Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Impact of indoor aroma on students’ mood and learning performance

Narae Choi a, *, Toshio Yamanaka a, Akihisa Takemura b, Tomohiro Kobayashi a, Aya Eto a,
Masato Hirano a
a
Department of Architectural Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan
b
Department of Living and Environmental Design, Setsunan University, 17-8 Ikedanaka, Neyagawa, Osaka, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Indoor environment has an appreciable impact on occupants’ mood, health and performance. Among numerous
Odor indoor environmental components, indoor air quality is often considered to be one of the most crucial ones.
Aroma While odor is a decisive factor for evaluating perceived indoor air quality, its effects - particularly the positive
Essential oil
effects of pleasant aromas - on human responses and performance have yet to be revealed. In this study, ex­
Subjective evaluation
periments were conducted to investigate the effect of indoor aroma on students’ mood and learning performance.
Learning performance
Participants comprised 76 university students and they performed two learning tasks under one of the four odor
conditions: “control (aromaless)”, “rosemary”, “lemon”, and “peppermint.” First, the way in which students sense
the indoor aroma in a study space was investigated using several mood scales, including odor intensity, pleas­
antness, preference, acceptability, and impression. Second, the influence of indoor aroma on learning and
memory performance was quantitatively assessed using a reading task and a verbal memory task. Lastly, the
impacts of odor preference on subjective evaluation and performance were explored. This experiment showed
that subjective evaluations were significantly different before and after olfactory adaptation, particularly in the
rosemary condition. Of all three aroma conditions, the lemon aroma had the highest preference and led to the
highest scores in the memory task. Although the significant impact of indoor aroma on learning performance was
not detected, our results indicated that pleasant aroma has the potential to enhance students’ mood and learning
performance.

1. Introduction
The impact of indoor environments on people’s lives is far-reaching,
as people spend a great majority of their time indoors [1]. Indoor
environmental quality (IEQ) affects occupants’ psychological and
physiological responses [2], which can eventually lead to either an
enhancement or a deterioration of individual well-being [3–6] and
performance [7,8]. Hence, a large number of studies have explored the
relationship between indoor environments and human responses, so as
to create healthy and productive indoor environments [9,10].
Since improving workplace productivity is directly related to eco­
nomic benefit [11,12], the influence of indoor environment on people’s
performance in the office has been widely studied [13–16]. Indoor
environment comprises various indoor environmental factors, such as
temperature, indoor air quality, noise, lighting, etc. Among those fac­
tors, indoor air quality is often considered to be one of the most influ­
ential ones [17,18]. It is known that a poor indoor environment
generated from low ventilation rates has a negative effect on work
performance [19–21]. Wargocki et al. [22,23] analyzed the combined
data from three independent studies and found a positive correlation
between the acceptability of air quality and performance in simulated
office work. Additionally, their results suggested that an increase in
ventilation rate could improve performance. Seppanen et al. [24] also
examined the benefits of increased outdoor ventilation rate for perfor­
mance by reviewing numerous related studies, resulting in an estimate
that a 10 l/s-person increase in ventilation rate leads to a 1–3%
improvement in performance.
On the other hand, there are relatively fewer studies on learning
performance in school as opposed to workplace productivity, although
IEQ considerably affects the former as well. Lee at al [25]. evaluated the
relationship between IEQ and learning performance in a university
setting and discovered that there was a strong correlation between
learning performance and the number of complaints about the indoor
environment. Indoor air quality (IAQ) and thermal conditions are also

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: choi@arch.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp (N. Choi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109490
Received 22 April 2022; Received in revised form 5 July 2022; Accepted 9 August 2022
Available online 13 August 2022
0360-1323/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Choi et al.
the most focused on indoor environmental factors in the study of the
influence of IEQ on learning performance. Wargocki et al. [26,27]
examined children’s learning performance under different temperature
and ventilation rate conditions. As a result, it was proven that increasing
the outdoor supply air rate and setting an appropriate temperature can
lead to an improvement on schoolwork performance. Stafford [28]
analyzed the effect of IAQ on academic outcomes and the results sug­
gested that the renovation of IAQ may be a cost-effective way to improve
learning performance. Wang et al. [29] investigated the effect of indoor
air temperature on students’ learning performance under various indoor
air temperatures. Learning is defined as the process of acquiring new
knowledge and memory is the persistence of learning estimated at a later
time [30]. Although many studies on learning performance have adop­
ted basic cognitive tasks, given that the learning and memory process is
known to be comprised of three different stages – namely, encoding,
storage, and retrieval [31] - it is desirable that the task for assessing
learning performance include these stages.
There is no doubt that odor is also an important factor for indoor air
environment [32–34]. In light of the revelation that the olfactory system
is directly connected to the limbic structures which are known to control
a human being’s mood and memory [35–37], the psychological and
physiological effects of odor have been studied in various fields recently
[38–40]. Unlike other indoor environmental factors such as indoor
temperature and CO2 concentration, there is a preference for odor.
Hence, pleasant and unpleasant odor would result in different effects.
Unpleasant odor has been proven to bring out the deterioration of
working memory in previous studies [41,42]. There have also been some
studies about the negative effects of unpleasant odor on workplace
productivity as seen in Sick Building Syndrome [43–45]. On the other
hand, a pleasant odor can be used to improve perceived indoor air
quality. However, relatively little information exists concerning the ef­
fect of pleasant odor on individual performance [46]. The odor envi­
ronment created by essential oils is often considered pleasant and
popularly used in commercial facilities to engender a particular mood in
customers. Essential oils affect not only occupants’ mood but also their
cognitive performance [47–50]. For instance, Moss and Oliver [51]
found that rosemary essential oil has a positive influence on attentional
performance. Peppermint essential oil was investigated by Ho and
Spence [52] using both easy and difficult cognitive tasks and it led to a
performance improvement in the difficult task. On the other hand, the
effects of essential oils on learning and memory performance in study
spaces have been investigated less frequently compared to their effects
on basic cognitive functions [47]. Furthermore, many studies considered
an essential oil to be a pleasant olfactory stimulant which is in contrast
to unpleasant odor [53] or only concentrated on its pharmacological
effect without considering the influence of the odor preference. How­
ever, odor preference of any essential oil varies from person to person
and it should be considered to assess the impact of odor properly.
The purpose of this study is to examine whether an odor environment
infused with essential oils has positive effects on learning performance.
In terms of experimental conditions, the rosemary, lemon, and pepper­
mint aromas were adopted, and a control, aromaless condition was also
included. Learning performance was assessed using two tasks: a reading
task and a verbal memory task. Even though essential oils have positive
effects on learning performance, they cannot be used if students find
them unacceptable. Hence, how students feel about studying in an
environment fragrance by essential oils was also studied through sub­
jective evaluations. Additionally, the results were also analyzed by
considering preference for an odor.
2. Experimental methods
2.1. Participants
Seventy six healthy university students were recruited from the
School of Foreign Studies at Osaka University. Participants comprised 19
2
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
males and 57 females, aged 18–25 years (mean age = 20.87, SD = 1.52).
