The sensation of dryness and irritation is essential in the sick building syndrome (SBS), and such symptoms are common in both office and hospital employees. In Scandinavia, the indoor relative humidity in well ventilated buildings is usually in the range 10-35% in winter. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of steam air humidification on SBS and perceived air quality during the heating season. The study base consisted of a dynamic population of 104 hospital employees, working in four new and well ventilated geriatric hospital units in southern Sweden.

Air humidification raised the relative air humidity to 40-45% in two units during a four months period, whereas the other two units served as controls with relative humidity from 25-35%. Symptoms and perceived indoor air quality were measured before and after the study period by a standardised self administered questionnaire.

The technical measurements comprised room temperature, air humidity, static electricity, exhaust air flow, aerosols, microorganisms, and volatile organic compounds in the air. The most pronounced effect of the humidification was a significant decrease of the sensation of air dryness, static electricity, and airway symptoms. After four months ofair humidification during the heating season, 24% reported a weekly sensation of dryness in humidified units, compared with 73% in controls. No significant changes in symptoms of SBS or perceived air quality over time were found in the control group.

The room temperature in all units was between 21-231C, and no significant effect of air humidification on the air concentration of aerosols or volatile organic compounds was found. No growth of microorganisms was found in the supply air ducts, and no legionella bacteria were found in the supply water of the humidifier. Air humidification, however, significantly reduced the measured personal exposure to static electricity. It is concluded that air humidification during the heating season in colder climates can decrease symptoms of SBS and perception of dry air.

Study by Klas Nordström, Dan Norbäck, Roland Akselsson

The sick building syndrome (SBS) involves non-specific symptoms such as irritation to the eyes, skin, and upper airways, headache, and fatigue.1 In recent years, several epidemiological or experimental investigations on such symptoms have been published.2–14 Various factors such as the age of the building,2,3 the type of ventilation system,4–6 room temperature,7, static electricity,8,9volatile organic compounds,3,8,10 and microbial growth11 have been shown to influence the prevalence of symptoms of SBS. A sensation of dryness and irritation is essential in the SBS,1 and such symptoms are common in both office2,4,5,12 and hospital employees.13 In Scandinavia, the indoor relative humidity is usually in the range of 10-35% during wintertime in workplaces,8,14 and air humidification is rare.8

There is conflicting information in the scientific literature on the effects of air humidification. In experimental chamber studies with clean air, no significant relation between measured and perceived air humidity was found.15,16 There may also be negative health aspects of air humidification. In a large study in Great Britain it was shown that buildings with air conditioning have a higher prevalence of SBS, the possible cause being microbial growth in humidifiers or chilling units.5

In contrast with these findings, controlled experimental field studies from Finland have showed beneficial effects of moderate air humidification during the heating season on the sensation of dryness and symptoms of SBS.14,17 In one cross over study, steam air humidification relative humidity (of 30-40%) significantly reduced the prevalence of symptoms of SBS compared with no air humidification relative humidity (of 20-30%).14 There , however, few longitudinal studies available where the influence of air humidification on both symptoms and other indoor exposures has been studied.

Our study had two aims. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of steam air humidification on SBS and perceived air quality during the heating season. The second aim was to study possible effects of air humidification on selected physical, chemical, and microbiological exposures in the buildings.

Material and methods
In an earlier survey (unpublished data), the age of the building and supply air flow was determined for all nine geriatric hospital units in one hospital district in southern Sweden. To increase the homogeneity of the study population, we selected the four newest and best ventilated hospital units situated in two hospitals for this investigation. At the beginning of the study in December 1991, 100 subjects were employed in these units. The subjects were invited to participate in the indoor climate investigation, but were not informed that it included air humidification in some departments. The study was restricted to those 90 employees who worked during the daytime and always in the same unit. The study base was dynamic, and was made up of employees working in the four selected departments during the study period (December 199 1-April 1992). Steam air humidification was applied in two randomly selected units, one in each hospital during a four month period. The steam humidification was introduced in December 1991, after the first questionnaire was completed. The other two units, one in each hospital, served as controls. No type of air humidification had previously been used in any of the four departments.

