Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings in Research ... · Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings in Research and Industry In 1987, Burge et al. [6] reported that, in a

James E. Woods and Nadia Boschi

Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings in Research and Industry

James E, Woods, Ph,D,, P.E., and Nadia Boschi, Ph,D., Arch. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State LJniversiG, USA

Abstract

During the last decade, the concepts of 'sick' and 'healthy' buildings have been introduced and debated at regional, national and international conferences. Although these concepts have helped the research community to focus on the integration of health and building sciences, they have also caused controversy, especially among those who are responsible for the financing, design, construction, and operations of buildings and their systems. In this address, three national or multi-national studies now being conducted in Europe, North America, and Japan are described and compared to previously reported studies with regard to their characterizations of the health of the existing building stock. The concepts of Con- tinuous Degradation and Continuous Accountability are then described, followed by an overview of evolving diagnostic procedures and evaluation criteria. These trends and concepts are then considered through lessons learned in practice, including an overview of eleven litigation cases and consequences of continuous degradation. This address concludes by posing several issues for consideration during the conference including: the validity of Continuation Degradation; the practicality of Continuous Accountability; the need for rational evaluation criteria; the effectiveness of diagnostic procedures; and need to document the benefits of Healthy Buildings.

1. Introduction

Although the primary purpose of the built environment is to provide for the needs of the occupants, history is replete with evidence of building-associated illnesses. However, the concept of 'Sick Building Syndrome' was only recently introduced to the international scientific community in 1984, and the concept of 'Healthy Buildings' was fxst introduced in 1988 at the CIB-sponsored conference 'Healthy Buildings '88' [I, 2, 31. Although these concepts have helped the research community to refocus on the integration of health and building sciences, they have also caused controversy, especially among those who are responsible for the financing, design, construction, and operations of buildings and their systems; those responsible for public health; and those who are responsible for medical treatment of occupants.

Support for the development and presentation of this paper was provided by the Waste Policy Institute, a non-profit corporation affiliated with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

13. CIB Building Congress 8-9 May 1995, Amsterdam

Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings

in Research and Industry

The objective of this keynote is to highlight the importance of developing a clear understanding of concepts of 'Sick Building Syndrome' and 'Healthy Buildings', and how these concepts can be used: 1) to assure that the performance of the building and its syctems provide for the health and well-being of the occupants, building owners and managers or, 2) to effectively identify and correct problems as they occur. To achieve this objective, this keynote first addresses research perspectives that have developed during the last decade. It next describes two controversial concepts that have been proposed during this time: Continuous Degradation and Continuous Accountability. An evolving building diagnostic protocol that focuses on maximizing the probability of detecting performance faults while minimizing detection errors is then described, followed by a discussion of developing rational evaluation criteria for fault detection. These trends and concepts are then considered through lessons learned in practice, including an overview of eleven litigation cases and consequences of continuous degradation. This keynote concludes by posing several issues for consideration during this conference including: the validity of Continuation Degradation; the practicality of Continuous Accountability; the need for rational evaluation criteria; the effectiveness of diagnostic procedures; and the need to document the benefits of Healthy Buildings.

2. Current situation

Three types of studies on 'sick' and 'healthy' buildings have been found in the published literature during the last decade: demographic studies, cross-sectional and case studies, and metanalysis. Results and trends, identified in an overview of these studies, highlight a need for better integration of health and building sciences. The growing, but very limited scientific data base reveals that much controversy continues to exist in both the scientific and business communities with regard to the validity and usefulness of the concepts or definitions of 'Sick Building Syndrome', 'Building Related Illness' and 'Healthy Buildings.'

2.1 Demographic Studies Two demographic studies carried on during the 1980s helped characterize the environmental conditions in office buildings in developed countries. These results indicated that a significant percentage of building occupants may be exposed to environmental conditions that can cause discomfort and adverse health effects.

In a report presented in 1984 and published in 1986 by the World Health Organization's Regional Office for Europe Working Group on Indoor Air Research [2], it was estimated that 30% of new or remodelled buildings in developed countries, with different frequencies from country to region, have unusually high rates of occupant complaints. The study associated the symptoms known as those of the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) to those buildings with no operable windows. Moreover, it was underlined that lack of integration of environmental systems (e.g., thermal and ventilation control) could increase the risk for developing indoor air quality problems. The report also contended that lack of control by the occupants over the climate conditions tends to facilitate perception of poor air quality. The report highlighted the necessity of systematic investigations and outlined a sequential three steps approach (i.e., first step: inspection and collection of basic information of the building; second step: measurements of the thermal factors, lighting, acoustic as well as particulate matter or formaldehyde plus a simple questionnaire; third step: detailed questionnaire, human exposure and extended measurements of chemicals and microbial.). The proposed three steps investigation included the development of a written report of the findings as a condition to proceed


James E. Woods and Nadia Boschi 45

to the subsequent phase. Furthermore, the need for standardized calibrated instruments for measurement of human exposure, and for more understanding of emissions from building materials was addressed, as well as a better understanding of the cost effectiveness of saving energy in the long run.

In a 1984 telephone survey sponsored by Honeywell, a stratified random sample of 600 office workers in nine demographic areas of the United States was questioned about their perceptions of indoor air quality on their comfort, well-being and performance. The results of this survey were made available initially as a Honeywell Technalysis Report in 1985 and subsequently presented and published in the Proceedings ofthe 4th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate in Berlin in 1987 [4, 51. The office workers were selected to be statistically representative nationwide, were at least 18 years old, and worked a minimum of 20 hours per week in an office with no fewer than 5 employees. The size of the sample and the percent of the specific responses determined the sampling errors: for a 95% confidence level, they ranged from f 2.4% for responses near 10% and 90% from the entire sample of 600 to + 13.9% for responses near 50% from a subsample of 100. The results of the survey showed that a substantial percentage of the respondents (24%) were dissatisfied with the air quality where they worked (air described as 'only fair' or 'poor'); 20% of the respondents said they 'often' or 'sometimes' had problems doing their work because of the air quality in the office where they work. This 20% of the sample reported five symptoms, which are often associated with SBS, as 'serious' or 'very serious' problems because of the air quality in the office or area where they worked at frequencies of more than twice those expected from normal populations (56% tired/sleepy feeling, 46% congested nose, 41 % eye irritation, 40% difficulty breathing, 39% headaches). Results from the survey also indicated that office workers were 50% more likely to express dissatisfaction or hampered performance in older buildings (i.e., more than 20 years old) (i.e., 29% vs 19% dissatisfaction, and 23% vs 15% hampered). Respondents who worked in buildings that were rented were 40% more likely to perceive poor air quality and to say that air quality hampered their work than those who worked in owner-occupied buildings (i.e., 29% vs 20%, and 23% vs 15%, respectively). Moreover, in the absence of operable windows, the occupants were 50% more likely to perceive poor air quality (i.e., 24% if rarely opened vs 116% if opened often). Respondents with no windows in their office (32%) were 35% more likely to perceive poor air quality or hampered performance than those with windows in their office (i.e., 29% vs 21%, and 23% vs 117% respectively). Workers with central heating or cooling systems that cycled the air on and off (e.g., two position thermostatic control) were two and half time as likely to perceive poor air quality and to say that air quality hampered their work than those with systems that delivered constant volumes of air (i.e., 40% vs 115%, and 30% vs 13%, respectively). Furthermore, workers with central heating or cooling systems at variable volumes of air (e-g., VAV systems) were nearly twice as likely to perceive poor air quality and to say that air quality hampered their work than those systems that delivered constant volumes of air (i.e., 29% vs 15% and 24% vs 13% respectively). From the findings of this stratified random sample of workers, it was hypothesized that 20% of the office workers in the United States are exposed to environmental conditions that are manifested as the SBS.