A priori power analysis was performed to determine the number of
participants using G*Power software 3.1 [54,55] (significance level α =
0.05, power 1-β = 0.8, effect size f = 0.4). All participants reported that
they were non-smokers and their first language was Japanese. Partici­
pants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) Control
group (n = 19), not exposed to any aroma during the experiments; (2)
Rosemary group (n = 19), exposed to a rosemary aroma during the
experiment; (3) Lemon group (n = 19), exposed to a lemon aroma during
the experiment; and (4) Peppermint group (n = 19), exposed to a
peppermint aroma during the experiment. Participants took the
screening test that uses five kinds of standard odors (“T&T olfactom­
eter”: the standard olfactory test for screening participants in Japan)
after the experiment. Participants were compensated for participating in
the experiments at a fixed rate per hour. To increase their motivation for
performing well in the tasks included in the experiment, it was
announced that the compensation for the top 10% participants would be
doubled.
2.2. Experimental conditions
The experiments were carried out under four different odor envi­
ronments. Experimental conditions are outlined in Table 1. In terms of
the aroma conditions, three perceptually dissimilar aromas were
selected. The rosemary condition was chosen for its effects in enhancing
memory and concentration [51,56,57]. Our previous study revealed that
it also has a positive effect on reading performance [58]. In this study, it
was hypothesized that the preference for the odor environment would
affect mood and performance during learning. To select the aromas with
different preference and acceptability, the preliminary experiment [59]
was conducted with 31 participants using eleven essential oils: benzoin,
Japanese cypress (Hinoki), jasmin, lavender, lemon, orange sweet,
peppermint, rosemary, ylang and two blended oils (lavender +
peppermint, lemon + rosemary). The lemon aroma is known to have
high acceptability [60] and it also yielded the lowest percentage of
dissatisfaction among all oils in our preliminary experiment. The
peppermint aroma was chosen because it has been used in several
studies [52,61], and it had neither high nor low acceptability compared
to other oils. The control condition was adopted to serve as a comparison
to other aroma conditions. In the three aroma conditions, 100% natural
essential oils were atomized to create the aroma environment using
nebulizing diffusers. The diffusers were set on the circulator to diffuse
the essential oil effectively (Fig. 1). The diffuser had two operating
modes: strong (atomizing at 20 s per minute) and weak (10 s per min­
ute). The number and mode of diffusers were different in each condition,
in order to reach the intended odor intensity, namely a “slightly strong
odor” (Table 1). In the Control condition, water was atomized using the
same type of diffuser.
The experiment was carried out in a study room of Osaka University
(Fig. 1). A heat exchange ventilating unit and a packaged air conditioner
were installed on the ceiling. The ventilation rate was measured using
tracer gas, and it was 308 m3/h. To distribute the odor evenly in the
whole room, four circulators were placed at the four corners of the room.
Table 1
Experimental conditions.
Conditions Number and Number of participants Interval between the
mode of first and second test
diffusers [days]
Male Female Total Average (min, max)
Control 1, strong 5 14 19 21.1 (19, 23)
Rosemary 1, strong 5 14 19 20.4 (19, 25)
Lemon 2, strong 4 15 19 21.2 (19, 23)
Peppermint 1, strong + 1, 5 14 19 20.8 (19, 23)
weak
N. Choi et al.
6,500
Participant
3,500
Ventilation
inlet and outlet Atomizer Air
conditioner
Experimenter
CO2 recorder PMV meter Air circulator
Fig. 1. Experimental setup.
Due to the concern that the thermal environment and CO2 concentration
affects learning performance [19–21], indoor air temperature, humidity,
and CO2 concentrations were monitored. Air temperature and relative
humidity were measured by data loggers with thermistor and polymer
resistance. CO2 concentrations were also measured with a portable CO2
recorder with an NDIR (Nondispersive infrared) sensor to make sure that
the CO2 concentration was not so high that it would have a significant
effect on the performance, and the room air was mixed evenly.
2.3. Experimental procedure
The detailed time schedule for each experimental session is shown in
Fig. 2. To avoid the continuous increase of the aroma concentration after
starting the experiment, aroma atomizing was started 30 min prior to
each experiment. To investigate the subjective evaluation before odor
adaptation, participants were instructed to sit on the chair and answer
the questionnaire immediately upon entering (SE(1), before adapta­
tion). While exposed to the odor environment in the room, participants
first performed the reading task followed by the comprehension test
(Test C1) with a short break in between. After another break, partici­
pants performed the verbal memory task and took the vocabulary quiz
(Test V1). At the end of the experiment, all participants were asked to
assess the odor and indoor environment once more so that their
Fig. 2. Experimental time schedule.
3
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
evaluations under the olfactory adaptation state could be examined (SE
(2)). After approximately three weeks from the first experiment
(experiment 1), participants joined the second experiment (experiment
2). To examine the influence on memory retention, participants retook
the same tests under the same odor conditions (Test C1-re and Test V1-
re), without being informed in advance. The maximum, minimum, and
average elapsed days from experiment 1 to experiment 2 are outlined in
Table 1. As in experiment 1, participants answered the subjective eval­
uation before and after the tests. Following the last evaluation, partici­
pants were moved to another room, where they took the screening odor
test. In this room, participants of all odor conditions performed another
reading (Test C2) and verbal memory task (Test V2) under the same
indoor environment conditions so that individual differences could be
explored. The scores of these tasks were used for analyzing the scores
from experiment 1.
2.4. Subjective measurement
The questionnaire was used to obtain subjective evaluations
regarding perceived odor and indoor environments. All items of the
questionnaire are depicted in Fig. 3. The odor intensity was measured
using a continuous scale. Although there were six points on the scale,
participants could also mark between the points. To observe its change
over time, the perceived intensity during the experiment was further
assessed before and after each task. Odor pleasantness and preference
were measured using the 9-point category scales. The acceptability of
the odor environment and acceptability assuming that participants
study in a lecture room with the odor environment for 90 min were
assessed using continuous scales. Participants also evaluated the ease of
relaxing, being refreshed, and concentrating under the exposed odor
environment using 5-point category scales. The twenty-one sets of odor
impression were measured with the Semantic Differential (SD) scale
method with a 7-point category scales. In addition, the overall indoor
environment was also assessed with six items using 7-point category
scales. All scales were presented in Japanese.
2.5. Learning performance tasks
The method for evaluating learning performance has yet to be
standardized. In light of the fact that learning behavior involves many
neurocognitive functions and processes, many studies have had to adopt
various tasks to assess the IEQ’s influence on the cognitive functions. For
example, Wargocki et al. [26] selected four types of numerical tasks and
two types of language-based tasks. There are also some studies that have
chosen the learning performance tests referring to the neurobehavioral
N. Choi et al.
Fig. 3. Scales used to assess the odor and indoor environment.
evaluation method [29,62]. Given that learning is the acquisition of new
knowledge, our study focused on evaluating how much knowledge
students could acquire.
