measurement and verification of building performance

measurement and verification of building performance
FINAL REPORT NCEMBT-080201
MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION OF BUILDING
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
FEBRUARY 2008
Prepared by:
Linda D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Technical Contributions by:
Building Sciences Database........... Sean Hsieh, Ph.D.
Indoor Environmental Quality ......... Samir Moujaes, Ph.D. and Liangcai (Tom) Tan, Ph.D.
Graphics ................................. L.D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Lighting ......................................... Xin Hu, Ph.D.
Sound ........................................... B.J. Landsberger, Ph.D.
Graphics ................................. L.D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Report Editing.................................L. Nemnich, M.A., R. Hewitt, B.S., and Amy Puhl. M.S.
University Of Nevada Las Vegas
Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation.. James Craner, M.D.,
Verdi Technology Associates
Davor Novosel
National Center for Energy Management and Building Technologies
FINAL REPORT NCEMBT-080201
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES
TASK 1: MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION OF
BUILDING PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
FEBRUARY 2008
Prepared by:
Linda D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
Technical Contributions by:
Building Sciences Database........... Sean Hsieh, Ph.D.
Indoor Environmental Quality ......... Samir Moujaes, Ph.D. and Liangcai (Tom) Tan, Ph.D.
Graphics ................................. L.D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Lighting ......................................... Xin Hu, Ph.D.
Mold.............................................. L.D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Sound ........................................... B.J. Landsberger, Ph.D.
Graphics ................................. L.D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Report Editing.................................L. Nemnich, M.A., R. Hewitt, B.S., and Amy Puhl. M.S.
Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation.. James Craner, M.D.,
Verdi Technology Associates
Davor Novosel
National Center for Energy Management and Building Technologies
Prepared For:
U.S. Department of Energy
William Haslebacher
Project Officer / Manager
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
Under Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-03GO13072
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the
United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, CONTACT
Linda D. Stetzenbach, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
School of Public Health
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 South Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154-4009
(702) 895-5509
[email protected]
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES CONTACT
Davor Novosel
Chief Technology Officer
National Center for Energy Management and Building Technologies
601 North Fairfax Street, Suite 240
Alexandria VA 22314
703-299-5633
[email protected]
www.ncembt.org
ii
NCEMBT-080201
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................1
1. LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Thermal Comfort/Indoor Environmental Quality.............................................................................................5
1.2 Airborne And Surface-Associated Mold .........................................................................................................6
1.3 Sound ........................................................................................................................................................10
1.4 Lighting......................................................................................................................................................13
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES ...........................................................................................16
2.1 Thermal Comfort/IEQ..................................................................................................................................16
2.2 Airborne And Surface-Associated Mold .......................................................................................................18
2.3 Sound ........................................................................................................................................................21
2.4 Lighting......................................................................................................................................................28
3. METHODS.........................................................................................................................................................29
3.1 Building .....................................................................................................................................................29
3.1.1 Building Selection Criteria...................................................................................................................29
3.1.2 Building Recruitment...........................................................................................................................29
3.1.3 Building Selection General Questions ..................................................................................................29
3.1.4 Building Characterization Questionnaire ..............................................................................................29
3.1.5 Procedure to Generate MLID................................................................................................................29
3.2 Indoor EnvironmentalQuality.......................................................................................................................30
3.2.1 Thermal Comfort .................................................................................................................................30
3.2.2 CO2 .....................................................................................................................................................30
3.2.3. VOCs..................................................................................................................................................30
3.3 Airborne And Surface-Associated Mold .......................................................................................................30
3.4 Sound ........................................................................................................................................................31
3.5 Lighting......................................................................................................................................................31
4. RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................................................34
4.1 Building Locations......................................................................................................................................34
4.1 Energy Table...............................................................................................................................................34
4.2 Overview of Responses ...............................................................................................................................35
4.3 Thermal Comfort/IEQ..................................................................................................................................40
4.3.1 IEQ Hypotheses Results .......................................................................................................................40
4.3.2 IEQ Summary ......................................................................................................................................49
NCEMBT-080201
iii
4.4 Airborne And Surface-Associated Mold .......................................................................................................50
4.4.1 Mold Results.......................................................................................................................................50
4.4.2 Mold Hypotheses Results ....................................................................................................................50
4.4.3 Mold Summary....................................................................................................................................57
4.5 Sound ........................................................................................................................................................58
4.5.1 Sound Results.....................................................................................................................................58
4.5.2 Sound Hypotheses Results ..................................................................................................................58
4.5.3 Sound Summary..................................................................................................................................69
4.6 Lighting......................................................................................................................................................69
4.6.1 Lighting System Results......................................................................................................................69
4.6.2 Lighting Measurement Results.............................................................................................................70
4.6.3 Lighting Hypotheses Results ................................................................................................................74