Assessment of symptoms and perceived
To evaluate the perception of symptoms of SBS and perceived indoor air quality (dry air, stuffy air, odour, and static electricity) the personnel were asked to answer a standardised self administered questionnaire. The questionnaire has been used in Sweden for some years, and most of the questions have been validated previously. The current version, with the designation MM-040-NA, was developed by the Department of Occupational Health in Orebro, Sweden.18 It contains questions on perceived air quality, symptoms included in the SBS, personal factors, and the psychosocial climate at the workplace. A recall period of three months was used in the questionnaire. Work related symptoms were not assessed in the questionnaire. There was one question asking whether the respondents attributed perceived symptoms to indoor climatic factors. This information, , was not used in this study, which covers symptoms regardless of the subjects' opinion on causes.

For each symptom or air quality perception, an answer could be given according to one of three options: "no, never", "yes, sometimes" and "yes, often". Often means every week. Each of the symptoms was assigned an index value, 2, 1, or 0, according to the answer. Twelve questions on medical symptoms, one on eye irritation, three on airway symptoms, three on dermal symptoms, and five on general symptoms were included in the questionnaire. The prevalence of subjects with at least one weekly symptom from eyes, airway, skin, or general symptoms was calculated. Also, an overall score of symptoms of SBS that ranged from 0 to 24 was constructed, by summing the individual symptom scores. Changes of symptoms or perceptions, ranging from -2 to 2, were calculated for each individual, by subtracting each index (0-2) at the beginning of the study period, from the score at the end of the period. The same questionnaire was distributed to all hospital employees before and after the study period. The subjects responded anonymously, and were instructed to answer all questions without paying any attention to the experience of indoor air quality expressed by colleagues. 

Assessment of personal factors
Information on age, sex, job category, years of employment, numbers of working hours, smoking habits, hay fever, and asthmatic symptoms was obtained from the questionnaire. The current version of the questionnaire contained four questions covering different aspects of the psychosocial work conditions. The question that involved "interesting/ stimulating work" measured work satisfaction. The question "too much work to do" covered work stress. The question "do you get help from your colleagues when you have a problem at work" measured the degree of social support, and the question on "opportunity to influence working conditions" measured the degree of personal influence experienced by the subjects. The questions on psychosocial conditions had four possible answers: "yes, often", "yes, sometimes", "no, seldom", and "no, never". Each of the variables was assigned an index value, 3, 2, 1, or 0 according to the answer; and a psychosocial dissatisfaction index was calculated by forming a total sum of the three indices (0-12). 

Assessment of exposure
The technical investigation comprised a building survey. Measurements of temperature, indoor air humidity, static electricity, exhaust air flow/person, microorganisms, volatile organic compounds, and particle concentration were performed by an experienced safety engineer. The room temperature, supply air temperature, exhaust air flow, and ventilation noise were measured to ensure that these conditions did not change during the study period. The other factors were measured to investigate if they were influenced by the air humidification.

In the building survey, information was gathered on the age of the building, the type of ventilation system used in it, the type of floor covering, signs of building dampness, and smoking restriction in the building. Information on work related exposures, including use of biocides, bulk dispensing of Ispagula, and use of gloves was also gathered.

Measurements of room temperature and relative air humidity were performed in one room in each unit during the whole four months period by a termohygrograph (CASELLA T 9420). Also, temperature was measured with a four channel instrument (MITEG MTM 20) every hour in one week in each unit, and recorded in a datalogger. The sites of measurement for the four channel instrument were outdoor air, supply air, and locations in two different rooms. Exhaust air flows were measured in each patients's room by a thermoanemometer (ALNOR GGA 65 P). The personal exposure to static electricity was measured by a field meter (EMF 57) coupled to a metal bracelet, and the charge was recorded on a pen plotter. The charge was measured during one minute of standardized walk by five test people in all units. The particle concentration was measured in the breathing zone and in the supply air ducts by a particle counter (NET 2000). This instrument registers particles within the range of 0 5-5 pum. In total, 40 three minute average measurements were performed.

Volatile organic compounds were sampled in one unit with humidification, and one control unit, on charcoal sorbent tubes (SKC- 226-01). The air sampling rate was one 1/min for over 90 minutes. The charcoal tubes were desorbed with 1 ml of carbon disulphide before analysis, which was performed by gas chromatography within two weeks from the sampling day.8 Both the concentrations of 16 common compounds, and the total concentration of the identified and unidentified volatile organic compounds (jg/M3) were calculated. Viable moulds and bacteria were analysed in settled dust from the ventilation. Bacteria were cultivated on trypton glucose agar extract. Moulds were cultivated on malt agar. The number of colonies was counted, and compared in the laboratory with normal values for dust from ventilation ducts, obtained from the Swedish Building Research Institute.19 Also, the water supplies of the humidification units were analysed for presence of legionella bacteria by the Microbiological Laboratory, University Hospital in Lund, Sweden.

