Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Related Risk Factors
for Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) at the Office
and Home: A Systematic Review
To cite this article: Norsaffarina Aziz et al 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1140 012007
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
You may also like
Ventilation requirements and energy
aspects: the case of hospitals
Giorgos Panaras, Risofile Gropca and
Giannis Papadopoulos
-
Indoor air quality performance in air-
conditioned museum gallery
R Sulaiman, S N Kamaruzzaman and Y H
Yau
-
Determination of background indoor air
pollutants and thermal comfort in faculty of
earth science building
N R Awang, N A N M Radzi, T S Yong et
al.
-
This content was downloaded from IP address 209.20.176.206 on 21/02/2023 at 13:24
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
1
Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and Related Risk Factors for Sick
Building Syndrome (SBS) at the Office and Home: A
Systematic Review
Norsaffarina Aziz1, Mohammad Adam Adman1,*, Nurud Suria Suhaimi2,
Syarifuddin Misbari1, Ahmad Rizal Alias1, Azrina Abd Aziz1, Lim Fang Lee3
and Md Mobarak Hossain Khan4
1Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan,
Malaysia
2Faculty of Industrial, Science & Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan,
Malaysia
3Faculty of Engineering and Green Technology, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman,
Kampar, Malaysia
4Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, East-West University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh
*Corresponding Author: adamadman@ump.edu.my
Abstract. The comfort and productivity of workers may be affected differently by the indoor
air quality (IAQ) and related risk factors at the office and at home. Sick Building Syndrome
(SBS) is one of the health issues usually faced by workers. SBS is generally associated with
the time spent in a building, IAQ, and other related risk factors. The study reviewed papers
published in journal articles and conferences regarding IAQ, environmental risk factors and
SBS in the last ten years. The review employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 items from two significant databases, Scopus
and Web of Science. The review steps involved identification, screening, eligibility, data
extraction and analysis. The study found that air quality in a building significantly influences
work productivity and may contribute to SBS. Findings show that SBS symptoms are linked to
various personal characteristics, sociodemographic, working environment and IAQ factors.
The physical contaminants, chemical contaminants and ventilation rate have established
relations with SBS symptoms. These findings can help to form interventions aiming to
improve IAQ and the productivity of occupants.
1. Introduction
Air pollution is one of the most serious global environmental issues, especially for human respiratory
health [1]. Air pollution can be classified into two groups depending on the environment: indoor air
pollution and outdoor air pollution. It is a misconception that one is safe from dangerous contaminants
at home. Indoor air pollution is significantly more serious than outdoor air pollution [2]. People spend
90% of their daily life indoors, subconsciously subject to various air pollutants [3]. Most people who
spend most of their time indoors, especially children and the elderly, tend to be chronically exposed to
indoor pollutants [4]. The pollutants inside a building can affect the IAQ.
This review focus on IAQ. IAQ is the term used to describe the air quality inside a building indicated
by the concentration of the pollutant and temperature. It can impact the health, comfort, and
productivity of the occupants. A healthy indoor environment requires good IAQ. The things inside a
building and our daily activities can contribute to indoor pollutants, such as furniture, paint, electrical
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
2
appliances, cleaning and cooking activities. IAQ may also be affected by outdoor air pollutants such
as fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ozone (O3)
[5]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an indicator of the ventilation performance of a building.
Poor IAQ can cause discomfort and raise common health issues such as SBS among building
occupants. The phrase "sick building syndrome" refers to circumstances in which people in the
building experience health discomfort that appears to be related to time spent in the building, but no
specific disease or cause can be determined. SBS is one of the health issues usually faced by workers.
Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia (DOSH) stated that no known causes and
precise medical tests could identify and verify whether someone is dealing with SBS. It is a condition
in which a person experiences various symptoms or general discomfort but does not have a specific
diagnosis that characterises these symptoms. SBS is most likely a combination of symptoms linked to
specific conditions of the building.
The symptoms of SBS are usually classified into three groups which are general, dermal, and
mucosal. The general symptom is usually the most common [6]. These symptoms include feeling tired
and headaches. Dermal symptoms are related to skin, such as irritations and skin dryness. Mucosal
symptoms involve irritation or dryness of mucous membranes such as the nose, eyes, and throat. All
these symptoms (general, dermal and mucosal) are common in the general population; the feature that
distinguishes them as part of the SBS is their associations with certain buildings [6]. The SBS
symptoms are usually temporary and subside within minutes after exiting the building. It is an
indicator of SBS as it relates to time spent in a building.
In this review, we want to investigate the prevalence of SBS in the office and at home. The global
pandemic of Coronavirus since 2019 has impacted the working environment, which shifted from
offices to homes. Since then, many companies and businesses have shifted the working space to
ensure business continuity and save costs. It benefits both employers and employees [7]. The shifted
working environment makes assessments of IAQ and SBS at home equally significant as those taken
at the workplace. Even at home, the well-being of the workers is vital to ensure the productivity of
their work. Therefore, this research paper sought to study IAQ and associated risk factors of SBS
from the previous studies at the office and home.
2. Methodology
This section discusses the method used to retrieve related articles with IAQ and SBS. The guide from
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 was used for
this systematic review. PRISMA focuses on techniques that researchers can employ to ensure
transparent and thorough reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [8]. The review steps
involved identification, screening, eligibility, data abstraction and data analysis.
2.1 Identification
The following search terms were used, which contain different combinations: IAQ, SBS, office and
home via Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases to identify journal publications. The inclusion
and exclusion requirements were established, as shown in table 1. Only articles in journals with
empirical data were chosen as the category of literature. Therefore, review articles, book chapters, and
conference proceedings were excluded. The search attempted to exclude non-English publications and
focused only on English articles to avoid any misconceptions and difficulties with translation.
