Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Influence of indoor environmental quality on human health and

productivity - A review
Igor Mujan*, Aleksandar S. AnCelkovi

c, Vladimir Mun

can, Miroslav Kljaji

c, Dragan Ru
zi

c
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main goal of this article is to review the state-of-the-art literature and establish a connection be-
Received 26 October 2018 tween the factors that influence health and productivity in any given indoor environment, whether it be
Received in revised form residential or commercial. The study reviews data from books, standards, international SCI journals,
24 January 2019
conference articles, and gray literature that focuses on the main factors of indoor environmental quality.
Accepted 28 January 2019
Indoor environmental quality is broadly separated in the up to eight main factors. However, the
Available online 29 January 2019
emphasis will be given only to the factors that can be measured and controlled actively: thermal comfort,
indoor air quality and ventilation, visual comfort and acoustic comfort. Further, the article discusses
minimum requirements for implementation of indoor environmental quality evaluation and its relation
with green guides and an emerging low-cost sensor array.
The article aims to provide a comprehensive view of challenges being faced daily by researchers and
the research currently being done on the forefront of indoor environmental quality. Thus, future re-
searches can gain a concise overview of this field of studies and a base to build their future research
upon.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction inadequately set parameters can have a drastic impact on students'

These days, people spend up to 87% of their time indoors
whether it in be a residential or commercial building and another
6% in their vehicles, thus being continuously exposed to the indoor
environment (Klepeis et al., 2001). Therefore, it is of great impor-
tance to fully understand the factors influencing indoor environ-
mental quality (IEQ) and their interdependent, complex and
dynamic nature as well as their impact on the health and produc-
tivity of people.
Generally, all environmental aspects have a massive impact on
the quality of people's lives and the productivity of workers (Woo,
2011). In the United Kingdom and the United States, it is estimated
that the State lose roughly 15 billion pounds and 38 billion dollars
respectively, due to reduced productivity of workers and illnesses
caused by inadequate supply of fresh air alone (Centre for Mental
Health, 2011; Fisk and Douglas Black (2012); Fisk et al., 2012).
Studies on the quality of IEQ among students have shown that
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: igormujan@gmail.com (I. Mujan), aleksandar.andjelkovic@
gmail.com (A.S. AnCelkovi
c), vladimirmuncan@uns.ac.rs (V. Mun

can), kljajicm@
uns.ac.rs (M. Kljaji

c), ruzic@uns.ac.rs (D. Ru
zi

c).
cognitive abilities (Shan et al., 2018). This study can be generalized
at the population level for the same climatic zone. A phrase for the
workers who attend work while having reduced productivity due
to health problems or other events that distract them from full
productivity was introduced in last decade - "presenteeism"
(Turpin et al., 2004; Johns, 2010; Centre for Mental Health, 2011).
The indoor environment deeply impacts the health of people in
their living and working environment. Industry must have a moral
responsibility to provide healthy facilities in which people and
workers feel satisfied and give conditions for prosperity. Recent
times have seen a tendency in building design which emphasizes
low energy consumption and reduction of the impact that buildings
have on the environment (Baleta et al., 2019; Ingrao et al., 2018;
Naidoo and Gasparatos, 2018). Among the leaders in the adoption
of regulations and standards in this field are the BREAAM (Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) from
Great Britain, United States Green Council with its LEED program
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), and Green Star
from Australia that provide assessments and evaluate facilities. IEQ
is one of the categories that these standards recognize, however,
researchers discovered that the occupant satisfaction did not in-
crease with the credits awarded to certain IEQ parameter as would