A reading task and a verbal memory task were used to simulate
actual learning behaviors. These two tasks were adopted to mainly
assess memory performance, in light of the fact that the olfactory system
is connected to the memory-related region of the brain. Two tasks were
designed to include three stages of the learning and memory process and
the short-term and long-term memory retentions for newly acquired
information were estimated in both tasks. Reading comprehension and
information processing speed were also evaluated through a reading
task. Participants read the distributed reading material for 20 min and
marked the last sentence they read. Learning performance in the reading
task was assessed by how many letters participants could read in 20 min
and the score in the comprehension test. The reading material contained
a variety of information on spinning tops, such as their variation and
principles. Because this material has been used in our previous research
[58], it was adopted again to enable us to compare the results from the
two studies. It was a newly published book, which decreased the like­
lihood of the participants having encountered it before the experiment.
The comprehension test consisted of 14 questions. Even if an answer was
correct, it was not counted toward the score if the question referred to an
unread part. In addition, five-option two-choice questions were used to
avoid lucky guesses. The verbal memory task was evaluated using the
score of the vocabulary quiz. An Esperanto vocabulary list of 69 words
and Esperanto dialogue with Japanese translation was offered to every
participant. Participants were given 20 min to memorize the vocabulary
list and then took the word memory quiz. The Esperanto language was
selected because it uses the Latin alphabet and participants were less
likely to have studied it before. During the task, participants were not
informed what language the words belonged to. After the task, they were
asked to guess. Because fifteen participants (3 in control, 2 in rosemary,
6 in lemon, 4 in peppermint) already knew about Esperanto and their
scores turned out to be higher than other participants’, their data was
excluded from the evaluation of the vocabulary task.
As it is mentioned in Section 2.2, participants retook the same
comprehension test and vocabulary quiz to examine the influence of a
4
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
given aroma on both short-term and long-term memory. Additionally, in
order to analyze individual differences, participants performed another
reading and verbal memory tasks (task C2 and V2) in the second
experiment. The task C2 and V2 were structurally the same as task C1
and V1, but a different part from the same material was used.
2.6. Data analysis
The results of subjective evaluation and learning performance tasks
were analyzed using statistical software R. The intervals between the
response categories in Likert scales were presumed equal. While the use
of parametric versus non-parametric statistics in analyzing data ob­
tained from Likert scales is still open to debate, this study adopted
parametric tests in accordance with the precedent established by pre­
vious similar studies [45,63,64]. In terms of the learning task scores, the
Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to estimate the normality of data.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey-Kramer test
was employed for normally distributed data and the data obtained from
subjective evaluation. Non-normally distributed data were analyzed
using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Steel-Dwass test. The results before
and after olfactory adaptation (SE (1) and SE (2)) were compared by the
Student’s paired t-test. All results were considered to be significantly
different when P value was less than 0.05.
3. Experimental results of subjective evaluation
3.1. Odor intensity
The results of odor intensity during the experiments are shown in
Fig. 4. At the start of the experiment, the perceived odor intensity was
close to “slightly strong odor” in all aroma conditions. On the other
hand, the control group rated the odor in the room as “weak odor”. For
the control condition, we were unable to create a perfectly odorless
environment because of odors emanating from the human body, build­
ing materials and furniture in the room. However, the odor intensity was
still significantly different between the control group and the three
aroma groups (p < 0.01, in all aroma conditions), although there was no
N. Choi et al.
Fig. 4. Odor intensity.
significant difference between the three aroma conditions. Because of
olfactory adaptation, perceived odor intensity significantly decreased
with time in all aroma conditions (p < 0.01, between the first and last
evaluations). The odor intensity at the end of the experiment was close
to “weak odor,” indicating that the participants still perceived the odor
after adaptation. Odor intensity at the end of the experiment was
assessed to be slightly higher than during the penultimate evaluation.
Since the last subjective evaluation was conducted after all tasks were
concluded, some participants might have felt relieved and thus able to
turn their attention to the aroma environment more fully. On the other
hand, the result of the control group did not have a significant difference
between before and after adaptation.
3.2. Odor pleasantness, preference and acceptability
Fig. 5 presents odor pleasantness and preference at the start and end
of the experiment 1. The mean odor pleasantness of rosemary and lemon
conditions were higher than the control and peppermint conditions. The
peppermint aroma was significantly less pleasant than rosemary and
lemon (p < 0.05 in the rosemary, p < 0.01 in the lemon), especially after
participants adapted to the odor in the room. In terms of odor prefer­
ence, the lemon aroma was most preferable. No participant in lemon
group disliked the aroma in the room. The preference of the lemon
condition was significantly higher than the control and peppermint
conditions, both before and after olfactory adaptation (p < 0.01). The
rosemary aroma had a higher preference than the control and pepper­
mint, especially after the adaptation (p < 0.01). The preference of the
rosemary odor increased significantly than previously to the adaptation.
The results of the acceptability of odor environment are shown in
Fig. 5. Odor pleasantness and preference.
5
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
Fig. 6. Mean values are displayed together with individual participant
data points. Participants first evaluated the acceptability of the odor
environment in the experimental room (Fig. 6 (A)) then asked to assess
the odor acceptability again assuming that they attend a lecture under
the exposed odor environments for 90 min. It is natural for the control
condition to be more acceptable than other aroma conditions because it
was a more accustomed odor environment. However, it was not signif­
icantly acceptable than other conditions. When participants assumed
that the exposed odor existed in the lecture room, the odor acceptability
significantly decreased compared to the acceptability toward the odor
itself in the lemon and peppermint conditions (p < 0.01 in the lemon, p
< 0.05 in the peppermint). The odor acceptability at the end of the
experiment was significantly higher than when the participants just
entered the room (p < 0.05 in all aroma conditions). After the partici­
pants were familiarized with the odor, the perceived odor intensity
weakened and they felt that the odor was more acceptable.
3.3. Impression of the odor environment
Participants were also asked to answer how refreshing, relaxing, and
helpful for concentration the odor was (Fig. 7). The lemon aroma pro­
vided the most refreshment; however, it was not significantly better than
other conditions (Fig. 7 (A)). The level of refreshment in the control,
lemon and peppermint conditions slightly decreased after olfactory
adaptation. On the other hand, the rosemary group assessed the odor
environment as more refreshing after adaptation, although the differ­
ence was not significant. In the three aroma conditions, fewer partici­
pants rated the odor environment as difficult to relax in after olfactory
adaptation as compared to before adaptation (Fig. 7 (B)). Particularly,
the rosemary group found the odor environment significantly more
relaxing after adaptation (p < 0.01). In terms of the ease of concen­
trating, similar findings were obtained in regard to ratings before and
after olfactory adaptation. The participants classed the odor environ­
ment as easier to concentrate after olfactory adaptation as compared to
before (Fig. 7 (C)). The differences between before and after adaptation
were significant in the rosemary and lemon conditions (p < 0.01 in the
rosemary, p < 0.05 in the lemon). The rosemary aroma tended to pro­
vide a better odor environment after adaptation.