All measuring instruments were calibrated before measurements were taken. The temperature instruments were calibrated before and during the measuring period by comparison with an accurate mercury thermometer. The termohygrograph was calibrated by comparison with a sling psychrometer. Temperature, relative humidity, volatile organic compounds, and particle concentration were measured 1-5 m above the floor, during the study period. No information on the result of the technical measurements was delivered to the hospital units before the questionnaire study was completed.

Statistical methods
Differences in symptom index between the humidified group and controls at the beginning of the study period were determined by X2 analysis for 2 x 3 tables, or by the Mann- Whitney U test if the number in any of the cells was zero. For weekly symptoms, crude odds ratios (OR), with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Also, multiple logistic regression was applied to calculated adjusted ORs. Differences in scores of changes in symptoms between exposed people and controls were analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Differences in exposures between humidified and control units were analysed by Student's t test, or by Wilcoxon matched signed rank test. In all statistical analyses, two tailed tests and 5% level of significance were used.

The response rate was 89%, both in the initial questionnaire and in the second study at the end of the study period. Due to changes of the dynamic population during the study period, however, a total number of 104 subjects participated in the study. Twenty four subjects responded in the first study only. Another twenty four subjects responded in the second study only, while 56 subjects participated in both studies. No significant differences in age or duration of employment were found between the units during the study period (table 1). The prevalence of current smokers was 45% in the humidified units, and 39% in the control units in December 1991. No significant difference in proportion of smokers, men, or job categories was found between the humidified and the control units during the study period. In the control units, however, the proportion of subjects with asthma or hayfever was significantly higher (P < 0 05, table 2).

Humidified units Control units
Characteristic December 1991
(n = 42)
April 1992
(n = 38)
December 1991
(n = 42)
April 1992
(n = 38)
Age 39 (12) 40 (13) 36 (10) 38 (9)
Employment (y) 4,2 (4,0) 3,9 (2,8) 4,3 (2,6) 5,6 (5,7)
All results are NS

Table 1
Mean (SD) age andyears of employment, in a dynamic population of hospital employees in two humidified two control units, before and after a four month study period

Humidified units Control units
Characteristic December 1991
(n = 42)
April 1992
(n = 38)
December 1991
(n = 42)
April 1992
(n = 38)
Women 100 100 93 92
Current tobacco smoker 45 35 39 50
Asthma or hayfever* 17 13 43 31
Nurse 12 11 12 13
Auxiliary nurse 81 79 79 72
Other job category 7 10 9 15
*p < 0,05 Humidified v control units

Table 2
Selected demographic data (%) of a dynamic population of hospital employees in two humidified and two control units before and after a four month study period

Building characteritics and occupational exposures
All hospital units were situated in small towns (5000-10 000 inhabitants), not near to heavy traffic or polluting industries. The age of the buildings ranged from five to eight years. All buildings were built of concrete or bricks, with slanting tile roofs, and sun protection devices above the windows, to minimise temperature variation. Two of the units had signs of dampness in the concrete floor, which was verified by humidity measurements. The floor coatings in all units consisted of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material, and no wall to wall carpets were found. All buildings were equipped with mechanical ventilation with both supply and exhaust air (mixed system). The ventilation systems were equipped with rotary air to air heat exchangers without return air devices. The heating system was always water borne central heating with radiators, in combination with air heating by way of the supply air. General smoking indoors was allowed in one humidified and one control unit, and restricted to certain rooms in the other two units. The cleaning procedures of the floors included daily mopping with water. No use of glutaraldehyde or other biocides, either as cleaning materials or in the air conditioning systems, occurred. Bulk dispensing of Ispagula was not used in any of the four departments, and the degree of use of latex gloves was similar in all units.

physical measurements
As expected, the relative air humidity was significantly higher in the humidified departments (table 3): the relative humidity ranged from 35-45% in one and 40-45% in the other. In both control departments, the relative humidity ranged from 28-38%. Also, the air humidification resulted in a significant decrease in personal exposure to static electricity (P < 0-05). The average indoor temperature during the day did not differ significantly between the humidified and the control units. The supply air temperature ranged from 21 0-22-O0C in all hospital units. No significant differences in degree of ventilation, or particle concentration in the air between the humidified and the control units were found.