2.2 Cross-sectional and Case Studies Several cross-sectional and case studies, conducted during the last decade, have also indicated that substantial percentages of workers are exposed to indoor environmental conditions that can cause work related symptoms.




In 1987, Burge et al. [6] reported that, in a sample of 4329 office workers located in 42 different buildings in Great Britain (34 of which had no known problems), high prevalence rates of work-related symptoms were found, with the most common being lethargy (57%), blocked nose (47%), dry throat (46%), and headache (43%). They reported that in buildings heated, cooled and ventilated by central or local inductionlfan coils (i.e., 'air /waterq), symptoms were reported twice as frequently than in buildings that were naturally ventilated or mechanically ventilated with central systems that did not provide cooling. Moreover, variable or constant air volume (i.e., 'dl air9) systems for heating, cooling and ventilation were associated with intermediate frequencies of symptoms.

Also in 1987, Skov et al. [7] reported that of the 3507 workers in 14 Danish town halls, 28% complained of 'work related mucosal irritation7 (e.g., eye, nose or throat irritation) and 36% reported 'general symptoms' (e.g., headache, fatigue or malaise). The study showed a lower frequency of reported symptoms in the oldest buildings, but no significant difference in the frequency of symptoms between mechanically or naturally ventilated buildings, with or without cooling.

In a study reported in 1988, Bruncfrage et al. [8] found that, during a 47 month period, mili- tary personnel housed in barracks at four US army training centers had respiratory disease 50% more frequently in 'modern barracks9, built in 1970s and 1980s, than in 'old barracks', built in the 1940s and 1950s.

A cross-sectional study of 12 public office buildings in the San Francisco area was conducted in 1990 by Fisk et al. [lo]. Three of the selected buildings were naturally ventilated, thee were mechanically ventilated but not cooled (i.e., 'air conditioning'), and six were ventilated with systems that also provided heating and cooling (i.e., 'air conditioning'). The buildings were built in different periods (i.e., from 1893 to 1987) and were of different sizes (i.e., 2280 m2 to 36200 m2, and 2 to 12 stories). A survey of 880 occupants was conducted to determine patterns of work-related symptoms, demographics and job/personal factors. The study reported higher frequency of symptoms in buildings with air conditioning than those naturally ventilated. These results also indicated that factors other than ventilation were probable causes workers' symptoms, including carpeting, carbonless copy paper, photocopiers, space planning and distance from windows.

In 1994, Sundell [9], in a study of 210 office buildings in northern Sweden, reported at least six significant risk indicators of Sick Building Syndrome: 1) buildings built or remodeled after 1977; 2) low-rise buildings; 3) outdoor air ventilation rates less than 13.6 Us-p; 4) illumination with fluorescent lamps; 5) presence of copy machines; 6) use of humidifiers, and low frequencies of floor cleaning. Sundell reported that the prevalence of SBS symptoms was also associated with personaVjob related or psychosocial factors as well as with gender (e.g., perception of 'dry air': men 17% vs women 43%). He did not find any association between SBS and type of ventilation system, recirculation of air or presence of rotary heat exchangers, nor did he find a consistent association between room air temperature or relative humidity and SBS.

2.3 Metanalysis A metanalysis published in 1993 by Mendell [ l 11 considered 26 reports from the literature of epidemiologic studies in which workers' health complaints were analyzed in relation to environmental factors (e.g., low ventilation rate, TVOCs, fungi), building, workspace factors (e.g., air conditioning, humidification, space), and job personal factors (e.g., clerical job,



photocopier use, allergies). Cross-sectional studies, experimental studies, observational studies were considered in the metanalysis. Results of the metanalysis revealed a higher prevalence of symptoms associated with SBS from occupants with allergies/asthma and for those exposed in areas with air conditioning, copy machines, and higher job stress/ dissatisfaction. High prevalence rates of symptoms were also associated with the presence of carpet flooring, crowdedness, use of video display terminals, and female gender. This metanalysis also demonstrated the need for more systematic and formal building diagnostics procedures, the development of more rigorous objective exposure criteria, and the acquisition of more precise person-specific environmental measurements for 'achieving critical synthesis'.

2.4 On-going research Three major research studies have recently been initiated in different parts of the world. A11 of these studies are exploring the feasibility of the development of a 'standardized method' to investigate indoor air quality in office buildings, including: identification of a see of Indoor Air Quality-related criteria; identification of protocols for building maintenance and management that may become internationally recognized but capable of reflecting local needs.

The Japanese Institute of Public Health is now conducting an investigation of a pool of 42 office buildings built from 1965 to 1985 in five different countries (i.e., Japan 10, France 9, USA 5, New Zealand 8 and South Korea 10) [12]. The study, which was started in 1992, is focused on the identification of baseline parameters related to air conditioning and thermal environment, and on the establishment of measures enabling proper maintenance and management that is compatible with local codes and regulations. A survey and an analysis of existing thermal and indoor air quality standards that are used in each country will be included in study. The standards will be verified and compared internationally, however, the final proposed guidelines will be drafted to meet the local characteristics. Preliminary results indicate that, even when the measurements meet the environmental standards. a substantial percentage of the respondents remain dissatisfied.

The European Community is conducting a Work Programme (i.e., The European Audit Pro- ject To Optimize Indoor Air Quality And Energy Consumption In Office Buildings) on 48 buildings located in 8 different countries (i-e., United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Greece, France, Switzerland, Finland, Norway and Denmark), Blyssen and Fernandes [13]. Started in 1992, this study includes a representative sample of 6 buildings from each of the 8 countries. In each of these buildings, five areas have been identified for the measurements of chemical /sensory pollution loads and ventilation. Each building being investigated is occupied by at least 125 employees. The study aims to assess procedure and guidance on ventilation and source control to optimize indoor air quality and energy use in office buildings; identify a common Europe-wide method to investigate or survey office buildings; validate innovative techniques (e.g., use of trained panels to assess indoor air quality in terms of the 'decipol'); enrich the European Indoor Air Quality data base related to office buildings; and analyze indoor air quality parameters between European countries. Quantitative data from this study have not yet been reported.