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................76
5.1 Building Characteristics..............................................................................................................................76
5.2 Thermal Comfort/ Indoor Environmental Quality ..........................................................................................76
5.3 Airborne And Surface-Associated Mold .......................................................................................................77
5.4 Sound ........................................................................................................................................................77
5.5 Lighting......................................................................................................................................................79
5.6 Lessons Learned.........................................................................................................................................80
6. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................82
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED............................................................................................................93
A1. Indoor Background Survey Questions Associated with the ASHRAE Survey....................................................96
A2. Spagnolo and de Dear, 1988 Questionnaire. ............................................................................................105
A3. Nakano, et al., 2002 Questionnaire..........................................................................................................106
A4. Center for the Built Environment Survey .....................................................................................................107
APPENDIX B: BUILDING SELECTION CRITERIA......................................................................................................108
APPENDIX C: BUILDING SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE...........................................................................................111
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................113
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS .......................................................................................................120
E1. Description of Sensors ..............................................................................................................................120
E2. Standard operating procedure for VIVO IEQ instruments (Prepared in part with information from the VIVO
instruction manual) ........................................................................................................................................122
E2.1 Set-up of VIVO Instruments .................................................................................................................122
E2.2 Recommended Installation Of Testing Station .....................................................................................128
E2.3 Collecting VIVO Data Using Laptop......................................................................................................129
iv
NCEMBT-080201
E2.4 Output From Sensors (Both Measured And Calculated)........................................................................131
E2.5 Assembly Of Super Battery And Stand .................................................................................................133
E3. Types Of Raw Variables Measured For Thermal Comfort..............................................................................134
E4. Calculated Indices For Thermal Comfort ....................................................................................................138
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS ................................................................................................................................142
F1. Description of Sensors ..............................................................................................................................142
F2. Standard Operating Procedures for the use of the bacharach.....................................................................143
F3. Standard Operating Procedure for the use of HOBOS.................................................................................144
F4. Standard Operating Procedure for the use of IAQRAE ................................................................................145
APPENDIX G: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS MEASUREMENTS .......................................................................148
G1. Description of Sensor ...............................................................................................................................148
G2. Standard Operating Procedure..................................................................................................................148
G2.1 To Launch IAQRAE .............................................................................................................................148
G2.2 To Save Data......................................................................................................................................149
APPENDIX H: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD Protocols ................................................................151
H1. General Description of Sampling Logistics ................................................................................................151
H2. Culturable Air Sampling Protocol ..............................................................................................................151
H3. Non-Culturable Air Sampling Protocol .......................................................................................................151
H4. Vacuum Sampling Protocol.......................................................................................................................151
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS ........................................................................................................................153
I1. Instrument Selection And Description.........................................................................................................153
I2. Field-Testing Procedures............................................................................................................................154
I3. Sound Related Portion Of The Data Reduction And Analysis ........................................................................155
I4. Standard Operating Procedure For Sound Measurement Instruments..........................................................158
I4.1 Safety Instructions...............................................................................................................................158
I4.2 Equipment List ....................................................................................................................................159
I4.3 Pre-departure Checks..........................................................................................................................159
I4.4 Packing/Shipping Procedure...............................................................................................................160
I4.5 On Site Setup ......................................................................................................................................160
I4.6 Sound Meter Automatic Recording Setup.............................................................................................160
I4.7 Equipment Setup.................................................................................................................................164
I4.8 Office Sound Data Recording ...............................................................................................................164
I4.9 Packing/Shipping Procedure For Return To UNLV Or Next Building........................................................165
I5. Calculation Algorithms...............................................................................................................................166
I5.1 dBA Bumps .........................................................................................................................................166
NCEMBT-080201
v
I5.2 NC – Noise Criteria ..............................................................................................................................166
I5.3 NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria - Rumble ..............................................................................................168
I5.4 NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria - Hiss ...................................................................................................169
I5.5 RC – Room Criteria..............................................................................................................................170
I6. Summary of Calculated Values ..................................................................................................................173
I6.1 dBA Bumps .........................................................................................................................................173
I6.2 NC – Noise Criteria ..............................................................................................................................174
I6.3 NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria ............................................................................................................174
I6.4 RC – Room Criteria..............................................................................................................................174
