39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Economic, Environmental and Health Implications of Enhanced Ventilation in Office Buildings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Current building ventilation standards are based on acceptable minimums. Three decades of research demonstrates the human health benefits of increased ventilation above these minimums. Recent research also shows the benefits on human decision-making performance in office workers, which translates to increased productivity. However, adoption of enhanced ventilation strategies is lagging. We sought to evaluate two of the perceived potential barriers to more widespread adoption—Economic and environmental costs. Methods: We estimated the energy consumption and associated per building occupant costs for office buildings in seven U.S. cities, representing different climate zones for three ventilation scenarios (standard practice (20 cfm/person), 30% enhanced ventilation, and 40 cfm/person) and four different heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system strategies (Variable Air Volume (VAV) with reheat and a Fan Coil Unit (FCU), both with and without an energy recovery ventilator). We also estimated emissions of greenhouse gases associated with this increased energy usage, and, for comparison, converted this to the equivalent number of vehicles using greenhouse gas equivalencies. Lastly, we paired results from our previous research on cognitive function and ventilation with labor statistics to estimate the economic benefit of increased productivity associated with increasing ventilation rates. Results: Doubling the ventilation rate from the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers minimum cost less than $40 per person per year in all climate zones investigated. Using an energy recovery ventilation system significantly reduced energy costs, and in some scenarios led to a net savings. At the highest ventilation rate, adding an ERV essentially neutralized the environmental impact of enhanced ventilation (0.03 additional cars on the road per building across all cities). The same change in ventilation improved the performance of workers by 8%, equivalent to a $6500 increase in employee productivity each year. Reduced absenteeism and improved health are also seen with enhanced ventilation. Conclusions: The health benefits associated with enhanced ventilation rates far exceed the per-person energy costs relative to salary costs. Environmental impacts can be mitigated at regional, building, and individual-level scales through the transition to renewable energy sources, adoption of energy efficient systems and ventilation strategies, and promotion of other sustainable policies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Heat Waves in the United States: Mortality Risk during Heat Waves and Effect Modification by Heat Wave Characteristics in 43 U.S. Communities

          Background Devastating health effects from recent heat waves, and projected increases in frequency, duration, and severity of heat waves from climate change, highlight the importance of understanding health consequences of heat waves. Objectives We analyzed mortality risk for heat waves in 43 U.S. cities (1987–2005) and investigated how effects relate to heat waves’ intensity, duration, or timing in season. Methods Heat waves were defined as ≥ 2 days with temperature ≥ 95th percentile for the community for 1 May through 30 September. Heat waves were characterized by their intensity, duration, and timing in season. Within each community, we estimated mortality risk during each heat wave compared with non-heat wave days, controlling for potential confounders. We combined individual heat wave effect estimates using Bayesian hierarchical modeling to generate overall effects at the community, regional, and national levels. We estimated how heat wave mortality effects were modified by heat wave characteristics (intensity, duration, timing in season). Results Nationally, mortality increased 3.74% [95% posterior interval (PI), 2.29–5.22%] during heat waves compared with non-heat wave days. Heat wave mortality risk increased 2.49% for every 1°F increase in heat wave intensity and 0.38% for every 1-day increase in heat wave duration. Mortality increased 5.04% (95% PI, 3.06–7.06%) during the first heat wave of the summer versus 2.65% (95% PI, 1.14–4.18%) during later heat waves, compared with non-heat wave days. Heat wave mortality impacts and effect modification by heat wave characteristics were more pronounced in the Northeast and Midwest compared with the South. Conclusions We found higher mortality risk from heat waves that were more intense or longer, or those occurring earlier in summer. These findings have implications for decision makers and researchers estimating health effects from climate change.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity.

            Perceived air quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity were studied in a normally furnished office space (108 m3) ventilated with an outdoor airflow of 3, 10 or 30 L/s per person, corresponding to an air change rate of 0.6, 2 or 6 h-1. The temperature of 22 degrees C, the relative humidity of 40% and all other environmental parameters remained unchanged. Five groups of six female subjects were each exposed to the three ventilation rates, one group and one ventilation rate at a time. Each exposure lasted 4.6 h and took place in the afternoon. Subjects were unaware of the intervention and remained thermally neutral by adjusting their clothing. They assessed perceived air quality and SBS symptoms at intervals, and performed simulated normal office work. Increasing ventilation decreased the percentage of subjects dissatisfied with the air quality (P < 0.002) and the intensity of odour (P < 0.02), and increased the perceived freshness of air (P < 0.05). It also decreased the sensation of dryness of mouth and throat (P < 0.0006), eased difficulty in thinking clearly (P < 0.001) and made subjects feel generally better (P < 0.0001). The performance of four simulated office tasks improved monotonically with increasing ventilation rates, and the effect reached formal significance in the case of text-typing (P < 0.03). For each two-fold increase in ventilation rate, performance improved on average by 1.7%. This study shows the benefits for health, comfort and productivity of ventilation at rates well above the minimum levels prescribed in existing standards and guidelines. It confirms the results of a previous study in the same office when the indoor air quality was improved by decreasing the pollution load while the ventilation remained unchanged.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Estimates of Improved Productivity and Health from Better Indoor Environments

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                18 November 2015
                November 2015
                : 12
                : 11
                : 14709-14722
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Landmark 409 West, 401 Park Drive Boston, MA 02115, USA; E-Mails: spengler@ 123456hsph.harvard.edu (J.S.); jgallen@ 123456hsph.harvard.edu (J.A.)
                [2 ]United Technologies Climate, Controls & Security, Syracuse, NY 13221, USA; E-Mail: James.F.Pegues@ 123456carrier.utc.com
                [3 ]Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, SUNY-Upstate Medical School, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA; E-Mail: satishu@ 123456upstate.edu
                [4 ]Industrial Assessment Center, Biomedical and Chemical Engineering Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA; E-Mail: ssantana@ 123456syr.edu
                Author notes
                [* ]Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: piers.macnaughton@ 123456gmail.com ; Tel.: +1-978-886-0315; Fax: +1-617-384-8819.
                Article
                ijerph-12-14709
                10.3390/ijerph121114709
                4661675
                26593933
                9be0b6c4-da7d-48fc-b847-0fdc119c75a5
                © 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 September 2015
                : 30 October 2015
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                green buildings,energy and environmental costs,health,productivity
                Public health
                green buildings, energy and environmental costs, health, productivity

                Comments

                Comment on this article