Cargando…

Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study

Passive houses and other highly energy-efficient buildings need mechanical ventilation. However, ventilation systems in such houses are regarded with a certain degree of skepticism by parts of the public due to alleged negative health effects. Within a quasi-experimental field study, we investigated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wallner, Peter, Tappler, Peter, Munoz, Ute, Damberger, Bernhard, Wanka, Anna, Kundi, Michael, Hutter, Hans-Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5369150/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28335491
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030314
_version_ 1782518075011104768
author Wallner, Peter
Tappler, Peter
Munoz, Ute
Damberger, Bernhard
Wanka, Anna
Kundi, Michael
Hutter, Hans-Peter
author_facet Wallner, Peter
Tappler, Peter
Munoz, Ute
Damberger, Bernhard
Wanka, Anna
Kundi, Michael
Hutter, Hans-Peter
author_sort Wallner, Peter
collection PubMed
description Passive houses and other highly energy-efficient buildings need mechanical ventilation. However, ventilation systems in such houses are regarded with a certain degree of skepticism by parts of the public due to alleged negative health effects. Within a quasi-experimental field study, we investigated if occupants of two types of buildings (mechanical vs. natural ventilation) experience different health, wellbeing and housing satisfaction outcomes and if associations with indoor air quality exist. We investigated 123 modern homes (test group: with mechanical ventilation; control group: naturally ventilated) built in the years 2010 to 2012 in the same geographic area and price range. Interviews of occupants based on standardized questionnaires and measurements of indoor air quality parameters were conducted twice (three months after moving in and one year later). In total, 575 interviews were performed (respondents’ mean age 37.9 ± 9 years in the test group, 37.7 ± 9 years in the control group). Occupants of the test group rated their overall health status and that of their children not significantly higher than occupants of the control group at both time points. Adult occupants of the test group reported dry eyes statistically significantly more frequently compared to the control group (19.4% vs. 12.5%). Inhabitants of energy-efficient, mechanically ventilated homes rated the quality of indoor air and climate significantly higher. Self-reported health improved more frequently in the mechanically ventilated new homes (p = 0.005). Almost no other significant differences between housing types and measuring time points were observed concerning health and wellbeing or housing satisfaction. Associations between vegetative symptoms (dizziness, nausea, headaches) and formaldehyde concentrations as well as between CO(2) levels and perceived stale air were observed. However, both associations were independent of the type of ventilation. In summary, occupants of the mechanically ventilated homes rated their health status slightly higher and their health improved significantly more frequently than in occupants of the control group. As humidity in homes with mechanical ventilation was lower, it seems plausible that the inhabitants reported dry eyes more frequently.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5369150
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53691502017-04-05 Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study Wallner, Peter Tappler, Peter Munoz, Ute Damberger, Bernhard Wanka, Anna Kundi, Michael Hutter, Hans-Peter Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Passive houses and other highly energy-efficient buildings need mechanical ventilation. However, ventilation systems in such houses are regarded with a certain degree of skepticism by parts of the public due to alleged negative health effects. Within a quasi-experimental field study, we investigated if occupants of two types of buildings (mechanical vs. natural ventilation) experience different health, wellbeing and housing satisfaction outcomes and if associations with indoor air quality exist. We investigated 123 modern homes (test group: with mechanical ventilation; control group: naturally ventilated) built in the years 2010 to 2012 in the same geographic area and price range. Interviews of occupants based on standardized questionnaires and measurements of indoor air quality parameters were conducted twice (three months after moving in and one year later). In total, 575 interviews were performed (respondents’ mean age 37.9 ± 9 years in the test group, 37.7 ± 9 years in the control group). Occupants of the test group rated their overall health status and that of their children not significantly higher than occupants of the control group at both time points. Adult occupants of the test group reported dry eyes statistically significantly more frequently compared to the control group (19.4% vs. 12.5%). Inhabitants of energy-efficient, mechanically ventilated homes rated the quality of indoor air and climate significantly higher. Self-reported health improved more frequently in the mechanically ventilated new homes (p = 0.005). Almost no other significant differences between housing types and measuring time points were observed concerning health and wellbeing or housing satisfaction. Associations between vegetative symptoms (dizziness, nausea, headaches) and formaldehyde concentrations as well as between CO(2) levels and perceived stale air were observed. However, both associations were independent of the type of ventilation. In summary, occupants of the mechanically ventilated homes rated their health status slightly higher and their health improved significantly more frequently than in occupants of the control group. As humidity in homes with mechanical ventilation was lower, it seems plausible that the inhabitants reported dry eyes more frequently. MDPI 2017-03-19 2017-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5369150/ /pubmed/28335491 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030314 Text en © 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wallner, Peter
Tappler, Peter
Munoz, Ute
Damberger, Bernhard
Wanka, Anna
Kundi, Michael
Hutter, Hans-Peter
Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study
title Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study
title_full Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study
title_fullStr Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study
title_full_unstemmed Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study
title_short Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study
title_sort health and wellbeing of occupants in highly energy efficient buildings: a field study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5369150/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28335491
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030314
work_keys_str_mv AT wallnerpeter healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy
AT tapplerpeter healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy
AT munozute healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy
AT dambergerbernhard healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy
AT wankaanna healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy
AT kundimichael healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy
AT hutterhanspeter healthandwellbeingofoccupantsinhighlyenergyefficientbuildingsafieldstudy