An assessment survey (Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation-BASE) is now being conducted in 200 office buildings across the United States by the US EPA's Office of Radia- tion and Indoor Air [14]. This study, which started in 1992, is focused on defining the profile of US office buildings in relation to occupants' indoor environmental perceptions and indoor air quality factors. The buildings were selected to be representative of the US office building population and have at least 50 full time employees accessible by questionnaire. The core




measurements are focused on four areas: 1) environmental measurements (e.g., room air temperature, relative humidity, C02, sound, light, PM10, VOCs); 2) the physical profile of the building (e.g., use, occupancy, geographical, construction, water damage, fire damage, renovation); 3) HVAC checklist (e.g., type, air cleaning type, maintenance, supply air); and 4) occupant survey (e.g., workplace physical information, health and well-being, workplace conditions, job characteristics). Preliminary results have not yet been published.

3. Concepts of continuous degradation and accountability

Based on results of professional investigative studies, together with the research studies available during the last decade, the concepts of Continuous Degradation and Continuous Accountability were introduced in 1990 [15]. In 1994, these concepts were cited and incorpo- rated into the US OSHA Proposed Rule on Indoor Air Quality [16], and the integration of these concepts has been proposed to frame an approach for systematic characterization, evaluation, and control of indoor environments [B7].

3.1 Concept of Continuous Degradation The concept of Continuous Degradation evolved from a review of literature and from three studies involving one of the authors. The first of these was the a national survey of office worker perceptions of indoor air quality effects on discomfort and performance 14, 51. The second study, which was presented and published in the Proceedings of Healthy Buildings '88 in Stockholm in 1988, reported on an analysis and characterization of 30 problem buildings [18]. The third study, which was published in Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews in 1989, evaluated building-specific and national cost implications of owning and operating problem buildings and healthy buildings [19]. Based on these studies, the concept of Continuous Degradation has evolved as shown in Fig. 1. A summary of this concept is as follows:

Approximately 50 - 70% of the existing population of non-industrial buildings may qualify as 'healthy buildings' which are characterized by their provision of acceptable human responses, system p e f o m n c e , and adequate services. Each of these characteristics was defined in the previous studies [18, 191.

A similar characterization of a 'healthy building' was given on page 16006 of the Pro- posed OSHA Rule [16]:

'No building has a complete absence of problems, but those that function with minimal occupant complaints and comply with acceptable criteria for occupant exposure, system pe@orrnance, maintenance procedures and economic objectives m y be characterized as healthy buildings. '

Thus, it is reasonable to expect the achievement and maintenance of healthy buildings through proactive programs of quality assurance and control that begin with the planning and design of the buildings and continue throughout their lifetimes. However, if not implemented, it is also reasonable to expect the 'health' of buildings to degrade in a manner analogous to that of individuals with inadequate human health care.

The first level of degradation has been characterized as buildings with 'undetected problems.' It was postulated in 1989 that this category includes 10 - 20% of the existing



building population and is characterized by human responses (i.e., discomfort and symptom prevalence rates), system performance, or service factors that are only marginally acceptable or that are regressing to those conditions [19].

This level of degradation is likely to occur in most buildings at some time but, once recognized, it is relatively easy to mitigate and to regain the 'healthy building' status. Conversely, if appropriate action is not taken, the performance of the building will further degrade.

The second level of degradation has been characterized as buildings or areas within them that manifest as 'Sick Building Syndrome' (SBS), as defined by the National Research Council in 1987 [20]:

The frequency of compbints or SBS symptoms exceed 20 - 30% and persist for at least two weeks, the complaints or symptoms are quickly alleviated upon leaving the building, and the sources of complaints are not identijied.

Based on previous studies [2,4, 5, 18, 191, this category has been projected to include 10 -25% of the existing building population. This level of degradation is likely to occur if occupant complaints and deterioration of system performance and service factors are neglected, ignored, or denied. Moreover, if mitigation is not implemented at this Bevel to regain its 'healthy building category', the performance of the building will continue to degrade.

The third level of degradation has been characterized as buildings or areas within them which manifest as 'Building Related Illness' (BRI), as defined by the National Research Council in 1987 [20]:

The development of 'frank illness' (i.e., detectable from clinical signs) in more that one occupant because of indoor exposures.

Based on previous studies [2,4, 5, 18, 191, this category has been projected to include 5 - 10% of the existing building population.

This level of degradation is likely to occur if neglect, ignorance, or denial of occupant complaints and symptoms of SBS, deterioration of system performance, and deterioration of service factors persist.

To reinforce the concept of continuous degradation, these co-authors have yet to see the manifestation of BRI in a building without concurrent complaints of SBS symptoms.

3.2 Concept of Continuous Accountability

At the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate in Toronto in 1990, the concept of control by Continuous Accountability was introduced as a means to intercept the process of Continuous Degradation [15]. Since then, this concept has continued to develop [ 16,221.

To implement the concept of Continuous Accountability, application of the principles of building diagnostics has been proposed [15, 17, 221. The discipline of building diagnostics,




which was introduced by the Building Research Board of the National Research Council in 1985 1231, is maturing within the professional building community and is now being introduced into building science curricula at the graduate level. This concept is similar to that of medical diagnostics, a mature discipline taught in medical schools, in that it contains the same four essential steps: 1 ) knowledge of what to measure; 2) availability of appropriate in- strumentation; 3) expertise in interpreting results of measurements; and 4) capability of pre- dicting likely performance over time. From these steps, recommendations should follow that can improve occupant exposure, together with system and economic performance of the building. These procedures can be used to diagnose both sick and healthy buildings [24]. Moreover, they can be used in the four phases of a building's 'life': planning and design; construction; operations for long-term occupancy; and adaptive reuse or demolition (i.e., virtual and actual buildings) 1231.

By incorporating building diagnostic procedures into the design, construction, and operational phases, a process for assuring the performance of the building can be established through Continuous Accountability. The following are the five steps first proposed in 1990 and now being considered in the OSHA Proposed Rule 115, 161:

P. During the planning and conceptual design phases, the building owner, financiers, and designers establish basic performance criteria that are consistent with codes, statutes, and regulations. These criteria should be measurable and should not be changed unless the jknction or requirements of the building changes during its lifetime.

2. During the detailing phase of design and during the construction process, the performance criteria are translated into compatible prescriptive criteria. Those responsible for designing and constructing the facility are held accountable for compliance with the prescriptive criteria and for achieving consistency with the performance criteria.

3. During the commissioning phase (i.e., also part of the detailing and construction phases), the performance of the building is evaluated before occupancy by an independent fm or agency for compliance with the original performance criteria. Designers and buildings are accountable for the success.1 commissioning of the building.

4. Periodically, during the operational life of the building, and especially when modifications are anticipated, the performance of the building, including the anticipated changes, is evaluated by qualified professionals for compliance with the performance criteria. If changes in function or occupancy have occurred, they should be analyzed for impact on the system performance. Accountability at this stage returns to the building owner, who should provide assurance to the occupants that the building is performing satisfactorily in accordance with the characteristics of a healthy building.