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.307
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
be expected (Altomonte et al., 2017). International Well Building
Institute with their WELL v1™ and WELL v2™ pilot are currently
iterating the most and are aiming to achieve occupant satisfaction
and wellness, while fulfilling all of the standard criterion, yet the
tests to prove the standards claims have not been performed
(International Well Building Institute, 2014, 2018).
The factors being evaluated by IEQ are categorized as thermal
comfort, indoor air quality and ventilation (IAQ), visual comfort as
well as acoustic comfort. Occupant health, comfort, and produc-
tivity are dominantly influenced by them in any indoor space. Be-
sides, there are other factors such as the buildings spatial layout,
the connection of buildings occupants with nature and the build-
ings location and the available public/private services connections.
They will not be addressed because they do not touch upon the IEQ
parameters that can be influenced actively but rather reactively.
At present, buildings are evaluated in relation to their operating
and rent costs and performance of the building's operating pa-
rameters. The new point of view seeks to approach this evaluation
of the operating and rent costs that are used in the building and
performance of the building's operating parameters, but also
include the performance analysis of worker productivity inside and
the health benefits to the occupants since they can represent up to
92% annual investment (Wargocki and Sepp€ anen, 2006; Fuller,
2010).
2. Methodology
A wide range of literature was used to create a base point for the
research. Books, peer review journal articles, conference articles,
and grey literature were used to shape the article's outlook. The
grey literature had to be evaluated to obtain information on current
and emerging low-cost IEQ sensor units that could not be found in
the peer-reviewed articles. The purpose was to document and
analyze crucial literature and acknowledge the state-of-the-art
trends in IEQ in regards to occupant productivity and health. The
methodology of the study was: identify, collect and classify.
Keywords for the research were identified: indoor environ-
mental quality, productivity, health. The authors used Scopus and
Science Direct search engines for this purpose. Fig. 1 shows the
search engine output for research articles when the keywords in-
door environmental quality, productivity, health are entered. The
output served as a starting point for further classification using the
search engine by the relevance of research articles. The most rele-
vant articles were collected for research and review. After the initial
review, the citations and bibliographies of the collected articles
were used to gain more knowledge on the influence of IEQ on
human health and productivity and relevant literature was further
acquired. It consists of research articles, books, standards, guides
and grey literature.
Fig. 1. Search engine output for the number of research articles using the keywords:
indoor environmental quality, productivity, health.
647
The literature reviewed ranges from 1970 to 2018 whereas the
main focus is on the literature from the year 2000 and onward.
Fig. 1 indicates the growing attention to the indoor environmental
quality, productivity, and health keywords in the past twenty years
with the peak of interest in the current decade. Both the Science
Direct search engine and Scopus search engine show that in the
year 2018 was the most productive with the 320 and 330 search
results respectively. The review references the total of 122 pro-
ductions consisting of 99 research articles, 6 books, 6 guides, 8
standards, and 3 articles from grey literature. The distribution of
reviewed references based on the publication decade is given in
Fig. 2.
Following this methodology, the authors categorized the liter-
ature into subsequent segments: Green Guides and IEQ, Factors
Influencing IEQ (thermal environment, indoor air quality, visual
comfort, and acoustic comfort), Personal Environmental Control
(PEC), IEQ and its Low-cost Sensing. Article sections were struc-
tured accordingly.
3. Green guides and IEQ
Currently, sustainably in building stock is being promoted
through several green building certification systems. Currently, the
leading guides sorted chronologically from oldest to youngest are
the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) (BREEAM, 2017) from the United Kingdom,
Green Star from Australia (GBCA, 2011) and Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) (Council, 2003) from the United
States. The certification is carried several categories such as site
sustainability, building energy efficiency, water consumption, ma-
terials, and constructions, etc. After much debate, in recent years
the guides started adopting the category of occupant's satisfaction
of IEQ, though not yet fully characterized. The contribution of green
rating systems in the improvement of the indoor working condi-
tions was triggered by the fact that worker salaries massively
outweigh investment costs and operational costs of the buildings
themselves (Bendewald et al., 2014).
In the working office environment, the indoor environment has
influences satisfaction of the building occupants as well as their
health and self-assessed job performance (Bluyssen, 2014; Lamb
and Kwok, 2016; Lan et al., 2014; National Academy of Sciences,
2011; Wargocki and Seppa €nen, 2006). There is a general assump-
tion that the certification of a building leads to improved IEQ
(USGBC, 2018). However, the evidence does not support this
assumption consistently because of the varying metrics and
method used in the analysis. Some researchers have reported better
cognitive performance in green-certified buildings (MacNaughton
Fig. 2. The decade of publication frequency used for the review.
648 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
et al., 2017) and others have also reported on higher scores of
cognitive functions are to be expected in green-rated offices than of
those in conventional offices (Allen et al., 2016; MacNaughton,
2016). This has to be taken with a grain of salt as other re-
searchers found out that the workers in green-certified buildings
tend to be forgiving and give rate higher indoor conditions than in
conventional ones, while the job satisfaction was not higher
(Leaman and Bordass, 2007). A study comprised of a huge database
of 93 LEED-rated office buildings with over 11,000 occupant re-
sponses discovered that the occupant satisfaction did not increase
with the credits awarded to certain IEQ factor as would be expected
(Altomonte et al., 2017). More so, the workplace satisfaction was
not affected by the awarded certification and the rating and product
level (Altomonte et al., 2017).
4. Factors influencing IEQ
4.1. Thermal comfort
Thermal comfort represents the subjective state of mind satis-
faction with the thermal environment and is assessed by subjective
evaluation (ASHRAE, 2017a). It represents the longest studied and a
very important parameter of IEQ. Only when people feel thermally
comfortable, can they produce in full capacity. To achieve this
feeling, a person experiences cognitive processes that connect
physical, physiological, and psychological factors (ASHRAE, 2017b).
Thermal comfort plays an important role in productivity, and at
stable temperatures of 21e25 OC the best conditions for working
and staying in the premises are created. It is noted that if this upper
limit is exceeded, for each 1OC more, productivity decreases by 2%
(CIBSE, 2013; Sepp€ anen and Fisk, 2006). Thermal comfort is pri-
marily influenced by six parameters: dry bulb air temperature,
relative humidity of the air, air velocity, mean radiant temperature,
human metabolism, and clothing level (ASHRAE, 2017a, 2017b).
Respectively, the first four parameters are environmental, and the
last two are personal and need to be addressed at the design phase
of a building. There are secondary factors that also influence ther-
mal comfort environmental nonuniformity, outdoor climate, age
sex and visual stimulation (ASHRAE, 2017a, 2017b).
Thermal comfort combines a large number of dynamic factors
that may or may not be in direct connection (dressing level, person
activity, personal position, window position, mood, etc.) (ASHRAE,
2017b). Achieving a complete thermal comfort is a very complex
process, and knowledge of people's responses to dynamic changes
within the space is needed. Thermal comfort has both individual
and geographical character, because it is affected by factors such as
the age, sex, metabolism, etc. (Cena and De Dear, 2001; Ngoc et al.,
2014). It has been observed that productivity increases when
thermal comfort improves from acceptable limits to the point that
an occupant prefers (De Dear et al., 2013). Studies have also shown
that people of different sex, age, and body mass index prefer
different thermal conditions. Women show greater discomfort than
men in a controlled indoor environment, as they are more sensi-
tized to changes that deviate away from the optimal thermal
comfort and show greater intolerance to cold conditions (ASHRAE,
2017b).
Literature deals with this subject and uses thermal sensitivity,
thermal acceptance and thermal priority as tools for describing
subjective feelings (Langevin et al., 2013). Thermal comfort pre-
sents a subjective state while the thermal feeling is an objective
state and is described as the direction and intensity of the sensual
perception of a person's indoor surroundings. Thermal sensation is
presented on a 7-point scale: Cold (
1), Cool (
2), Slightly Cool
(
1), Neutral (0), Slightly Warm (þ1), Warm (þ2) and Hot (þ3)
(Fanger, 1970; ASHRAE, 2017a).
One of the pioneers in this field is Fanger (1970) who created the
analytical model for determining the thermal comfort for buildings
with centrally controlled HVAC systems. Physical parameters of the
room are used (air temperature, air flow rate, relative air humidity,
globe temperature) with the addition of human variable (level of
dressing, activity) to calculate the predicted mean vote known as
PMV index. PMV index is further used to calculate the percentage of
dissatisfied occupants or the PPD index (ISO 7730 International
Standard, 1994). PPD index estimates a dissatisfaction rate in of
occupants with the room conditions (too cold/too hot) and who
would vote þ 3, þ2,
3,
2 on the scale. "Heat balance" method and
human physiology factors are used as the basis for this
methodology.
Although Fanger's comfort model is still the most utilized
model, at the end of the twentieth century, de Dear and Brager
introduced the adaptive acceptance model of comfort which has
seen a rise in popularity (Brager and de Dear, 1998; Dear et al.,
1998). It must be said that this model, while not new, represents
a shift in thinking on the subject of thermal comfort. Fanger's PMV/
PPD model, backed by international standards (ASHRAE, 2017a; ISO
7730 International Standard, 1994), was taught to be applicable on
any part of the globe. Adaptive model approaches the problem of
the thermal comfort with the notion that the building occupants
are a part of the of the comfort system as a whole (Brager and de
Dear, 1998; Dear et al., 1998). De Dear and Brager classified this
adaptive process as physiological, psychological and behavioral.
The main premise of this model is that the occupants in the natu-
rally ventilated building achieve thermal comfort over the wider
range of temperatures than the occupant in the buildings with the
central HVAC systems. In the 1990s backed by ASHRAE, the rigorous
field studies have been carried out to test and verify this model and
to try to explain the adaptive regression model (heat balance inputs
for the PMV/PPD model) (De Dear et al., 1998). Later, the study with
a few simplifications (i.e., dry bulb temperature) evolved into a first
adaptive comfort model recognized in ASHRAE 55 standard and
was used as an option for buildings without any cooling systems
and later on for mixed-mode operating buildings. The model has
since been replicated, apart for some small differences, in Europe
through SCATS project which later gave way to the European
standard for adaptive thermal comfort (Mølhave, 2008a,b). The
model has also been negatively criticized for splitting the building
stock into two categories: naturally ventilated and air-conditioned.
Thus, this model falls out of the range for centrally controlled HVAC
buildings as they do not allow for the necessary adaptations.
ASHRAE Standard 55 (2017a) suggests that this adaptive standard
could be used with the centralized HVAC system if the occupants
were to be given adaptive opportunities.
Previously mentioned PMV/PPD and adaptive models are
designed to predict the average comfort levels for a big sample of
occupants but may fail to do so for a small group of individuals
(Goldstein and Talon, 2015). Also, the input data needed for these
models can be hard to obtain (e.g., insulation properties of clothing,
metabolic rate, etc.) and are therefore guessed or simplified
(Auffenberg et al., 2015). The new approach in the field of thermal
comfort currently gaining traction in the field of personal comfort.
Kim et al. (2018) define it as a model that predicts an individual's
thermal comfort response, rather than an average response of a
large sample. The units used to analyze personal thermal comfort
are individual occupants, while their feedback is used to develop
further and train this data-driven model. Personal comfort models
have shown some interesting improvements over the conventional
thermal comfort models namely in the gains of accuracy up to 40%
by the use of machine learning and the diversification on the data
types collected from sensors and the occupant responses (Kim
et al., 2018). The model allows for new a new set of variables to
 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
be added that the previously mentioned models cannot incorporate
(e.g., body mass index, sex, etc.). Different forms of personal com-
fort models have been created using the input parameters of the
real indoor environment and feedback from the occupants to pre-
dict occupant's thermal comfort. The common machine learning
algorithms that have been used for such purposes are neural net-
works, Bayesian network, fuzzy rules, logic regression, etc. (Ari
et al., 2008; Bermejo et al., 2012; Choi and Yeom, 2019; Peng and
Hsieh, 2017).
Currently, the best available archive on thermal comfort is the
ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II. It represents a vast
database comprised of field study research which was collected and
harmonized over the past twenty years. The database is free of
charge and open to the public on the internet with more than
81,000 studies on indoor climate condition paired with occupant
responses who were subjected to them (Fo €ldv