The impression of the odor in the experimental room was evaluated
using the SD method (Fig. 8). Before the olfactory adaptation, there were
significant differences between the control and the three aroma groups
in their applications of the adjective pairs “Fancy-Plain”. The partici­
pants perceived the odor in the control condition as a plainer odor. The
peppermint aroma was assessed to be breezier, colder and more open as
compared to the control condition. There was also a difference between
the lemon and control groups in the adjective pair of “Energetic-
Lethargic”. The lemon aroma gave a more energetic impression
compared to the other conditions. The odor impression after the
N. Choi et al.
Fig. 6. Acceptability of odor environment.
Fig. 7. Ease of being refreshed, relaxing and concentrating of odor environment.
adaptation process was similar to the one before the adaptation process,
although the differences between the control and aroma conditions
became less significant. The results of the odor impression were further
scrutinized with factor analysis. Varimax rotated principal component
analysis was employed and all ratings on each of the 21 semantic dif­
ferential scales of both before/after adaptation for three aroma condi­
tions were analyzed. With a criterion factor of eigenvalue >1, four
factors were extracted. Table 2 lists the correlation between each ad­
jective pairs and factors. Factor 1 (14%) is closely related to lightness,
conveyed through pairs such as massive-light, stuffy-breezy and deep-
superficial. Factor 2 (13%) is linked to familiarity, including the pairs
familiar-unfamiliar, soft-hard and uneasy-relieved. Factor 3 (12%) is
associated with enjoyment or boredom, expressed as boring-fascinating,
sophisticated-vulgar and easy to focus-hard to focus. Factor 4 (7%) is
related to richness and is indicated through the terms fancy-plain, open-
closed and poor-rich. These four factors account for 46% of the total
variance. Fig. 9 presents mean factor scores of the three aroma condi­
tions. The results both before and after adaptation are depicted. The
rosemary group scored factor 1 higher than the peppermint one did. In
terms of factor 2, the lemon aroma got a significantly higher score
compared to the rosemary and peppermint ones. There was no signifi­
cant difference between the three aroma conditions for factors 3 and 4.
6
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
Interestingly, the scores of the rosemary and peppermint groups for
factor 2 and 4 significantly rose after adaptation. This suggests that
factor 2 and 4 are considerably influenced by olfactory adaptation.
However, unlike the two other aromas, the impression of the lemon
aroma hardly changed after adaptation. The correlation of odor pref­
erence to each factor was also examined and, among them, factor 2 was
the most closely correlated to odor preference (correlation coefficient r
= 0.49, p < 0.01).
3.4. Impression of the room indoor environment
Participants evaluated not only the perceived odor environment in
the room, but also the overall indoor environment. The results of the
impression of the overall indoor environment are presented in Fig. 10.
There was no significant difference in the assessed indoor environment
between all conditions. Particularly, the ratings on noisy-quiet and
humid-dry were nearly consistent in all odor conditions. The results
before and after adaptation were also not much different from each
other. The aromas used in this experiment seemed to not have a great
influence on the impression of other environmental factors.
N. Choi et al. Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490

Fig. 8. Impression of odor.

of participants who liked the scent of peppermint (“like” group, N = 8), a

Table 2
group of participants who disliked it (“dislike” group, N = 5) and a group
Factor analysis of the odor impression (Extraction method: principal component
of participants who neither liked nor disliked it (“neutral” group, N = 6).
analysis; rotation method: varimax).
The peppermint condition was chosen for this analysis because there
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 were both “like” and “dislike” groups in this condition.
Massive - Light 0.856 − 0.135 − 0.099 0.13 The mean evaluations classified according to odor preference are
Stuffy - Breezy 0.657 0.193 − 0.262 0.314 shown in Fig. 11. To examine the difference between the “like” and
Warm - Cold 0.574 0.641 − 0.233 − 0.031
“dislike” groups, the Student’s t-test was used. The results of the
Simple - Complicated − 0.564 − 0.064 0.147 0.336
Deep - Superficial 0.48 0.041 0.177 − 0.117 “neutral” group were also presented for reference. Our analysis revealed
Inelegant - Elegant − 0.414 − 0.25 − 0.322 0.378 that the mean ratings of perceived odor intensity were nearly identical
Familiar - Unfamiliar − 0.109 0.686 0.304 − 0.025 before olfactory adaptation (Fig. 11 (A)). However, the “dislike” group
Soft - Hard 0.209 0.636 0.029 − 0.016 was shown to perceive the odor as being slightly stronger after adap­
Uneasy - Relieved − 0.056 − 0.612 − 0.379 0.159
Energetic - Lethargic − 0.041 0.507 − 0.14 − 0.468
tation, although the difference was not statistically significant. In terms
Ordinary - Unique − 0.369 0.441 0.05 0.124 of odor pleasantness, the “like” group rated the odor environment as
Healthy - Unhealthy − 0.262 0.437 0.397 − 0.238 more pleasant (p < 0.05) before the adaptation process. However, there
Boring - Fascinating 0.067 − 0.18 ¡0.637 − 0.018 was no significant difference after adaptation because the odor pleas­
Sophisticated - Vulgar 0.096 0.14 0.609 − 0.081
antness of the “like” group approached “neutral” (neither pleasant nor
Easy to focus - Hard to focus − 0.339 − 0.045 0.577 0.038
Calm - Agitated 0.253 0.352 0.475 0.131 unpleasant). Due to the olfactory adaptation, perceived odor intensity
New - Old − 0.097 − 0.031 0.418 − 0.089 got weaker and the participants who preferred a stronger scent might no
Fancy - Plain 0.153 − 0.073 − 0.154 ¡0.565 longer have found the odor pleasant. The “like” group also rated the
Open - Closed − 0.393 0.193 0.168 ¡0.475 odor as significantly more acceptable both before and after adaptation
Poor - Rich − 0.199 − 0.309 − 0.364 0.389
Oriental - Western 0.038 − 0.01 − 0.18 0.37
(p < 0.05 before, p < 0.01 after adaptation). Similarly, when the par­
ticipants were asked to rate the acceptability of the odor environment
assuming that they attend a lecture, the “dislike” group classified it as
3.5. Influence of the odor preference on the subjective evaluation more unacceptable before adaptation (p < 0.05). On the other hand,
there was no significant difference after the adaptation process because
One of the core underpinnings of this study was that odor preference acceptability in the “dislike” group increased.
would affect subjective evaluation. To investigate this influence, the Fig. 11 (B) presents the results on refreshment, relaxation and con­
“Peppermint” group was further classified into three subgroups: a group centration. Before and after olfactory adaptation, both “like” and

7
N. Choi et al. Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490

Fig. 9. Mean score of factor analysis.

Fig. 10. Impression of the overall indoor environment.

Fig. 11. Results of the peppermint group divided by the preference.