5. During the intervals between inspections, accountability must also be shared between the managers of the occupied spaces and the occupants. If activities that exceed the capabilities of the system are allowed within the occupied spaces, or if tampering with the system is allowed, the probability of degrading system performance will increase.

Continuous Accountability enables interception of the process of Continuous Degradation before the onset of 'Problem Buildings.' However, to achieve Continuous Accountability, three critical commitments have been identified 1171 :

First, identification of the of the 'Accountable Person' must be explicit at each step in the Continuous Accountability process.



This commitment presumes a 'Chain-of-Custody' by which accountability can be passed to the appropriate person at the subsequent step in the process. Rather than increase professional risk, opinions of both lawyers and insurance carriers have indicated that the actual risk to the 'Accountable Person' will decrease, as the risk is clearly defined in terms of scope and time.

Second, the 'Accountable Person9 must be empowered with the Authority to take the action needed (e.g., to authorize funds or resources to achieve the required intervention) to provide assurance that the virtual or actual building is performing in accordance with the evaluation criteria established at the relevant step of the Continuous Accountability process.

Third, the 'Accountable Person' must possess the professional education and training to assure adequate building performance as well as protection of occupant health and well- being.

3.3 Evolving Building Diagnostic Procedures Building diagnostics commonly use a three-phase procedure: consultation; qualitative diagnostics; and quantitative diagnostics [2,2 1,251.

o Consultation (i.e., Phase H diagnostics) entails preliminary characterization of the building through observations and review of available plans and specifications. From the findings of the consultative phase, preliminary hypotheses are formed and initial recommendations may be developed.

An excellent guide to Phase 1 diagnostics mitigating problem buildings and assuring healthy buildings was published by EPA and MOSH in 1991 [25].

According to several experience building diagnosticians, problems can be identified and mitigated in about 70% of the cases after completing Phase I.

o Qualitative diagnostics (i.e., Phase II) is also referred to as an Engineering Analysis. This Phase is usually undertaken as a follow-up when Phase I diagnostics have not been successful or when validation of the Phase I preliminary hypotheses is desired, especially if the recommendations are anticipated to involve substantial cost. Phase II focuses on evaluation of the actual t h e m 1 and contaminant loads imposed on the HVAC systems, and on the capabilities of these systems to meet both peak-load (i.e., design load) and partial-load conditions.

Experienced building diagnosticians expect to identify and mitigate about 90% of the cases after completing Phases I and U.

o Quantitative diagnostics (i. e., Phase IIH) is also referred to as an Exposure Analysis. This Phase is usually undertaken as a follow-up when Phase I1 diagnostics have not been successful or when validation of Phase 11 hypotheses is desired, especially if the recornrnen- dations are anticipated to involve substantial cost. Phase III is a comprehensive and rigorous process that requires analysis of simultaneously acquired measures of human responses (i.e., survey of occupants), exposures to stressors identified by the hypotheses, and system perfonnunce characteristics (e.g., air jlow rates, psychometric, air quality,




acoustic conditions through the HVAC systems). It may also include evaluation of the economic performance of the building and its systems.

Problems can be identified and mitigated in nearly all cases after completing Phases 1 through 111. However, completion of Phase 111 in some case can be very expensive and time-consuming.

With regard to the costs of the current methods for building diagnostics, it has been our experience that completion of a Phase 1 Diagnostics may be expected in a time-frame of days (e.g., two person-days), whereas completion of Phase I1 may require a time frame of weeks (e.g., two person-weeks) and completion of Phase I11 may require a time-frame of months (e.g., two person-months).

Current diagnostic procedures are capable of identifying discrete or total failures of components or systems. However, they are severely limited in diagnosing system inadequacies caused by marginal or cumulative malfunctions. In building diagnostics of indoor environments, catastrophic failures are rarely expected or seen. It is rarely the total failure of a com- ponent or a building system that causes problems of SBS or BRI. Rather, problems result from cumulative small malfunctions and incidents occurring over a period of time.

To more effectively address these malfunctions and incidents, a diagnostic procedure, adapted from medical and other sciences, was introduced in 1994 [26]. This procedure focuses on explicit fault detection rather than failures and can be used to assess performances of buildings on two scales: 1) multi-building investigations for use when it is necessary or desirable to screen and prioritize the buildings (e.g., a campus or a school district) for subsequent detailed diagnostics; and 2) multi-zone investigations for use within a building to either assure acceptable building performance or to detect existing or potential problems within them. To enable explicit fault detection, a consistent set of performance criteria has been proposed for both scales of investigation, together with compatible methods of data acquisition and analysis.

4. Development of rational evaluation criteria

Whether current or evolving methods of building diagnostics are used, it is clear that an objective and measurable set of criteria must be established for the building with which to assess its performance. At the sixth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Cli- mate in Helsinki in 1993, a rational process was proposed for developing these performance criteria and transforming them to prescriptive criteria for consistent and contiguous use in design, specification, construction and operation of the building [27].

4.1 Rationale for a Set of Evaluation Criteria As shown in Fig. 2, this process assumes that relationships exist among human response, exposure, systems and sources, and that these relationships rest on a platform of economics. In this proposed rational process:

Human responses to indoor environmental exposures may be characterized in terms of four human response domains [28]: - Environmental-perceptual (e.g., the room is 'hot, stuffy, and noisy'), - Personal-perceptual (e.g., I have a headache and feel nauseous),



- Environmental-affective (e.g., the air movement in this room is unacceptable), - Personal-affective (e.g., H am sick).

These human responses result from exposures of physiological receptors that sense four primary environmental stressors: thermal, chemical, light, and sound.

Exposures to these stressors are controlled by the building systems that respond to loads (i.e., thermal, contaminant, illumination, acoustic) that are imposed on occupied spaces by outdoor and indoor sources.

Economic implications of these interactions are critical to the successful design and operation of these systems.

For consistency with the definition of a 'Healthy Building,' and to maximize the probability of correctly detecting compliance or non-compliance, while minimizing false negative and false positive errors, two sets of criteria have been proposed: measurable parameters, and classification criteria [26].

4.2 Measurable Parameters The first set or rational criteria consists of measurable parameters related to human response, exposure, system performance, and economic performance. Compliance with this set is intended to assure, with a high degree of accuracy, the provision of acceptable performance of buildings and zones within them.

A summary of values for the measurable parameters, by which compliance is determined, is as follows. These are to be obtained simultaneously:

Human Responses. No clinical signs of BRI, less than 20% of the population with two or more persisting SBS symptoms, and at least 80% of the population voting at least 5 on a 6 point scale of acceptability.