ary Li
cina et al.,
2018).
4.2. Indoor air quality
IAQ is an indicator of air quality within buildings, and has a very
strong impact on the quality of life in residential buildings and
productivity in the office and public buildings (Olesen, 2005). The
impact on the business sector in the form of productivity on
everyday tasks such as basic mathematical actions, text typing or
proofreading is recorded and experimentally confirmed (Fanger,
2000; Wargocki et al., 2000; Ng et al., 2012; Langer and Beko €,
2013). Studies conducted on commercial and residential buildings
currently in use has shown that a large number of workers and
residents express dissatisfaction with air quality and that it is
directly related to the health problems that occur in people's work
(Bluyssen, 1996; Fisk et al., 1993; Mendell, 1993). Symptoms can be
mild as light respiratory irritation or extreme and most commonly
lead to Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and even asthma (Fisk, 1997).
SBS is directly related to the building, and the most common
symptoms are inflammation of the eyes (itching and burning),
irritation of the nose and sinus problems and less often conse-
quences are the irritation of the respiratory system, headache,
lethargy and mental fatigue (Mendell and Smith, 1990; Otto et al.,
1992). Field of indoor air quality is a direct attempt at addressing,
quantifying and solving these health symptoms by the researchers.
The basis of IAQ is the measurement of parameters: carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile
organic compounds, relative humidity, temperature, oxygen,
ozone, ammonia, air velocity, formaldehyde and levels of particu-
late pollution which are also in complex time dependence. The
main parameters that influence IAQ and their maximum allowed
tolerances can be found in Table 1. These parameters are also
affected by conditions outside the building (nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide), the construction of the building itself, the HVAC system
(Heating ventilation and air conditioning), spatial layout and work
and life processes. To obtain a comprehensive IAQ of a certain
building physical, chemical and biological examination has to be
carried out (Bluyssen, 2004; L. Mølhave, 2008a,b). Literature sug-
gests a wide array of studies such as biomarker studies, studies on
individuals exposed to controlled laboratory air conditions and
studies on individuals in real air and environmental condition. Due
to the complexity and interconnectedness of parameters, IAQ is a
very complicated entity to measure (Szczurek et al., 2015).
IAQ can be controlled using three procedures: ventilation rate
procedure, IAQ procedure, and natural ventilation procedure. These
three procedures can be used independently or in combination to
achieve proper IAQ. Ventilation rate procedures dictate the outdoor
air ventilation rates, taking into account building area and is pur-
pose and occupancy patterns. The IAQ procedure can be used for
649
any zone or a system and determines the outdoor air intake on the
basis on the limit of pollutant concentrations and their limits
allowed inside of the building in combination with the occupant's
perceived acceptability of the indoor air. Natural ventilation pro-
cedure consists of means of direct infiltration of outdoor air
through openings in the building and is permitted to be used for
any zone of the building but with an accompanying ventilation
system (ASHRAE, 2016a, 2016b). Studies by European researchers
have confirmed this and note the high correlation between poorly
ventilated spaces which have exchange rates that are less than 10 l/
s per occupant and SBS. Also, in well-ventilated rooms, there is an
increase in productivity (Seppanen et al., 1999; Kosonen and Tan,
2004; Fisk, 2009; Dimitroulopoulou and Bartzis, 2013). However,
from the energy consumption point of view, it is clear that a higher
number of air changes also increases the energy consumption of
the ventilation system thus reducing the overall energy efficiency
of a building.
To meet the needs for fresh air in the premises, there are many
implementations of HVAC systems ranging from basic systems of
natural ventilation, through hybrid HVAC systems, to purely me-
chanical HVAC systems. Energy, health and productive aspects are
best met by the hybrid systems consisting of natural and artificial
ventilation, although such systems are not suitable for every sce-
nario. In relation to natural ventilation, air conditioning shows
greater correlation to SBS symptoms, between 30% and 200%
(Seppa €nen and Fisk, 2002). The choice of the ventilation system
should be made following the external climatic conditions,
depending on the type of the building and the type of activity
people conduct on the premises. Mechanical ventilation systems
are dominant in warm and humid climatic zones, but there is a
tendency for a switch to personalized ventilation in recent times.
Namely, in addition to standard central ventilation, the user is given
the opportunity to control the fine regulation of the conditions in
his closest environment and to achieve adequate conditions for
himself. Such systems also achieve energy savings of up to 30% in
relation to central ventilation systems, providing users with more
pleasant working conditions. Such systems provide the user with
fresh air directly in the living or working area (Sekhar et al., 2005).
Air pollutants are one of the causes of reduced productivity in
office space. The main representatives in the literature are Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC). Chemical and microbiological VOCs
influence the air quality in an indoor space (Wolkoff, 2013). Indoor
environmental VOCs may have a natural origin but are primarily
made by humans (Panagiotaras et al., 2014). Manmade VOCs are
predominantly created in the petrochemical industry, technological
processes, combustion of conventional fuels, etc. (Panagiotaras
et al., 2014). Internal sources are derived from human activities
such as cooking or smoking and from materials from which the
building is made. It has been observed that new buildings have
higher concentrations of VOC components in the air and are slowly
reduced over time (Shin and Jo, 2013). Most VOC components cause
sensitivity and respiratory irritation. The problem with VOC mea-
surement is that they have a high diversity in their physical and
chemical characteristics and developing standardized procedures
for their sampling and analysis has proven to be difficult. These
components mainly influence human psyche thus it is necessary to
determine specificities in their influence. Hence, VOCs have a
subjective impact, and their observation and mapping in a partic-
ular environment is a complex task. Fanger, as a very dominant
researcher in this field, introduced the Olf and Decipol units for
measuring internal sources mentioned above (Fanger, 1988). Air
pollution emission rate is represented with Olf as an emission rate
of a standardized person. The most commonly used materials for
construction materials emit around 0.1 to 0.2 olf/m2 (Fanger, 1988).
Level of perceived air quality is represented with Decipol. While the
 650
Table 1
Parameters affecting indoor air quality and their maximum allowed tolerances for human recognized in different World regions.

Parameter Region

USA EUROPE CHINA JAPAN

temperature of air LIMIT 22.5e26  C in summer 22e27  C in summer 22e28  C in summer 17e28  C
20.0e23.5  C in winter 20e23  C in winter 16e24  C in winter
REFERENCE ANSI/ASHRAE WHO AQSIQ MHLW
relative humidity LIMIT 40e60% in summer 25e45% 40e80% in summer 40e70% as 8eh
30e60% in winter 30e60% in winter
REFERENCE ANSI/ASHRAE WHO AQSIQ MHLW
air flow LIMIT 0.25 m/s 0.25 m/s 0.3 m/s in summer 0.5 m/s
0.2 m/s in winter

