also associated with specific SBS symptoms. Transport, communication, healthcare, and social workers have highest prevalence of general symptoms. Skin symptoms such as eczema, itching, and rashes on hands and face are associated with technical work. Forestry, agriculture, and sales workers have the lowest rates of sick building syndrome symptoms.[34]

Milton et al. determined the cost of sick leave specific for one business was an estimated $480 per employee, and about five days of sick leave per year could be attributed to low ventilation rates. When comparing low ventilation rate areas of the building to higher ventilation rate areas, the relative risk of short-term sick leave was 1.53 times greater in the low ventilation areas.[35]

Work productivity has been associated with ventilation rates, a contributing factor to SBS, and there's a significant increase in production as ventilation rates increase, by 1.7% for every two-fold increase of ventilation rate.[36]

Printer effluent, released into the office air as ultra-fine particles (UFPs) as toner is burned during the printing process, may lead to certain SBS symptoms.[37][38] Printer effluent may contain a variety of toxins to which a subset of office workers are sensitive, triggering SBS symptoms.[39]

Home

Sick building syndrome can also occur due to factors of the home. Laminate flooring can cause more exposure to chemicals and more resulting SBS symptoms compared to stone, tile, and cement flooring.[26] Recent redecorating and new furnishings within the last year were also found to be associated with increased symptoms, along with dampness and related factors, having pets, and the presence of cockroaches.[26] The presence of mosquitoes was also a factor related to more symptoms, though it is unclear whether it was due to the presence of mosquitoes or the use of repellents.[26]

Diagnosis

While sick building syndrome (SBS) encompasses a multitude of non-specific symptoms, building-related illness (BRI) comprises specific, diagnosable symptoms caused by certain agents (chemicals, bacteria, fungi, etc.). These can typically be identified, measured, and quantified.[40] There are usually 4 causal agents in BRI; 1.) Immunologic, 2.) Infectious, 3.) toxic, and 4.) irritant.[40] For instance, Legionnaire's disease, usually caused by Legionella pneumophila, involves a specific organism which could be ascertained through clinical findings as the source of contamination within a building.

Management

SBS, as a non specific blanket term, does not have any specific cause or cure. Any known cure would be associated with the specific eventual disease that was cause by exposure to known contaminants. In all cases, alleviation consists of removing the affected person from the building associated. BRI, on the other hand, utilizes treatment appropriate for the contaminant identified within the building (e.g., antibiotics for Legionnaire's disease).

In most cases, simply improving the indoor air quality (IAQ) of a particular building will attenuate, or even eliminate, the continued exposure to toxins. For the individual, the recovery may be a process involved with targeting the acute symptoms of a specific illness, as in the case of mold toxins.[41] Treating various building-related illnesses is vital to the overall understanding of SBS. Careful analysis by certified building professionals and Medical Doctors can help to identify the exact cause of the BRI, and help to illustrate a causal path to infection. With this knowledge one can, theoretically, remediate a building of contaminants and rebuild the structure with new materials. Office BRI may more likely than not be explained by three events: "Wide range in the threshold of response in any population (susceptibility), a spectrum of response to any given agent, or variability in exposure within large office buildings."[42] Isolating any one of the three aspects of office BRI can be a great challenge, which is why those who find themselves with BRI should take three steps, history, examinations, and interventions. History describes the action of continually monitoring and recording the health of workers experiencing BRI, as well as obtaining records of previous building alterations or related activity. Examinations go hand in hand with monitoring employee health. This step is done by physically examining the entire workspace and evaluating possible threats to health status among employees. Interventions follow accordingly based on the results of the Examination and History report.[42]