Exposure. The operative temperature (i.e., simple average of city- bulb and mean-radiant temperatures) of 23 + 2 C (i.e., 74 + 4 F); the relative humidity of 45 + 15%; air movement < 0.25 m/s (i.e., s 50 fpm); TVOC concentration < 3 mg/m3; C02 concentration < 1800 mg/m3 (i.e., < 1000 ppm); and particulate matter c 50 pg/m3 as PM 10.

System Pegorrnance. The system capacities shall be sufficient to match the design loads (e.g., 97.5% winter conditions and 2.5% summer conditions) and maintain the exposure criteria within the specified precision.

Also, the system control shall be adequate to maintain the exposure values within the same precision at partial loads (e.g., the other 95% of the time) as specified for design loads.

Energy and Economic Pe~onnance. A system energy efficiency of 2 80% should be maintained. Energy efficiency is defined as the ratio of the energy required to maintain the specified exposure criteria to the energy consumed by the system to provide the energy require. For example, if the energy required to maintain thermal and air quality criteria in a facility is 500 MJ/m2yr and the energy consumed is 1,000 MJ/m2yr, the energy efficiency would be 50%. The objective of this criterion is to reduce the energy



in Research and industry

consumed without compromising the occupant exposure. Therefore, to achieve an 80% energy efficiency, the energy consumed should be reduced to 625 ~ ~ / m ~ ~ r (i.e., system should minimize energy waste, not energy required).

Also, the system should operate to achieve minimum life-cycle costs, including the cost of salaries. This criterion adds occupant performance and system productivity to the life- cycle cost models that otherwise tend to minimize for energy consumption.

4.3 Classification Criteria

The second set consists of classification criteria for healthy, marginal, and problematic buildings or areas within them. Note that 'undetected problem buildings' have been renamed as 'marginal9, and 'problem buildings' have been renamed as 'problematic.' These three categories Rave been defined as follows:

o Category 1. A building or area within it is considered healthy if no clinical signs of illness are detected and it complies with all measurable parameters in the criteria. Category P implies that nofurther diagnostics are needed to assure that 'healthy and comfortable environmental conditions are k i n g provided.'

o Category 2. A building or area within it is considered marginal if no clinical signs of illness or excessive frequency of symptoms are detected, but non-compliance with the other measurable parameters has been detected. If human response data are not available, a building or area within it is considered marginal if compliance with all exposure criteria have been achieved but non-compliance with system performance or economic criteria has been detected. Category 2 implies that further diagnostics should be considered before assuring that 'healthy and comfortable environmental conditions are being provided.'

o Category 3. A building or area within it is considered problematic if clinical signs of illness or excessive frequency of symptoms have been detected. If human response data are not available, a building or area within it is considered problematic if non-compliance with any of the measurable exposure criteria has been detected. Category 3 implies that further diagnostics are needed to verify that problems exist, to determine the cause or causes of the detected problems, and to identify procedures to correct them.

5. Lessons learned

From a review of the literature, experiences in hagnosing buildings, and serving as an expert witness in several litigation cases, the following is a summary of lessons learned from the recent trends.

5.1 Preliminary Results from Evolving Diagnostic Procedures Shown in Fig. 3 is a flowchart of the diagnostic procedures that have been recently introduced to focus on explicit fault detection in multi-building investigations and in multi-zone investigations within buildings [26]. As indicated in Fig. 3, the procedure may be used with or without human response data. Without human response data, however, achievement of a marginal or healthy classification becomes more difficult.



In a preliminary test of usefulness of this method for multi-building investigations, it is being employed to screen and prioritize 74 school buildings within a district for subsequent detailed diagnostics. This method, which uses only questionnaires has been pretested in 8 of the schools that had previously been diagnosed. The pretest results indicated that in 6 of the 8 cases, the screening test was able to correctly identify and prioritize them for further action 1171.

In another test, this method was used to diagnose 45 zones (i.e., data sets) in a building complex operated by a single organization. As this investigation was not in response to any specific complaints, all zones were initially assumed to be 'healthy.' Results of these evalua- tions indicated that 7% of the data sets qualified to be classified as healthy, while 42% classified as marginal, and 51% classified as problematic. Some reasons for this distribution include:

More data sets without human responses were classified as problematic than were those with human response data, indicating that the objective of minimizing false-negative errors appears to have been accomplished.

* When the percent of occupants reporting the occurrence of two or more symptoms exceeded 20%, the likelihood of classification as problematic was high, due to coincident non-compliance with other human response or exposure criteria.

The low percentage of zones classified as heal,thy was due, in large part, to measurement deficiencies (e.g., missing data).

* As shown in Fig. 4, categorization of the zones was directly correlated to the number of criteria in non-compliance (i.e., if 3 or more criteria were in non-compliance, the probability was high of being classified as problematic).

5.2 Overview of P P Litigation Cases Another manifestation of the concept of Continuous Degradation is the litigation that has become a significant recourse for employees and tenants. As previously discussed, the second and third levels of degradation are likely to occur if occupant complaints are neglected, ignored, or denied. If this lack of action by management persists, occupants become frustrated, fearful for their health, and less confident of facilities management. At the second and third levels of degradation, recourse likely to be taken by the occupants includes: meetings with union officials, the press, and lawyers.

Since 1982, one of the authors has been asked to provide consultation and expert opinion on 11 cases in which occupants, who claimed they had suffered deleterious effects from indoor exposures, filed law suits against tenants, building owners, manufacturers, contractors, and designers. It is now apparent that the several millions of dollars in costs associated with these 11 litigation cases could have been avoided if responsibility and accountability for occupant responses to indoor exposures had been more explicit.

Four of these cases involved occupant exposures in office buildings, four involved exposures in schools, two involved exposures in courthouses, and one involved exposures in a hospital. In seven of these cases, consultation was provided to the lawyers representing the plaintiffs (i.e., employees in five cases, tenants in one case, parents of pupils in one case, a school board in one case) and in the other four, consultation was provided to the lawyers represent-




ing the defendants (i-e., the mechanical contractors in two cases, the consulting mechanical engineer in one case, and the design architecturavengineering firm in one case).

Three of the four office building cases were tried before juries. Judgements were rendered in two of these cases. Negligence of the general contractor was found in one case, but medical damages were not awarded (Wallingford vs Centennial Towers, Texas, 1992); negligence of the building ownerfmanager was found in the other judgement and medical damages were awarded (Bahura vs S.E.W. Investors, District of Columbia, 1993). One office building case, that was being tried on 'strict liability', settled during trial (Call vs Prudential, California, 1990). One office building case settled before trial (Hall vs County of Ottawa, Michigan, 1985).

Two school cases settled before trial (Henrico County School Board vs Highfill-Smith, Virginia, 1993; and Rogers vs Moore, Texas, 1995). The other two are pending (Tucker vs Kanawha County Board of Education, West Virginia; Brown vs G.M.V. Construction Corp., New York).

One courthouse case settled before trial (Moore vs Madison Center, Michigan, 1990); a judgement was rendered in the other (County of DuPage vs Jones et al, Illinois, 1994). In this latter case, the jury found that the building and its systems, as delivered (i.e., designed and built), were not the cause of the occupants' illness; rather, it found that the county employees and administrators were negligent in their operations so the jury and judge denied the County's claim of damages.