Variable Humidified units
mean (range)
Control units
mean (range)
Room temperature (°C) 22,4 (21,5–23,5) 21,7 (20,5–23,0)
Relative air humidity (%) 40 (35–45) 31 (28–38)
Exhaust air flow (1/s/person) 14 (7–22) 14 (6–22)
Static electricity (V) 183 (25–400) 305 (50–500)*
Particles µm (103/f3):
0,5–0,7 29,9 (20–51) 29,8 (19–53)
0,7–1,0 6,9 (2–13) 8,1 (2–17)
1,0–5,0 5,1 (1–11) 5,2 (1–12)
> 5,0 0,10 (0,01–0,6) 0,07 (0,01–0,2)
*p < 0,05 By Wilcoxon matched paired signed rank test.

Table 3
Temperature, air humidity, ventilation flow, static electricity, and air concentration ofparticles in two humidified and two control units

Chemical and biological measurements
Volatile organic compounds in the breathing zone were measured in the two hospital units with increased moisture content in the concrete floor. Table 4 shows that 2-ethyl-ihexanol was detected in all rooms, but no significant differences in the chemical composition of the air between the humidified and the control unit were found. The biological investigations showed that no viable moulds or bacteria were present in dust from the supply air ducts in any of the units. No legionella bacteria were found in the supply water of the humidification systems.

Compounds Humidified unit
(n = 6)
mean (range)
Control unit
mean (range)
Aromatics1 12 (3–29) 23 (4–63)
n-Alkanes2 3 (3–6) 4 (3–6)
Terpenes3 5 (2–11) 6 (2–9)
Butanols4 7 (4–8) 9 (1–12)
2-etyl-1-hexanol 10 (6–17) 9 (1–12)
Unidentified low boiling compounds 6,9 (2–13) 8,1 (2–17)
Unidentified high boiling compounds 5,1 (1–11) 5,2 (1–12)
Total concentration of volatile organic compounds 0,10 (0,01–0,6) 0,07 (0,01–0,2)
1Sum of toluene, m-xylene, o-xylene, p-xylene, and

2tSum of noctane, n-nonane, n-decane,
Aand n-undecane.

3Sum of a-pinene, fi-carene, and limonene.

4Sum of n-butanol and iso-butanol.

Sum of unidentified organic compounds with a retention time < n-dodecane. lSum of unidentified organic compounds with a retention time > n-dodecane

Table 4
Indoor concentration of volatile organic compounds (uglm3) in one humidified and one control unit

Reception of indoor air quality
In December 1991, before air humidification, no significant differences in any type of perception between the control units and the humidified units, were found. The most prevalent discomforts in all four units were complaints on dry air, static electricity, and stuffy air. On average, 73% of the 84 responders in 1991 reported weekly sensations of air dryness, 39% perceived static electricity every week, and 35% reported weekly perceptions of stuffy air.

Humidification greatly affected the perception of dry air and static electricity. In April 1992, after four months of air humidification, the prevalence of weekly complaints of dry air was 24% in the humidified group (n = 38), but still 73% in the controls (n = 38) (OR = 0 1; 95%CI 0 04-0 3, P < 0001). Weekly complaints on static electricity were reported by 26% in the humidified group, compared with a 55% prevalence in controls (OR = 0 3; 95% CI 0-1-0-8, P < 0-05). The reductions of these discomforts were similar in both humidified departments. No significant difference for other types of perception of air quality were found in April 1992. Similar results were obtained if the analysis was restricted to those 56 subjects who responded both in December 1992 and April 1992. 

The incidence of both reduced and increased perceptions were high for many complaints about physical factors such as draught, temperature, and inadequate light, suggesting that perceptions of indoor climate may have large normal fluctuations. Despite these fluctuations, significant differences between humidified units and controls were found for both the change of sensation of air dryness (P < 0-01) and static electricity (P < 0-05, table 5).