I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657

REFERENCE WHO WHO AQSIQ MHLW
ventilation (external air) Recommended according to the space or number of occupants depending on the type and purpose of the facility.
carbon dioxide LIMIT 8h outdoor ambient 1h 8h 24h 24h 24h
5000 ppm <700 ppm (1800 mg/m3) above 10 000 ppm 5000 ppm 1000 ppm 1000 ppm 1000 ppm
REFERENCE ASHRAE/ACGIH WHO/MAK AQSIQ MHLW
carbon monoxide LIMIT 1h 8h max 30 min 8h 1h 1h 24h
35 ppm 9 ppm 200 ppm 60 ppm 30 ppm 10 mg/m3 20 ppm 10 ppm
REFERENCE ASHRAE/OSHA/EPA WHO/MAK/HSC AQSIQ MHLW
formaldehyde LIMIT 30 min 1h 8h 5 min 30 min 8h 1h 5h
0.081 ppm 76 ppb 27 ppb 1 ppm 0.081 ppm 0.3 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm
REFERENCE ASHRAE/OSHA/EPA WHO/MAK/HSC AQSIQ MHLW
nitrogen dioxide LIMIT 15 min 1h 1 yr 1h 1yr 1h 1yr No current consensus
5 ppm 3 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.1 ppm 0.02 ppm 240 mg/m3 80 mg/m3
REFERENCE AGGIH/NAAQS/EPA WHO/MAK AQSIQ, SEPA
ozone LIMIT 1h 8h 8h max 1h No current consensus
0.1 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.064 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.16 mg/m3
REFERENCE ASHRAE/OSHA/EPA WHO AQSIQ
sulfur dioxide LIMIT 8h 1yr 1h 24h 1yr 1h No current consensus
2 ppm 80 mg/m3 0.133 ppm 0.048 ppm 0.012 ppm 0.5 mg/m3
REFERENCE ASHRAE/OSHA/EPA WHO/MAK SEPA
total volatile organic compounds LIMIT No current consensus 8h 8h No current consensus
300 mg/m3 0.6 mg/m3
REFERENCE UK AQSIQ
paniculate matter less than 2.5 mm in size LIMIT 8h 24h 1yr 24h 1yr No current consensus No current consensus
3 mg/m3 35 mg/m3 15 mg/m3 25 mg/m3 10 mg/m3
REFERENCE ASHRAE/OSHA/EPA WHO
particulate matter less than 10 mm 8h 24h 1yr 8h 24h 1yr 24h No current consensus
10 mg/m3 150 mg/m3 50 mg/m3 4 mg/m3 50 mg/m3 20 mg/m3 0.15 mg/m3
ASHRAE/ACGIH/EPA WHO/MAK AQSIQ
total suspended particles LIMIT 8h No current consensus No current consensus No current consensus
15 mg/m3
REFERENCE OSHA
extremely fine particles <1.0 microns LIMIT No current consensus No current consensus No current consensus No current consensus
REFERENCE
 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
ventilation rate is 10 l/s per occupant, a single occupant has a
perceived air quality of 1 decipol. Further, use of this methodology
can approximate a number of people that are dissatisfied by using a
deciphering function.
4.3. Visual comfort
People need daylight for their biological clock to function
properly and have the energy for physical and mental activity
during the day (Aries, 2005). As most people spend the majority of
the day indoors, it is, therefore, necessary to conceive the interior to
fully take advantage of daily natural light (Leech et al., 2002). Hu-
man visual comfort is achieved in the best manner with daylight. It
positively affects the human psyche, and people who have access to
this light during the day are generally more relaxed and cheerful
(Aries, 2005; Li, 2010).
Worldwide, energy consumption in buildings is about 40% of
total energy consumption (there are variations depending on in-
dustrial development) (Omer, 2012). Lighting was recognized as the
dominant consumer of electricity in buildings with a share of about
33% (Krarti et al., 2005). The greatest impact on energy consump-
tion, and consequently on greenhouse gas emissions, is observed in
commercial office buildings where the share is reaching 40% (Krarti
et al., 2005). Proper measures to increase the share of daylight in
the lighting scheme of the building provide opportunities for
reducing the impact of a building on the greenhouse effects and
creating conditions for a more pleasant work and life of people.
(Busch et al., 1993). Companies that have implemented this meth-
odology report that "absenteeism" has decreased by 15% and that
workers were 47% more present at the workplace when the
building design prioritized maximizing daylighting. (Romm and
Browning, 1998).
Building occupants prefer daylight (Aries et al., 2010). Although
there is currently lighting that can mimic the spectrum of daylight,
it is noted that it affects physiological and psychological processes
and can interfere with the 24-h internal human clock (Rea et al.,
2002). Daylight intensity levels are one decimal greater than of
those that are created artificial light and cause the secretion of the
hormone melatonin in charge of internal clock regulation (van
Bommel and van den Beld, 2004). This increases the attention of
workers when carrying out monotonous jobs and increases pro-
ductivity (van Bommel and van den Beld, 2004).
Thus, the Daylight Factor (DF) is defined as the daylight
brightness of the indoor area. It is considered as the amount of light
entering the enclosure during cloudy weather and considers direct
light, the reflectance of light from external sources and reflection
from internal sources (Fontoynont, 2014). The recommended DF
levels are dependent on space and may vary dramatically. At the
same time, rooms with adequate temperature and without direct
sunlight have a great influence on the increase in productivity.
Sleep quality at home after work is also affected and differs with
age, gender and Years season (Serghides et al., 2015).
There is no real consensus among occupants regarding the di-
mensions and shape of the window openings. However, it is known
that the physical properties and their geometry have a great impact
on the illumination of a building (McNicoll and Lewis, 1994). Most
occupants think that access to windows is important and that
adequate levels of lighting are essential (Wotton and Barkow, 1983).
What is important is the orientation of the window, from the point
of heat accumulation and air infiltration from the wind. It has been
shown that users do not want direct sunlight (Rubin et al., 1978).
Window control is directly influenced by weather conditions, air
temperature, time of year and activities that take place in the fa-
cility (Zhang and Barrett, 2012). If windows are inadequately
positioned, people must use shading barriers. It continues to force
651
people to use artificial lighting and thus increase the consumption
of electricity and CO2 production. Overall productivity and health
are drastically impacted by visual comfort and considerations have
to be made in limiting the amount of artificial lighting and allowing
the optimal amounts of natural light indoors (Yun et al., 2012).
4.4. Acoustic comfort
The sense of hearing is one of the basic five human senses.
World Health Organization defines all unwanted sounds like noise.
The effects of noise on humans are reflected in psychological effects
such as nervousness and decreased concentration. The noise
characteristic is its strength and is measured in decibels (dB), and
the pressure, as well as the sound power that it creates, can be
measured. The acoustic comfort inside of a building represents an
acoustic environment suitable to its occupants while maintaining
the original building's purpose and shielding the occupants from
noise.
Noise and acoustics have a major impact on the design of
buildings. Noise is a very important factor in the office space, not so
much in residential buildings. Noise control is therefore essential
for the effective operation of people, and poorly designed spaces
can cause employee dissatisfaction and a decrease in productivity.
(Frontczak et al., 2012).
Both internal and external noise sources influence the indoor
environment. External sources include land and air transportation
and machine operation. The most common internal sources are a
human conversation, machine operation and office equipment
(Banbury and Berry, 2005). Neutral sound pressure in commercial
buildings in normal conditions reaches a level of 70 dB (Mui and
Wong, 2006).
There is a direct correlation between occupant productivity and
acoustic comfort and in the commercial sector (Landstro € m et al.,
1995). Occupant dissatisfaction in any given building has its
origin in dissatisfaction with some of the quality of the internal
environment. Thus, it was suggested that the change in tempera-
ture of 1OC from thermoneutral conditions has the same effect on
the thermal satisfaction as the increase in noise by just a 2.6 dB in
short-term exposure and a 2.9 dB in long-term exposure (Pellerin
and Candas, 2004). It has also been observed that people exposed
to increased levels of noise have high blood pressure and increased
secretion of hormones that cause stress (GW et al., 1998). Also,
elevated levels of noise affect the ability to remember and reduce
concentration, and in some cases lead to anxiety.
The external elements of the building, as well as lighting, can
contribute to protecting people from noise. With internal noise
sources, the British standard does not allow noise levels above
40 dB for an open office schedule and 45 dB for a closed schedule.
When these levels cannot be achieved, designers use a public
speaker system through which they emit sounds that mask the
noise of "white noise" that emits a large number of sound fre-
quencies with the same intensity (Council, 2014).
5. Personal Environmental Control (PEC)
Recently, much research has been done in the field of personal
comfort systems with the help of simulation tools. It corresponds to
the idea that occupants prefer interaction with the building and
have some personal autonomy to reach thermal comfort and has
the same importance as the building's efficiency for heating and
cooling (Haldi and Robinson, 2011; Rijal et al., 2009).
A famous UK study discovered that the comfort, health, and
productivity of workers were all related to their perceived personal
thermal control (Leaman and Bordass, 2001). Since then, interna-
tional sustainable rating tools have started acknowledging the need
652 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
for Personal Environmental Control (PEC) in their IEQ sections. It is
done through credit points which reward projects which give the
occupants high levels of thermal system control (LEED, BREEAM,
Green Star…). These systems can vary in their design and can be as
simple as thermostat control or complex as personalized ventila-
tions systems with heaters and surfaces with controlled tempera-
ture, potentially meeting the 100% thermal satisfaction. (Bauman
et al., 1998). A vast number of these systems has been developed
in the past 15 years to satisfy the thermal comfort and IAQ needs of
the occupants and also to reduce the energy consumption by the
centralized HVAC system (De Dear et al., 2013; Oh et al., 2014).
These systems have an excellent application in office space due
to spatial layout (De Dear et al., 2013). This solution has already
proven to reduce energy consumption by up to 30% compared to
conventional centralized HVAC systems (Oh et al., 2014). These
systems should be systematically accessed, primarily by training
workers, so that they do not significantly increase energy con-
sumption by improper handling (Day and Gunderson, 2014).
6. IEQ and its low-cost sensing
In the past decade, the commercial building sector around the
World has started acknowledging the indoor environmental quality
issues. The sudden increase of attention to IEQ is primarily due to
the belief that it has a great impact on the workforce performance
and productivity. As mentioned above, scientific evidence to sup-
port this claim is still ambiguous. However, researchers are almost
certain that higher levels of wellbeing provided to the building
occupants, correlates to easier leasing of the office space. Currently,
IEQ of buildings are assessed by two strategies (Heinzerling et al.,
2014):
 Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE),
 measurements with instruments.
Data acquired by the instrument is treated as an objective
evaluation of the subjective evaluation done by POE. As mentioned
before, the interaction between IEQ parameters is characterized by
significant variability in space and time because of their complex
nature (Parkinson et al., 2015). Thus, capturing that kind of sample
IEQ measurements poses many challenges of technical and logis-
tical nature.
Researchers are turning to low-cost and autonomous IEQ
monitoring devices (Chiang et al., 2002; Choi et al., 2012; Kim and
Haberl, 2012; Ali et al., 2016). While the professional sensors for IEQ
reach prices unaffordable by the public, the term low-cost is
considered in the price range up to four hundred pounds which are
currently a top price for a device available on the consumer market
(Tiele et al., 2018). These devices are meant to be placed at various
positions inside of the building occupied space and would allow for
spatial parameter sampling. As the measurement would be
continuous in time, the temporal aspect of the problem would be
better understood. It would, in the term, give building managers
and operators real-time IEQ data so they can make timely adjust-
ments. The wireless capability of these devices would increase the
flexibility of the IEQ devices. Wireless communication would
further reduce the labor expenses and drastically shorten the setup
time of a system as well as aggregate all of the data in a single
computer or cloud service. Wireless technologies have been already
utilized in the IAQ and thermal comfort research and can be
upscaled to IEQ. (Ioannou and Itard, 2017; Saad et al., 2013; Sherin
and Li, 2014; Torresani et al., 2013).
Today, there is only a small number of low-cost consumer-ready
units that claim to measure IEQ parameters and are in post proto-
type phase as shown in Table 2. Although their manufacturers claim
the units provide all the necessary IEQ parameters, Table 2 shows
that is not the case.
7. Discussion
Thermal comfort was recognized as early as the seventies of the
previous century as an important factor, and its influence was
quantified through the dissatisfaction of the people in the room.
After the implementation of the measurements needed for deter-
mining thermal comfort, it is necessary to seek feedback from
people who are staying and working in that area and fine-tuning
the system if necessary. Standards in this area certainly represent
a good starting point for the design of the HVAC system. Table 3
below lists the parameters to be measured in the space and the
list to be made about people who are staying there.
The review shows two major accepted model approaches to
solving the problem of thermal comfort e PMV/PPD model and the
adaptive model. Further, the increase of the available computation
power is giving a rise of the third data-driven approach with the
introduction of personal thermal comfort models in the past
decade with promising results. Kim et al. (2018) state that the
current best results are shown by the models which predict occu-
pant behavior based on the data gathered from their interactions
with PEC systems. Thermal preference of the occupants can be
based on their heating/cooling behavior and can be used to manage
everyday comfort for the betterment of occupant satisfaction and
energy consumption reduction. Industry and researchers are
acknowledging that the two major models which tend to a large
sample of occupants do now always give a good result on a smaller
scale. For instance, the automotive industry is testing the personal
thermal models inside of the vehicle that can also be applied to
buildings. Researchers in this field still have not set up a framework
for unified modeling, their main emphasis is on the prediction
accuracy, they are not well connected to the established field of
thermal comfort, and the models are rarely integrated into the real-
World scenarios.
The quality of the interior air IAQ, although already known for a
long time, is still a very current subject of research due to a large
number of volatile particles that have diverse consequences on
human health, the problem of their measurement in space and time
and their complex interconnections. A facility manager or an en-
ergy manager should have a comprehensive picture of the current
quality of the indoor air with the benefit of the BMS (Building
Management System) to correct the operation of the central
ventilation system or advise on natural ventilation strategies and
provide sufficient amounts of fresh air to people. Also, in the case of
increased levels of pollution in the outer environment, the system
could put the system in a full recirculation mode and prevent the
penetration of pollutants. Table 4 gives the parameters to be
measured to maintain the air quality levels in the space within the
recommended limits.
The design of the daytime ambient lighting use should be in
accordance with the local climatic conditions, intended use and
layout of space as well as its availability. It should be noted that
lighting in specific workplaces should be designed according to the
recommended lighting levels (usually in lux). These levels are
drastically different from the ambient lighting mentioned above.
Natural and artificial lighting can easily be measured by sensors,
and a reflection index can be obtained using a calculation. Also,
users should also express their opinions, and fine adjustments can
be made. In Table 5 below, the principle of collecting data on illu-
minated is given.
The acoustic comfort in the room can be achieved by the proper
use of materials that absorb sound waves. The quality of the room
acoustics is defined as the time of echoing noise and its absorption
 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657 653

