Indoor environmental conditions (thermal, noise, light, and indoor air quality) may affect workers’ comfort, and consequently their health and well-being, as well as their productivity. This study aimed to assess the relations between perceived indoor environment and occupants’ comfort, and to examine the modifying effects of both personal and building characteristics. Within the framework of the European project OFFICAIR, a questionnaire survey was administered to 7441 workers in 167 “modern” office buildings in eight European countries (Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain). Occupants assessed indoor environmental quality (IEQ) using both crude IEQ items (satisfaction with thermal comfort, noise, light, and indoor air quality), and detailed items related to indoor environmental parameters (e.g., too hot/cold temperature, humid/dry air, noise inside/outside, natural/artificial light, odor) of their office environment. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relations between perceived IEQ and occupants’ comfort. The highest association with occupants’ overall comfort was found for “noise”, followed by “air quality”, “light” and “thermal” satisfaction. Analysis of detailed parameters revealed that “noise inside the buildings” was highly associated with occupants’ overall comfort. “Layout of the offices” was the next parameter highly associated with overall comfort. The relations between IEQ and comfort differed by personal characteristics (gender, age, and the Effort Reward Imbalance index), and building characteristics (office type and building’s location). Workplace design should take into account both occupant and the building characteristics in order to provide healthier and more comfortable conditions to their occupants.

The annual burden of disease caused indoor air pollution, including polluted outdoor air used to ventilate indoor spaces, is estimated to correspond to a loss of over 2 million healthy life years in the European Union (EU). Based on measurements of the European Environment Agency (EEA), approximately 90 % of EU citizens live in areas where the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for air quality of particulate matter sized < 2.5 mm (PM2.5) are not met. Since sources of pollution reside in both indoor and outdoor air, selecting the most appropriate ventilation strategy is not a simple and straightforward task. A framework for developing European health-based ventilation guidelines was created in 2010–2013 in the EU-funded HEALTHVENT project. As a part of the project, the potential efficiency of control policies to health effects caused by residential indoor exposures of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), outdoor bioaerosols, volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon oxide (CO) radon and dampness was estimated. The analysis was based on scenario comparison, using an outdoor-indoor mass-balance model and varying the ventilation rates. Health effects were estimated with burden of diseases (BoD) calculations taking into account asthma, cardiovascular (CV) diseases, acute toxication, respiratory infections, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The quantitative comparison of three main policy approaches, (i) optimising ventilation rates only; (ii) filtration of outdoor air; and (iii) indoor source control, showed that all three approaches are able to provide substantial reductions in the health risks, varying from approximately 20 % to 44 %, corresponding to 400 000 and 900 000 saved healthy life years in EU-26. PM2.5 caused majority of the health effects in all included countries, but the importance of the other pollutants varied by country. The present modelling shows, that combination of controlling the indoor air sources and selecting appropriate ventilation rate was the most effective to reduce health risks. If indoor sources cannot be removed or their emissions cannot be limited to an accepted level, ventilation needs to be increased to remove remaining pollutants. In these cases filtration of outdoor air may be needed to prevent increase of health risks.

Within the European research project Health Optimisation Protocol for Energy-efficient Building (HOPE), 96 apartment buildings and 64 office buildings (of which approximately 75% have been designed to be energy-efficient) were investigated. The building characteristics were assessed according to a checklist during a walk-through survey. Occupant questionnaires were used to determine satisfaction about comfort (thermal visual, acoustical and indoor air quality (IAQ)) and their health (Sick Building Syndrome and allergies). Building-averaged collected data are compared, looking for correlations between building characteristics on one hand, and perceived comfort and health on the other hand. Strong correlations are found between perceived IAQ, thermal, acoustic and lighting comfort, confirming results from other studies. Significant correlations between the perceived comfort and building related symptoms were also found, comfortable and healthier buildings being well distinct from uncomfortable ones. Differences of perceived comfort or health between low- and high-energy buildings show that it is possible to design buildings that are healthy, comfortable and energy efficient. Le projet de recherche européen HOPE a servi de cadre à une enquête qui a porté sur 96 immeubles d'habitation et 64 immeubles de bureaux (dont environ 75% avaient été conçus pour être économes en énergie). Les caractéristiques de ces immeubles ont été évaluées en fonction d'une liste de contrôle au cours d'une étude sur le terrain. Les questionnaires remplis par les occupants ont servi à déterminer leur satisfaction en ce qui concerne le confort (confort thermique, visuel, acoustique et IAQ) et aussi leur santé (syndrome du bâtiment malade et allergies). Les données recueillies ont servi à calculer une moyenne pour les bâtiments et ont été comparées; il s'agissait d'établir des corrélations entre les caractéristiques des bâtiments d'une part et, d'autre part, le confort perçu et la santé. On a constaté de fortes corrélations entre la qualité de l'air intérieur perçu, le confort thermique, acoustique et l'éclairage, ce qui a confirmé les résultats obtenus lors d'autres études. On a également constaté des corrélations significatives entre le confort perçu et des symptômes liés aux bâtiments, des bâtiments plus confortables et plus sains étant bien distincts des bâtiments sans confort. Les différences de confort perçu ou de santé entre bâtiments à faible et à haut rendement énergétique montrent qu'il est possible de concevoir des bâtiments qui sont sains, confortables et efficaces sur le plan de l'énergie. Mots clés: évaluation des bâtiments, confort, efficacité énergétique, environnement intérieur, perception de l'occupant, satisfaction