“dislike” groups rated the peppermint aroma as one that makes it
slightly easy to feel refreshed. Because all groups perceived this odor
environment as easy to feel refreshed in, this could be a characteristic of
the peppermint aroma. This aroma was rated as neither easy nor difficult
to relax in before adaptation; however, the “like” group found that it
made it easy to relax after the adaptation. In contrast, the ease of
concentrating was significantly different between the two groups before
the adaptation (p < 0.05). In our previous experiment with the rosemary
aroma, there were significant differences in the ease of feeling refreshed,
relaxing and concentrating between the “like” and “dislike” groups.
Taken together, these results suggest that the influence of the preference
on these variables differs depending on the type of the aromas.
3.6. Task scores
We were well aware of the fact that individual performance could
have a disproportionate effect on a given group’s score. That is to say, if
there is a group including a larger number of participants who are good

8
N. Choi et al.
at the learning task, the score of that group would be higher than that of
other groups, not because of the odor condition but because of those
individuals’ ability. Hence, all participants performed the learning tasks
again (task 2) under the same environmental condition so that we could
examine the differences in ability between the four groups. The score of
each participant in experiment 1 was modified using the following
equations with the score of task 2. At first, the mean score of each group
was adjusted based on their results in task 2 using follow equation (The
adjusted mean score of the group A in task 1, the mean score of the group
A in task 1, the mean score of all participants in task 2, and the mean
score of the group A in task 2, denoted as MeanA-task1’, MeanA-task1,
Meanall-task2, and MeanA-task2, respectively).
MeanA−
′
= MeanA− task1 •
Meanall− task2
(1)
task1
MeanA− task2
Although tasks 2 were structurally identical to tasks 1, the level of
difficulty was not exactly the same because they contained different
information. Furthermore, the amount of time allocated to each task was
not equal. For this reason, the mean score and the standard deviation in
task 2 were also different from task 1. Thus, each participant’s score that
differed from the mean was also adjusted proportionally to the standard
deviation in tasks 1 and 2 using following equation (The adjusted score
Fig. 12. Results of the learning performance task.
9
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
of participant i in group A in task 1, the modified score of participant i in
group A in task 1, the standard deviation of group A in task 1, and the
standard deviation of group A in task 2, denoted as ScoreAi-task’, ScoreAi-
task1, σ A-task1, and σ A-task2, respectively).
σA−
(2)
′ task2 ′
ScoreAi− task1 = (ScoreAi− task1 − MeanA− task1 ) •
σA−
+ MeanA− task1
task1
The scores of the reading and verbal memory tasks are shown in
Fig. 12. Both results before and after adjustment are depicted. Addi­
tionally, the scores of task 2 are also presented together. Because the
mean reading speed in task 2 across all groups was similar, we can infer
that the reading abilities of the participants from all four groups were
not significantly different (Fig. 12 (A)). The mean reading speed of the
peppermint group was slightly higher than that of other groups. How­
ever, there was no significant difference between all the groups. In terms
of the comprehension test score, the lemon group got the highest score,
and it was significantly higher than the rosemary and peppermint groups
(p < 0.01, Fig. 12 (B)). It should be noted that the lemon group also
scored the highest in an aroma-free environment (task 2); however, the
differences in that case were not significant. Based on the results in task
2, the scores were adjusted. The lemon group was no longer the group
with the highest mean score and there was no great difference between
N. Choi et al.
the four groups.
In terms of the verbal memory task, the rosemary group performed
better than the other groups, although the differences were not statis­
tically significant (Fig. 12 (C)). The mean score of the rosemary group in
task 2 was also higher than the scores of the other groups; however, the
differences were very small and not statistically significant. The adjusted
scores of the rosemary and lemon groups were higher than those of the
control and peppermint groups but there was no significant difference.
In addition, the retention test scores of the comprehension test and
the vocabulary quiz that were performed about 3 weeks after the first
test are presented in Fig. 13. In the retention test, the lemon group
scored highest in both tasks. The mean score of the lemon group in the
comprehension test was significantly higher than those of the rosemary
and peppermint groups (p < 0.01, Fig. 13 (A)). The lemon group also
scored higher in the vocabulary quiz compared to the control and
rosemary groups although it was not statistically significant. Fig. 13 (B)
shows the memory retention rate, i.e. how much they were able to
remember in the second test as compared to the first test. The partici­
pants still remembered much of what they read during the first experi­
ment while forgetting much of the vocabulary that they memorized for
the first test. The memory retention rate of the peppermint group in the
comprehension test (test C1-re) was significantly lower than the control
and lemon groups (p < 0.05). The mean memory retention rate of the
lemon group was also the highest among the four groups. Although it
was not significantly higher than the control condition, these results
indicate that the lemon aroma may have a positive effect on memory-
related performance.
3.7. Subjective evaluation and learning performance
Another objective of this study is to investigate whether odor pref­
erence affects learning performance. Interestingly, the results varied
depending on the aroma condition. In the lemon condition, the reading
speed increased proportionately to odor preference (r = 0.346, p >
0.05). On the other hand, the reverse was observed in the peppermint
group (r = − 0.545, p < 0.05) and there was no obvious trend in the
rosemary group (r = 0.105, p > 0.05). In terms of the test score on the
comprehension test, we did not detect a significant influence from odor
preference on performance. Participants tended to score more highly in
the vocabulary memory task when they liked the aroma they were
exposed to more especially in the rosemary and lemon groups (overall
conditions, r = 0.302, p < 0.05, rosemary, r = 0.375, lemon, r = 0.443,
peppermint, r = − 0.02, p > 0.05). Their performance on memory
retention was not significantly related to odor preference, although the
lemon group showed the positive correlation between the memory
retention rate of the comprehension test and odor preference (r = 0.412,
p > 0.05). Individual preference for each aroma may affect the impact to
Fig. 13. Memory retention of the learning performance task.
10
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
different degrees, and the effect of odor preference may differ depending
on the specific task.
4. Discussion
This study suggests that an aroma could positively affect students’
mood and performance during learning. Our results showed that the
lemon group had the highest scores in the memory task and also had the
highest preference for the aroma. However, it is still not clear whether
their better performance came as a result of the lemon essential oil itself
or the participants’ high preference for it. Since there are many kinds of
aromas, more aromas at different preference levels need to be
investigated.
This study also revealed that odor preference significantly affects
other subjective evaluations. The peppermint group was divided into
“like” and “dislike” groups and the two groups showed opposite trends
in odor acceptability and ease of concentrating. This indicates that the
mean value of all participants does not represent either the “like” or
“dislike” group accurately in such cases; hence, odor preference should
be taken into consideration when analyzing the evaluation results of the
odor environment.
In previous studies [51,52,56,57], the rosemary and peppermint
aromas have positively affected participants’ memory performance.
However, the significant effects of the two aromas were not detected in
this experiment. Since the cognitive performance task used in the pre­
vious study was simpler and easier than the task in this experiment, the
differing results suggest that the influence of the essential oils may vary
depending on the type of task and the task’s level of difficulty. On the
other hand, the lemon aroma, which was proven to have a positive effect
on cognitive performance in a previous study [50], led to a higher
average score in this experiment too.
