Besch E L
Department of Physiological Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610-0137.
Occup Med. 1989 Oct-Dec;4(4):741-52.
Many groups have as their common goal the maintenance of acceptable indoor air quality, which protects occupants from adverse health effects and discomfort, but no one group possesses the interest or expertise to deal with all of the IAQ issues. Nonetheless, conclusions can be made regarding available alternatives to mitigate indoor air quality problems, including building-associated illness. It has been suggested that congressional action is needed in three areas related to BAI and IAQ: Recognition that controlling outdoor air only--even if "health based"--will not result in substantial improvement of public health; Definition of responsibilities for achieving healthful indoor environments; and Resolution of jurisdictional disputes between various federal agencies. Through their studies of buildings whose occupants complained of building-associated illness, NIOSH and others have concluded that inadequate supply and distribution of outdoor air to indoor spaces are the most common causes of SBS. Nonetheless, there are no reports of follow-up studies which confirm that the recommended ventilation upgrades actually solved the IAQ problems. Other reports indicate that maintenance, energy management, and air distribution are as important as ventilation rate. Corrective action, therefore, should include these issues. Systematic research directed toward providing cost-effective and innovative solutions should be the driving force. Rather than regulation, governments should assist in funding the necessary research, providing educational, technical and legal assistance, and developing policy options directed at reducing indoor air pollutants. In those cases where the specific causes of IAQ problems can be identified, remedial actions should be immediately implemented utilizing available technology. It has been suggested that "sick buildings" resulted from too much emphasis on efficency and safety and not enough on occupant health and well-being. Because health has been defined as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being not merely the absence of disease or infirmity," greater emphasis should be given to the concept of control and maintenance of healthy indoor environments (i.e., "healthy buildings") through utilization of quality assurance measures. Also, human response, system performance, and service factors should be utilized to assure an acceptable building performance. Finally, building designers, contractors, owners, managers, and operators must be knowledgeable regarding indoor air quality problems and their consequences and work together to build and maintain healthy buildings. This includes developing training, education, monitoring, and preventive maintenance programs to assure accountability for the proper management of the building systems. The certification (or licensing) of those responsible for providing indoor air quality has been suggested.
许多团体都将维持可接受的室内空气质量作为共同目标,这能保护居住者免受健康不良影响和不适,但没有一个团体有兴趣或专业知识来处理所有室内空气质量问题。尽管如此,对于减轻室内空气质量问题(包括与建筑物相关的疾病)的可用替代方案仍可得出结论。有人建议,在与建筑物相关疾病和室内空气质量相关的三个领域需要国会采取行动:认识到仅控制室外空气——即使是“基于健康的”——也不会导致公众健康状况大幅改善;明确实现健康室内环境的责任;解决各联邦机构之间的管辖权争端。通过对居住者抱怨患有与建筑物相关疾病的建筑物进行研究,美国国家职业安全与健康研究所(NIOSH)和其他机构得出结论,室外空气向室内空间的供应和分配不足是病态建筑综合症(SBS)最常见的原因。尽管如此,没有后续研究报告证实建议的通风升级实际上解决了室内空气质量问题。其他报告表明,维护、能源管理和空气分配与通风率同样重要。因此,纠正措施应包括这些问题。旨在提供具有成本效益和创新性解决方案的系统研究应成为驱动力。政府不应进行监管,而应协助为必要的研究提供资金,提供教育、技术和法律援助,并制定旨在减少室内空气污染物的政策选择。在能够确定室内空气质量问题具体原因的情况下,应立即利用现有技术采取补救措施。有人认为,“病态建筑”是由于过于强调效率和安全,而对居住者的健康和福祉关注不足所致。由于健康被定义为“一种身体、心理和社会完全健康的状态,而不仅仅是没有疾病或虚弱”,应更加重视通过采用质量保证措施来控制和维护健康室内环境(即“健康建筑”)的概念。此外,应利用人类反应、系统性能和服务因素来确保可接受的建筑性能。最后,建筑设计师、承包商、业主、经理和运营商必须了解室内空气质量问题及其后果,并共同努力建造和维护健康的建筑。这包括制定培训、教育、监测和预防性维护计划,以确保对建筑系统的妥善管理负责。有人建议对负责提供室内空气质量的人员进行认证(或发放许可证)。