Prevention
  • Regular inspections to indicate for presence of mold or other toxins
  • Adequate maintenance of all building mechanical systems
  • Toxin-absorbing plants, such as sansevieria[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]
  • Roof shingle non-pressure cleaning for removal of algae, mold, and Gloeocapsa magma
  • Using ozone to eliminate the many sources, such as VOCs, molds, mildews, bacteria, viruses, and even odors. However, numerous studies identify high-ozone shock treatment as ineffective despite commercial popularity and popular belief.
  • Replacement of water-stained ceiling tiles and carpeting
  • Only using paints, adhesives, solvents, and pesticides in well-ventilated areas or only using these pollutant sources during periods of non-occupancy
  • Increasing the number of air exchanges; the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers recommend a minimum of 8.4 air exchanges per 24-hour period
  • Proper and frequent maintenance of HVAC systems
  • UV-C light in the HVAC plenum
  • Installation of HVAC air cleaning systems or devices to remove VOCs, bioeffluents (people odors) from HVAC systems conditioned air
  • Central vacuums that completely remove all particles from the house including the ultrafine particles (UFPs) which are less than 0.1 μm
  • Regular vacuuming with a HEPA filter vacuum cleaner to collect and retain 99.97% of particles down to and including 0.3 micrometers
  • Place bedding in sunshine, which is related to a study done in a high-humidity area where damp bedding was common and associated with SBS[26]
  • Increased ventilation rates that are above the minimum guidelines[36]
  • Lighting in the workplace should be designed to give individuals control, and be natural when possible[50]
  • Relocate office printers outside the air conditioning boundary, perhaps to another building
  • Replace current office printers with lower emission rate printers[51]
  • Identify any products containing harmful ingredients and remove them

Epidemiology

Some studies have shown a small difference between genders, with women having slightly higher reports of SBS symptoms compared to men.[26] However, many other studies have shown an even higher difference in the report of sick building syndrome symptoms in women compared to men.[21] It is not entirely clear, however, if this is due to biological, social, or occupational factors.

A 2001 study published in the Journal Indoor Air, gathered 1464 office-working participants to increase the scientific understanding of gender differences under the Sick Building Syndrome phenomenon.[52] Using questionnaires, ergonomic investigations, building evaluations, as well as physical, biological, and chemical variables, the investigators obtained results that compare with past studies of SBS and gender. The study team found that across most test variables, prevalence rates were different in most areas, but there was also a deep stratification of working conditions between genders as well. For example, men’s workplace tend to be significantly larger and have all around better job characteristics. Secondly, there was a noticeable difference in reporting rates, finding that women have higher rates of reporting roughly 20% higher than men. This information was similar to that found in previous studies, indicating a potential difference in willingness to report.[52]

There might be a gender difference in reporting rates of sick building syndrome because women tend to report more symptoms than men do. Along with this, some studies have found that women have a more responsive immune system and are more prone to mucosal dryness and facial erythema. Also, women are alleged by some to be more exposed to indoor environmental factors because they have a greater tendency to have clerical jobs, wherein they are exposed to unique office equipment and materials (example: blueprint machines), whereas men often have jobs based outside of offices.[53]

History

In the late 1970s, it was noted that nonspecific symptoms were reported by tenants in newly constructed homes, offices, and nurseries. In media it was called "office illness". The term "sick building syndrome" was coined by the WHO in 1986, when they also estimated that 10–30% of newly built office buildings in the West had indoor air problems. Early Danish and British studies reported symptoms.

Poor indoor environments attracted attention. The Swedish allergy study (SOU 1989:76) designated "sick building" as a cause of the allergy epidemic as was feared. In the 1990s, therefore, extensive research into "sick building" was carried out. Various physical and chemical factors in the buildings were examined on a broad front.

The problem was highlighted increasingly in media and was described as a "ticking time bomb". Many studies were performed in individual buildings.

In the 1990s "sick buildings" were contrasted against "healthy buildings". The chemical contents of building materials were highlighted. Many building material manufacturers were actively working to gain control of the chemical content and to replace criticized additives. The ventilation industry advocated above all more well-functioning ventilation. Others perceived ecological construction, natural materials, and simple techniques as a solution.

At the end of the 1990s came an increased distrust of the concept of "sick building". A dissertation at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm 1999 questioned the methodology of previous research, and a Danish study from 2005 showed these flaws experimentally. It was suggested that sick building syndrome was not really a coherent syndrome and was not a disease to be individually diagnosed, but a collection of as many as to dozen semi related diseases. In 2006 the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare recommended in the medical journal Läkartidningen that "sick building syndrome" should not be used as a clinical diagnosis. Thereafter, it has become increasingly less common to use terms such as "sick buildings" and "sick building syndrome" in research. However, the concept remains alive in popular culture and is used to designate the set of symptoms related to poor home or work environment engineering. "Sick building" is therefore an expression used especially in the context of workplace health.

Sick building syndrome made a rapid journey from media to courtroom where professional engineers and architects became named defendants and were represented by their respective professional practice insurers. Proceedings invariably relied on expert witnesses, medical and technical experts along with building managers, contractors and manufacturers of finishes and furnishings, testifying as to cause and effect. Most of these actions resulted in sealed settlement agreements, none of these being dramatic. The insurers needed a defense based upon Standards of Professional Practice to meet a court decision that declared that in a modern, essentially sealed building, the HVAC systems must produce breathing air for suitable human consumption. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, currently with over 50,000 international members) undertook the task of codifying its indoor air quality (IAQ) standard.