Regarding the timeline, ten years were considered (between 2013 and 2022), sufficient time to
observe the recent development of research and related publications.
2.2 Screening
The identified records' titles, abstracts, keywords, authors' names and affiliations, journal names, and
year of publication were exported to an MS Excel spreadsheet. After the searches were completed, the
titles and abstracts were screened based on the criteria. In all cases, a conservative strategy was
adopted; where the relevance or otherwise of a paper was not apparent from the title/abstract, the
paper was retained for full-text scanning. Any title or abstract not involving IAQ assessment of home
or office and SBS are excluded. The copies of the full papers were obtained for those included
following the screening of the titles and abstracts.
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
3
Table 1. The search setting with inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the systematic
review process
Databases
Keywords used
Inclusion
Exclusion
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (sick AND building
AND syndrome AND indoor AND air
AND quality AND office OR home)
Journal
articles
2013-2022
Review, Data
Book chapter
<2013
non-English
articles
Web of
Science
(WoS)
Topic- Sick AND building AND
syndrome AND indoor AND air AND
quality AND (office OR home)
https://www.webofscience.com/wos/wosc
c/summary/da17a10a-dd92-44f4-b3a1-
1cbed3711ce6-3fb2bb6c/relevance/1
Journal
Articles
2017-2022
Review articles
2.3 Eligibility
Then, the full texts of the remaining papers were assessed based on the eligibility criteria. Inclusion
criteria for the journal selection: a) IAQ information of the office or home either collected from
walkthrough home inspection or the survey, b) studies of perceived IAQ and SBS, c) study conducted
at the office or home. For exclusion criteria: a) studies conducted at a simulated office space, b)
microbial assessment of IAQ, c) study population that involved students or children, d) studies focus
on instrumentation and e) review articles.
2.4 Data extraction and analysis
The data extraction template was developed and applied to the included papers. Appropriate themes
and sub-themes were identified by reading the abstracts first, followed by the entire articles (in-depth)
to extract the data. The themes and sub-themes focused on achieving the study's main objective. The
final data extraction template included the publication title, authors, method(s) of measurement,
physical or chemical measurement of IAQ, perception of IAQ, the prevalence of SBS building
syndrome and the associated risk factors. The study's objectives were achieved based on the scope of
work that has been formulated. The reports are included to be a review if it has any information on
IAQ or SBS at either home or office.
3. Result
The review analysis resulted in three major themes. The themes are the IAQ of the environment, the
prevalence of SBS among the respondents and the factors associated with SBS. Overall, 168 titles
were identified and screened, and 73 full-text articles were obtained and assessed for eligibility, with
49 in the review analysis. Figure 1 shows the trend of the studies over the past ten years. The figure
shows that many studies focused on office settings compared to home settings over the past ten years.
In addition, studies that review SBS and IAQ at both the office and home were only four for the last
ten years. 2019 recorded the highest number of studies at the office and home. Studies being reviewed
were from 27 countries, including a high proportion of research from China, Malaysia, and Japan.
Overall, the studies used IAQ measurement, questionnaire survey, or both as assessment methods.
The data analysis of physical and chemical parameters in this review was based on the Industrial Code
of Practice-Indoor Air Quality (ICOP-IAQ) 2010 standards. The physical parameters analysed from
the reports are temperature, relative humidity (RH) and air movement. The chemical contaminants
analysed from the reports are Carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde (CH2O), Ozone (O3), respirable
particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) and total volatile organic compounds (TVOC). In addition, carbon
dioxide (CO2) is an indicator of ventilation performance. Figure 2 shows an illustration of the review
process (PRISMA).
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
4
Figure 1. Number of studies according to place setting throughout the past ten years.
Figure 2. Numbers of papers at each stage of the review process (PRISMA 2020 flow diagram).
Table 2 provides an overview of the 49 studies, emphasising the country, methods of assessment,
physical and chemical measurements of IAQ, the perception of IAQ, the prevalence of SBS and risk
factors associated with SBS. Most of the studies included for review analysed the risk factors
associated with SBS with the physical measurement of the IAQ or the perception of IAQ by
respondents. Some of the studies only analysed the IAQ of the environment. These studies are still
included in the review as they give an overview of the IAQ at the office or home.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Home Office Office and Home
Records identified:
Scopus (n = 92)
Wos (n =76)
Total= 168
Records removed before the
screening:
Duplicate records removed
(n =36)
Non-eligible full-text articles
(n =15)
Records screened
(n =117)
Records excluded after
title/abstract screening.
(n = 45)
Full-text screened
(n = 73)
Full-text articles rejected
(n =24)
Reasons excluded =
*Study population of
students or children
*Study setting is not office
or home
*Experimental study design
*Review articles
*Instrumentation studies
Studies included in
the review
(n =49)
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Identification
Screening
Included
Eligibility
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
5
Table 2. Summary of eligible study findings.
No
Authors
Country
Place setting
Method(s) of
Assessment
IAQ measurement
Perception
of IAQ
SBS self-
assessment
Risk
factors
1.
El-Batrawy et al.,
2019 [9]
Egypt
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
PM10
-
/
/
2.
Colton et al., 2014
[10]
USA
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
PM2.5, CO2
-
/
/
3.
Lin et al., 2014
[11]
China
Home
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
4.
McGill et al., 2015
[12]
UK
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CO2
/
/
/
5.
Abdul-Wahab et
al., 2015 [13]
Oman
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CO, PM, CO2
-
/
/
6.
Song et al., 2017
[14]
China
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
TVOC
-
/
/
7.
Belachew et al.,
2018 [15]
Ethiopia
Home
Questionnaire survey
-
-
/
/
8.
