The Combined Effects of Many Different Indoor Environmental Factors on Acceptability and Office Work Performance

Ninety-nine young-adult subjects of both genders were randomly assigned to four groups. One group performed simulated office work for two hours in a set of poor environmental conditions, with overhead fluorescent lighting, recorded traffic noise from a busy street, 27°C (80.6°F) operative temperature, supply air polluted by emissions from linoleum, recorded open office noise, and almost no daylight. The realistic annual cost of improving each of the six conditions was estimated and expressed as a percentage of the total sum of the cost of improving conditions. The modifications included improved lighting, barely audible traffic noise, operative temperature of 22°C (71.6°F), clean air, quiet, and a daylit view out. A second group briefly experienced all 12 conditions and individually selected the improvements they preferred, up to a 50% budget. A third group of subjects was randomly paired with each of the subjects from the second group, and each pair was exposed to the conditions selected by the second-group subjects. A fourth group was exposed to fully-improved (100% budget) conditions. Significant improvements in subjective assessment occurred at higher budget/individual choice levels, and the self-reported performance of office tasks improved, although measured performance could not be shown to differ significantly between treatment groups.

[1]  F. H. Rohles,et al.  Indoor environment acceptability: the development of a rating scale , 1989 .

[2]  P. Fanger,et al.  The effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity. , 2000, Indoor air.

[3]  P A Bell,et al.  Effects of Noise and Heat Stress on Primary and Subsidiary Task Performance , 1978, Human factors.

[4]  M. Bach The Freiburg Visual Acuity test--automatic measurement of visual acuity. , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[5]  H. C. Sommer,et al.  Effects of combined heat, noise and vibration stress on human performance and physiological functions. , 1971, Aerospace medicine.

[6]  R. Wilkinson,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO RAISED BODY TEMPERATURE. , 1964, Journal of applied physiology.

[7]  P. Fanger,et al.  Can colour and noise influence man's thermal comfort? , 1977, Ergonomics.

[8]  P. Fanger,et al.  A Comparative Study Of Discomfort Caused By Indoor Air Pollution, Thermal Load And Noisec , 1993 .

[9]  P A Hancock,et al.  Combined effects of heat and noise on human performance: a review. , 1985, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[10]  Refrigerating ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals , 1967 .

[11]  C S Harris,et al.  Further study of combined heat, noise and vibration stress. , 1972, Aerospace medicine.

[12]  P Wargocki,et al.  Perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different pollution loads. , 1999, Indoor air.

[13]  Jørn Toftum,et al.  New indoor environment chambers and field experiment offices for research on human comfort, health and productivity at moderate energy expenditure , 2004 .

[14]  G. Clausen,et al.  The effects of moderate heat stress and open-plan office noise distraction on SBS symptoms and on the performance of office work. , 2004, Indoor air.

[15]  Pawel Wargocki,et al.  The effects of classroom air temperature and outdoor air supply rate on performance of school work by children , 2005 .

[16]  T Schneider,et al.  Visual analogue scales for detecting changes in symptoms of the sick building syndrome in an intervention study. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.