ASHRAE empirical research determined that "acceptability" was a function of outdoor (fresh air) ventilation rate and used carbon dioxide as an accurate measurement of occupant presence and activity. Building odors and contaminants would be suitably controlled by this dilution methodology. ASHRAE codified a level of 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide and specified the use of widely available sense-and-control equipment to assure compliance. The 1989 issue of ASHRAE 62.1-1989 published the whys and wherefores and overrode the 1981 requirements that were aimed at a ventilation level of 5,000 ppm of carbon dioxide, (the OAHA workplace limit), federally set to minimize HVAC system energy consumption. This apparently ended the SBS epidemic.

Over time, building materials changed with respect to emissions potential. Smoking vanished and dramatic improvements in ambient air quality, coupled with code compliant ventilation and maintenance, per ASHRAE standards have all contributed to the acceptability of the indoor air environment. Only time and the courts will tell how right, or wrong ASHRAE is.[54][55]

gollark: design specification.
gollark: yes. produce.
gollark: The main datastructure is... hair forests, somehow?
gollark: Esohairlang, yes.
gollark: So we don't know if they have those properties.

See also

References
  1. "Sick Building Syndrome" (PDF). World Health Organization. n.d.
  2. Passarelli, Guiseppe Ryan (2009). "Sick building syndrome: An overview to raise awareness". Journal of Building Appraisal. 5: 55–66. doi:10.1057/jba.2009.20.
  3. Stolwijk, J A (1991-11-01). "Sick-building syndrome". Environmental Health Perspectives. 95: 99–100. doi:10.1289/ehp.919599. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1568418. PMID 1821387.
  4. Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health Professionals (PDF). Indoor Air Division (6609J): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015(?). Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. "Indoor Air Facts No.4: Sick Building Syndrome" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991 (revised). Retrieved 2009-02-19. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. Straus, David C. (2009). "Molds, mycotoxins, and sick building syndrome". Toxicology and Industrial Health. 25 (9–10): 617–635. doi:10.1177/0748233709348287. PMID 19854820.
  7. Terr, Abba I. (2009). "Sick Building Syndrome: Is mould the cause?". Medical Mycology. 47: S217–S222. doi:10.1080/13693780802510216. PMID 19255924.
  8. European Centre for Environment and Health, WHO (1983). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants (PDF). EURO Reports and Studies, no 78. Bonn Germany Office: WHO Regional Office for Europe (Copenhagen).
  9. Thorn, A. (2000). "Emergence and preservation of a chronically sick building". Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 54 (7): 552–556. doi:10.1136/jech.54.7.552. PMC 1731714. PMID 10846199.
  10. Shahzad, Sally S.; Brennan, John; Theodossopoulos, Dimitris; Hughes, Ben; Calautit, John Kaiser (2016-04-06). "Building-Related Symptoms, Energy, and Thermal Control in the Workplace: Personal and Open Plan Offices". Sustainability. 8 (4): 331. doi:10.3390/su8040331.
  11. Kumar Nag, Pranab (2018). Office Buildings: Health, Safety and Environment. Springer. p. 85. ISBN 9789811325779.
  12. McKinney, K. R.; Gong, Y. Y.; Lewis, T. G. (2006). "Environmental transmission of SARS at Amoy Gardens". Journal of Environmental Health. 68 (9): 26–30, quiz 51-2. PMID 16696450.
  13. Robilotti, Elizabeth; Deresinski, Stan; Pinsky, Benjamin A. (2015). "Norovirus". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 28 (1): 134–164. doi:10.1128/CMR.00075-14. PMC 4284304. PMID 25567225.
  14. Bert, Fabrizio; Scaioli, Giacomo; Gualano, Maria Rosaria; Passi, Stefano; Specchia, Maria Lucia; Cadeddu, Chiara; Viglianchino, Cristina; Siliquini, Roberta (2014). "Norovirus Outbreaks on Commercial Cruise Ships: A Systematic Review and New Targets for the Public Health Agenda". Food and Environmental Virology. 6 (2): 67–74. doi:10.1007/s12560-014-9145-5. hdl:2318/144995. PMID 24838574.
  15. Isakbaeva, Elmira T.; Widdowson, Marc-Alain; Beard, R. Suzanne; Bulens, Sandra N.; Mullins, James; Monroe, Stephan S.; Bresee, Joseph; Sassano, Patricia; Cramer, Elaine H.; Glass, Roger I. (2005). "Norovirus Transmission on Cruise Ship". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 11: 154–157. doi:10.3201/eid1101.040434. PMID 15705344.
