Wallner Peter, Tappler Peter, Munoz Ute, Damberger Bernhard, Wanka Anna, Kundi Michael, Hutter Hans-Peter
Institute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Austrian Institute for Healthy and Ecological Building, Alserbachstraße 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Mar 19;14(3):314. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030314.
Passive houses and other highly energy-efficient buildings need mechanical ventilation. However, ventilation systems in such houses are regarded with a certain degree of skepticism by parts of the public due to alleged negative health effects. Within a quasi-experimental field study, we investigated if occupants of two types of buildings (mechanical vs. natural ventilation) experience different health, wellbeing and housing satisfaction outcomes and if associations with indoor air quality exist. We investigated 123 modern homes (test group: with mechanical ventilation; control group: naturally ventilated) built in the years 2010 to 2012 in the same geographic area and price range. Interviews of occupants based on standardized questionnaires and measurements of indoor air quality parameters were conducted twice (three months after moving in and one year later). In total, 575 interviews were performed (respondents' mean age 37.9 ± 9 years in the test group, 37.7 ± 9 years in the control group). Occupants of the test group rated their overall health status and that of their children not significantly higher than occupants of the control group at both time points. Adult occupants of the test group reported dry eyes statistically significantly more frequently compared to the control group (19.4% vs. 12.5%). Inhabitants of energy-efficient, mechanically ventilated homes rated the quality of indoor air and climate significantly higher. Self-reported health improved more frequently in the mechanically ventilated new homes ( = 0.005). Almost no other significant differences between housing types and measuring time points were observed concerning health and wellbeing or housing satisfaction. Associations between vegetative symptoms (dizziness, nausea, headaches) and formaldehyde concentrations as well as between CO₂ levels and perceived stale air were observed. However, both associations were independent of the type of ventilation. In summary, occupants of the mechanically ventilated homes rated their health status slightly higher and their health improved significantly more frequently than in occupants of the control group. As humidity in homes with mechanical ventilation was lower, it seems plausible that the inhabitants reported dry eyes more frequently.
被动式房屋和其他高能效建筑需要机械通风。然而，这类房屋中的通风系统因所谓的负面健康影响而受到部分公众的一定程度的怀疑。在一项准实验性实地研究中，我们调查了两种类型建筑（机械通风与自然通风）的居住者在健康、幸福感和住房满意度方面是否有不同的结果，以及是否与室内空气质量存在关联。我们调查了2010年至2012年在同一地理区域且价格范围相同的123套现代住宅（测试组：机械通风；对照组：自然通风）。基于标准化问卷对居住者进行访谈，并对室内空气质量参数进行了两次测量（入住三个月后和一年后）。总共进行了575次访谈（测试组受访者平均年龄37.9±9岁，对照组37.7±9岁）。在两个时间点，测试组居住者对其总体健康状况及其子女健康状况的评分均未显著高于对照组居住者。与对照组相比，测试组成年居住者报告眼睛干涩的频率在统计学上显著更高（19.4%对12.5%）。高能效机械通风住宅的居住者对室内空气质量和气候的评价显著更高。在机械通风的新住宅中，自我报告的健康状况改善更为频繁（P = 0.005）。在健康、幸福感或住房满意度方面，几乎未观察到住房类型和测量时间点之间的其他显著差异。观察到植物性症状（头晕、恶心、头痛）与甲醛浓度之间以及二氧化碳水平与感觉空气不新鲜之间存在关联。然而，这两种关联均与通风类型无关。总之，机械通风住宅的居住者对其健康状况的评分略高，且其健康状况改善的频率显著高于对照组居住者。由于机械通风住宅的湿度较低，居住者报告眼睛干涩更为频繁似乎是合理的。