Olfactory adaptation has been investigated in a large number of
studies for a long time [65]; however, little information exists con­
cerning the adaptation to essential oils. With that in mind, this study
measured odor intensity during the experiment to examine olfactory
adaptation. The intensity of aromas was rated as being close to “slightly
strong odor” at the start of the experiment. However, the aroma was
perceived as a “weak odor” at the end, even though the aroma con­
centration was nearly consistent. The results of subjective evaluation
before and after adaptation were also compared in this experiment. The
odor perception was significantly different before and after adaptation
and the influence of adaptation was different depending on the type of
essential oils. As such, if the essential oil is used for spaces where oc­
cupants stay for a relatively long time, the odor perception after adap­
tation should be also considered. Since a change in aroma concentration
would also impact olfactory adaptation, olfactory adaptation and mood
under different atomizing intervals should be studied in further study to
N. Choi et al.
create an effective aroma environment.
There was a disproportion between the number of female and male
participants in this experiment. Given that the existence of gender dif­
ferences in the perception of indoor air quality and odor is still a
contentious issue [66,67] and that such differences are beyond the scope
of this study, our hypothesis is grounded on the idea that there is no
significant gender difference in the psychological impact of indoor
aroma on learning performance. Even when the results of female and
male participants in each group were compared, no significant differ­
ences in odor pleasantness, preference, acceptability and scores of the
learning tasks were detected (P > 0.05, the results of the verbal memory
task in the lemon group were not compared because three male partic­
ipants knew Esperanto and their data was excluded). However, further
studies are needed to generalize our findings.
The thermal environment and air quality did not remain fully
consistent in every phase of the experiment. The mean indoor air tem­
perature and CO2 concentration were 22.8 ◦ C (SD = 0.6 ◦ C) and 676 ppm
(SD = 51 ppm), respectively, during the experiments. To confirm that
other environmental factors excepting odor did not affect participants’
learning performance, their influences were investigated using correla­
tion analysis. As a result, there was no significant relation between
learning performance and either indoor temperature (reading task r =
0.13, comprehension test r = − 0.03, verbal memory task r = − 0.07, p <
0.05) or CO2 concentration (reading task r = 0.15, comprehension test r
= 0.02, verbal memory task r = − 0.03, p < 0.05).
This experiment employed a new approach in analyzing learning
performance. To take into account the difference in individual ability,
the results of the two tasks were adjusted according to the results of the
test that all participants performed under the same odor condition. This
method can be applied to similar studies. However, this study only
focused on reading and verbal memory functions. Hence, if the target
cognitive function is different from the one in this study, the influence of
the aroma environment on that cognitive function should be examined
anew in further studies.
To set up a proper aroma environment, the physiological impact of
aromas should also be examined. Wolkoff and Nielsen [68] evaluated
the health effects of the inhalation of fragrances indoors by reviewing
numerous related studies. Although they did not focus on essential oils,
they stated that the indoor air concentration of common fragrances fell
below the threshold for sensory irritations. However, if the indoor air
concentrations of odors are very high, they may cause severe adverse
health effects [69,70]. Thus, it is crucial that aromas be disseminated
within a range of concentration that does not negatively affect human
health.
5. Conclusion
In this study, experiments were conducted to investigate the influ­
ence of the rosemary, lemon and peppermint aromas on students’ mood
and learning performance. The following conclusions were reached.
• Among the three aroma conditions, the lemon aroma was met with
the highest preference and acceptability and the peppermint aroma
was significantly less pleasant and preferable than other aromas. In
terms of the ease of refreshment, relaxation and concentration, there
was no significant difference between the different aroma
conditions.
• Participants in the three aroma groups rated their environment as
fancier than the ones in the control condition. The impression of the
three aroma conditions was also analyzed using factor analysis,
which resulted in the identification of four important factors: light­
ness, familiarity, boredom and richness. Among these, familiarity
was revealed to be the most closely related to odor preference.
• The acceptability of the aroma significantly increased after adapta­
tion in all aroma conditions. However, the influence of the adapta­
tion varied depending on the type of essential oils. The rosemary
11
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
group perceived the odor environment as being more acceptable,
preferable, and easier to relax and concentrate in after adaptation.
• The odor preference had a significant influence on odor acceptability
and impression, especially before adaptation. The gap between the
“like” and “dislike” groups’ subjective evaluations narrowed after
adaptation.
• The indoor aroma did not have a significant impact on overall
impression of the indoor room environment such as brightness and
noisiness.
• The mean scores in the vocabulary memory task and memory
retention rate of the lemon aroma group were higher than those of
the other conditions. Though the positive impact of the three aroma
conditions on learning performance in this study was not statistically
significant, a pleasant aroma has a potential to facilitate learning
performance.
• The lemon group showed the positive correlation between the
reading task score and odor preference, whereas the opposite trend
was observed in the peppermint group. It indicates that the impact of
odor preference on learning performance may be different depend­
ing on the type of essential oils. More studies using various types of
essential oils are needed to clarify the relation between odor pref­
erence and learning performance.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Narae Choi: Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Re­
sources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal
analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. Toshio Yamanaka: Supervision, Project
administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition,
Conceptualization. Akihisa Takemura: Writing – review & editing,
Methodology, Conceptualization. Tomohiro Kobayashi: Methodology,
Conceptualization. Aya Eto: Visualization, Validation, Methodology,
Investigation, Data curation. Masato Hirano: Visualization, Validation,
Methodology, Investigation, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Narae Choi reports financial support was provided by Daikin Industries
Ltd.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support received from DAI­
KIN INDUSTRIES, LTD. Ethical approval for the experiment was ob­
tained from the Ethics Committee of Osaka University.
References
[1] N.E. Klepeis, W.C. Nelson, W.R. Ott, J.P. Robinson, A.M. Tsang, P. Switzer, J.
V. Behar, S.C. Hern, W.H. Engelmann, The National Human Activity Pattern Survey
(NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants, J. Expo.
Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 11 (2011) 231–252, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.
jea.7500165.
[2] N.P. Sensharma, J.E. Woods, An extension of a rational model for evaluation of
human responses, occupant performance, and productivity, Healthy Building 2000
(2000). Workshop. 9, Finland.
[3] J. Sundell, On the history of indoor air quality and health, Indoor Air 13 (s7)
(2004) 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00273.x.
[4] M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influence
human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (4) (2011) 922–937,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.10.021.
N. Choi et al.
[5] Y.A. Horr Ya, M. Arif, M. Katafygiotou, A. Mazroei, A. Kaushik, E. Elsarrag, Impact
of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: a review of
the literature, Int. J. Sustain Built Environ. 5 (1) (2016) 1–11, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.006.
[6] The WELL Certification. https://www.wellcertified.com/.
[7] D. Clements-Croome, Creating the Productive Workplace, Taylor & Francis Group,
New York, 2006.
[8] P. Wargocki, O. Seppänen, J. Anderson, D. Clements-Croome, K. Fitzner, S.