Table 2
Commercially available low-cost IEQ sensing units.

True Blue IEQ fixed Awair 2nd

Name SAMBA SERINUS IEQ Chek Sensedge IAMS Omni
IEQ system Edition

The
Serinus IOT LSI
Organization University Bacharach Bapi Kaiterra Awair Awair
Technology Factory LASTEM
of Sydney
temperature
Air
thermal comfort

temperature
relative airspee radiant
humidity d
CO2
O3 NOx CO
measuring capabilities

indoor air quality

particulate
matter
Formaldehyde
TVOC
illuminance
horizontal
lighting

pressure level
acoustics

sound

by the room. They are related to the absorption characteristics of purpose of the facility if needed. Surveying people in space is one of
the room surface and its volume (Council, 2014). Architectural the conditions to spot the problem and to adequately overcome it.
proper spatial planning and the use of adequate materials can be Table 6 gives a procedure for measuring the noise level.
achieved acoustically. Currently, the common approach to the building design is
As mentioned, studies show that monitoring of internal and through its energy performance design. This method can be in
external sources of noise is important. Also, it is important to direct conflict with occupant comfort, health, and productivity.
compare the current recommendations for noise levels with Common practice is to make the building envelope airtight as
measured values and implement measures that correspond to the possible and to reduce the ventilation rates increasing the
654 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657

Table 3 (Fanger et al., 1988). Toftum et al. (2002), Gong et al. (2006), Zhang
Method of measuring thermal comfort. et al. (2007), Chow et al. (2010), and Taylor et al. (2011) verified a
Measured Parameter Measuring Survey Occupant preference for more air movement under controlled conditions
equipment answers which are dependent on thermal sensation and temperature. Sig-
Globe temperature Thermometer  Age  Too Cold nificant differences in occupant reactions were recorded. ASHRAE
Relative humidity RH Sensor  Age range  Cold Standard 55 from 2010 recognized that the ranges of temperatures
Air temperature Thermometer  Metabolism  Satisfactory associated with thermal acceptability could be stretched with the
Airflow Anemometer  Regular activities  Warm
airspeed up to 0.8 m/s and with PEC up to 1.2 m/s. However, the IAQ
 Too Warm
standards do not allow for such drastic increases in air movement
inside of the buildings. Collaboration between experts in these
fields is needed to reevaluate this very important parameter of IEQ.
Table 4
IAQ measurement method. Higher ventilation rates and natural ventilation which ensure
the quality of the indoor air can have negative effects on the
Measured Parameter Measuring equipment Survey
acoustic comfort as they create background noise allow outside
Ventilation rate BMS (Facility Management System) Occupants noise to enter the building and can cause dissatisfaction. Further,
Levels of internal air Sensors (CO, CO2, formaldehyde, VOC etc.) perception open plan offices are commonly used in green building design to
pollution of IAQ
Levels of external air Sensors (CO, CO2, particulate matter, etc.)
maximize daylighting, but they lack the sound barriers and create
pollution acoustic dissatisfaction (Altomonte et al., 2017). Similarly, the use of
low-temperature floor heating discourages the use of carpets
which are good at dampening sound, and it can be a cause for
Table 5 dissatisfaction. The selection of materials used indoors can have a
Method of measuring natural and artificial lighting. massive impact on all of the aspects of IEQ, and they should be
chosen carefully in the design stages of construction. They should
Measured Parameter Measuring equipment Survey
be chosen in a manner that minimizes VOCs and unpleasant odors
The light intensity of cd/m2 Horizontal illuminance Occupants perception
and to maximize sound absorption.
ambient and artificial light sensor of lighting
Daylight/artificial light ratio Illuminance sensors Data-driven models are currently giving interesting results in
followed by calculation the field of thermal comfort, and there should be a push to expand
Horisontal reflection index Calculation the research to the holistic approach of IEQ. As this approach re-
quires as large data samples, inexpensive measuring arrays of units
ready for the consumer market could serve this purpose. Models
Table 6 may be able to find new connections between indoor parameters
Measurement method for noise and acoustic levels. influencing the environment quality and occupant acceptability
Measured Parameter Measuring equipment Survey and satisfaction.
Internal sound levels Sound pressure sensor Occupants perception of noise
External sound levels Sound pressure sensor 8. Conclusions
Calculation
The article analyzed the majority of the essential state-of-the-
art literature currently available in the field of IEQ. The study
revealed the key four factors influencing occupant comfort in an
accumulation of indoor air pollutants which can have adverse ef- indoor built environment: thermal comfort, indoor air quality and
fects on occupants. From the review of the literate, it is clear that ventilation, visual comfort and acoustic comfort. There certainly is
professionals and researchers are starting to prioritize healthy high no doubt that these four factors have the main impact on the
performing building. Numerous studies are being carried out to health, comfort, and productivity of occupants in office and resi-
determine whether the current green guides provide satisfactory dential buildings. The physical conditions in the indoor environ-
IEQ conditions and whether the occupant satisfaction is greater ment can be met through careful design and building system
than that of uncertified building stock. Currently, with the available operations. The difficulty still lies in finding the optimal comfort
data, the general notion in the scientific community is that metrics conditions for a different activity, age, sex, ethnicity, etc.
that are currently in use for obtaining IEQ credits need to be defined The intricate interconnections between those four factors have
more reliably to correlate with occupant satisfaction metrics of the been examined. It is clear that thermal comfort and indoor air
IEQ in the future iterations of Green building certification guides quality have the greatest interdependency as the share some of the
and standards. Occupant training and strategies in operation of the physical parameters. Studies in one field do not always translate to
building should be added as well as it has the potential for further corresponding findings in the other as was seen with the air
improvement of the IEQ satisfaction. A lot of attention has to be put movement inside the buildings. The article explained the negative
into adaptive behavior monitoring and constant building moni- human sensations in an inadequate visual and acoustic environ-
toring systems for fine-tuning of the IEQ parameters. ment and how they translate to a dissatisfied state of thermal
It can be observed that the researchers in the field of IEQ are comfort for the occupants. That is why these four factors must be
starting to better understand the interconnections between the examined holistically to gain a full understanding of the indoor
already established comfort and health aspects of IEQ which were environmental comfort in a built environment.
previously tested separately. For instance, an aspect of indoor The article connects all the key parameters of IEQ with health
environmental quality that has seen a dramatic shift in thinking is and productivity of occupants. It concurs that there are significant
an indoor movement of air. At first movement of air was treated health and financial benefits for the implementation of IEQ in the
only in a negative context of indoor cooling as a draft. Draft Risk built environment. The article explains the current implementation
was, at first, a thermal comfort criterion which estimated occu- measures through green guides developed on different continents
pants’ exposure to temperature and airspeed which with further and the positive and the negative aspects of such implementation.
studies evolved and gave perceived occupant dissatisfaction A rapid drop in sensor prices over the past decade will allow the
 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
researchers and property owners in the near future to gather
wirelessly all of the necessary data and to take immediate actions
whether it be through building management systems or local
occupant controls to achieve the best possible comfort.
Acknowledgment
Authors appreciate the support of the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia in
the framework of the project TR33058. Also, authors acknowledge
the encouragement of ASHRAE trough the approved grant for the
development of Indoor Environment Quality Platform.
References
Ali, A.S., Zanzinger, Z., Debose, D., 2016. Open Source Building Science Sensors
(OSBSS): a low-cost Arduino-based platform for long-term indoor environ-
mental data collection. Build. Environ. 100, 114e126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2016.02.010.
Allen, J.G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., Spengler, J.D.,
2016. Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation,
and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: a controlled
exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environ. Health
Perspect. 124, 805e812. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037.
Altomonte, S., Schiavon, S., Kent, M.G., Brager, G., 2017. Indoor environmental
quality and occupant satisfaction in green-certified buildings. Build. Res. Inf.
1e20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1383715.
Ari, S., Wilcoxen, P., Khalifa, H.E., Dannenhoffer, J.F., Isik, C., 2008. A practical
approach to individual thermal comfort and energy optimization problem.
Annu. Conf. North Am. Fuzzy Inf. Process. Soc. - NAFIPS. https://doi.org/10.1109/
NAFIPS.2008.4531261.
Aries, M.B.C., 2005. Human Lighting Demands, healthy lighting in an office envi-
ronment. Tech. Univ. Eindhoven 158, 2005. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.
6100/IR594257.
Aries, M.B.C., Veitch, J.A., Newsham, G.R., 2010. Windows, view, and office charac-
teristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J. Environ. Psychol. 30,
533e541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.004.
ASHRAE, 2016a. Standard 62.1 - ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. ASH-
RAE Stand. 1e70. https://doi.org/ISSN_1041-2336.
ASHRAE, 2016b. Standard 62.2 - ventilation and acceptable indoor air quality in
low-rise residential buildings. ASHRAE Stand. 1e38.
ASHRAE, 2017a. ASHRAE Standard 55.
ASHRAE, 2017b. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals.
Auffenberg, F., Stein, S., Rogers, A., 2015. A personalised thermal comfort model
using a Bayesian network. IJCAI Int. Jt. Conf. Artif. Intell. 2015eJanuary
2547e2553. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2013.28.
Baleta, J., Mikul
ci