I6.5 RC Mark II (RCII) Alternate Room criteria ............................................................................................174
I6.6 CPL - Cumulative Probability Levels......................................................................................................174
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS......................................................................................................................176
J1. Description of Instruments.........................................................................................................................176
J1.1 Illuminance Meter T-10 .......................................................................................................................176
J1.2 Luminance Meter LS-100 ....................................................................................................................178
J1.3 Chroma Meter CS-100A ......................................................................................................................180
J1.4 Spectroradiometer ..............................................................................................................................181
J2. Illuminance Measurements........................................................................................................................183
J3. Luminance Measurements.........................................................................................................................184
J4. Lighting Data Entry Procedure....................................................................................................................185
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE.......................................................................................................188
K1.Room Descriptions ....................................................................................................................................188
K2. Lighting Control System Types...................................................................................................................188
K3. Luminary Information................................................................................................................................189
K3.1 Ambient Light 1..................................................................................................................................189
K3.2 Ambient Light 2..................................................................................................................................189
K3.3 Ambient Light 3..................................................................................................................................190
K3.4 Task Light 1.......................................................................................................................................190
K3.5 Task Light 2........................................................................................................................................191
K3.6 Task Light 3........................................................................................................................................191
K4. Light Power Density ..................................................................................................................................192
K5. Measurements of Workstations.................................................................................................................192
K5.1 General Information ...........................................................................................................................192
K5.2 Illuminance Measurements ................................................................................................................192
K5.3 Luminance Measurements .................................................................................................................193
vi
NCEMBT-080201
K5.4 Color Measurements ..............................................................................................................................193
K5.4.1 Color of the lighting at work surface .................................................................................................193
K5.4.2 Color of the lighting at other places..................................................................................................193
APPENDIX L- ENERGY USAGE ..............................................................................................................................194
Appendix M: IEQ Results .....................................................................................................................................195
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS.................................................................240
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD...................................................................................................279
O2. Variance Component Analysis Of Airborne Fungi .......................................................................................280
O3. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Indoor And Outdoor Airborne Fungi ...................................................281
O4. Ratios Among The Six Indoor Locations (Zones) ........................................................................................283
O5. Statistical Results Indoor Vs. Outdoor ......................................................................................................285
O6. Water Indicating Fungi..............................................................................................................................287
O7. Error Plots Demonstrating Variability Among Days And Locations ...............................................................288
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................294
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA .......................................................................................................................344
Q1. dBA Bumps ..............................................................................................................................................344
Q2. dBC .........................................................................................................................................................344
Q3. dBC - dBA ................................................................................................................................................344
Q4. NC – Noise Criteria ...................................................................................................................................344
Q5. NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria .................................................................................................................344
Q6. RC – Room Criteria...................................................................................................................................345
Q7. RC Mark II (RCII) Alternate Room criteria .................................................................................................345
Q8. Cumulative Probability Levels (CPL) ..........................................................................................................345
Q9. Covariance In Sound Measurements Using Analysis Of Covariance (Ancova)...............................................346
APPENDIX R- DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTING SYSTEMS .............................................................................................410
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS.........................................................................................................................411
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA .................................................................................................417
APPENDIX U: LISTING OF THE QUESTIONS WERE DIGITIZED FOR THE OCCUPANT PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE....425
NCEMBT-080201
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. International Energy Conservation Code Climate Zones Map and Locations of Monitored Buildings..........34
Figure 2. Building 1: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................35
Figure 3. Building 2: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................36
Figure 4. Building 3: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................36
Figure 5. Building 4: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................37
Figure 6. Building 5: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................37
Figure 7. Building 6: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................38
Figure 8. Building 7: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................38
Figure 9. Building 8: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................39
Figure 10. Building 9: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................39
Figure 11. Building 10: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ
(temperature, relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting...............................40
Figure 12. Standard Setup of the Static IEQ and Soudn Instrumentation.................................................................76
Figure 13. Photograph of the Two Shipping Pallets.................................................................................................80
Figure E1. Schematic diagram based on the VIVO sampling cart and related hardware (assembled from VIVO/Dantec