Table 5
Type ofperception Humidified units
(incidence (%) of)
Control units
(incidence (0%) of)
Draught 11 54 4 30 NS
Variable temperature 17 26 42 17 NS
Too high temperature 33 11 22 13 NS
Too low temperature 22 44 25 33 NS
Stuffy "bad" air 25 18 28 20 NS
Dry air 62 0 21 13 < 0,01
Unpleasant odour
22 15 32 20 NS
Static electricity 27 8 4 21 < 0,01
Passive smoking 7 15 4 28 NS
Noise 28 14 12 8 NS
Inadequate light 37 33 32 28 NS
Dustiness 24 17 29 17 NS
Calculated as difference in perception index (0-2) before and after the study period.

* Calculated as difference in perception index (0-2) before and after the study period.

** Proportion of subjects (%) with a positive value of perception change (range -2 to 2).

*** Test for difference in perception change in humidified, compared with control units, by Mann- Whitney U-test.

Table 5
Changes of indoor climate perceptions* among employees in two humidified hospital units (n = 30) and two control units (n = 26) during a four month study period

No significant differences in any symptom scores were found between the control units and the experimental units in December 1991, before air humidification. The prevalence of weekly symptoms was high in all units. The average prevalence in all subjects (n = 84) were 28% for eye symptoms, 34% for airway symptoms, 39% for dermal symptoms, and 37% for general symptoms. No significant differences between experimental and control subjects were found in 1991 (table 6). 

Type symptom
Eye Airway Derma Generall
Before humidification:
Symptom prevalence (%) in
Pre-exposed (n = 42) 35 35 46 35
Controls (n = 42) 21 32 32 38
Crude OR (95% CI) 2,0 (0,7 - 5,3) 1,2 (0,5–3,0) 1,8 (0,7–4,6) 0,9 (0,3–2,2)
Adjusted ORII (95% CI) 1,4 (0,4–4,5) 1,4 (0,4–4,9) 2,8 (0,8–9,8) 1,1 (0,3–3,6)
After humidification:
Symptom prevalence (%) in
Post-exposed (n = 38) 19 11 39 32
Controls (n =38) 28 39 36 27
Crude OR (95 % CI) 0,6 (0,2–1,8) 0,2 (0,06–0,6) 1,1 (0,4–2,9) 1,3 (0,5–3,6)
Adjusted ORII (95 % CI) 0,5 (0,1–1,9) 0,2 (0,04–0,7) 1,5 (0,5–5,1) 1,3 (0,4–4,5)

Table 6
Adjusted ORsfor weekly symptom* (0-1) among employees in two units exposed to air humidification and two control units before and after afour month study period

In April 1992, the prevalence of airway symptoms was significance lower (P < 0-001) in humidified units than in the control units (adjusted OR = 0-2; 95% CI 004-007, table 6). For other weekly symptoms, no significant differences were found in April 1992. When analysing changes of scores of symptoms among subjects responding both times (n = 56), similar results were obtained. The humidified units reported a significant reduction in the score for throat dryness compared with changes in controls (P < 0-001). A borderline significance was also found for the reduction of mental fatigue (P = 005) and cough (P = 0-05, table 7). No significant effect of air humidification on the change of the overall score for SBS symptoms, incidence of asthma, or the psychosocial score, were detected in those 56 subjects responding both times. The overall incidence of new asthmatic symptoms was 4%, and the incidence of disappearance of asthma symptoms was 16%.

Humidified units (incidence (%) of) Control units (incidence (%) of)
Type of symptom Decreased symptom** Increased symptom*** Decreasedt symtom** Increasedf symtom*** p-value §
General fatigue 20 13 35 8 NS
Feeling heavy-headed
(mental fatigue)
34 7 12 16 0,05
Headache 24 14 26 17 NS
Nausea or dizziness 18 4 8 19 NS
Difficulties in
14 14 15 12 NS
Itching, burning, or
irritation of the eyes
29 7 12 11 NS
Irritated, stuffy,
or runny nose
20 10 12 16 NS
Hoarse, dry throat 61 4 16 32 < 0,01
Cough 28 4 17 25 0,05
Dryfacial skin 21 10 19 15 NS
Itch of scalp or ears 7 14 12 12 NS
Dry skin on the hands 11 18 16 36 NS
* Calculated as difference in symptom index (0-2) before and after the study period.

** Proportion of subjects (%) with a negative value of symptom change (range -2 to 2).

*** Proportion of subjects (%) with a positive value of symptom change (range -2 to 2).

§Test for difference in symptom change in humidified, compared with control units, by Mann-Whitney U-test.

