Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative evaluation of measured and perceived indoor environmental conditions in naturally and mechanically ventilated office environments

  • Research Article
  • Indoor/Outdoor Airflow and Air Quality
  • Published:
Building Simulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper uses a case study-based approach to comparatively evaluate the relationship between measured and perceived indoor environmental conditions in two office buildings, one naturally ventilated and one mechanically ventilated, located in south England. Environmental parameters (indoor and outdoor temperature and relative humidity, and indoor CO2 concentration) were continuously monitored at 5-minute intervals over a 19-month period (March 2017 to September 2018). During this time, occupant satisfaction surveys (both transverse and longitudinal) recorded occupant perceptions of their working environment, including thermal comfort, resulting in approximately 5700 survey responses from the two case studies combined. In the NV office, CO2 levels were high (often >2000 ppm) and indoor temperature was both high (>27 °C) and variable (up to 8 °C change in a working day). In contrast, the MV office environment was found to operate within much narrower temperature, RH and CO2 bands. This was particularly evident in the little seasonal variation observed in the CO2 levels in the MV office (rarely above 1200 ppm); whereas in the NV office, CO2 concentrations exceeded 2000 ppm on 12% of working days during the heating seasons and less than 1% in the non-heating season. Despite these differences in measured indoor environmental conditions, occupants’ overall satisfaction with their environment was similar in both buildings. Occupants of the NV building were found to be more tolerant of higher indoor temperatures while neutral thermal sensation corresponded to a higher indoor temperature, indicating the role of adaptation. This has important implications for energy use in managing the indoor environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen JG, MacNaughton P, Satish U, Santanam S, Vallarino J, et al. (2016). Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: a controlled exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124: 805–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altomonte S, Saadouni S, Kent MG, Schiavon S (2017). Satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in BREEAM and non-BREEAM certified office buildings. Architectural Science Review, 60: 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andargie MS, Azar E (2019). An applied framework to evaluate the impact of indoor office environmental factors on occupants’ comfort and working conditions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46: 101447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow S, Fiala D (2007). Occupant comfort in UK offices—How adaptive comfort theories might influence future low energy office refurbishment strategies. Energy and Buildings, 39: 837–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean S (2018). UK office workers spend limited time outside and over half complain of lack of fresh air. Workplace Insight. Available at https://workplaceinsight.net/uk-office-workers-spend-limited-time-outside-and-over-half-complain-of-lack-of-fresh-air. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.

  • Bluyssen PM, Aries M, van Dommelen P (2011). Comfort of workers in office buildings: The European HOPE project. Building and Environment, 46: 280–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brager G, Zhang H, Arens E (2015). Evolving opportunities for providing thermal comfort. Building Research & Information, 43: 274–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BUS (n.d.) BUS methodology. Available at http://www.busmethodology.org.uk.

  • Chiang C-M, Chou P-C, Lai C-M, Li Y-Y (2001). A methodology to assess the indoor environment in care centers for senior citizens. Building and Environment, 36: 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CIBSE (2015). Guide A: Environmental design. London: CIBSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Dear RJ, Brager GS (1998). Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Transactions, 104(1): 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanger PO, Toftum J (2002). Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned buildings in warm climates. Energy and Buildings, 34: 533–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feige A, Wallbaum H, Janser M, Windlinger L (2013). Impact of sustainable office buildings on occupant’s comfort and productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15: 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransson N, Västfjäll D, Skoog J (2007). In search of the comfortable indoor environment: A comparison of the utility of objective and subjective indicators of indoor comfort. Building and Environment, 42: 1886–1890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geng Y, Ji W, Lin B, Zhu Y (2017). The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ perception and productivity. Building and Environment, 121: 158–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta R, Howard A, Zahiri S (2020). Defining the link between indoor environment and workplace productivity in a modern UK office building. Architectural Science Review,: 1–14.

  • Haghighat F, Donnini G (1999). Impact of psycho-social factors on perception of the indoor air environment studies in 12 office buildings. Building and Environment, 34: 479–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig R, Brasche S, Bischof W (2006). Thermal comfort in offices—Natural ventilation vs. air conditioning. In: Proceedings of Congress Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings—Getting Them Right, Winsor, UK.

  • Hummelgaard J, Juhl P, Sæbjörnsson KO, Clausen G, Toftum J, et al. (2007). Indoor air quality and occupant satisfaction in five mechanically and four naturally ventilated open-plan office buildings. Building and Environment, 42: 4051–4058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2005). ISO7730:2005. Ergonomics of the thermal environment—Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. International Organization for Standardization.

  • Kajtar L, Herczeg L, Lang E (2003). Examination of influence of CO2 concentration by scientific methods in the laboratory. In: Proceedings of Healthy Buildings.

  • Lipczynska A, Schiavon S, Graham LT (2018). Thermal comfort and self-reported productivity in an office with ceiling fans in the tropics. Building and Environment, 135: 202–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Yao R, Wang J, Li B (2012). Occupants’ behavioural adaptation in workplaces with non-central heating and cooling systems. Applied Thermal Engineering, 35: 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo M, Cao B, Damiens J, Lin B, Zhu Y (2015). Evaluating thermal comfort in mixed-mode buildings: a field study in a subtropical climate. Building and Environment, 88: 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulville M, Callaghan N, Isaac D (2016). The impact of the ambient environment and building configuration on occupant productivity in open-plan commercial offices. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18: 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ncube M, Riffat S (2012). Developing an indoor environment quality tool for assessment of mechanically ventilated office buildings in the UK—A preliminary study. Building and Environment, 53: 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien W, Gunay HB (2014). The contextual factors contributing to occupants’ adaptive comfort behaviors in offices- A review and proposed modeling framework. Building and Environment, 77: 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plecher H (2020). Distribution of GDP across economic sectors in the United Kingdom 2018. Statistica. Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/270372/distribution-of-gdp-across-economic-sectors-in-the-united-kingdom. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.

  • Sakellaris I, Saraga D, Mandin C, Roda C, Fossati S, et al. (2016). Perceived indoor environment and occupants’ comfort in European “modern” office buildings: the OFFICAIR study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13: 444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satish U, Mendell MJ, Shekhar K, Hotchi T, Sullivan D, et al. (2012). Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120: 1671–1677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tham KW, Wargocki P, 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: 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A, Gossauer E, Moosmann C, Gropp T, Leonhart R (2007). Thermal comfort and workplace occupant satisfaction—Results of field studies in German low energy office buildings. Energy and Buildings, 39: 758–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong S-K, Lai LW-C, Ho DC-W, Chau K-W, Lam CL-K, et al. (2009). Sick building syndrome and perceived indoor environmental quality: A survey of apartment buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 33: 463–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao R, Liu J, Li B (2010). Occupants’ adaptive responses and perception of thermal environment in naturally conditioned university classrooms. Applied Energy, 87: 1015–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper presented data gathered as part of the Whole Life Performance Plus (WLP+) research project. The authors would like to thank EPSRC (Grant ref: EP/N509000/1) and Innovate UK (Application number: 54815-413475) for funding the project under the Building Whole-Life Performance competition.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Low Carbon Building Research Group, Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

    Rajat Gupta & Alastair Howard

Authors
  1. Rajat Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alastair Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajat Gupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, R., Howard, A. Comparative evaluation of measured and perceived indoor environmental conditions in naturally and mechanically ventilated office environments. Build. Simul. 13, 1021–1042 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-020-0675-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-020-0675-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation