4.6 Article

Effects of exposure to carbon dioxide and bioeffluents on perceived air quality, self-assessed acute health symptoms, and cognitive performance

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 47-64

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12284

Keywords

Carbon dioxide; Human bioeffluents; Acute health symptoms; Perceived air quality; Cognitive performance; Subjective responses

Funding

  1. Bjarne Saxhof Foundation
  2. Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [51238005]
  3. 12th Five Plan National Science and Technology Support Project of China [2012BAJ02B05]
  4. COWI Foundation
  5. S. C. Van Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects on humans of exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2) and bioeffluents. In three of the five exposures, the outdoor air supply rate was high enough to remove bioeffluents, resulting in a CO2 level of 500ppm. Chemically pure CO2 was added to this reference condition to create exposure conditions with CO2 at 1000 or 3000ppm. In two further conditions, the outdoor air supply rate was restricted so that the bioeffluent CO2 reached 1000 or 3000ppm. The same 25 subjects were exposed for 255min to each condition. Subjective ratings, physiological responses, and cognitive performance were measured. No statistically significant effects on perceived air quality, acute health symptoms, or cognitive performance were seen during exposures when CO2 was added. Exposures to bioeffluents with CO2 at 3000ppm reduced perceived air quality; increased the intensity of reported headache, fatigue, sleepiness, and difficulty in thinking clearly; and reduced speed of addition, the response time in a redirection task, and the number of correct links made in the cue-utilization test. This suggests that moderate concentrations of bioeffluents, but not pure CO2, will result in deleterious effects on occupants during typical indoor exposures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available