Cheung & Jim,
2019 [16]
China
Home
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
airspeed, CO, VOC,
PM2.5, PM10, CO2
-
-
-
9.
Sun et al., 2019
[17]
China
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CH2O, TVOC,
PM2.5, CO2
/
/
/
10.
Nakayama et al.,
2019 [18]
Japan
Home
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
11.
Hildebrandt et al.,
2019 [19]
Indonesia
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
TVOC
/
-
-
12.
Mentese et al.,
2020 [20]
Turkey
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
VOCs, CO2
/
/
/
13.
Hou et al., 2021
[21]
China
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CO2
/
/
/
14.
Suzuki et al., 2021
[22]
Japan
Home
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
6
Table 2. Cont.
No
Authors
Country
Place setting
Method(s) of
Assessment
IAQ measurement
Perception
of IAQ
SBS self-
assessment
Risk
factors
15.
Gonzalo et al.,
2022 [23]
Switzerland
Home
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
PM2.5, TVOC, CO2
-
-
-
16.
Wang &
Norbäck, 2022
[24]
Sweden
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH
/
-
-
17.
Chen et al., 2013
[25]
China
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
air velocity, CO2
/
/
/
18.
Zamani et al.,
2013 [26]
Malaysia
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CO, TVOC, PM2.5,
PM10, CO2
-
/
/
19.
Rahman et al.,
2014 [27]
Malaysia
Office
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
20.
Azuma et al.,
2015 [28]
Japan
Office
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
21.
Lu et al., 2015
[29]
Taiwan
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
TVOC, CO2
-
/
/
22.
Tham et al.,
2015 [30]
Singapore
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
air speed, CO,
CH2O, TVOC, CO2
/
/
/
23.
Baharum et al.,
2016 [31]
Malaysia
Office
Questionnaire survey
-
-
/
-
24.
Azuma et al.,
2017 [32]
Japan
Office
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
25.
Lu et al., 2018
[33]
Taiwan
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, T
VOC, CO2
/
/
/
26.
Shin et al.,
2018 [34]
Korea
Office
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
27.
Tähtinen et al.,
2018 [35]
Finland
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
CO, TVOC
/
-
-
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
7
Table 2. Cont.
No
Authors
Country
Place setting
Method(s) of
Assessment
IAQ measurement
Perception
of IAQ
SBS self-
assessment
Risk
factors
28.
Gladyszewska-
Fiedoruk, 2019
[36]
Poland
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
PM10, PM2.5, CO2
/
/
/
29.
Halid
Abdullah et al.,
2019 [37]
Malaysia
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
airspeed, CO, CO2
-
/
/
30.
Meir et al., 2019
[38]
Israel
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH
/
/
/
31.
Nunes et al.,
2019 [39]
Spain
Office
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
TVOC
-
-
-
32.
Park et al.,
2019 [40]
UK
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Airspeed, CO,
VOCs, PM2.5,
PM10, CO2
/
-
-
33.
Sun et al.,
2015 [41]
China
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
air speed, CH2O,
TVOC, CO2
/
/
/
34.
Vasile et al.,
2019 [42]
Romania
Office
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
TVOC
-
-
-
35.
Zainal et al.,
2019 [43]
Malaysia
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
airspeed, CO,
CH2O, PM10,
TVOC, CO2
-
/
/
36.
Alomirah &
Moda [44]
UK
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CO, TVOC, CO2
/
/
/
37.
Ha et al., 2020
[45]
Vietnam
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
airspeed, CO,
TVOC, PM2.5, CO2
/
/
-
38.
Ola et al.,
2020 [46]
India
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
PM, CO2
/
/
/
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
8
. Table 2. Cont
No
Authors
Country
Place setting
Method(s) of
Assessment
IAQ measurement
Perception
of IAQ
SBS self-
assessment
Risk
factors
39.
Farizly et al.,
2021 [47]
Indonesia
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
air velocity, TVOC,
CH2O, CO2
-
/
/
40.
Roskams &
Haynes, 2021 [48]
UK
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CO2
/
-
-
41.
Sakellaris et
al., 2021 [49]
Europe
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
PM2.5, O3, CH2O.
TO
/
/
/
42.
Cheng et al.,
2022 [50]
China
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
air speed, CH2O,
TVOC, CO2
/
-
-
43.
Fan & Ding,
2022 [51]
China
Office
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
44.
Nezis et al.,
2022 [52]
Greece
Office
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
PM2.5
/
/
/
45.
Runeson-Broberg
& Norbäck, 2013
[53]
Sweden
Office,
Home
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
46.
Chen et al.,
2017 [54]
China
Office,
Home
IAQ measurement
CH2O, TVOC
-
-
-
47.
Afolabi et al.,
2020 [55]
Nigeria
Office,
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
CH2O, PM2.5,
PM10, TVOC
/
/
/
48.
Guo & Chen,
2020 [56]
USA
Office,
Home
Questionnaire survey
-
/
/
/
49.
Roh et. al, 2021
[5]
USA
Office,
Home
Questionnaire survey,
IAQ measurement
Temperature, RH,
PM2.5, TVOC
/
/
/
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
9
4. Discussion
This study has attempted to comprehensively review the existing literature on IAQ and related risk
factors for SBS at the office and at home. In this section, a detailed discussion of the result is
discussed.
4.1 IAQ parameters measured at the office and home
IAQ describes the air condition inside and surrounding buildings. It can be associated with the well-
being and comfort of those who live there. This review focuses on three primary parameters: physical,
chemical, and ventilation rate. Thirty-eight studies conducted a physical measurement of IAQ, 23
studies at the office, 13 studies at home and two at both the office and home.
4.1.1 Physical parameters
According to a study, a significant predictor of satisfaction with air quality was the temperature [48].
A study stated that complaints of varying room temperature were less with increased air exchange
rates [24]. Some studies stated that climate zone and seasons could significantly impact indoor
temperature and RH [39, 50]. A study stated that higher indoor air temperatures and lower RH were
recorded in summer compared to winter [41]. The type of buildings may also affect the indoor air
temperature. Often, the temperature inside Kampong houses is hotter than the outdoor environment
compared to apartments [19]. The higher temperature may be due to different building designs and
ventilation systems. In a comparison study of office and home environments, individuals were more
comfortable with thermal conditions at home compared to the office as they can adjust the
temperature [56].
4.1.2 Ventilation rate
IAQ conditions are generally caused by increased internal air pollutant emissions and ventilation rates
[23, 45]. Satisfaction with the air quality can be improved if access to a window can be opened [40].
Bedrooms with open windows had much better ventilation rates than rooms with closed windows as it
enhanced the effectiveness of the air distribution and lowered the contaminants present [17,36]. Most
commonly, CO2 levels are employed as a measure of proper ventilation [20]. The number of
occupants is significantly associated with CO2 levels [29,45].
The usage of AC in a small area also has terrible impacts on the IAQ, especially CO and CO2 levels
[16]. The accumulated pollutant inside the room cannot be discarded and accumulated. An increased
number of individuals without ventilation reported high CO2 levels in a building [16,45]. A study
reported that as the floor height increased, the levels of CO2 in the indoor atmosphere increased. The
increased levels of CO2 may occur due to the different layouts of the office building and the habit of
opening windows [50]. Ventilation is an essential factor that contributes to the level of VOCs. Low
ventilation rates can lead to higher levels of CH2O [20]. Hence, CO2 is an essential indicator of the
ventilation rate. It is crucial to open windows and doors for natural ventilation or use the AC. The
pollutants will be discarded through ventilation.
4.1.3 Chemical parameters
TVOC and CH2O are the most studied chemical contaminants in the IAQ measurement of a building.
Indoor air temperature and season are the primary factors affecting VOC and CH2O component
concentration in indoor air [14,39,41]. Seasonal weather is regarded as human ventilation behaviour.
Studies in China stated that most residents kept their windows closed during winter to maintain their
thermal comfort, contributing to the build-up of indoor VOCs [14,41] A study also stated that the
winter season has higher TVOCs and CH2O levels than the summer [20].
In a high-traffic area, ventilation may contribute to the rising level of VOCs as it enters the indoor
environment from the outside [39]. Bedrooms have the highest level of TVOC compared to kitchens,
living rooms and even workplaces [14,54]. A study reported higher TVOC levels in homes compared
to offices [5]. The high TVOCs level in the bedroom may be because of the gaseous emission from
the furniture and carpeting in the room. A high level of CH2O at the office was noticed as the number
of occupants and electronic equipment usage (such as photocopy machines) increased [41].
According to a study conducted in Greece, the printing room was measured with the highest indoor
PM2.5 levels during working hours [52]. PM2.5 concentration levels at home during the pandemic
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
10
were much more significant than PM2.5 levels at their workplaces before the epidemic [5]. The mean
PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were unaffected when the air conditioning (AC) was used [16].
Sufficient air filtration by the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is crucial to
keep particle concentrations within acceptable limits.
4.2 Prevalence of SBS among the respondents
The phrase SBS does not imply that a building has a disease. It is based on the complaints of the
occupants with health issues or discomfort in a particular building, and these symptoms disappear
after they leave the building. Thirty-eight studies included in the review contained SBS self-
assessment, 22 at the office, 12 at home, and four at the office and home. The SBS self-assessment in
the studies was collected through questionnaires. Most studies reported general symptoms as the most
prevalent. Then followed by mucosal and dermal symptoms, the least prevalent symptom [17,21,28].
The dermal symptoms were uncommon in office and home environment studies [9,53]. Skin-related
symptoms were the least reported, which may be due to the symptoms being pretty hard to notice and
may relate to individual allergic reactions.
4.2.1 SBS at the Office
The most typical SBS symptoms in the office studies were dry throat and exhaustion [30]. A study
reported that employees experience nasal irritation, headache, difficulty concentrating and sneezing
while at the office [47]. At the office, the most typical SBS symptom that staff members experienced
was headache [44]. Meanwhile, a study stated that lethargy is the most prevalent SBS among office
workers [27]. Another study stated that the respondents' most prevalent SBS symptom is dizziness
[37]. Headache and tiredness are the dominant SBS symptoms [38]. Nevertheless, headache, fatigue,
difficulty concentrating or breathing, feeling sleepy, and chest tightness were also some of the general
symptoms reported by the office staff [29,41,44].
Respondents tend to complain about headaches and eye irritation after working a day at the office
[29,36]. Another study in the office setting also said nose and throat irritation are the most common
SBS symptom [34]. However, a study shows that nose irritation was the least reported SBS symptom
at the office [38]. In the comparison of seasons, the majority of general symptoms like fatigue,
irritation, nervousness, or tired eyes were reported to be higher in the summer than in winter [32].
4.2.2 SBS at Home
A study reported that the most typical symptoms were exhaustion, cold and flu-like symptoms, and
attention problems at home. Feeling tired or drowsiness, followed by headache and nose irritation,
were the main SBS symptoms reported in an indoor home study [9]. Meanwhile, A study reported that
the top three symptoms at home were tiredness, sore throat, and cough [17]. Mucosal irritation was
much more likely for occupants to experience than the other symptoms [51]. Irritation of the eyes and
stuffy nose are the mucosal symptoms usually reported at home [5]. A study also reported nasal
symptoms as the highest prevalent SBS symptom among occupants at home [17]. A study reported
dry throat as the most reported symptom at home [12].
