Reinikainen L M, Jaakkola J J, Seppänen O
Laboratory of Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
Arch Environ Health. 1992 Jan-Feb;47(1):8-15. doi: 10.1080/00039896.1992.9935938.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of air humidification on (a) the dryness of the skin and mucosa, (b) allergic and asthmatic reactions, and (c) the perception of indoor air quality. A total of 290 office workers at the Pasila Office Center were included in a six-period cross-over trial. One wing of the building was operated with 30-40% humidification, and the other wing operated under conditions of no air humidification (relative humidity from natural conditions was 20-30%). The length of each study period was 1 work wk. The workers were instructed to keep a structured daily diary of their symptoms, their perception of the indoor air, and potential determinants of the symptoms. A total of 211 (72.6%) workers who returned at least two weekly diaries, and who had experienced both humidified and nonhumidified conditions, were included in the analyses. The primary outcome--dryness symptom score--was characterized by dryness, irritation or itching of the skin and eyes, dryness or irritation of the throat, and nasal dryness. Means of the daily symptom scores and perception ratings during the humidified and nonhumidified periods were calculated for each participant, and intraindividual differences in the means were used to assess the effect of air humidification. The dryness symptom score was significantly smaller during the humidified phase than during the reference phase (paired t test; p less than .05). Allergic symptoms that were considered as a separate outcome, a sensation of dryness, and draft were also significantly less frequent during the humidification phase (p less than .05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
(a)皮肤和黏膜的干燥程度;(b)过敏和哮喘反应;(c)对室内空气质量的感知。共有290名在帕西拉办公中心工作的上班族参与了一项为期六个阶段的交叉试验。该建筑的一侧以30%-40%的湿度运行,另一侧在无空气加湿的条件下运行(自然条件下的相对湿度为20%-30%)。每个研究阶段的时长为1个工作周。要求工作人员对自身症状、对室内空气的感知以及症状的潜在决定因素进行结构化的每日记录。共有211名(72.6%)至少返回两份每周记录且经历过加湿和未加湿条件的工作人员被纳入分析。主要结局——干燥症状评分——的特征为皮肤和眼睛的干燥、刺激或瘙痒,喉咙的干燥或刺激,以及鼻腔干燥。计算了每位参与者在加湿期和未加湿期的每日症状评分和感知评级的均值,并使用均值的个体内差异来评估空气加湿的效果。加湿期的干燥症状评分显著低于对照期(配对t检验;p<0.05)。作为单独结局的过敏症状、干燥感和通风感在加湿期也显著减少(p<0.05)。(摘要截选至250词)