Table 7
Changes ofsymptoms* among employees in two humidified hospital units (n =30) and two control units (n = 26) during a four month study period

This experimental study has shown that air humidification up to a relative humidity of 40-45% decreases the perception of dry air and malodour. Also, air humidification reduced the prevalence of symptoms compatible with the SBS.

Many problems are inherited in a cross sectional epidemiological study, particularly if the studied phenomena have a multifactorial cause. Some of these problems can be reduced if an experimental and longitudinal design is selected. A selection bias can occur, both because of an incorrect study design and as a result of a low response rate. This study was designed to include the four newest geriatric hospital units within one geographical area, and the humidification exposure was randomly distributed in two of the units, while the other two served as controls. Also, the participation rate was high. Because of the dynamic population structure, changes of subjects during the study period could have influenced the results. When applying paired comparisons, however, similar results for the dynamic population were obtained. Thus it is less likely that selection bias had any important influence on the result of our study.

Another problem of validity is response bias due to the awareness of the exposure. In this study, however, no information on the purpose of the study was given to the participants during the study period. Also, the results of the measurements or the questionnaire study were not reported to the units until the questionnaire investigation was completed. Only specific exposures and perceptions were related to air humidification. Finally, in studies where multiple effects of exposure are analysed, mass significance may influence the results. In our study, however, most results were significant and < 1% level, and the total pattern of the results was consistent with the hypothesis. We do not think that the internal validity of our results have been unduly affected by multiple statistical tests, response bias or selection bias.

The perception of poor indoor air quality, particularly air dryness and irritation is essential in the SBS as defined by a working group of the World Health Organisation.1 This syndrome comprises irritative symptoms from eyes, skin, and upper airways as well as general symptoms, including headache and fatigue. Other investigators have mainly studied complaints in office workers. In the Danish Town Hall Study,2 52% of the women complained of dry air and 16% complained of static electricity. Similar figures were obtained in a study from northern Sweden,12 where 43% of the women complained of dry air. There are, however, indications that symptoms of SBS are common also in hospital workers.9,13

Common complaints in our study were dry air and static electricity. We showed that these perceptions were drastically reduced even with moderate air humidification. Also, a significant decrease of airway symptoms, particularly throat dryness, was found. Our results agree with other recent studies from Finland,14,17 Sweden,13 i and the United Kingdom.20 In one crossover experimental field study, steam air humidification (relative humidity of 30-40%) significantly reduced the prevalence of symptoms of dryness compared with no air humidification (relative humidity of 20-30%).14 In another experimental study in a large office building, humidification (relative humidity of 45-55%) significantly reduced the prevalence of skin and airway symptoms and perception of dry air compared with no air humidification (relative humidity of 10-20%).17 Similar results were obtained in an experimental field study in a Swedish hospital with indoor air complaints. Finally, in a non-experimental longitudinal study from the United Kingdom, higher air humidity was associated with less symptoms.20 There are also indications that air humidification may result in a decrease of sickness absence in office workers.21

Our results do not contradict other studies where adverse health effects due to microbial growth in humidifiers or air conditioning units have been found.5,22 These studies show the importance of avoiding spread or growth of airborne microorganisms indoors, and therefore a moderate steam humidification under safe conditions is the best choice. It is still unclear which mechanisms are involved in the reduction of symptoms, air dryness, and malodour in humidified buildings, but it has been recommended that the relative humidity should be between 40 and 60%.23 The possible influence of air humidification on air quality seems not to have been measured in most other experimental field studies. We found no effect of air humidification on the concentration of volatile organic compounds or particles, but a significant reduction of measured static electricity. Our results indicate that further research is needed to understand the mechanism of the positive health effects of air humidification in Nordic countries, where air humidity can be extremely low during cold winters.

This study was supported by funding from the National Swedish Institute for Building Research and the Malmöhus County Council.


Original title: Effect of air humidification on the sick building syndrome and perceived indoor air quality in hospitals: a four month longitudinal study.