information on line) ............................................................................................................................................120
Figure E2. VIVO operating temperature sensor .....................................................................................................120
Figure E3. VIVO relative humidity sensor ..............................................................................................................121
Figure E4. VIVO draught sensor............................................................................................................................121
Figure E5. VIVO base...........................................................................................................................................123
Figure E6. VIVO Field control ...............................................................................................................................123
Figure E7. VIVO connection assembly sequence...................................................................................................124
Figure E8. Positioning of the mechanical arm ......................................................................................................125
Figure E9. Hollow shaft of the VIVO Draught .........................................................................................................125
Figure E10. Clamping unit for VIVO stand.............................................................................................................126
Figure E11. Mounting holes for clamping unit ......................................................................................................126
Figure E12. Locations of mounting bolts ..............................................................................................................126
Figure E13. Screen shot of the PDA. ....................................................................................................................127
viii
NCEMBT-080201
Figure E14. VIVO assembly with connection to PDA ..............................................................................................127
Figure E15. Screen shot of PDA Inbox ..................................................................................................................128
Figure E16. A representation of the geometric location of the monitoring stands in an office building....................128
Figure E17. Screen shot of the VIVO Explorer........................................................................................................129
Figure E18. Screen Shot of VIVO Controller ..........................................................................................................130
Figure E19. Screen View of VIVO Controller with Graphical Analysis ......................................................................131
Figure E20. Complete Assembly of the Stationary Cart Stand with the Portable Battery .........................................133
Figure E21. Battery Indicator ..............................................................................................................................134
Figure F1. Bacharach Comfort Check Sensor .......................................................................................................142
Figure F2. HOBO CO2 Sensor ..............................................................................................................................142
Figure F3. IAQRAE Sensor ...................................................................................................................................143
Figure I1. Svantek SVAN 948 and SVAN 947 Sound Level Meters ........................................................................ 153
Figure I2. Typical Microphone Locations ............................................................................................................. 155
Figure I3. Alternate Microphone Locations.......................................................................................................... 155
Figure I4. User Interface for Conversion of Svantek Files to Database Entry Files .................................................. 156
Figure I5. Representation of a Spreadsheet Data File Created for Svantek Database Input................................... 156
Figure I6. Svantek Front Panel............................................................................................................................ 160
Figure I7. Illustration of Main Menu .................................................................................................................... 161
Figure J1. Illuminance Meter T-10 ...................................................................................................................... 177
Figure J2. Luminance Meter LS-100 ................................................................................................................... 179
Figure J3. GreTag Macbeth Light Spec ................................................................................................................ 182
Figure M1. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they would rate
the acceptability of the temperature in their work area ........................................................................................ 195
Figure M2. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the
temperature in their work area fluctuates throughout the course of an entire work day ......................................... 195
Figure M3. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the temperature in their
work area when they are most comfortable ......................................................................................................... 196
Figure M4. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the temperature in their
work area throughout the mornings .................................................................................................................... 196
Figure M5. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the temperature in their
work area throughout the afternoons .................................................................................................................. 197
Figure M6. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the
temperature in their work area has been too cool ................................................................................................ 197
Figure M7. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the
temperature in their work area has been too warm .............................................................................................. 198
Figure M8. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust the
thermostat in their work area when the temperature is too cool ........................................................................... 198
NCEMBT-080201
ix
Figure M9. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a
personal space heater when the temperature in their work area is too cool .......................................................... 199
Figure M10. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they wear
warmer clothes when the temperature in their work area is too cool..................................................................... 199
Figure M11. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
open/close a door when the temperature in their work area is too cool................................................................ 200
Figure M12. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the temperature in their work area is too cool ...................................... 200
Figure M13. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention
to their co-workers when the temperature in their work area is too cool................................................................ 201
Figure M14. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
temporarily leave their work area when the temperature is too cool ..................................................................... 201
Figure M15. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they block or
unblock air supply registers when the temperature in their work area is too cool .................................................. 202
Figure M16. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their
productivity is affected when the temperature in their work area is too cool.......................................................... 202
Figure M17. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked where they feel it most
when the temperature in their work area is too cool............................................................................................. 203
Figure M18. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust
the thermostat when the temperature in their work area is too warm.................................................................... 203
Figure M19. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a
personal fan when the temperature in their work area is too warm ....................................................................... 204
Figure M20. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they wear
lighter clothing or remove clothing when the tenmperature in their work area is too warm..................................... 204
Figure M21. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
open/close a door when the temperature in their work area is too warm .............................................................. 205
Figure M22. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilites personnel when the temperatur in their work area is too warm ....................................... 205
Figure M23. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention
to their co-workers when the temperature ein their work area is too warm ............................................................ 206
Figure M24. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
temporarily leave their work area when the temperature in their work area is too warm......................................... 206
Figure M25. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they block or
unblock air supply registers when the temperature in their work area is too warm................................................. 207
Figure M26. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their
productivity is adversely affected when the temperature in their work area is too warm......................................... 207
Figure M27. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked where they feel it most
when the temperature in their work area is too warm........................................................................................... 208
Figure M28. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the humidity
fluctuates in their work area throughout the course of an entire work day ............................................................. 208
Figure M29. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the humidity
fluctuates in their work area during the course of an entire work day .................................................................... 209
x
NCEMBT-080201
Figure M30. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the humidity in their
work area when they are the most confortable..................................................................................................... 209
Figure M31. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how humid the air in
their work area is throughout the mornings ......................................................................................................... 210
Figure M32. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how humid the air in
their work area is throughout the afternoons ....................................................................................................... 210
Figure M33. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their
work area is too dry ............................................................................................................................................ 211
Figure M34. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their
work area is too humid ....................................................................................................................................... 211
Figure M35. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a
personal humidifier when the air in their work area is too dry ............................................................................... 212
Figure M36. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust
the thermostat when the air in their work area is too dry ...................................................................................... 212
Figure M37. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use
moisturizer/lotion on their skin when the air in their work area is too dry.............................................................. 213
Figure M38. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use
lubricant drops in their eyes when the air in their work area is too dry................................................................... 213
Figure M39. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the air in their work area is too dry ....................................................... 214
Figure M40. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention
to co-workers when the ai in their work area is too dry ......................................................................................... 214
Figure M41. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
open/close a door when the air in their work area is too dry................................................................................. 215
Figure M42. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
temporarily leave their work area when the air in their work area is too dry ........................................................... 215
Figure M43. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their
productivity is adversely affected when the air in their work area is too dry ........................................................... 216
Figure M44. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a
personal fan when the air in their work area is too humid..................................................................................... 216
Figure M45. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust
the thermostat when the air in their work area is too humid ................................................................................. 217
Figure M46. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they put on
lighter clothing or remove clothing when the air in their work area is too humid .................................................... 217
Figure M47. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the air on their work area is too humid ................................................. 218
Figure M48. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention
to co-workers when the air in their work area is too humid ................................................................................... 218
Figure M49. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
open/close a door when the air in their work area is too humid............................................................................ 219
Figure M50. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
temporarily leave their work area when the air in their work area is too humid ...................................................... 219
NCEMBT-080201
xi
Figure M51. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their
producivity is adversely affected when thei air in their work area is too humid ...................................................... 220
Figure M52. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the movement
of air in their work area is acceptable.................................................................................................................. 220
Figure M53. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their
work area fluctuates from drafty to stagnant and vice versa throughout the course of an entire work day............... 221
Figure M54. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the movement of air in
their work area when they are most comfortable.................................................................................................. 221
Figure M55. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the movement of air in
their work area throughout the mornings............................................................................................................. 222
Figure M56. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the movement of air in
their work area throughout the afternoons .......................................................................................................... 222
Figure M57. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they feel a
draft in the air in their work area ......................................................................................................................... 223
Figure M58. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they block or
unblock air supply registers when thye feel a draft in their work area.................................................................... 223
Figure M59. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
open/close a door when they feel a draft in their work area ................................................................................. 224
Figure M60. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilites personnel when they feel a draft in their work area ........................................................ 224
Figure M61. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention
to co-workers when they feel a draft in their work area......................................................................................... 225
Figure M62. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
temporarily leave their work area when they feel a draft in their work area............................................................ 225
Figure M63. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their
productivity is adversely affected when they feel a draft in their work area............................................................ 226
Figure M64. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the freshness
of air in their work area is acceptable.................................................................................................................. 226
Figure M65. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air
fluctuates between fresh and stuffy throughout the course of an entire work day .................................................. 227
Figure M66. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the freshness of air in
their work area when they are most comfortable.................................................................................................. 227
Figure M67. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their
work area is too stuffy ........................................................................................................................................ 228
Figure M68. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust
the thermostat when the air in their work area is too stuffy................................................................................... 228
