Indoor environmental quality, occupant perception, prevalence of sick building syndrome symptoms, and sick leave in a Green Mark Platinum-rated versus a non-Green Mark-rated building: A case study
Indoor environmental quality, occupant perception, prevalence of sick building syndrome symptoms, and sick leave in a Green Mark Platinum-rated versus a non-Green Mark-rated building: A case study
复制标题
绿色标志白金级建筑与非绿色标志级建筑的室内环境质量、居住者感知、病态建筑综合症症状的患病率以及病假：案例研究
DOI：
10.1080/10789669.2014.967164
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Yanhui Tan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Tham;P. Wargocki;Yanhui Tan
新加坡的建筑和建设局绿色标志计划鼓励更好的室内环境质量，为居住者提供更健康的工作场所。然而，研究表明，绿色建筑并不一定能保证较好的室内环境质量。本案例研究旨在比较绿色标志白金和非绿色标志认证建筑中病态建筑综合征症状和病假的患病率。对32名来自绿色标志白金建筑的员工和33名来自非绿色标志建筑的员工进行了调查，以了解他们对室内环境质量和病态建筑综合征患病率的看法。还收集了关于办公室和工作人员缺勤情况的资料。与绿色标志白金认证的建筑相比，非绿色标志认证的建筑更容易泄漏，换气率更高（高出2.5至3倍），温度更低约1°C，照度水平更低。对数据的统计分析表明，居住者的感知存在显著差异;绿色Mark Platinum认证建筑更凉爽（p = 0.002）;空气更清新，气味更少（p = 0.002），显示器/键盘舒适度更轻松（p = 0.029），在95%置信水平下具有更令人满意的人体工程学（p = 0.033）。调查结果还表明，在非绿色标志认证的建筑物中，最常见的症状是喉咙干燥或发炎（15.2%）和嗜睡或疲劳（15.2%），而在绿色马克白金大厦最常见的症状是鼻塞或鼻塞（12.5%）、咽喉干燥或刺激（12.5%）、皮肤干燥（12.5%）和嗜睡或疲劳（12.5%）。然而，病态建筑综合征症状与办公室之间没有统计学显著相关性（p > 0.05）。此外，对病假记录的分析未能表明，与非绿色标志大楼相比，绿色标志白金认证大楼的住户请病假的天数较少。由于以下原因导致的偏差，该意外发现不是肯定的：（i）所研究的办公室之间的行业类型差异，（ii）绿色标志白金级办公室中居住者的合理定居影响，以及（iii）非评级办公室的高泄漏特性，导致与白金级办公室相比，空气交换率（通风）意外高出2.5至3倍。
The Building and Construction Authority Green Mark Scheme in Singapore encourages better indoor environmental quality for healthier workplaces for occupants. However, studies have shown that green buildings do not necessary ensure better indoor environmental quality. This case study aimed to compare the prevalence of sick building syndrome symptoms and sick leave in a Green Mark Platinum and a non-Green Mark-certified building. Thirty-two employees from the Green Mark Platinum building and 33 employees from the non-Green Mark-rated building were surveyed to investigate their perceptions of the indoor environmental quality and prevalence of sick building syndrome experienced. Information concerning the offices and absenteeism of staff was collected as well. Compared to the Green Mark Platinum-certified building, the non-Green Mark-certified building was more leaky and had a higher air change rate (between 2.5 to 3 times higher), was about 1°C cooler, and had a lower illuminance level. The statistical analysis of the data showed that there are significant differences in occupant perception; the Green Mark Platinum-certified building was cooler (p = 0.002); had fresher cleaner air and less odor (p = 0.002), had more relaxed monitor/keyboard comfort (p = 0.029), and had more satisfactory ergonomics (p = 0.033) at a 95% confidence level. Findings also suggested that the most frequent symptoms in the non-Green Mark-certified building were dry or irritated throat (15.2%) and lethargy or tiredness (15.2%), whereas the most frequent symptoms in the Green Mark Platinum building were blocked or stuffy nose (12.5%), dry or irritated throat (12.5%), dry skin (12.5%), and lethargy or tiredness (12.5%). However, there is no statistically significant association between sick building syndrome symptoms and the offices (p > 0.05). Furthermore, analysis of the sick leave records failed to show that occupants in the Green Mark Platinum-certified building took fewer sick leave days as compared to the non-Green Mark building. This unexpected finding is not affirmative due to aberrations attributable to (i) differences in industry type between the offices studied, (ii) plausible settling in effects of occupants in the Green Mark Platinum-rated office, and (iii) high leakage characteristics of the non-rated office that resulted in an unintended 2.5 to 3 times higher air change rate (ventilation) compared to that of the Platinum-rated office.
DOI：
10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004212.x
发表时间：
2000-12-01
期刊：
INDOOR AIR-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Milton, DK;Glencross, PM;Walters, MD
通讯作者：
Walters, MD