c, H., Klemes, J.J., Urbaniec, K., Dui

c, N., 2019. Integration of energy,
water and environmental systems for a sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.01.035.
Banbury, S.P., Berry, D.C., 2005. Office noise and employee concentration: identi-
fying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics 48, 25e37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130412331311390.
Bauman, F.S., Carter, T.G., Baughman, A.V., Arens, E.A., 1998. Field study of the
impact of a desktop task/ambient conditioning system in office buildings.
ASHRAE Transact. 104, 1153e1171. Keywords. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2013.06.009.
Bendewald, M., Hutchinson, H., Muldavin, S., Torbert, R., 2014. How to Calculate and
Present Deep Retrofit Value - A Guide for Owner-Occupants 105.
Bermejo, P., Redondo, L., De La Ossa, L., Rodríguez, D., Flores, J., Urea, C., Ga
mez, J.A.,
Puerta, J.M., 2012. Design and simulation of a thermal comfort adaptive system
based on fuzzy logic and on-line learning. Energy Build. 49, 367e379. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.02.032.
Bluyssen, P.M., 1996. European indoor air quality audit project in 56 office buildings.
Indoor Air 6, 221e238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.1996.00002.x.
Bluyssen, P., 2004. Sensory evaluation of indoor air pollution sources. Handb. En-
viron. Chem. 4, 179e217. https://doi.org/10.1007/b94835.
Bluyssen, P., 2014. The Healthy Indoor Environment: How to Assess Occupants'
Wellbeing in Buildings.
Brager, G.S., de Dear, R.J., 1998. Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a
literature review. Energy Build. 27, 83e96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
7788(97)00053-4.
BREEAM, 2017. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method.
Busch, J.F., Du Pont, P., Chirarattananon, S., 1993. Energy-efficient lighting in Thai
commercial buildings. Energy 18, 197e210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-
5442(93)90104-L.
Cena, K., De Dear, R., 2001. Thermal comfort and behavioural strategies in office
buildings located in a hot-arid climate. J. Therm. Biol. 26, 409e414. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0306-4565(01)00052-3.
Centre for Mental Health, 2011. Managing presenteeism: a discussion paper. Work
655
1e4.
Chiang, C.M., Chou, P.-C., Lai, C.M., Li, Y.Y., 2002. A methodology to assess the indoor
environment in care centers for senior citizens. Build. Environ. 36, 561e568.
Choi, J.-H., Yeom, D., 2019. Development of the data-driven thermal satisfaction
prediction model as a function of human physiological responses in a built
environment. Build. Environ. 150, 206e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.
2019.01.007.
Choi, J.H., Loftness, V., Aziz, A., 2012. Post-occupancy evaluation of 20 office
buildings as basis for future IEQ standards and guidelines. Energy Build. 46,
167e175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.08.009.
Chow, T.T., Fong, K.F., Givoni, B., Lin, Z., Chan, A.L.S., 2010. Thermal sensation of Hong
Kong people with increased air speed, temperature and humidity in air-
conditioned environment. Build. Environ. 45, 2177e2183. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.buildenv.2010.03.016.
CIBSE, 2013. The limits of thermal comfort : avoiding overheating in European
buildings. CIBSE Tm52 1e25. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Council, U.S.G.B., 2003. Leadership in energy and environmental design. In: Green
Build. Rat. Syst. Exist. Build. Upgrad. Oper. Maint. LEED-EB), version 2.
Council, W.G.B., 2014. Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in Offices.
Day, J.K., Gunderson, D.E., 2014. Occupant Training in High Performance Buildings:
an Assessment of Environmental Satisfaction, Learning, and Behaviors in
Buildings.
De Dear, R.J., Akimoto, T., Arens, E.A., Brager, G., Candido, C., Cheong, K.W.D., Li, B.,
Nishihara, N., Sekhar, S.C., Tanabe, S., Toftum, J., Zhang, H., Zhu, Y., 2013. Prog-
ress in thermal comfort research over the last twenty years. Indoor Air 23,
442e461. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12046.
Dear, D., Dear, R.J. De, 1998. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference. ASHRAE Transact.
Dimitroulopoulou, C., Bartzis, J., 2013. Ventilation rates in European office buildings:
a review. Indoor Built Environ. 23, 5e25. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1420326X13481786.
Fanger, P.O., 1970. Thermal Comfort.
Fanger, P.O., 1988. Introduction of the olf and the decipol units to quantify air
pollution perceived by humans indoors and outdoors. Energy Build. 12, 1e6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(88)90051-5.
Fanger, P.O., 2000. Indoor air quality in the 21st century: search for excellence.
Indoor Air-Int. J. Indoor Air Qual. Clim. 10, 68e73. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.
1600-0668.2000.010002068.x.
Fanger, P.O., Melikov, A.K., Hanzawa, H., Ring, J., 1988. Air turbulence and sensation
of draught. Energy Build. 12, 21e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(88)
90053-9.
Fisk, W.J., 1997. Estimates of improved productivity and health from better indoor
environments. Indoor Air 7, 158e172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.1997.
t01-1-00002.x.
Fisk, W.J., 2009. Quantitative relationship of sick building syndrome symptoms with
ventilation rates. Indoor Air 19, 159e165.
Fisk, William J., Douglas Black, G.B., 2012. Changing ventilation rates in U . S . Of-
fices : implications for health , work performance , energy , and associated
economics. Build. Environ. 47, 368e372.
Fisk, W.J., Mendell, M.J., Daisey, J.M., Faulkner, D., Hodgson, A.T., Nematollahi, M.,
Macher, J.M., 1993. Phase 1 of the California healthy building study: a summary.
Indoor Air 3, 246e254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.1993.00005.x.
Fisk, W.J., Black, D., Brunner, G., 2012. Changing ventilation rates in U.S. offices:
implications for health, work performance, energy, and associated economics.
Build. Environ. 47, 368e372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.001.
€ldv

