Letz G A
Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 99143.
Allergy Proc. 1990 May-Jun;11(3):109-16. doi: 10.2500/108854190778880268.
Outbreaks of acute illness among office workers have been reported with increasing frequency during the past 10-15 years. In the majority of cases, hazardous levels of airborne contaminants have not been found. Generally, health complaints have involved mucous membrane and respiratory tract irritation and nonspecific symptoms such as headache and fatigue. Except for rare examples of hypersensitivity pneumonitis related to microbiologic antigens, there have been no reports of serious morbidity or permanent sequelae. However, the anxiety, lost work time, decreased productivity and resources spent in investigating complaints has been substantial. NIOSH has reported on 446 Health Hazards Evaluations that were done in response to indoor air complaints. This data base is the source of most of the published accounts of building-related illness. Their results are summarized here with a discussion of common pollutants (tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, other organic volatiles), and the limitations of the available industrial hygiene and epidemiologic data. There has been one large scale epidemiologic survey of symptoms among office workers. The results associate risk of symptoms to building design and characteristics of the heating/air-conditioning systems, consistent with the NIOSH experience. Building construction since the 1970s has utilized energy conservation measures such as improved insulation, reduced air exchange, and construction without opening windows. These buildings are considered "airtight" and are commonly involved in episodes of building-associated illness in which no specific etiologic agent can be identified. After increasing the percentage of air exchange or correcting specific deficiencies found in the heating/air-conditioning systems, the health complaints often resolve, hence, the term "tight building syndrome" or "sick building syndrome."(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
在过去10到15年里,关于办公室职员急性疾病爆发的报告越来越频繁。在大多数情况下,并未发现空气中污染物达到有害水平。一般来说,健康投诉涉及黏膜和呼吸道刺激以及头痛和疲劳等非特异性症状。除了罕见的与微生物抗原相关的过敏性肺炎病例外,没有严重发病或永久性后遗症的报告。然而,焦虑、工作时间损失、生产力下降以及调查投诉所花费的资源相当可观。美国国家职业安全与健康研究所(NIOSH)报告了针对室内空气投诉进行的446次健康危害评估。这个数据库是大多数已发表的与建筑相关疾病报告的来源。这里总结了它们的结果,并讨论了常见污染物(烟草烟雾、甲醛、其他有机挥发物)以及现有工业卫生和流行病学数据的局限性。有一项针对办公室职员症状的大规模流行病学调查。结果表明症状风险与建筑设计以及供暖/空调系统的特性有关,这与NIOSH的经验一致。自20世纪70年代以来的建筑采用了节能措施,如改善隔热、减少空气交换以及建造无开窗的建筑。这些建筑被认为是“气密的”,并且通常与无法确定具体病原体的建筑相关疾病发作有关。在增加空气交换百分比或纠正供暖/空调系统中发现的特定缺陷后,健康投诉往往会得到解决,因此有了“密闭建筑综合征”或“病态建筑综合征”这一术语。(摘要截取自250词)