Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors

This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype variable. The page identifier is Op_en5802
Moderator:Marjo (see all)
This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page.
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en5802}}

Question

What established or possible indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors exist? What kind of dose-responses have been defined for them?

Answer

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors(-)

Obs	Exposure metric	Response	Response metric	Exposure route	Exposure unit	ERF parameter	ERF	Significance	Description/Reference
1	Visible dampness and/or mold or mold odor	Respiratory health effect	Respiratory symptoms and diseases	Inhalation	yes/no	OR	several, see Note 1		Note 1
2	Dampness and/or mold	Depression		Inhalation, Other?					Note 2
3	Dampness and/or mold	Mental health problems		Inhalation, Other?					Note 2
4	Dampness and/or mold	Self-assessed health poorer		Inhalation, Other?					Note 2
5	Dampness and/or mold	Mental health problems		Inhalation	yes/no	OR	1,76 (1,17-2,66)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
6	Chronic illness	Mental health problems		no	yes/no	OR	1,99 (1,32-3,02)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
7	Living with children under 16 y	Mental health problems		no	yes/no	OR	1,75 (1,15-2,68)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
8	Living in a low income household	Mental health problems		no	yes/no	OR	1,61 (1,06-2,44)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
9	Respondent unemployed	Mental health problems		no	yes/no	OR	1,55 (0,99-2,42)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
10	Wood smoke	Respiratory health effect	Respiratory symptoms and infections	Inhalation					Note 3, Note 4
11	Wood smoke	Irritation of eyes and mucosa
12	Wood smoke	Respiratory health effect	Asthma aggravating	Inhalation
13	Wood smoke	Odour problems		Inhalation
14	Wood smoke	Comfort of housing	Decreased comfort of housing
15	Wood smoke	Chronic infections		Inhalation
16	Wood smoke	Cancer		Inhalation
17	Tobacco smoke	Respiratory health effect	Respiratory symptoms and infections	Inhalation
18	Tobacco smoke	Irritation of eyes and mucosa
19	Tobacco smoke	Respiratory health effect	Asthma aggravating
20	Tobacco smoke	Odour problems		Inhalation
21	Tobacco smoke	Comfort of housing	Decreased comfort of housing
22	Tobacco smoke	Chronic infections		Inhalation
23	Tobacco smoke	Cancer
24	VOCs	irritation symptoms etc.
25	CO2	headache, tiredness etc.
26	CO	headache, tiredness etc.
27	Insufficient air exchange	Headache
28	Insufficient air exchange	Tiredness
29	Insufficient air exchange	Decreased ability to concentrate
30	Insufficient air exchange	Feeling of fug
31	Thermal conditions; heat	Tiredness
32	Thermal conditions; heat	Decreased ability to concentrate
33	Thermal conditions; heat	Increased respiratory symptoms
34	Thermal conditions; heat	Feeling of dryness
35	Thermal conditions; heat	Comfort of housing	Decreased comfort of housing
36	Thermal comfort (draught or cold)	Mental health problems							Note 2
37	Thermal comfort (heat or cold)	Depression							Note 2
38	Thermal comfort (heat or cold; general perception of thermal problems)	Self-assessed health poorer							Note 2
39	Thermal conditions (cold)	Feeling of draught
40	Thermal conditions (cold)	Comfort of housing	Decreased comfort of housing
41	Noise	Hearing injury
42	Noise	Sleep disturbance
43	Noise	Stress
44	Noise	Comfort of housing	Decreased comfort of housing
45	Proximity to traffic	Mortality(?)
46	Radon	Lung cancer							Note 5
47	Relative humidity
48	PM	mortality							Note 3
49	PM	chronic bronchitis
50	PM	lung cancer
51	Reduced space (house/flat)	Depression							Note 2
52	Reduced space (house/flat)	Mental health problems							Note 2
53	Reduced space (house/flat)	Self-assessed health poorer							Note 2
54	Garden	Depression							Note 2
55	Floor level	Mental health problems							Note 2
56	Overcrowding	Mental health problems							Note 2
57	Overcrowding	Self assessed health poorer							Note 2
58	Sensory IAQ	Various health and well-being parameters
59	Maternal employment	Maltreatment of Children		Other	yes/no	OR	2.82 (1.59 - 5.00)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
60	No. of house moves in previous 5 years	Maltreatment of Children		Other	2-3	OR	1.32 (0.77 - 2.27)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
61	No. of house moves in previous 5 years	Maltreatment of Children		Other	4 or more	OR	2.81 (1.59 - 4.96)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
62	Accomodation	Maltreatment of Children		Other	overcrowed	OR	2.16		Sidebotham et al. 2002
63	Accomodation	Maltreatment of Children		Other	Council	OR	7.65		Sidebotham et al. 2002
64	Accomodation	Maltreatment of Children		Other	Rented	OR	4.47		Sidebotham et al. 2002
65	Social Network Score	Maltreatment of Children		Other	<21	OR	3.09 (1.84 - 5.19)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
66	Parental unemployement	Maltreatment of Children		Other	yes/no	OR	2.33		Sidebotham et al. 2002
67	Car use	Maltreatment of Children		Other	yes/no	OR	2.23		Sidebotham et al. 2002
68	house dampness	headache		inhalation, other	yes/no	OR	8.7 (8.1 - 9.3)		Packer et al. 1994
69	Smoking	mental problems		inhalation	yes/no	OR	8 (0.4 - 15.6)		Packer et al. 1994
70	Social life	health problems		other	<21	OR	11.8 (5.8 - 17.8)		Packer et al. 1994
71	Alcohol	health problems		other	yes/no	OR	0.1 (5.3 - 5.5)		Packer et al. 1994
72	Lone adult	health problems		other	yes/no	OR	12.1		Packer et al. 1994
73	Unemployment seeking work	health problems		other	yes/no	OR	6.9		Packer et al. 1994