Source link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/80004935

Released: 1994

1 Akimenko VV, Andersen I, Lebowitz MD, Lindvall T. The "sick" building syndrome. In: Berglund B, Berglund U, Lindvall T, Sundell J, Hrsg. Indoor air, Vol 6. Evaluation and conclusions for health sciences and technology. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research, 1986:87–97. (D13.)
2 Skov P, Valbjorn O, Danish Indoor Climate Study Group. et al. The "sick" building syndrome in the office environment: the Danish town hall study. Environment International 1987;13:339–49.
3 Norbäck D, Torgen M, Edling C. Volatile organic compounds, respirable dust, and personal factors related to prevalence and incidence of sick building syndrome in primary schools. Br J Ind Med 1990;47:733–41.
4 Finnegan MJ, Pickering CAC, Burge PS. The sick building syndrome: prevalence studies. BMJ 1984;289: 1573–5.
5 Burge S, Hedge A, Wilson S, Bass JH, Robertson A. Sick building syndrome: a study of 4373 office workers. Ann Occup Hyg 1987;31:493–504.
6 Skov P, Valbjorn O, Pedersen BV, Danish Indoor Climate Study Group. Influence of indoor climate on the sick building syndrome in an office environment. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990;16:363–71.
7 Jaakola JJK, Heinonen OP, Seppanen O. Sick building syndrome, sensation of dryness and thermal comfort in relation to room temperature in an office building: need for individual control of temperature. Environment International 1989;15:163–8.
8 Norbäck D, Michel I, Widstrom J. Indoor air quality and personal factors related to the sick building syndrome. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990;16:121–8.
9 Norbäck D, Edling C. Environmental, occupational, and personal factors related to the prevalence of sick building syndrome in the general population. Br J Ind Med 1991;48:451–62.
10 Mölhave L, Bach B, Pedersen OF. Human reactions to low concentrations of volatile organic compounds. Environment International 1986;12: 167–75.
11 Norbäck D, Edling C, Wieslander G. Sick building syndrome in the general Swedish population the significance of outdoor and indoor air quality and seasonal variation. In: Jaakola JJK, Heinonen OP, Seppänen O., Hrsg. Indoor Air '93, Vol 1. Health effects. Helsinki: Laboratory of Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning, 1993:273–8.
12 Stenberg B, Hansson Mild K, Sandström M, Sundell J. Wall S. A prevalence study of the sick building syndrome (SBS) and facial skin symptoms in office workers. Indoor Air 1993;3:71–81.
13 Wyon D. Sick buildings and the experimental approach. Environment Technology 1992;13:313–22.
14 Reinikainen LM, Jaakola JJK, Seppänen O. The effect of air humidification on symptoms and perception of indoor air quality in office workers: a six-period crossover trial. Arch Environ Health 1992;47:8–15.
15 Andersen I, Lundqvist GR, Proctor DF. Human perception of humidity under four controlled conditions. Arch Environ Health 1973;26:22–7.
16 Andersen I. Lundqvist GR, Jensen PL, Proctor DF. Human response to 78-hour exposure to dry air. Arch Environ Health 1974;29:319–24.
17 Reinikainen LM, Jaakkola JJK, Heinonen OP. The effect of air humidification on different symptoms in office workers – an epidemiologic study. Environment International 1991;17:243–50.
18 Andersson K, Strid G. The use of standardized questionnaires in building-related illness (BRI) and sick building syndrome (SBS) surveys. In: Levy F, Maroni M, eds. NATO/CCMS pilot study on indoor air quality, 4. Plenarsitzung. Oslo: NATO/CCMS, 1991:47–64.
19 Swedish Building Research Institute. Microorganisms in ventilation. Gäule, Schweden: SBI, 1990. (Bericht 206.)
20 Menzies RI, Tamblyn RM, Tamblyn RT, Farant JP, Hanley J, Spitzer WO. Sick building syndrome: the effect of changes in ventilation rates on symptom prevalence: the evaluation of a double blind experimental approach. In: Walkingshaw DS, Hrsg. Indoor Air'90, Vol 1. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on indoor air and climate, Toronto, Canada. Ottawa: International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, 1990:519–24.
21 Green GH. Indoor relative humidities in winter and the related absenteeism. ASHRAE Transactions 1985;91: 643–51.
22 Zweers T, Preller L, Brunekreef B, Boleij JSM. Health and indoor climate complaints of 7043 office workers in 61 buildings in the Netherlands. Indoor Air 1992;2:127–36.
23 Sterling EM, Arundel A, Sterling TD. Criteria for human exposure to humidity in occupied buildings. ASHRAE Transactions 1985;91:611–21.