The hospital case settled before trial (State of Louisiana vs Robert E. McKee, 1991).

Characteristics of the 11 Buildings in tRese cases are summarized as follows:

10 of the 11 were owned or leased by government agencies: - 6 of the 10 were owned (i.e., 4 schools, ]I hospital, and 1 county courthouse). - 2 were leased and completely occupied by government agencies (i.e., 1 county court-

house and 1 office building). - 2 were leased for partial occupancy by government agencies (i.e., some areas in the

buildings were occupied by tenants in the private sector).

4 of the 1 1 were speculative office buildings: - 3 had absentee owners (2 were owned by large insurance companies as parts of

building portfolios). - 2 had on-site facility management, under contract with building owners. - 1 was owner-occupied and managed



* Facilities management in the 7 other buildings was provided by: - 5 had central or campus management, remote from the building (i.e., 4 schools, 1

courthouse). - I courthouse had on-site management, under contract with building owners. - P hospital had on-site management, under employment of building owners.

* Occupant Responses included: - In 3 cases, typical symptoms associated with SBS were claimed (i.e., 1 courthouse, 1

office, 1 hospital surgical suite). - In 8 cases, clinical signs of illness associated with BRI and symptoms associated with

SBS were claimed (i.e., B courthouse, 3 offices, 4 schools).

* Occupant Exposures included: - In 6 cases, exposures were claimed to have occurred during renovation or fit-out (i.e.,

3 office buildings, 3 schools). - In 4 cases, exposures were claimed to have occurred after occupying a 'new' building

(i.e., 2 courthouses, 1 school, 1 hospital surgical wing) - In 1 case, exposures were claimed to have occurred during operations (i.e., 1 office

building).

HVAC systems included: - 4 variable air volume (VAV) systems (i.e., 2 courthouses, 1 office, 1 hospital in-

cluding the surgical suites). - 2 water-source heat-pump (WSHP) systems (i.e., 2 offices). - 1 air-source heat-pump (ASHP) system (i.e., 1 school). - 2 roof-top unit (RTU) systems (i.e., 2 schools). - 1 unit-ventilator (UV) system (i.e., 1 school). - 1 office had a combination of systems in various parts of the building (e.g, VAV,

CAV, ASHP).

5.3 Primary Issues Forcing hitigcrtion From an analysis of these 11 cases, it is hypothesized that two primary issues regarding occupant exposure are forcing litigation: Premature Occupancy at Substantial Completion, and Occupation during Renovation.

Premature Occupancy at Substantial Completion. During the terminal stages of a construction project, the Date s f substantial Completion is an important milestone. It is defined by the American Institute of Architects in Document G704 as: 'the date certified by the architect when construction is suficiently complete, in accordance with the contract documents, so the owner can occupy or utilize the work or designated portion thereof, for the use for which it was intended, as expressed in the contract documents.' It is the time in which the owner agrees to take possession of the building and begins operating it. It is also the time when most of the construction payment is completed and when warranty periods begin on major equipment in the building.

A Certificate of Substantial Completion is initiated at this time, when the contractor judges that the building is habitable and can function according to its design intent. The contractor signs the certificate and forwards it to the architect. If the architect agrees with the contractor, the architect will sign the certificate and forward it to the owner with a list of items (i.e., 'punchlist9) the contractor must finish before Final Completion of the pro-


Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Eluiidings


ject. If the owner agrees with the architect, the owner signs the Certificate, renders payment and takes posszssion of the building. The Certificate of Substantial Completion is normally a pierequisitt: for obtaining a legal Certificate of Occupancy. Thus, it is beneficial to the owner, contractor, and architect to reach this date on schedule.

If these steps are not car1:fully followed and occupants are allowed into the building pre- maturely, the probability increases significantly that they will be exposed to contaminant concentrations that are well in excess of those expected in non-industrial environments, sometimes exceeding oc~:upational standards for industrial workers. The primary sources of these contaminants art: the finishing materials that are used at this stage of construction (e.g., chenical emission!; from paints, stains, caulks, glues, carpets, wood panelling, new furniture), the introduction of sources from the processes to be conducted in the occupied spaces (2.g., office supplies and equipment, housekeeping processes, the occupants them- selves), and the incomplete nature of the HVAC system balances at this stage of con- structlon. It should be noted that discrepancies regarding adequacy of design or construction are often incorporatt:d into this issue.

Cf the 11 cases reviewed here, premature occupancy at substantial completion has been a litigation issue in four of them (i.e., 2 courthouses, 1 school, and 1 hospital).

o Occupancy during Rencwation. Exposure during renovation can occur when: 1) occupants are not removed or adequately isolated from the zones that are being remodelled or fit-out for new tenants, or 2) the construction zones have not been adequately isolated from adjacent zones or from the HVAC systems that commonly serve the construction zones and other zones. If steps to isolate these zones are not carefully followed and occupants are exposed during renovation, the probability is high that they will be exposed to contaminant concentrations that are we'll in excess of those expected in non-industrial environments, sometimes exceeding exposure guidelines for industrial workers. The primary sources of these contaminants are the old materials that are removed during demolition, the dust and dirt that are associated with construction processes, and subsequently, the finishing materials that are used iis the period of substantial completion approaches). During this process, it is also likely that the HVAC system has been deactivated or become imbal- anced. Thus, not only are occupants likely to be exposed to chemicals during substantial completion, they are likely to have had prior exposure to high concentrations of particulate matter, including living and dead biological matter. It should be noted that discrepancies regarding adequacy of operations, maintenance, and housekeeping are often incor- porated into this issue.

Of the 11 cases reviewed here, exposure during renovation has been a litigation issue in six of them (i.e., 3 office buildings and 3 schools).

5.3 Consequences of Cantinuous Degradation The data obtained from the preliminary test of the evolving diagnostic procedure, together with the results from the 11 litigation cases, add evidence to support the concept that there is a continuity function in the process of building degradation. As shown in Fig. 5, these data together with those originally used to hypothesize the concept of Continuous Degradation, indicate that a degradation iippears to exist in each of the studies:

13. CIB Building Congress 8-9 Ma!! 1995, Amsterdam


The data from the preliminary test of the evolving diagnostic procedure showed a distribution range from 7% healthy to 42% marginal to 51 % problemtic. Moreover, the probability of being classified as problematic increased when the number of non-compliant criteria was two or more. However, many of the marginal and problematic zones may receive Righer classifications wRen more complete data are obtained.

The percentage of healthy buildings assumed in the original hypothesis may have been optimistic.

3 of the 11 (i.e., 27%) litigation cases characterized as SBS (i.e., second level of degradation) while 8 or 73% characterized as BRI and SBS (i.e., third level of degradation).