Note 1 ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects

Note 2 WP6 well-being report (password-protected)

Note 3 ERF of PM2.5 on mortality in general population

Note 4 Concentration-response to PM2.5

Note 5 Health impact of radon in Europe

Rationale

An example for RefTaq functionality: Pope et al. (2002)

Juho Kutvonen and Salla Mönkkönen Hopton and Hunt (1996)

Isabell Rumrich and Stefania Caporaso Sidebotham et al. (2002)

Soroush Majlesi and Adnan Ahmad Packer et al. (1994)

Jukka Hirvonen and Sami Rissanen Blackman et al. (2001)

Precision and Plausability of Hopton and Hunt (1996)

- Reporting bias: Perhaps ít´s difficult to use subjective data due to reporting bias. This is because people may answer in different ways or they don´t answer at all. In addition, people experience household conditions differently.

- Possible confounding variables were controlled.

- Selection bias: The sample is clearly not representative of the general population and therefore the analysis focuses on differences within the sample. Thus it´s worth considering if the results can be generalized to whole population.

Precision and Plausability of Sidebotham et al. (2002)

- maltreatment: registration for physical injury, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse

- social class: no allowance for nonworking mothers, no parental social class allocated for single mothers

- nature of relationship with child maltreatment is complex (confounder, cultural values, etc)

- income is not measured directly, but car ownership as a proxy indicator and receipt of welfare payment

- controlling for social factors

- large amount of prospectively collect data

- participation is lower among the maltreated group

- risk of social bias and no way of measuring the effect of such bias

Precision and Plausability of Packer et al. (1994)

- health problems: possibility of headache, mental problems, emotional reactions, social isolation and pain.

- social factors: unemployment, single parent, lone adult and unemployment with sickness or disability

- lifestyle: consumption of alcohol and smoking

- it is still difficult to understand the housing condition because none of the studies are complete and detailed so that direct comparison with the questions cannot be made and measurements of parameters, potential confounding factors as well as clear dose-response relationship should be adjusted for example physical effect of damp is responsible for muscle tension, backache and headache but on the other hand the study poins out that there is a strong relationship between damp housing and adverse health impact.

Related files

<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors. Opasnet . [1]. Accessed 27 Dec 2024.