4.2.3 SBS at the Office and Home
A few studies also reported mucosal symptoms as the most prevalent SBS among the respondents,
both at home and office [11, 43]. Studies conducted at the office and at home mentioned that the most
typical SBS symptoms were fatigue, headache, stuffy or runny nose, and eye irritation [52, 56].
Participants who worked from home reported more frequent SBS symptoms than work from the office
[5]. A study stated the opposite, where SBS occurrences were fewer at home than at the office [56].
Eye and throat symptoms were the most typical work-related SBS symptoms, while nasal and throat
irritation and tiredness are common symptoms reported at home [53]. Significant indications of
weakness, arm or hand muscular soreness, feeling cold in the hands or feet, and a heavy air sensation
were the predominant symptoms of SBS among residential occupants [55]. Meanwhile, cold or flu,
back pain, and weakness are typical signs among office workers [55]. SBS symptoms were less severe
for participants in green homes than normal homes [10]. A study revealed that the proportion of those
living in apartments has a higher prevalence of SBS than those residing in Kampongs [19].
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
11
4.3 Risk factors associated with SBS
The risk factors associated with SBS usually can be divided into three subgroups which are the
sociodemographic factors (sex, age, smoking status, psychological), working environment (odour,
cleanliness) and indoor air parameters (temperature, RH, air pollutants, ventilation). Thirty-six studies
in the review studied risk factors associated with SBS, 20 at the office, 12 at home and four at both
the office and home.
4.3.1 Sociodemographic factors
Regarding the sociodemographic factors, gender and age are significant factors contributing to SBS
symptoms at the office and at home [43, 49]. Many studies mentioned that SBS symptoms were more
likely to affect women than men [9,11,32,44,53]. The main SBS concerns mentioned by females were
related to noise, shifting room temperature, dry air, and dust [44]. A study stated that this might be
related to the exposure time inside a building, as females spend more time inside a building (home)
than males [54].
However, some studies stated no significant associations between gender and the symptoms [17,18].
Male has SBS experiences similar to females [18]. In terms of age group, younger respondents
reported SBS symptoms at a higher rate than those older [43]. Individuals aged 20 to 49 were more
likely to experience SBS symptoms than those aged 50 to 59 [9,18]. However, a study mentioned that
older age groups tend to experience general symptoms of SBS [21].
Long-term smoking status and psychological work stress are significant risk factors for SBS
symptoms [20,49]. Significant correlations have been reported between current smoking with
worsened skin problems and upper respiratory symptoms [28, 43]. According to a study, most
smokers tend to report "eye discomfort," "stuffy or runny nose," and "respiratory symptoms" (cough)
as compared to non-smokers [52]. Non-smokers that are sensitive to tobacco are more likely to
experience eye symptoms than those who are not. Increased SBS was substantially correlated with
allergic history or allergies (cat and dust) [21,49]. Mucosal symptoms were linked to doctor-
diagnosed asthma workers [43]. A study also revealed that contact lenses significantly increased the
likelihood of ocular irritation, upper respiratory issues, and skin symptoms [28].
Regarding the associations between the existence of SBS symptoms and workplace psychosocial
factors, a few studies reported that excessive workload, severe mental effort, intense interpersonal
conflict, unsuitability for employment, and unsatisfactory work were associated with the general
symptoms [28,33]. Office workers who spend much time inside a building working have subjective
symptoms such as eyes, ears, respiratory systems, skin, and headaches [34]. The relationship between
computer usage and eye discomfort was highly significant [32]. Meanwhile, using printers,
photocopiers, or fax machines was strongly correlated with skin complaints [43]. A study reported
that employees working in the printing room were more likely to experience upper respiratory, non-
specific, and eye irritation symptoms than those working in the office and archive rooms [52].
4.3.2 Working environment
According to studies, IAQ and SBS were substantially correlated [5,33,34]. A study stated that the
home environment contributes about 96 per cent of the average health risk [54]. The perception of bad
air quality at work, at home, and outside is linked to symptoms both at home and office [53]. A
similar perception of IAQ demonstrates a connection between home and work surroundings. A study
revealed that itchy noses and sneezes are consistent SBS of poor air quality at the workplace [31].
Another study revealed that SBS correlates with poor housing conditions and buildings' cleanliness
[15]. Eye discomfort was strongly linked to congested workplaces [32]. There was a substantial
correlation between eye irritation, overall symptoms, and upper respiratory symptoms with carpeting
and uncomfortable seats at the workplace [32]. Residents who used charcoal as a cooking fuel had an
increased risk of developing SBS [15]. A study revealed SBS's significant relationship with thermal
comfort and perceived IAQ [12,30].
4.3.3 Physical conditions
RH and temperature impact the SBS symptom [20]. A room with an unstable temperature
substantially impacted the general symptoms and skin complaints [28]. Reduced skin and mucosal
SBS symptoms were closely correlated with higher RH [21]. High air temperature at home or office
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
12
may contribute to several SBS symptoms, including fatigue and headaches, as well as worse work
performance and alertness [13,43].
SBS symptoms were significantly correlated with the perception of odour and dry air, which are
classic signs of a polluted indoor environment [11,17,20]. People who worked in offices with dry air-
conditioned were more likely to experience upper respiratory illnesses and general symptoms than
those who did not [33]. Eye discomfort, general, upper respiratory, and skin complaints were all
strongly linked with air dryness [28]. Body odour, food odour, and perfume (unpleasant odour) were
all substantially linked to upper respiratory and general symptoms [28]. Eye irritation was
substantially associated with the increased usage of harsh odorous chemicals [32].