Fo ary Li cina, V., Cheung, T., Zhang, H., de Dear, R., Parkinson, T., Arens, E.,
Chun, C., Schiavon, S., Luo, M., Brager, G., Li, P., Kaam, S., Adebamowo, M.A.,
Andamon, M.M., Babich, F., Bouden, C., Bukovianska, H., Candido, C., Cao, B.,
Carlucci, S., Cheong, D.K.W., Choi, J.H., Cook, M., Cropper, P., Deuble, M.,
Heidari, S., Indraganti, M., Jin, Q., Kim, H., Kim, J., Konis, K., Singh, M.K., Kwok, A.,
Lamberts, R., Loveday, D., Langevin, J., Manu, S., Moosmann, C., Nicol, F.,
Ooka, R., Oseland, N.A., Pagliano, L., Petr
as, D., Rawal, R., Romero, R., Rijal, H.B.,
Sekhar, C., Schweiker, M., Tartarini, F., Tanabe, S. ichi, Tham, K.W., Teli, D.,
Toftum, J., Toledo, L., Tsuzuki, K., De Vecchi, R., Wagner, A., Wang, Z.,
Wallbaum, H., Webb, L., Yang, L., Zhu, Y., Zhai, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., 2018.
Development of the ASHRAE global thermal comfort database II. Build. Environ.
142, 502e512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.06.022.
Fontoynont, M., 2014. Daylight Performance of Buildings, p. 304.
Frontczak, M., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E., Zhang, H., Wargocki, P., 2012.
Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction as-
pects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air 22,
119e131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00745.x.
Fuller, S., 2010. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCAA). https://doi.org/10.1360/zd-2013-43-
6-1064.
GBCA, 2011. Green Star Green Star e Performance.
Goldstein, N., Talon, C., 2015. Smart Offices : how intelligent building solutions are
changing the occupant experience. INTEL Spons. White Pap. 1e13.
Gong, N., Tham, K.W., Melikov, A.K., Wyon, D.P., Sekhar, S.C., Cheong, K.W., 2006.
The acceptable air velocity range for local air movement in the tropics. HVAC R
Res. 12, 1065e1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2006.10391451.
GW, E., Bullinger, M., Hygge, S., Evans, G.W., Bullinger, M., Hygge, S., 1998. Chronic
noise exposure and physiological response: a prospective study of children
living under environmental stress. Psychol. Sci. 9, 75e77. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-9280.00014.
Haldi, F., Robinson, D., 2011. The impact of occupants' behaviour on building energy
656 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
demand. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 4, 323e338. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19401493.2011.558213.
Heinzerling, D., Schiavon, S., Webster, T., Arens, E., 2014. Indoor Environmental
Quality Assessment Models: a Literature Review and a Proposed Weighting and
Classification Scheme.
Ingrao, C., Messineo, A., Beltramo, R., Yigitcanlar, T., Ioppolo, G., 2018. How can life
cycle thinking support sustainability of buildings? Investigating life cycle
assessment applications for energy efficiency and environmental performance.
J. Clean. Prod. 201, 556e569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.080.
International Well Building Institute, 2014. The WELL Building Standard, Version 1.0
218.
International Well Building Institute, 2018. The WELL Building Standard, v2 237.
Ioannou, A., Itard, L., 2017. In-situ and real time measurements of thermal comfort
and its determinants in thirty residential dwellings in The Netherlands. Energy
Build. 139, 487e505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.050.
ISO 7730 International Standard, 1994. Moderate Thermal Environments - Deter-
mination of the PMV and PPD Indices and Specification of the Conditions for
Thermal Comfort 32. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Johns, G., 2010. Presenteeism in the Workplace : A Review and Research Agenda, vol
542, pp. 519e542. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.
Kim, H., Haberl, J.S., 2012. Field-test of the new ASHRAE/CIBSE/USGBC performance
measurement protocols: intermediate and advanced level indoor environ-
mental quality protocols. ASHRAE Transact. 118, 58e65.
Kim, J., Schiavon, S., Brager, G., 2018. Personal comfort models e a new paradigm in
thermal comfort for occupant-centric environmental control. Build. Environ.
132, 114e124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.023.
Klepeis, N.E., Nelson, W.C., Ott, W.R., Robinson, J.P., Tsang, A.M., Switzer, P.,
Behar, J.V., Hern, C., Engelmann, W.H., 2001. The National Human Activity
Pattern Survey ( NHAPS ): a Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental
Pollutants.
Kosonen, R., Tan, F., 2004. The effect of perceived indoor air quality on productivity
loss. Energy Build. 36, 981e986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.06.005.
Krarti, M., Erickson, P.M., Hillman, T.C., 2005. A simplified method to estimate en-
ergy savings of artificial lighting use from daylighting. Build. Environ. 40,
747e754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.08.007.
Lamb, S., Kwok, K.C.S., 2016. A longitudinal investigation of work environment
stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office workers. Appl. Ergon. 52,
104e111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.010.
Lan, L., Wargocki, P., Lian, Z., 2014. Thermal effects on human performance in office
environment measured by integrating task speed and accuracy. Appl. Ergon. 45,
490e495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.06.010.
Landstro €m, U., Åkerlund, E., Kjellberg, A., Tesarz, M., 1995. Exposure levels, tonal
components, and noise annoyance in working environments. Environ. Int. 21,
265e275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(95)00017-F.
Langer, S., Beko € , G., 2013. Indoor air quality in the Swedish housing stock and its
dependence on building characteristics. Build. Environ. 69, 44e54. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.07.013.
Langevin, J., Wen, J., Gurian, P.L., 2013. Modeling thermal comfort holistically :
Bayesian estimation of thermal sensation , acceptability , and preference dis-
tributions for of fi ce building occupants. Build. Environ. 69, 206e226. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.07.017.
Leaman, A., Bordass, B., 2001. Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe
occupant surveys and their implications. Build. Res. Inf. 29, 129e143. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008045.
Leaman, A., Bordass, B., 2007. Are users more tolerant of “green” buildings? Build.
Res. Inf. 35, 662e673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701529518.
Leech, J.A., Nelson, W.C., Burnett, R.T., Aaron, S., Raizenne, M.E., 2002. It's about
time: a comparison of Canadian and American time-activity patterns. J. Expo.
Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 12, 427e432. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500244.
Li, D.H.W., 2010. A review of daylight illuminance determinations and energy im-
plications. Appl. Energy 87, 2109e2118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.
03.004.
MacNaughton, P., 2016. Green buildings and health. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6261.1997.tb04820.x.
MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Laurent, J.G.C., Flanigan, S., Vallarino, J., Coull, B.,
Spengler, J.D., Allen, J.G., 2017. The impact of working in a green certified
building on cognitive function and health. Build. Environ. 114, 178e186. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.041.
McNicoll, Lewis, J., 1994. Daylighting in Buildings, vol 32.
Mendell, M.J., 1993. Non-specific symptoms in office workers: a review and sum-
mary of the epidemiologic literature. Indoor Air 3, 227e236. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1600-0668.1993.00003.x.
Mendell, M.J., Smith, A.H., 1990. Consistent pattern of elevated symptoms in air-
conditioned office buildings: a reanalysis of epidemiologic studies. Am. J.
Public Health 80, 1193e1199. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.80.10.1193.
Mølhave, 2008a. Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment
of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal
environment, lighting and acoustics. Indoor Air 83.
Mølhave, L., 2008b. Inflammatory and allergic responses to airborne office dust in
five human provocation experiments. Indoor Air 18, 261e270. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00532.x.
Mui, K.W., Wong, L.T., 2006. A method of assessing the acceptability of noise levels
in air-conditioned offices. Build. Serv. Eng. Technol. 27, 249e254. https://doi.
org/10.1191/0143624406bse157tn.
Naidoo, M., Gasparatos, A., 2018. Corporate environmental sustainability in the
retail sector: drivers, strategies and performance measurement. J. Clean. Prod.
203, 125e142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.253.
