There is a long-standing dispute about indoor air humidity and perceived indoor air quality (IAQ) and associated health effects. Complaints about sensory irritation in eyes and upper airways are generally among top-two symptoms together with the perception "dry air" in office environments. This calls for an integrated analysis of indoor air humidity and eye and airway health effects. This overview has reviewed the literature about the effects of extended exposure to low humidity on perceived IAQ, sensory irritation symptoms in eyes and airways, work performance, sleep quality, virus survival, and voice disruption. Elevation of the indoor air humidity may positively impact perceived IAQ, eye symptomatology, and possibly work performance in the office environment; however, mice inhalation studies do not show exacerbation of sensory irritation in the airways by low humidity. Elevated humidified indoor air appears to reduce nasal symptoms in patients suffering from obstructive apnea syndrome, while no clear improvement on voice production has been identified, except for those with vocal fatigue. Both low and high RH, and perhaps even better absolute humidity (water vapor), favors transmission and survival of influenza virus in many studies, but the relationship between temperature, humidity, and the virus and aerosol dynamics is complex, which in the end depends on the individual virus type and its physical/chemical properties. Dry and humid air perception continues to be reported in offices and in residential areas, despite the IAQ parameter "dry air" (or "wet/humid air") is semantically misleading, because a sensory organ for humidity is non-existing in humans. This IAQ parameter appears to reflect different perceptions among other odor, dustiness, and possibly exacerbated by desiccation effect of low air humidity. It is salient to distinguish between indoor air humidity (relative or absolute) near the breathing and ocular zone and phenomena caused by moisture-damage of the building construction and emissions therefrom. Further, residential versus public environments should be considered as separate entities with different characteristics and demands of humidity. Research is needed about particle, bacteria and virus dynamics indoors for improvement of quality of life and with more focus on the impact of absolute humidity. "Dry (or wet) air" should be redefined to become a meaningful IAQ descriptor.

Sensory irritation and odor effects of organic compounds in indoor environments are reviewed. It is proposed to subdivide volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into four categories: (i) chemically non-reactive, (ii) chemically 'reactive', (iii) biologically reactive (i.e. form chemical bonds to receptor sites in mucous membranes) and (iv) toxic compounds. Chemically non-reactive VOCs are considered non-irritants at typical indoor air levels. However, compounds with low odor thresholds contribute to the overall perception of the indoor air quality. Reported sensory irritation may be the result of odor annoyance. It appears that odor thresholds for many VOCs probably are considerably lower than previously reported. This explains why many building materials persistently are perceived as odorous, although the concentrations of the detected organic compounds are close to or below their reported odor thresholds. Ozone reacts with certain alkenes to form a gas and aerosol phase of oxidation products, some of which are sensory irritants. However, all of the sensory irritating species have not yet been identified and whether the secondary aerosols (ultrafine and fine particles) contribute to sensory irritation requires investigation. Low relative humidity may exacerbate the sensory irritation impact. Practical Implications Certain odors, in addition to odor annoyance, may result in psychological effects and distraction from work. Some building materials continually cause perceivable odors, because the odor thresholds of the emitted compounds are low. Some oxidation products of alkenes (e.g. terpenes) may contribute to eye and airway symptoms under certain conditions and low relative humidity.

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) established an indoor air quality guideline for short- and long-term exposures to formaldehyde (FA) of 0.1 mg/m³ (0.08 ppm) for all 30-min periods at lifelong exposure. This guideline was supported by studies from 2010 to 2013. Since 2013, new key studies have been published and key cancer cohorts have been updated, which we have evaluated and compared with the WHO guideline. FA is genotoxic, causing DNA adduct formation, and has a clastogenic effect; exposure–response relationships were nonlinear. Relevant genetic polymorphisms were not identified. Normal indoor air FA concentrations do not pass beyond the respiratory epithelium, and therefore FA’s direct effects are limited to portal-of-entry effects. However, systemic effects have been observed in rats and mice, which may be due to secondary effects as airway inflammation and (sensory) irritation of eyes and the upper airways, which inter alia decreases respiratory ventilation. Both secondary effects are prevented at the guideline level. Nasopharyngeal cancer and leukaemia were observed inconsistently among studies; new updates of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) cohort confirmed that the relative risk was not increased with mean FA exposures below 1 ppm and peak exposures below 4 ppm. Hodgkin’s lymphoma, not observed in the other studies reviewed and not considered FA dependent, was increased in the NCI cohort at a mean concentration ≥0.6 mg/m³ and at peak exposures ≥2.5 mg/m³; both levels are above the WHO guideline. Overall, the credibility of the WHO guideline has not been challenged by new studies.