There was a direct correlation between indoor environments, such as air conditioning systems, and
residents' symptoms, such as headaches and fever [28,55]. A study mentioned that the SBS was linked
to the draughts from the air conditioner that were associated with thermal comfort [51]. Buildings
with centralised air-conditioner systems had a higher prevalence of SBS symptoms than those with
split-unit air-conditioning systems [43]. Insufficient ventilation, fluctuating room temperatures, and
air that is too cold, too dry, or excessive air conditioner airflow can affect SBS [28]. Individuals tend
to experience more SBS symptoms when using air-conditioning than natural ventilation [13]. The use
of fans was linked to SBS [15]. The study revealed that participants who did not use fans had a greater
chance of acquiring SBS.
4.3.4 Chemical pollutants
Significant correlations exist between the indoor air pollutants of CO2, CO, TVOC, PM10, and PM2.5
with the occurrence of SBS [26,49]. VOCs were responsible for respiratory symptoms, while CH2O
was associated with respiratory and general symptoms. [43,49]. However, there were not enough
correlations between TVOCs and the risks of eye irritation, stuffy nose and dry throat, difficulty
breathing, dry skin, irritability, and dizziness. A study also mentioned that CH2O could increase the
occurrence of SBS [14].
CH2O poses a higher health risk at home than at the office [54]. A study discovered that ozone was
the pollutant that had impacted the most symptoms [49]. Ozone and ultrafine particles were
significant risk factors for skin symptoms [17]. PM2.5, a type of tiny particulate matter, is frequently
referred to as an air pollutant related to respiratory and cardiac conditions like asthma, bronchitis, and
other respiratory illnesses [20,55]. Meanwhile, a study by [9] showed that PM and SBS had a weaker
association. Exposure to indoor air contaminants and insufficiently supplied air may increase the
chance of developing health issues [26].
4.3.5 Ventilation system
The ventilation system is a significant risk factor for SBS in both offices and homes [12,15]. A study
mentioned that SBS could be substantially reduced with the natural ventilation of a building [51].
When indoor air is not effectively exchanged, poor air exchange can cause dirty air in the room not to
be replaced and induce symptoms [47]. It was discovered that symptoms of SBS, such as fatigue,
sleepiness, headaches, and focus, were anticipated by insufficiency in ventilation, lack of windows
and fresh air [25,33,38]. The presence of windows and the rate of openable windows impacted the
occupants' SBS symptoms [15,51]. Low ventilation and airborne chemicals could cause eye
discomfort [33]. According to ASHRAE, ventilation plays an essential part in the well-being of
building occupants. It contributes to the preservation of adequate IAQ. Ventilation removes pollutants
from indoor sources, simultaneously lowering their concentrations in dynamic environments.
Indoor CO2 levels can impact SBS symptoms [20]. The acceptable limit of CO2 concentration
recommended by ICOP-IAQ 2010 is 1000 ppm. A study mentioned that indoor CO2 concentration in
an office with >1000 ppm was correlated to SBS [46]. Skin SBS symptoms and general SBS
symptoms were both considerably elevated by CO2 concentration, although not by much [21]. Several
studies revealed that building occupants were exposed to a high level of CO2. They were likely to
experience general symptoms like headaches, loss of judgement, dizziness, drowsiness, and rapid
breathing [37,43]. These symptoms may also be due to VOCs or respirable dust [37]. CO2, air
movement and respirable dust were linked to mucosal symptoms [43]. Sociodemographic, work
environment and IAQ show a significant relationship with SBS. Based on most studies reviewed, the
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
13
associated risk factors of SBS must be minimised to improve building occupants' health risks and
comfort.
5. Conclusion
There is limited research on SBS and IAQ in a home setting. The majority of the studies reviewed
have been focused on office settings. The most common SBS symptoms reported in studies are
general, followed by mucosal symptoms. Dermal symptoms are the least reported at both the office
and at home. SBS can, increase stress, decrease productivity, disrupt attention, necessitate moving
homes or offices, and reduce worker commitment. IAQ might vary depending on the environment and
surrounding area. The physical pollutants, chemical pollutants and especially the ventilation rate can
affect the IAQ. Physical parameters such as RH and temperature impact the SBS symptom. The
chemical pollutants such as CO, CH2O, TVOC, PM10, and PM2.5 show significant relationship with
the occurrence of SBS. CO2 level is an indicator of ventilation rate. The increase of CO2 can cause
health discomfort. The review study demonstrates significant relationships between SBS and risk
factors associated such as sociodemographic factors, working environment and IAQ. Since people
spent most of their time indoors, maintaining good IAQ was crucial for occupants' well-being and
comfort.
References
[1] Adman MA, Hashim JH, Manaf MRA and Norback, D 2020. Associations between air
pollutants and peak expiratory flow and fractional exhaled nitric oxide in students. The
International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 24(2) p189–195
[2] Sarigiannis D, Karakitsios S, Gotti A, Liakos L and Katsoyiannis A 2011. Exposure to major
volatile organic compounds and carbonyls in European indoor environments and associated
health risk. Environment International, 37(4) p743–765
[3] Amouei A, Aghalari Z, Zarei A, Afsharnia M, Geraili Z and Qasemi M 2019. Evaluating the
relationships between air pollution and environmental parameters with sick building
syndrome in schools of Northern Iran. Indoor and Built Environment, 28(10) p1422–1430
[4] Slezakova K, Morais S and Carmo Pereir M 2012. Indoor Air Pollutants: Relevant Aspects and
Health Impacts. Environmental Health - Emerging Issues and Practice
[5] Roh T, Moreno-Rangel A, Baek J, Obeng A, Hasan N and Carrillo G 2021. Indoor air quality
and health outcomes in employees working from home during the covid-19 pandemic: A
pilot study. Atmosphere, 12(12)
[6] Burge P 2004. Sick building syndrome. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61(2),
p185–190
[7] Vyas L, and Butakhieo N 2021. The impact of working from home during COVID-19 on work
and life domains: an exploratory study on Hong Kong. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1),
p59–76
[8] Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J,
Akl E, Brennan S et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for
reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, p372.