National Academy of Sciences, 2011. Climate Change , the Indoor Environment , and
Health - Committee on the Effect of Climate Change on Indoor Air Quality and
Public Health. Institute of Medicine.
Ng, L.C., Musser, A., Persily, A.K., Emmerich, S.J., 2012. Indoor air quality analyses of
commercial reference buildings. Build. Environ. 58, 179e187. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.buildenv.2012.07.008.
Ngoc, T., He, C., Knibbs, L.D., Dear, R. De, Morawska, L., 2014. Co-optimisation of
indoor environmental quality and energy consumption within urban office
buildings. Energy Build. 85, 225e234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.
021.
Oh, M.S., Ahn, J.H., Kim, D.W., Jang, D.S., Kim, Y., 2014. Thermal comfort and energy
saving in a vehicle compartment using a localized air-conditioning system.
Appl. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.089.
Olesen, B.W., 2005. Indoor Environment- Health-Comfort and Productivity. 8th
REHVA World Congr, pp. 1e17. CLIMA 2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/
awg236.
Omer, A.M., 2012. Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0109-4.
Otto, A., Hudnell, K., House, E., Mølhave, L., Counts, W., 1992. Exposure of humans to
a volatile organic mixture. I. Behav. Assess. Arch. Environ. Health 47, 23e30.
Panagiotaras, D., Nikolopoulos, D., Petraki, E., Kottou, S., Koulougliotis, D.,
Yannakopoulos, P., Kaplanis, S., 2014. Comprehensive experience for indoor air
quality assessment: a review on the determination of volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs). J. Phys. Chem. Biophys. 4. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0398.
1000159.
Parkinson, T., Parkinson, A., de Dear, R., 2015. Introducing the SAMBA indoor
environmental quality monitoring system. Liv. Learn. Res. a Better Built. Envi-
ron. 49th Int. Conf. Archit. Sci. Assoc. 1139e1148.
Pellerin, N., Candas, V., 2004. Effects of steady-state noise and temperature con-
ditions on environmental perception and acceptability. Indoor Air 14, 129e136.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1600-0668.2003.00221.x.
Peng, B., Hsieh, S.-J., 2017. Data-driven thermal comfort prediction with support
vector machine. Manuf. Equip. Syst. V003T04A044 3. https://doi.org/10.1115/
MSEC2017-3003.
Rea, M.S., Figueiro, M.G., Bullough, J.D., 2002. Circadian photobiology: an emerging
framework for lighting practice and research. Light. Res. Technol. 34, 177e187.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1365782802lt057oa.
Rijal, H.B., Humphreys, M.A., Nicol, J.F., 2009. Understanding occupant behaviour:
the use of controls in mixed-mode office buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 37, 381e396.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210902904221.
Romm, J.J., Browning, W.D., 1998. Greening the Building and the Bottom Line:
Increasing Productivity through Energy-Efficient Design, vol 16. Rocky Mt. Inst.
Rubin, A.I., Collins, B.L., Tibbott, R.L., 1978. Window blinds as a potential energy
saver-a case study. NBS Build. Sci. Ser. 112, 89. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.7b00867.
Saad, S.M., Mohd Saad, A.R., Kamarudin, A.M.Y., Zakaria, A., Shakaff, A.Y.M., 2013.
Indoor air quality monitoring system using wireless sensor network (WSN)
with web interface. Int. Conf. Electr. Electron. Syst. Eng. 60e64, 2013. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICEESE.2013.6895043.
Sekhar, S.C., Gong, N., Tham, K.W., Cheong, K.W., Melikov, A.K., Wyon, D.P.,
Fanger, P.O., 2005. Findings of personalized ventilation studies in a hot and
humid climate. HVAC R Res. 11, 603e620. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.
2005.10391157.
Seppa €nen, O., Fisk, W.J., 2002. Association of ventilation system type with SBS
symptoms in office workers. Indoor Air 12, 98e112. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.
1600-0668.2002.01111.x.
Seppa €nen, O.A., Fisk, W.J., 2006. Some quantitative relations between indoor
environmental quality and work performance or health. Hvac&R Res. Oct. 12.
Seppanen, O.A., Fisk, W.J., Mendell, M.J., 1999. Association of ventilation rates and
CO2 concentrations with health andOther responses in commercial and insti-
tutional buildings. Indoor Air 9, 226e252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.
1999.00003.x.
Serghides, D.K., Chatzinikola, C.K., Katafygiotou, M.C., 2015. Comparative studies of
the occupants' behaviour in a university building during winter and summer
time. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 34, 528e551. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.
2014.905578.
Shan, X., Melina, A.N., Yang, E.H., 2018. Impact of indoor environmental quality on
students' wellbeing and performance in educational building through life cycle
costing perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 298e309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.09.002.
Sherin, A., Li, X., 2014. A cost-effective wireless sensor network system for indoor
air quality monitoring applications. Procedia Comput. Sci. 34, 165e171. In:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.07.090.
Shin, S.H., Jo, W.K., 2013. Longitudinal variations in indoor VOC concentrations after
moving into new apartments and indoor source characterization. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 20, 3696e3707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1296-z.
Szczurek, A., Maciejewska, M., Teuerle, M., Wyłoman
ska, A., 2015. Method to
characterize collective impact of factors on indoor air. Phys. A Stat. Mech. its
Appl. 420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.10.094.
Taylor, P., Street, M., Wt, L., Toftum, J., Melikov, A., Tynel, A., Bruzda, M., Fanger, P.O.,
2011. Human Response to Air Movement d Evaluation of ASHRAE ’ S Draft
Criteria, pp. 37e41. RP-843.
Tiele, A., Esfahani, S., Covington, J., 2018. Design and development of a low-cost,
 I. Mujan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (2019) 646e657
portable monitoring device for indoor environment quality. J. Sensors, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5353816.
Toftum, J., Melikov, A.K., Tynel, A., Bruzda, M., Fanger, P.O., 2002. Human preference
for air movement. Proc. Roomvent, 2002.
Torresani, W., Battisti, N., Maglione, A., Brunelli, D., Macii, D., 2013. A multi-sensor
wireless solution for indoor thermal comfort monitoring. IEEE Work. Environ.
Energy Struct. Monit. Syst. EESMS 2013 - Proc, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EESMS.2013.6661697.
Turpin, R.S., Ozminkowski, R.J., Sharda, C.E., Collins, J.J., Berger, M.L., Billotti, G.M.,
Baase, C.M., Olson, M.J., Nicholson, S., 2004. Reliability and validity of stanford
presenteeism scale. J. Occup. Environ. Med. Am. Coll. Occup. Environ. Med. 46,
1123e1133.
USGBC, 2018. Better buildings are our legacy. USGBC website.
van Bommel, W., van den Beld, G., 2004. Lighting for work: a review of visual and
biological effects. Light. Res. Technol. 36, 255e266. https://doi.org/10.1191/
1365782804li122oa.
Wargocki, P., Seppa €nen, O., 2006. REHVA Guidebook 6: Indoor Climate and Pro-
ductivity in Offices. REHVA Guideb.
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D.P., Sundell, J., Clausen, G., Fanger, P.O., 2000. The effects of
657
outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building
syndrome(SBS) symptoms and productivity. Indoor Air 222e236. https://doi.
org/10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004222.x.
Wolkoff, P., 2013. Indoor air pollutants in office environments: assessment of
comfort, health, and performance. Int. J. Hyg Environ. Health 216, 371e394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2012.08.001.
Woo, J., 2011. The impact of work environment on mood disorders and suicide:
evidence and implications. Int. J. Disabil. 7, 185e200.
Wotton, E., Barkow, B., 1983. An investigation of the effects of windows and lighting
in offices. Int. Daylighting Conf. 405e411.
Yun, G.Y., Kong, H.J., Kim, H., Kim, J.T., 2012. A field survey of visual comfort and
lighting energy consumption in open plan offices. Energy Build. 46, 146e151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.10.035.
Zhang, Y., Barrett, P., 2012. Factors influencing the occupants' window opening
behaviour in a naturally ventilated office building. Build. Environ. 50, 125e134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.018.
Zhang, H., Arens, E., Fard, S.A., Huizenga, C., Paliaga, G., Brager, G., Zagreus, L., 2007.
Air movement preferences observed in office buildings. Int. J. Biometeorol. 51,
349e360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-006-0079-y.