Figure M69. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a
personal fan when the air in their work area is too stuffy ...................................................................................... 229
Figure M70. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
open/close a door when the air in their work area is too stuffy............................................................................. 229
Figure M71. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the air in their work area is too stuffy ................................................... 230
xii
NCEMBT-080201
Figure M72. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention
to co-workers when the air in their work area is too stuffy..................................................................................... 230
Figure M73. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they
temporarily leave their work area when the air in their work area is too stuffy........................................................ 231
Figure M74. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their
productivity is adversely affected when the air in their work area is too stuffy........................................................ 231
Figure M75. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if the odors in their
workplace were acceptable ................................................................................................................................ 232
Figure M76. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the frequency of
acceptable odors in their workplace ................................................................................................................... 232
Figure M77. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the frequency of
unacceptable odors in their workplace ............................................................................................................... 233
Figure M78. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked where they believed
there were odors in the building.......................................................................................................................... 233
Figure M79. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked when during the day
there were unacceptable odors in their workplace............................................................................................... 234
Figure M80. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked what they believed the
sources of the odors to be in their workplace....................................................................................................... 234
Figure M81. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a
noticeable odor, it made them sneeze ................................................................................................................ 235
Figure M82. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a
noticeable odor, it made them blow their nose.................................................................................................... 235
Figure M83. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a
noticeable odor, they used an air freshner .......................................................................................................... 236
Figure M84. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a
noticeable odor, they used a fan in their work area.............................................................................................. 236
Figure M85. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a
noteiceable odor in their building, they closed a door.......................................................................................... 237
Figure M86. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if they reported to
management when there was a noticeable odor in their building ......................................................................... 237
Figure M87. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if they mentioned odors
to others when there was a noticeable odor in their building................................................................................ 238
Figure M88. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if they left the area when
there was a noticeable odor in their building....................................................................................................... 238
Figure M89. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a
noticeable odor in their building, it affected their work ........................................................................................ 239
Figure N1. Percentage of samples in which selected fungal genera were isolated using the Andersen sampler
reported as the precent (%) of samples by buildings and the percent of samples for all 10 buildings (total) .......... 240
Figure N2. Percentage of samples in which selected fungal genera were observed using the Burkard sampler reported
as the percent (%) of samples by building and the percent of samples for all 10 buildings (total).......................... 240
Figure N3. The percentage of outdoor culturable and non-culturable air samples in which a predominant organism
was observed..................................................................................................................................................... 241
NCEMBT-080201
xiii
Figure N4. The percentage of outdoor culturable and non-culturable air samples in which Cladosporium was present
as the predominant taxon .................................................................................................................................. 241
Figure N5. The percentage of indoor culturable and non-culturable air samples in which there was a predominant
fungal taxon....................................................................................................................................................... 242
Figure N6. The percentage of indoor culturable and non-culturable air samples where Cladosporium was present as
the predominant taxon....................................................................................................................................... 242
Figure N7. Building 1: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 243
Figure N8. Building 2: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 243
Figure N9. Building 3: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 244
Figure N10. Building 4: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 244
Figure N11. Building 5: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 245
Figure N12. Building 6: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 245
Figure N13. Building 7: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 246
Figure N14. Building 8: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 246
xiv
NCEMBT-080201
Figure N15. Building 9: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 247
Figure N16. Building 10: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic
meter of air (CFU/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7)
sampling times (other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................................................................. 247
Figure N17. Building 1: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 248
Figure N18. Building 2: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 248
Figure N19. Building 3: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 249
Figure N20. Building 4: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 249
Figure N21. Building 5: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 250
Figure N22. Building 6: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 250
Figure N23. Building 7: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 251
NCEMBT-080201
xv
Figure N24. Building 8: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 251
Figure N25. Building 9: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 252
Figure N26. Building 10: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium,
Chaeetomium, Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores
per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the
afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown = fungi not identified).......................................................................... 252
Figure N27. Building 1. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 253
Figure N28. Building 2. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 253
Figure N29. Building 3. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 254
Figure N30. Building 4. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 254
Figure N31. Building 5. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 255
Figure N32. Building 6. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 255
xvi
NCEMBT-080201
Figure N33. Building 7. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 256
Figure N34. Building 8. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 256
Figure N35. Building 9. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 257
Figure N36. Building 10. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium,
Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other =
fungal genera not Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown =
fungi not identified) ........................................................................................................................................... 257
Figure N37. Building 1. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 258
Figure N38. Building 2. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 258
Figure N39. Building 3. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 259