[9] El-Batrawy, O 2013. Indoor air quality and adverse health effects. World Applied Sciences
Journal, 25(1), p163–169
[10] Colton M, Macnaughton P, Vallarino J, Kane J, Bennett-Fripp M, Spengler J and Adamkiewicz
G 2014. Indoor air quality in green vs conventional multifamily low-income housing.
Environmental Science and Technology, 48(14), p7833–7841
[11] Lin Z, Wang T, Norback D, Kan H, Sundell J and Zhao Z 2014. Sick building syndrome,
perceived odors, sensation of air dryness and indoor environment in Urumqi, China. Chinese
Science Bulletin, 59(35), p5153–5160
[12] McGill G, McAllister O 2015. An investigation of indoor air quality, thermal comfort and sick
building syndrome symptoms in UK energy efficient home. Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment, 4(3), 329–348
[13] Abdul-Wahab S, Salem N and Ali S 2015. Evaluation of indoor air quality in a museum (Bait
Al Zubair) and residential homes. Indoor and Built Environment, 24(2), p244–255
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
14
[14] Song G, Yu A, Sakai K, Khalequzzaman M, Nakajima T, Kitamura F, Guo P, Yokoyama K and
Piao F 2017. Levels of volatile organic compounds in homes in Dalian, China. Air Quality,
Atmosphere and Health, 10(2), p171–181
[15] Belachew H, Assefa Y, Guyasa G, Azanaw J, Adane T, Dagne H and Gizaw Z 2018. Sick
building syndrome and associated risk factors among the population of Gondar town,
northwest Ethiopia. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 23(1), p1–9
[16] Cheung P and Jim C 2019. Impacts of air-conditioning on air quality in tiny homes in Hong
Kong. Science of the Total Environment, 684, p434–444.
[17] Sun Y, Hou J, Cheng R, Sheng Y, Zhang X and Sundell J 2019. Indoor air quality, ventilation
and their associations with sick building syndrome in Chinese homes. Energy and Buildings,
197, p112–119
[18] Nakayama Y, Nakaoka H, Suzuki N, Tsumura K, Hanazato M, Todaka E and Mori C 2019.
Prevalence and risk factors of pre-sick building syndrome: Characteristics of indoor
environmental and individual factors. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine,
24(1), p1–10
[19] Hildebrandt S, Kubota T, Sani H and Surahman U 2019. Indoor air quality and health in newly
constructed apartments in developing countries: A case study of Surabaya, Indonesia.
Atmosphere, 10(4)
[20] Mentese S, Mirici N, Elbir T, Palaz E, Mumcuoğlu D T, Cotuker O, Bakar C, Oymak S and
Otkun M 2020. A long-term multi-parametric monitoring study: Indoor air quality (IAQ)
and the sources of the pollutants, prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms,
and respiratory health indicators. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 11(12), p2270–2281
[21] Hou J, Sun Y, Dai X, Liu J, Shen X, Tan H, Yin H, Huang K, Gao Y, Lai D et al. 2021.
Associations of indoor carbon dioxide concentrations, air temperature, and humidity with
perceived air quality and sick building syndrome symptoms in Chinese homes. Indoor Air,
31(4), p1018–1028
[22] Suzuki N, Nakayama Y, Nakaoka H, Takaguchi K, Tsumura K, Hanazato M, Hayashi T and
Mori C 2021. Risk factors for the onset of sick building syndrome: A cross-sectional survey
of housing and health in Japan. Building and Environment, 202
[23] Gonzalo F, Griffin M, Laskosky J, Yost P and González‐lezcano R 2022. Assessment of
Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings of New England through Actual Data.
Sustainability, 14(2)
[24] Chen R, Sung W, Chang H and Chi Y 2013. Applying outdoor environment to develop health,
comfort, and energy saving in the office in hot-humid climate. The Scientific World Journal
[25] Wang J and Norbäck D 2022. Subjective indoor air quality and thermal comfort among adults
in relation to inspected and measured indoor environment factors in single-family houses in
Sweden-the BETSI study. Science of the Total Environment, 802
[26] Zamani M, Jalaludin J and Shaharom N 2013. Indoor air quality and prevalence of sick
building syndrome among office workers in two different offices in Selangor. American
Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(10), p1140–1147
[27] Rahman I, Putra J and Nagapan S 2014. Correlation of indoor air quality with working
performance in office building. Modern Applied Science, 8(6), p153–160
[28] Azuma K, Ikeda K, Kagi N, Yanagi U and Osawa H 2015. Prevalence and risk factors
associated with nonspecific building-related symptoms in office employees in Japan:
Relationships between work environment, Indoor Air Quality, and occupational stress.