O. Hanssen, Indoor Climate and Productivity in Offices, Rehva, 2006.
[9] W.J. Fisk, A.H. Rosenfeld, Estimates of improved productivity and health from
better indoor environments, Indoor Air (1997) 158–171, https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1600-0668.1997.t01-1-00002.x.
[10] Y.A. Horr, M. Arif, A. Kaushik, A. Mazroei, M. Katafygiotou, E. Elarrag, Occupant
productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the literature,
Build. Environ. 105 (2016) 369–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2016.06.001.
[11] M.J. Mendell, W.J. Fisk, K. Kreiss, H. Levin, D. Alexander, W.S. Cain, J.R. Girman,
C.J. Hines, P.A. Jensen, D.K. Milton, L.P. Rexroat, K.M. Wallingford, Improving the
health of workers in indoor environments: priority research needs for a national
occupational research agenda, Am. J. Publ. Health 92 (2002) 1430–1440, https://
doi.org/10.2105/ajph.92.9.1430.
[12] J. Alker, M. Malanca, C. Pottage, R. O’Brien, Health, Wellbeing & Productivity in
Offices: the Next Chapter for Green Building, World Green Building Council,
London, 2014. Retrieved from, https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files
/compressed_WorldGBC_Health_Wellbeing__Productivity_Full_Report_Dbl_Med_
Res_Feb_2015.pdf.
[13] R. Kosonen, F. Tan, The effect of perceived indoor air quality on productivity loss,
Energy Build. 36 (2004) 981–986, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2004.06.005.
[14] L. Lan, Z. Lian, L. Pan, Q. Ye, Neurobehavioral approach for evaluation of office
workers’ productivity: the effects of room temperature, Build. Environ. 44 (2009)
1578–1588, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.10.004.
[15] A.J. Yeganeh, G. Reichard, A.P. McCoy, T. Bulbul, F. Jazizadeh, Correlation of
ambient air temperature and cognitive performance: a systematic review and meta-
analysis, Build. Environ. 143 (2018) 701–716, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.07.002.
[16] J. Kallio, E. Vildjiounaite, J. Koivusaari, P. Rasanen, H. Simila, V. Kyllonen,
S. Muuraiskangas, J. Ronkainen, J. Rehu, K. Vehmas, Assessment of perceived
indoor environmental quality, stress and productivity based on environmental
sensor data and personality categorization, Build. Environ. 175 (2020), 106787,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106787.
[17] D.P. Wyon, W.J. Fisk, S. Rauito, Research needs and approaches pertaining to the
indoor climate and productivity, Healthy Buildings WS1 (2000) 1–8.
[18] C.S. Mitchell, J. Zhang, T. Sigsgaard, M. Jantunen, P.J. Lioy, R. Samson, M.
H. Karol, Current state of the science: health effects and indoor environmental
quality, Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (6) (2007) 958–964, https://doi.org/
10.1289/ehp.8987.
[19] U. Satish, M.J. Mendell, K. Shekhar, T. Hotchi, D. Sullivan, S. Streufert, W.J. Fisk, Is
CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on
human decision-making performance, Environ. Health Perspect. 120 (12) (2012)
1672–1677, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104789.
[20] J.G. Allen, P. MacNaughton, U. Satish, S. Santanam, J. Vallarino, J.D. Spengler,
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 (6)
(2016) 805–812, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037.
[21] B. Du, M.C. Tandoc, M.L. Mack, J.A. Siegel, Indoor CO2 concentrations and
cognitive function: a critical review, Indoor Air 30 (2020) 1067–1082, https://doi.
org/10.1111/ina.12706.
[22] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, P.O. Fanger, Productivity is affected by the air quality in
offices, Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 1 (2000) (2000) 635–640.
[23] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, J. Sundell, G. Clausen, P.O. Fanger, The effects of outdoor
air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS)
symptoms and productivity, Indoor Air 10 (2000) 222–236.
[24] O. Seppanen, W.J. Fisk, Q.H. Lei, Ventilation and performance in office work,
Indoor Air 16 (2006) 28–36, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00394.x.
[25] M.C. Lee, K.W. Mui, L.T. Wond, W.Y. Chan, E.W.M. Lee, C.T. Cheung, Student
learning performance and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in air-conditioned
university teaching rooms, Build. Environ. 49 (2012) 238–244, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.001.
[26] P. Wargocki, D.P. Wyon, Effects of HVAC on student performance, ASHRAE J. 48
(2006) 22–28.
[27] P. Wargocki, J.A. Porras-Salazar, S. Contreras-Espinoza, W. Bahnfleth, The
relationship between classroom air quality and children’s performance in school,
Build. Environ. 173 (2020), 106749, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.106749.
[28] T.M. Stafford, Indoor air quality and academic performance, J. Environ. Econ.
Manag. 70 (2015) 34–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.11.002.
[29] X. Wang, L. Yang, S. Gao, S. Zhao, Y. Zhai, Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated
university classroom: a seasonal field study in Xi’an, China, Energy Build. 247
(2021), 111126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111126.
[30] L.R. Squire, Memory and Brain, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1987.
[31] A.W. Melton, Implications of short-term memory for a general theory of memory,
J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 2 (1963) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371
(63)80063-8.
12
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
[32] B. Berglund, U. Berglund, T. Lindvall, H. Nicander-Bredberg, Olfactory and
chemical characterization of indoor air. Towards a psychophysical model for air
quality, Environ. Int. 8 (1982) 327–332.
[33] P. Dalton, Odor perception and beliefs about risk, Chem. Senses 21 (4) (1996)
447–458, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/21.4.447.
[34] P. Wargocki, H.N. Knudsen, A. Rabstajn, A. Afshari, Measurements of perceived air
quality: correlations between odor intensity, acceptability and characteristics of
air, in: Healthy Buildings 2009 : Proceedings of the 9th International Healthy
Buildings Conference and Exhibition, 2009 paper 103.
[35] L. Buck, R. Axel, A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a
molecular basis for odor recognition, Cell 65 (1) (1991) 175–187, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0092-8674(91)90418-X.
[36] D.A. Wilson, R.M. Sullivan, Cortical processing of odor objects, Neuron 72 (4)
(2011) 506–519, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.027.
[37] Y. Soudry, C. Lemogne, D. Malinvaud, S.M. Consoli, P. Bonfils, Olfactory system
and emotion: common substrates, Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 128
(2011) 18–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2010.09.007.
[38] J. Lehrner, G. Marwinski, S. Lehr, P. Johren, L. Deecke, Ambient odors of orange
and lavender reduce anxiety and improve mood in a dental office, Physiol. Behav.
86 (2005) 92–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.06.031.
[39] R.S. Herz, Aromatherapy facts and fictions: a scientific analysis of olfactory effects
on mood, physiology and behavior, Int. J. Neurosci. 119 (2) (2009) 263–290,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450802333953.