  16. Carling, Philip C.; Bruno‐Murtha, Lou Ann; Griffiths, Jeffrey K. (2009). "Cruise Ship Environmental Hygiene and the Risk of Norovirus Infection Outbreaks: An Objective Assessment of 56 Vessels over 3 Years". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 49 (9): 1312–1317. doi:10.1086/606058. PMID 19814610.
  17. Neri, Antonio J.; Cramer, Elaine H.; Vaughan, George H.; Vinjé, Jan; Mainzer, Hugh M. (2008). "Passenger Behaviors During Norovirus Outbreaks on Cruise Ships". Journal of Travel Medicine. 15 (3): 172–176. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8305.2008.00199.x. PMID 18494694.
  18. Sundell, J; Lindval, T; Berndt, S (1994). "Association between type of ventilation and airflow rates in office buildings and the risk of SBS-symptoms among occupants". Environ. Int. 20 (2): 239–251. doi:10.1016/0160-4120(94)90141-4.
  19. Rylander, R (1997). "Investigation of the relationship between disease and airborne (1P3)-b-D-glucan in buildings". Med. Of Inflamm. 6 (4): 275–277. doi:10.1080/09629359791613. PMC 2365865. PMID 18472858.
  20. Godish, Thad (2001). Indoor Environmental Quality. New York: CRC Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 1-56670-402-2
  21. Jafari, Mohammad Javad; Khajevandi, Ali Asghar; Mousavi Najarkola, Seyed Ali; Yekaninejad, Mir Saeed; Pourhoseingholi, Mohammad Amin; Omidi, Leila; Kalantary, Saba (2015-01-01). "Association of Sick Building Syndrome with Indoor Air Parameters". Tanaffos. 14 (1): 55–62. ISSN 1735-0344. PMC 4515331. PMID 26221153.
  22. Teculescu, D. B. (1998). "Sick Building Symptoms in office workers in northern France: a pilot study". Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 71 (5): 353–356. doi:10.1007/s004200050292. PMID 9749975.
  23. Pind C. Ahlroth (2017). "Patient-reported signs of dampness at home may be a risk factor for chronic rhinosinusitis: A cross-sectional study". Clinical & Experimental Allergy. 47 (11): 1383–1389. doi:10.1111/cea.12976. PMID 28695715.
  24. Apter, A (1994). "Epidemiology of the sick building syndrome". J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 94 (2): 277–288. doi:10.1053/ai.1994.v94.a56006.
  25. "Sick Building Syndrome". NSC.org. National Safety Council. 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2009.
  26. Wang, Juan; Li, BaiZhan; Yang, Qin; Wang, Han; Norback, Dan; Sundell, Jan (2013-12-01). "Sick building syndrome among parents of preschool children in relation to home environment in Chongqing, China". Chinese Science Bulletin. 58 (34): 4267–4276. Bibcode:2013ChSBu..58.4267W. doi:10.1007/s11434-013-5814-2. ISSN 1001-6538.
  27. Joshi S. M. (2008). "The sick building syndrome". Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 12 (2): 61–4. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.43262. PMC 2796751. PMID 20040980. in section 3 "Inadequate ventilation".
  28. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016.
  29. Taken from another study: Whitehead II.
  30. Marmot A. F., Eley J., Stafford M., Stansfeld S. A., Warwick E., Marmot M. G. (2006). "Building health: an epidemiological study of "sick building syndrome" in the Whitehall II study". Occup. Environ. Med. 63 (4): 283–9. doi:10.1136/oem.2005.022889. PMC 2078095. PMID 16556750.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. The sick building syndrome as a part of the autoimmune (auto-inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov].
  32. Bauer R. M., Greve K. W., Besch E. L., Schramke C. J., Crouch J., Hicks A., Lyles W. B. (1992). "The role of psychological factors in the report of building-related symptoms in sick building syndrome". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 60 (2): 213–219. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.60.2.213.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. Azuma K., Ikeda K., Kagi N., Yanagi U., Osawa H. (2014). "Prevalence and risk factors associated with nonspecific building-related symptoms in office employees in Japan: Relationships between work environment, Indoor Air Quality, and occupational stress". Indoor Air. 25 (5): 499–511. doi:10.1111/ina.12158. PMID 25244340.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. Norback D., Edling C. (1991). "Environmental, occupational, and personal factors related to the prevalence of sick building syndrome in the general population". Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 48 (7): 451–462. doi:10.1136/oem.48.7.451. PMC 1035398. PMID 1854648.