Indoor Air, 25(5), 499–511
[29] Lu C, Lin J, Chen Y and Chen Y 2015. Building-related symptoms among office employees
associated with indoor carbon dioxide and total volatile organic compounds. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), p5833–5845
[30] Tham K, Wargocki P and Tan Y 2015. Indoor environmental quality, occupant perception,
prevalence of sick building syndrome symptoms, and sick leave in a Green Mark Platinum-
rated versus a non-Green Mark-rated building: A case study. Science and Technology for the
Built Environment, 21(1), p35–44
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
15
[31] Baharum F, Zainon M, Seng L and Nawi M 2016. Analysis of indoor environmental quality
influence toward occupants’ work performance in Kompleks Eureka, USM. International
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 5(4), p187–194
[32] Azuma K, Ikeda K, Kagi N, Yanagi U and Osawa H 2017. Evaluating prevalence and risk
factors of building-related symptoms among office workers: Seasonal characteristics of
symptoms and psychosocial and physical environmental factors. Environmental Health and
Preventive Medicine, 22(1), p1–14
[33] Lu C, Tsai M, Muo C, Kuo Y, Sung F and Wu C 2018. Personal, psychosocial and
environmental factors related to sick building syndrome in official employees of Taiwan.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(1), p1–9
[34] Shin D, Jeong B and Park M 2018. Structural equation modeling of office environment quality,
sick building syndrome, and musculoskeletal complaints on aggregate satisfaction of office
workers. Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing, 28(3), p148–153
[35] Tähtinen K, Lappalainen S, Karvala K, Remes J and Salonen H. (2018). Association between
four-level categorisation of indoor exposure and perceived indoor air quality. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4)
[36] Gladyszewska-Fiedoruk, K. (2019). Survey Research of Selected Issues the Sick Building
Syndrome (SBS) in an Office Building. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 23(2),
p1–8
[37] Halid Abdullah A, Yong Lee Y., Aminudin E and Huei Lee Y 2019. Indoor air quality
assessment for a multi-storey university office building in Malaysia. Journal of Green
Building, 14(4), p93–109
[38] Meir I, Schwartz M, Davara Y, and Garb Y 2019. A window of one’s own: a public office post-
occupancy evaluation. Building Research and Information, 47(4), p437–452
[39] Nunes C, Sánchez B, Gatts C, de Almeida C and Canela M 2019. Evaluation of volatile organic
compounds coupled to seasonality effects in indoor air from a commercial office in Madrid
(Spain) applying chemometric techniques. Science of the Total Environment, 650, p868–877
[40] Park J, Loftness V, Aziz A and Wang T 2019. Critical factors and thresholds for user
satisfaction on air quality in office environments. Building and Environment, 164
[41] Sun Y, Wang P, Zhang Q, Ma H, Hou J and Kong X 2015. Indoor Air Pollution and Human
Perception in Public Buildings in Tianjin, China. Procedia Engineering, 121, p552–557
[42] Vasile V, Petcu C and Iordache V 2019. Experimental studies on TVOC concentrations and
their relationships with indoor comfort parameters. Revista de Chimie, 70(12), p4145–4152
[43] Zainal Z, Hashim Z, Jalaludin J, Lee L and Hashim, J 2019. Sick Building Syndrome among
Office Workers in relation to Office Environment and Indoor Air Pollutant at an Academic
Institution, Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, 15(3), p126–134
[44] Alomirah H and Moda H 2020. Assessment of indoor air quality and users perception of a
renovated office building in manchester. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(6)
[45] Ha P, Phuong N, Trung N, and Loi T 2020. Indoor Air Quality and Thermal Comfort: An
investigation in office buildings in Hanoi, Danang and Ho Chi Minh City. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 869(2).
[46] Ola D, Jain S, Goel A, Kabdal Y and Rathi S 2020. Monitoring of environmental quality
parameters at places frequented by IIT Kanpur campus staff and students and examination
of link with occupants’ perception of indoor climate. 16th Conference of the International
Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate: Creative and Smart Solutions for Better Built
Environments, Indoor Air 2020
[47] Farizly H, Munir A, Sari L, and Zahriah 2021. Evaluation of air quality in office rooms (case
study: The rector’s office building of Syiah Kuala University). IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 881(1)
[48] Roskams M and Haynes B 2021. Testing the relationship between objective indoor
environment quality and subjective experiences of comfort. Building Research and
Information, 49(4), p387–398
[49] Sakellaris I, Saraga D, Mandin C, de Kluizenaar Y, Fossati S, Spinazzè A, Cattaneo A, Mihucz
V, Szigeti T, de Oliveira Fernandes E, Kalimeri K, Mabilia R, Carrer P and Bartzis J 2021.
World Sustainable Construction Conference Series
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1140 (2023) 012007
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1140/1/012007
16
Association of subjective health symptoms with indoor air quality in European office
buildings: The OFFICAIR project. Indoor Air, 31(2), 426–439
[50] Cheng Z, Lei N, Bu Z, Sun H, Li B and Lin B 2022. Investigations of indoor air quality for
office buildings in different climate zones of China by subjective survey and field
measurement. Building and Environment, 214
[51] Fan L and Ding Y 2022. Research on risk scorecard of sick building syndrome based on
machine learning. Building and Environment, 211(83)
[52] Nezis I, Biskos G, Eleftheriadis K, Fetfatzis P, Popovicheva O, Sitnikov N and Kalantzi O
2022. Linking indoor particulate matter and black carbon with sick building syndrome
symptoms in a public office building. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 13(1)
[53] Runeson-Broberg R and Norbäck D 2013. Sick building syndrome (SBS) and sick house
syndrome (SHS) in relation to psychosocial stress at work in the Swedish workforce.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 86(8), p915–922
[54] Chen X, Li F, Liu C, Yang J, Zhang J, Peng C 2017. Monitoring, human health risk assessment
and optimized management for typical pollutants in indoor air from random Families of
University staff, Wuhan City, China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(7), p1–13
[55] Afolabi A, Arome A and Akinbo F 2020. Empirical study on sick building syndrome from
indoor pollution in nigeria. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 8, p395–
404
[56] Guo X and Chen Y 2020. Evaluation of occupant comfort and health in indoor home-based
work and study environment. 22nd HCI International Conference, p480-494
Acknowledgments
This article is part of the initial research activity for the UMP research grant. The authors would like
to thank Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) for supporting this study through financial grant
RDU210356 and an appreciation to the Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, UMP, for
sponsoring the conference fee.