Figure N40. Building 4. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 259
Figure N41. Building 5. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 260
Figure N42. Building 6. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 260
NCEMBT-080201
xvii
Figure N43. Building 7. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 261
Figure N44. Building 8. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 261
Figure N45. Building 9. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 262
Figure N46. Building 10. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the
log10 number of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3)
(Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium,
Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified) ................................................... 262
Figure N47. Presence of selected culturable fungi in vacuum samples................................................................ 263
Figure N48. Building 1. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 263
Figure N49. Building 2. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 264
Figure N50. Building 3. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 264
Figure N51. Building 4. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 265
Figure N52. Building 5. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 265
Figure N53. Building 6. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 266
Figure N54. Building 7. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 266
xviii
NCEMBT-080201
Figure N55. Building 8. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 267
Figure N56. Building 9. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 267
Figure N57. Building 10. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6
indoor locations (1-6) ........................................................................................................................................ 268
Figure N58. Building 1. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 268
Figure N59. Building 2. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 269
Figure N60. Building 3. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 269
Figure N61. Building 4. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 270
Figure N62. Building 5. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 270
Figure N63. Building 6. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 271
Figure N64. Building 7. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 271
Figure N65. Building 8. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 272
NCEMBT-080201
xix
Figure N66. Building 9. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 272
Figure N67. Building 10. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum
concentration of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All
mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the
three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................. 273
Figure N68. Building 1. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 273
Figure N69. Building 2. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 274
Figure N70. Building 3. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 274
Figure N71. Building 4. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 275
Figure N72. Building 5. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 275
Figure N73. Building 6. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 276
Figure N74. Building 7. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 276
Figure N75. Building 8. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 277
Figure N76. Building 9. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 277
Figure N77. Building 10. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A.
versicolor) and the sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10
number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3) .................. 278
Figure O1. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne culturable data (Andersen samples). For each of the 10
buildings (Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between the days (day 1 [blue], 2[green], and
3 [red]) .............................................................................................................................................................. 288
Figure O2. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne culturable data (Andersen samples). For each of the 10
buildings 9Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between locations (location 1 [blue], 2
[green], 3 [orange], 4 [purple], 5 [black], 6 [red])................................................................................................. 289
xx
NCEMBT-080201
Figure O3. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne non-culturable data (Burkard samples). For each of the
10 buildings (Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between the days (day 1 [blue], 2[green],
and 3 [red])
......................................................................................................................................... 290
Figure O4. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne non-culturable data (Burkard samples). For each of the
10 buildings 9Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between locations (location 1 [blue], 2
[green], 3 [orange], 4 [purple], 5 [black], 6 [red])..................................................................................................291
Figure O5. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for surface-associated culturable fungi (vacuum dust samples). For
each of the 10 buildings (Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between the days (day 1 [blue],
2[green], and 3 [red]) ..........................................................................................................................................292
Figure O6. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for surface-associated culturable fungi (vacuum dust samples). For
each of the 10 buildings 9Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between locations (location 1
[blue], 2 [green], 3 [orange], 4 [purple], 5 [black], 6 [red]) ....................................................................................293
Figure P1. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the acceptability of the
sound/noise in their work area........................................................................................................................... 294
Figure P2. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often the sound/noise in
their work area was acceptable .......................................................................................................................... 294
Figure P3. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning sound/noise fluctuation in
their work area ................................................................................................................................................... 295
Figure P4. Specific responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often sound fluctuate sintheir work
area .................................................................................................................................................................. 295
Figure P5. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how they liked the sound
in their workplace .............................................................................................................................................. 296
Figure P6. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked what volume of sound/noise in
their work area was most comfortable ................................................................................................................ 296
Figure P7. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the hearing of sound/noise
from outside of their building ............................................................................................................................. 297
Figure P8. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear
sound/noise from outside of their building ......................................................................................................... 297
Figure P9. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance or distraction
by noise from outside of their building ................................................................................................................ 298
Figure P10. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they were annoyed
or distracted by noise from outside their building................................................................................................ 298
Figure P11. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the noise from outside
the building affecting their productivity............................................................................................................... 299
Figure P12. Specific responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often noise from outside the
building affected their productivity ..................................................................................................................... 299
Figure P13. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the time period (brief or
long period) between when they hear the sound/noise from outside of the building and they are distracted.......... 300
Figure P14. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly the distraction
starts after hearing sound/noise from outside of the building.............................................................................. 300
Figure P15. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the length (brief or long