Figures 6 and 7 present a characterization of the concept of Continuous Degradation in terms of the four sets of evaluation criteria that have proposed. These characteristics have been obtained from literature and .from experience in conducting these diagnostic procedures in many buildings. Of particular note are the relative degrees of technical difficulty and costs indicated in these Figures:

From First Level of Degradation. Mitigation in the form of improved maintenance, housekeeping, control cialibration, and system balances is typically required to recover from the undetected problem or marginal building categories. These procedures do not usually require capital autlay, and can be accomplished with minimal disturbance to the function of the occupied spaces. They can typically be characterized as technical tune- ups, and often can be accomplished before occupant complaints become significant. Mitigation costs are typically not significant, but may require pro-active arguments for priority funding.

From Second Level of Degradation. As indicated from a study of 30 problem buildings 118, 191, in addition to c:ontrols and maintenance problems, system capacities are likely to be mismatched with loads, equipment components may have failed, ventilation and air distribution may be inadequate, and ductwork may be contaminated. Moreover, discomfort complaints and sy~nptom prevalence rates are probably excessive, adversarial relationships with facilities management may have developed, and the stigma of a 'sick building' may have occurred.

Thus, mitigation from this level of degradation usually becomes much more complex and costly than from the fjrst level. Not only are technical modifications likely to require capital outlay, consul~ants will probably be required to sample and analyze human responses, exposures, and system performances. In addition, significant social, medical, and legal costs may also have to be incurred to regain the confidence of the occupants.

From Third Level of Dlegradation. At this level of degradation, evidence of clinical signs of illness (i.e., BRI) have probably manifested, in addition to the discomfort complaints and symptom prevalence rates indicative of SBS. To solve BRI problems and regain healthy building status is an extremely dificult procedure:

- It is first necessary to identify the source of the illness, a task that at times can be extremely time-consuming and costly.

- Once the source(s:r is identified, major redesign and reconstruction may be required for mitigation.




- After mitigation, rigorous testing and evaluation may be required to provide assurance that the building is "safe' to reuse.

Thus, areas within buildings or entire buildings are likely to be evacuated for extensive periods of time, or abandoned.

Costs associated with B N cases are notoriously high. Structural or architectural systems may have to be replaced, and environmental control systems may require significant modification, if not replacement. Medical costs of occupants may be significant, and legal costs of plaintiffs and defendants can be monumental. In more than one B N case, the costs of mitigation exceeded the original costs of the buildings.

6. Conclusion and issues for discussion

To conclude this keynote address, the following issues are posed for discussion at this conference:

Is the concept of Continuous Degradation valid and, if SO, what can be done to minimize its consequences?

From our knowledge of the recent trends and perspectives, can it be reaffirmed that buildings are intrinsically beneficial and that Continuous Degradation of them to the second or third levels is avoidable?

The review of the published literature shows that we have only sketchy information on the conditions of the total building stock. Most of the studies on indoor air quality now available focus on the relation between the occupants' symptoms and the physical characteristics of the environment where the occupants are exposed, but they do not focus on the design, construction, or management of the buildings or their systems. Moreover, the findings from the various studies are difficult to compare because of the different diagnostic procedures and evaluation criteria employed.

Is the concept of Continuous Accountability practical and, if so, what can be done to implement it?

From the evidence available, it seems apparent that by instituting a process of Continuous Accountability to intercept the degradation process before the onset of Problem Buildings, not only will the health of occupants be protected, but productivity at all levels of society will improve.

However, it also seems apparent from our current state of knowledge that policies and procedures of accountability will not be successful unless those who will be held accountable for the performance of the building, thus ultimately for protecting the health and well-being of the occupants, are properly educated and trained. Moreover, they must be given the authority to act in accordance with their responsibility and accountability.

Can rational evaluation criteria be established and, if so, how?

From the evidence available, it is apparent that criteria used today for the design, construction, and evaluation of buildings is, at best, fragmented. It is also evident that, if the


James E. Woods and Nadia Boschi 6 1

degradation process is to be intercepted and if designated persons are to be held accountable through a 'chain-of-custody9 during the life-cycle of the building, a rational set of evaluation criteria is needed that is based on first-principles of basic health an; building sciences.

It appears to be feasible to establish these rational evaluation criteria, but to do so will require improved communication of those involved in the various stages of the building life-cycle: designers, constructors, management and health professionals.

Can the effectiveness of diagnostic procedures be improved and, if so, how?

From the evidence available, it seems apparent that the procedures in use today vary con- siderably, are not at the state-of-the-art and, in most cases, do not allow an overall evaluation of how the building's performance affects the health and well-being of the occupants or the building owners and managers. In most cases, the protocols employed focus on limited aspects of human response and exposures, but seldom provide for simul- taneous evaluation of system or economic performance.

It also seems apparent from our current state of knowledge that building diagnostic procedures are evolving that will more directly address more complete sets of evaluation criteria and will be able to do so with more precision and accuracy than those previously relied upon. However, as in other fields that rely on diagnostic procedures, the building industry will most likely be required to offer formal training in these procedures if these procedures are to become 'standard-practice.'

Can the benefits of Healthy BuiZdings be documented and, if so, how?

From the evidence available, it seems apparent that the design, construction, and operation of Healthy Buildings will not only increase assurance of providing acceptable occupant exposures, but will also increase the probably that the desired performance of the occupants and the building systems will be achieved, thus improving productivity at all levels of society.

It also seems apparent from our current state of knowledge that the concept of Healthy Buildings can be defined in terms of compliance with the selected values of the rational performance criteria. Moreover, the use of evolving 'standard-practice' building diagnostic procedures should enable better documentation of overall building performance.

In turn, this documentation should lead to the economic desirability of achieving a Healthy Building rather than being required to demonstrate, possibly in court, that the building is not causing harm.

7. References 1. Stolwijk J.A.J. (1984). The 'sick building' syndrome. Proceedings of the Third International Con-

ference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. B. Berglund et al., ed~. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, 1:23-29.

2. Akimenko V.V., Andersen T., kebowitz M.D., kindvall T. (1986). The 'sick' building syndrome. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, 6:87-97.


Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings 62


Berglund B., Lindvall T., Samuelsson I., Sundell J. (1988). Prescription for Healthy Buildings. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings '88, B. Berglund and T. Lindvall, eds. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Stockholm, Vol4, pp. 5-14. Honeywell (1985). Indoor Air Quality: A National Survey of Office Worker Attitudes. Honeywell Technalysis, Honeywell, kc. , Mirmeapolis MN. Woods J.E., Drewry G.M., Morey P.R. (1987). Office worker perceptions of indoor air quality effects on discomfort and per$ormance. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Institute of water, soil and Air Hygiene, Berlin, 2: 464-468. Burge S., Hedge A., Wilson S., et al. (1987). Sick building Syndrome: A study of 4373 ofice workers. Ann Occup Hyg, 31:493-501. Skov P., Valbjorn O., et al., (1987). The 'sick' building syndrome in the o#ce environment: The Danish town hall study. Environ Int 13:339-350. Brundage J.F., Scott R.M., Lednar W.M., et al. (1988). Building-associated risk of febrile acute respiratory diseases in a m y trainees. JAMA 259:2108-2112. Sundell J., (1994). On the Association Between Building Ventilation Characteristics, some Indoor Environmental Exposures, some Allergic Manifestations and Subjective Symptom reports. Indoor Air Suppl2:9-42. Fisk W.J., Mendell M.J., Daisey J.M., Faulkner D., Hodgson A.T., Nematollahi, M., Macher, J.M. (1 993). Phase I of the California Healthy Building Study; a Summary. Indoor Air, 3: 246-254. Mendell M.J. (1993). Optimizing Research on O#ce Worker Symptoms: Recommendationsfrom a Critical Review of the Literature. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Helsinki, 1 : 7 13-7 18. Ikeda K. (1995). International Study on Indoor Air Quality and Climate in Office Buldings, Asaji Memorial Lecture, unpublished. Also, personal communications. Bluyssen P.M., Oliveira Fernandes E., (1994). The European IAQ-Audit Project: General Methodology and Preliminary Results. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Healthy Buildings. 3 :86-9 1. Womble S.E., Axlerad R.B., Girman J.R., Thompson R., Highsmith R. (1993). EPA Base Pro- gram - Collecting Baseline Information on Indoor Air Quality. Proceedings of the Sixth Inter- national Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Helsinki, 1:821-825. Woods J.E., (1990). Continuous Accountability: A Means to Assure Acceptable Indoor Environ- mental Quality. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Toronto, pp. 85-97. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (1994). Notice of Pro- posed Rulemuking; Notice of Informal Public Hearing. 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1926, 1928. Federal Register 59 ( 65): 15968-16039,5 April. Woods J.E. (1994). Testimony at Public Hearing on OSHA Proposed Standard for Indoor Air Quality before the Hon. John Vittone, Administrative Law Judge. Washington, DC, 23 Septem- ber. Woods J.E., (1988). Recent developments for heating, cooling, and ventilating buildings: Trends for assuring healthy buildings. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings '88, B. Berglund and T. Lindvall, eds. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Stockholm, Vol 1, pp. 99-107. Woods J.E., (1 989). Cost avoidance and productivity in owning and operating buildings. Occupa- tional Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, Cone J.E., Hodgson M. J., eds. Hanley & Belfus, Philadelphia, Vol. 4 , n. 4, pp. 753-770 Committee on Indoor Air Quality (1987). Policies and Procedures for Control of Indoor Air Quality in Existing Buildings. Report by the National Research Council. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. Woods J.E., Morey P.R., Rask D.R. (1989). Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics: Qualitative and Quantitative Procedures to Improve Environmental Conditions'. Design and protocol for moni- toring indoor air quality. ASTM STP 1002. NL Nagda and JP Harper, eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 80-98. Woods J.E., Arora S. (1992). Continuous Accountability for Acceptable Building Per$ormance. Automation in Construction, Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. 1: 239 - 249. Committee on Building Diagnostics (1985). Building Diagnostics - A Conceptual Framework. Report by the National Research Council. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. Lane C.A., Woods J.E., Bosman T.A. (1989). Indoor Air Quality Diagnostic Procedures for Sick and Healthy Buildings. Proceedings of the ASHRAEISOEH Conference IAQ '89. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, pp. 237-240.



25. EPANOSH (1 99 1). Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers. Indoor Air Division (ANR 445W), Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC., 229 pages.

26. Woods J.E., Arora, S., Sensharma, N.P. (1994). Indoor Environmental Diagnostics: Evolution of a Systematic Approach. Presented at Indoor Environment '94, Washington, DC., March 22-25, 1994.

27. Woods J.E., Arora S., Sensharma N.P., Olesen B.W. (1993). Rational Building Pe$ormance and Prescriptive Criteria For Improved Indoor Environmental Quality. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Helsinki, 3: 47 1-476.

28. Sensharma N.P., Edwards P.K., Woods J.E., Seelen J. (1993). A Characterization of Methodolo- gies for Assessing Human Responses to the Indoor Environment. Proceedings of the Sixth Inter- national Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Helsinki, 1: 785-790.

8. List of figures

Buildings

l

Problem Buildings (2540%)

t i t-

Building Related Illness

(5-1 0%)

Figure 1 : Concept of Continuous Degradation (Ref. 15)

Sources I ndoor/Outdoor

(loads)

Sick Building

Syndrome (1 0-25%)

Contaminant lllumination

Acoustic

Systems I ) Exposure I Human Response

Undetected Problem Buildings (a 0-20%)

Env-Perceptual Pers-Perceptual

Services Illumination Env-Affectice Enclosed spaces Pers-Aff ect ive

Healthy Buildings

(50-70%)

Economics First costs Operating costs Energy use Productivity

Figure 2: The IEP model of interaction between occupants and building systems (Ref. 27)




Start yy

Figure 3: Procedure for Classification of Zones (Ref. 26)

0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of measurable parameters

in non-compliance

Figure 4: Analysis of Data Sets (1994) (Ref. 26)

Healthy zones

Marginal zones

Problematic zones



BRI +SBS SBS UPB (5-1 0%) (1 0-25%) (1 0-20%)

1994 Preliminary Data

Problematic zones (51 %)

Marginal zones HZ (42%) (7%)

BRI+ SBS SBS (811 1 = 73%) (311 1 = 27%)

Figure 5: Evidence of Continuous Degradation (Ref. 17)

y.-qq.-y.-y Human Response

Personal clinical signs acute discomfort . mild'discomfort minimum frank illness 220% with SBS discomfort SBS symptoms symptoms

Environmental 220% with 220%. with ~ 2 0 % with 'transparent' perceived perce~ved E erceived hampered hampered ampered performance performance performance

SociaVmanagerial 250% with loss of 250% with loss of 2040% with loss of S20% with loss of confidence confidence confidence confidence

Exposure non-compliance non-compliance marginal full compliance with with criteria with criteria compliance with criteria

criteria 'distress' specific eneral 'distress' eneral 'eustress' and general QselYe) ?selYe~e,

I I

major difficulty of recovery

extreme difficulty of recovery

Figure 6: Consequences of Continuous Degradation (Ref. 17)


Trends and Perspectives In Healthy Buildings


System performance non-compliance non-compliance marginal or non- full compliance with criteria with criteria compliance with with criteria

criteria

Economicpedormance increased O&M increased O&M increased O&M full compliance costs costs costs with criteria

measurable lost measurable lost 9ecreasing time time productivity'

increased 'sti ma of sick insurance costs bui?ding1

increased litigation costs

I major cost of recovery I extreme cost of recovery

Figure 7: Consequences of Continuous Degradation (Ref. 17)


Documents

Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings in Research ... · Trends and Perspectives in Healthy Buildings in Research and Industry In 1987, Burge et al. [6] reported that, in a