[40] I. Kontaris, B.S. East, D.A. Wilson, Behavioral and neurobiological convergence of
odor, mood and emotion: a review, Front. Behav. Neurosci. 14 (2020) 1–15,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00035.
[41] U. Habel, K. Koch, K. Pauly, T. Kellermann, M. Reske, V. Backes, N.Y. Seiferth,
T. Stöcker, T. Kircher, K. Amunts, N.J. Shah, F. Schneider, The influence of
olfactory-induced negative emotion on verbal neurobehavioral findings, Brain Res.
1152 (2007) 158–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.048.
[42] G.N. Martin, A. Chaudry, Working memory performance and exposure to pleasant
and unpleasant ambient odor: is spatial span special? Int. J. Neurosci. 124 (11)
(2014) 806–811, https://doi.org/10.3109/00207454.2014.890619.
[43] P. Wolkoff, C.K. Wilins, P.A. Clausen, G.D. Nielsen, Organic compounds in office
environments – sensory irritation, odor, measurement and the role of reactive
chemistry, Indoor Air 16 (1) (2006) 7–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0668.2005.00393.x.
[44] R. Maddalena, M.J. Mendell, K. Eliseeva, W.R. Chan, D.P. Sullivan, M. Russell,
U. Satish, W.J. Fisk, Effects of ventilation rate per person and per floor area on
perceived air quality, sick building syndrome symptoms, and decision-making,
Indoor Air 25 (2015) 362–370, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12149.
[45] S. Nordin, L. Aldrin, A.-S. Claeson, L. Andersson, Effects of negative affectivity and
odor valence on chemosensory and symptom perception and perceived ability to
focus on a cognitive task, Perception 46 (3–4) (2017) 431–446, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0301006616686990.
[46] D.V. Kempski, The use of olfactory stimulants to improve indoor air quality,
J. Hum. Environ. Stud. 5 (2) (2002) 61–68, https://doi.org/10.1618/jhes.5.61.
[47] K.H.C. Baser, G. Buchbauer, Handbook of essential oils. Science, Technology and
Applications, second ed., CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1201/
9781420063165.
[48] A. Meamarbashi, A. Rajabi, The effects of peppermint on exercise performance,
J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 10 (15) (2013) 1–6.
[49] A.L. Lopresti, Salvia (Sage): a review of its potential cognitive-enhancing and
protective effects, Drugs R 17 (2017) 53–64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40268-016-
0157-5.
[50] B. Du, H. Schwartz-Narbonne, M. Tandoc, E.M. Heffernan, M.L. Mack, J.A. Siegel,
The impact of emissions from an essential oil diffuser on cognitive performance,
Indoor Air 32 (2021), e12919, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12919.
[51] M. Moss, L. Oliver, Plasma 1,8-cineole correlates with cognitive performance
following exposure to rosemary essential oil aroma, Ther Adv Psychopharmacol 2
(3) (2012) 103–113, https://doi.org/10.1177/2045125312436573.
[52] C. Ho, C. Spence, Olfactory facilitation of dual-task performance, Neurosci. Lett.
389 (1) (2005) 35–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2005.07.003.
[53] J.-L. Millot, G. Brand, N. Morand, Effects of ambient odors on reaction time in
humans, Neurosci. Lett. 322 (2) (2002) 79–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-
3940(02)00092-7.
[54] L. Lan, Z. Lian, Application of statistical power analysis – how to determine the
right sample size in human health, comfort and productivity research, Build.
Environ. 45 (5) (2010) 1202–1213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2009.11.002.
[55] F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, A. Buchner, G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, Behav. Res.
Methods 39 (2) (2007) 175–191, https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
[56] P. Nematolahi, M. Mehrabani, S. Karami-Mohajeri, F. Dabaghzadeh, Effects of
Rosmarinus officinalis L. on memory performance, anxiety, depression, and sleep
quality in university students: a randomized clinical trial. Complement, Ther. Clin.
Pract. 30 (2018) 24–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2017.11.004.
[57] O.V. Filiptsova, L.V. Gazzavi-Rogozina, I.A. Timoshyna, O.I. Naboka, Ye.
V. Dyomina, A.V. Ochkur, The effect of the essential oils of lavender and rosemary
on the human short-term memory, Alexandria J. Med. 54 (2018) 41–44, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2017.05.004.
[58] A. Eto, N. Choi, T. Yamanaka, A. Takemura, T. Kobayashi, Learning performance in
odor environment with aroma oils: influence of odor of essential oils on learning
performance in classroom, The 40th AIVC – 8th Tight Vent & 6th Venticool
Conference (2019).
N. Choi et al.
[59] N. Choi, T. Yamanaka, A. Takemura, T. Kobayashi, A. Eto, A Study on Subjective
Evaluation of Essential Oils Using the Semantic Differential Scaling, Proceedings of
Annual Meeting of the Society of Indoor Environment, Japan, 2019, p. 34.
[60] R.A. Baron, J. Thomley, A whiff of reality: positive affect as a potential mediator of
the effects of pleasant fragrances on task performance and helping, Environ. Behav.
26 (6) (1994) 677–784, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916594266003.
[61] B. Raudenbush, R. Grayhem, T. Sears, I. Wilson, Effects of peppermint and
cinnamon odor administration on simulated driving alertness, mood and workload,
N. Am. J. Psychol. 11 (2) (2009) 245–256.
[62] H. Kim, T. Hong, J. Kim, S. Yeom, A psychophysiological effect of indoor thermal
condition on college students’ learning performance through EEG measurement,
Build. Environ. 194 (2020), 107223, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.107223.
[63] J. Carifio, R. Perla, Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert
scales, Med. Educ. 42 (12) (2008) 1150–1152, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2008.03172.x.
[64] G. Norman, Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics, Adv.
Health Sci. Educ. 15 (2010) 625–632, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-
y.
13
Building and Environment 223 (2022) 109490
[65] P. Dalton, Psychophysical and behavioral characteristics of olfactory adaptation,
Chem. Senses 25 (2000) 487–492, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/25.4.487.
[66] J. Kim, R. de Dear, C. Cândido, H. Zhang, E. Arens, Gender differences in office
occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ), Build. Environ. 70
(2013) 245–256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.022.
[67] R.L. Doty, E. Leslie Cameron, Sex differences and reproductive hormone influences
on human odor perception, Physiol. Behav. 97 (2009) 213–228, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.032.
[68] P. Wolkoff, G.D. Nielsen, Effects by inhalation of abundant fragrances in indoor air
– an overview, Environ. Int. 101 (2018) 97–107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2017.01.013.
[69] H.J. Su, C.J. Chao, H.Y. Chang, P.C. Wu, The effects of evaporating essential oils on
indoor air quality, Atmos. Environ. 41 (6) (2007) 1230–1236, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.09.044.
[70] H.L. Huang, T.J. Tsai, N.Y. Hsu, C.C. Lee, P.C. Wu, H.J. Hu, Effects of essential oils
on the formation of formaldehyde and secondary organic aerosols in an
aromatherapy environment, Build. Environ. 57 (2012) 120–125, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.04.020.