  35. Milton D. K., Glencross P. M., Walters M. D. (2000). "Risk of Sick Leave Associated with Outdoor Air Supply Rate, Humidification, and Occupant Complaints". Indoor Air. 10 (4): 212–221. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004212.x. PMID 11089326.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. Wargocki P., Wyon D. P., Sundell J., Clausen G., Fanger P. O. (2000). "The Effects of Outdoor Air Supply Rate in an Office on Perceived Air Quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) Symptoms and Productivity". Indoor Air. 10 (4): 222–236. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004222.x. PMID 11089327.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  37. Morimoto, Yasuo; Ogami, Akira; Kochi, Isamu; Uchiyama, Tetsuro; Ide, Reiko; Myojo, Toshihiko; Higashi, Toshiaki (2010). "[Continuing investigation of effect of toner and its by-product on human health and occupational health management of toner]". Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi = Journal of Occupational Health. 52 (5): 201–208. doi:10.1539/sangyoeisei.a10002. ISSN 1349-533X. PMID 20595787.
  38. Pirela, Sandra Vanessa; Martin, John; Bello, Dhimiter; Demokritou, Philip (September 2017). "Nanoparticle exposures from nano-enabled toner-based printing equipment and human health: state of science and future research needs". Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 47 (8): 678–704. doi:10.1080/10408444.2017.1318354. ISSN 1547-6898. PMC 5857386. PMID 28524743.
  39. McKone, Thomas, et al. "Indoor Pollutant Emissions from Electronic Office Equipment, California Air Resources Board Air Pollution Seminar Series". Presented January 7, 2009. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/seminars/mckone/mckone.pdf
  40. Seltzer, J. M. (1994-08-01). "Building-related illnesses". The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 94 (2 Pt 2): 351–361. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(94)90096-5. ISSN 0091-6749. PMID 8077589.
  41. Indoor Air Facts No. 4 (revised) Sick building syndrome. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/sick_building_factsheet.pdf.
  42. Menzies, Dick; Bourbeau, Jean (1997-11-20). "Building-Related Illnesses". New England Journal of Medicine. 337 (21): 1524–1531. doi:10.1056/NEJM199711203372107. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 9366585.
  43. nasa techdoc 19930072988
  44. "Sick Building Syndrome: How indoor plants can help clear the air | University of Technology Sydney".
  45. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930073077.pdf
  46. Joshi, S. M (2008). "The sick building syndrome". Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 12 (2): 61–64. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.43262. PMC 2796751. PMID 20040980.
  47. "Benefits of Office Plants - Tove Fjeld (Agri. Uni. Of Norway)". 2018-05-13.
  48. "NASA: 18 Plants Purify Air, Sick Building Syndrome". 2016-09-20.
  49. "Sick Building Syndrome - How Plants Can Help".
  50. How to deal with sick building syndrome: Guidance for employers, building owners and building managers. (1995). Sudbury: The Executive.
  51. Scungio, Mauro; Vitanza, Tania; Stabile, Luca; Buonanno, Giorgio; Morawska, Lidia (2017-05-15). "Characterization of particle emission from laser printers" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 586: 623–630. Bibcode:2017ScTEn.586..623S. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.030. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 28196755.
  52. Brasche, S.; Bullinger, M.; Morfeld, M.; Gebhardt, H. J.; Bischof, W. (2001-12-01). "Why do women suffer from sick building syndrome more often than men?--subjective higher sensitivity versus objective causes". Indoor Air. 11 (4): 217–222. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.110402.x. ISSN 0905-6947. PMID 11761596.
  53. Godish, Thad (2001). Indoor Environmental quality. New York: CRC Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 1-56670-402-2
  54. "Sick Building Syndrome - Fact Sheet" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  55. "Sick Building Syndrome". National Health Service, England. Retrieved 2013-06-06.

Further reading

Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Series I: Engineering Sciences • Vol. 5 (54) No. 1 - 2012 “IMPACT OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ON SICK BUILDING SYNDROME IN INDIAN LEED CERTIFIED BUILDINGS“ by Jagannathan MOHAN

Classification
External resources
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.