period) of distraction from sound/noise outside of the building........................................................................... 301
NCEMBT-080201
xxi
Figure P16. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the distraction lasts
after hearing sound/noise from outside of the building ....................................................................................... 301
Figure P17. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the noise from
outside their building is distracting..................................................................................................................... 302
Figure P18. Summary of occupants’ response son the perception questionnaire concerning sounds from the
telephone or speakerphone carrying into their work area..................................................................................... 302
Figure P19. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often sounds from the
telephone or speakerphone carry into their work area ......................................................................................... 303
Figure P20. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance or distraction
by sounds from the telephone or speakerphone that carry into their work area ..................................................... 303
Figure P21. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often sounds from the
telephone or speakerphone were annoying or distracting .................................................................................... 304
Figure P22. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning sounds from the
telephone or speakerphone that carry into their work area affecting their productivity .......................................... 304
Figure P23. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often sounds from the
telephone or speakerphone that carried into their work area affected their productivity........................................ 305
Figure P24. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long
period) they are distracted when sounds from the telephone or speakerphone are carried into their work area...... 305
Figure P25. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly they are
distracted when sounds from the telephone or speakerphone are carried into their work area .............................. 306
Figure P26. Summary of occupants’ responses of the perception questionnaire concerning the length (brief or long
period) sounds from the telephone or speakerphone were annoying or distracting ............................................... 306
Figure P27. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked long sounds from the
telephone or speakerphone remained annoying or distracting............................................................................. 307
Figure P28. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the
sound/noise from the telephone or speakerphone is distracting ......................................................................... 307
Figure P29. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning overhearing person-toperson conversations in their work area .............................................................................................................. 308
Figure P30. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they overheard
person-to-person conversations in their work area .............................................................................................. 308
Figure P31. Summary of occpupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance when
overhearing person-to-person conversation in their work area ............................................................................. 309
Figure P32. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they are annoyed
from overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area.................................................................... 309
Figure P33. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning overhearing person-toperson conversations in their work area affecting productivity ............................................................................. 310
Figure P34. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often overhearing personto-person conversations in their work area affected their producitivity ................................................................. 310
Figure P35. Summary of occupants’ response son the perception questionnaire concerning how soon (brief or long
period) overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area affected their productivity ........................ 311
Figure P36. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly overhearing
person-to-person conversations in their work area affected their productivity....................................................... 311
xxii
NCEMBT-080201
Figure P37. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the length of the
disruption (brief or long) from overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area .............................. 312
Figure P38. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the disruption due to
overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area lasted ................................................................. 312
Figure P39. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the noise from
overhearing person-to-person conversations is distracting .................................................................................. 313
Figure P40. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing sounds of music
or masking while in their work area..................................................................................................................... 313
Figure P41. Specific response on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear
sounds of music or masking while in their work area ........................................................................................... 314
Figure P42. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance or distraction
due to the hearing sounds of music while in their work area................................................................................. 314
Figure P43. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked if hearing sounds of music
while in their work area was annoying or distracting ............................................................................................ 315
Figure P44. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often hearing sounds of
music while in their work area adversely affected their productivity...................................................................... 315
Figure P45. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long
period) after hearing the sound of music it is distracting...................................................................................... 316
Figure P46. Specific response son the occupant perception when asked how quickly the sound of music is distracting
......................................................................................................................................................................... 316
Figure P47. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hwo long a duration (brief
or long period) the sound of music is distracting ................................................................................................. 317
Figure P48. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long a duration the sound
of music is distracting ........................................................................................................................................ 317
Figure P49. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the music is
distracting ....................................................................................................................................................... 318
Figure P50. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing of sounds from
the equipment in the building............................................................................................................................. 318
Figure P51. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked about the hearing of sounds
from the equipment in the building..................................................................................................................... 319
Figure P52. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance/distraction
caused by the hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building ................................................................... 319
Figure P53. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often there was
annoyance/distraction casued by the hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building................................ 320
Figure P54. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the hearing of sounds the
equipment in the building affecting productivity.................................................................................................. 320
Figure P55. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked if the hearing of sounds from
the equipment in the building affected productivity............................................................................................. 321
Figure P56. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long
period) the hearing of sounds from equipment in the building is distracting ......................................................... 321
Figure P57. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly the hearing of
sounds from the equipment in the building is distracting..................................................................................... 322
NCEMBT-080201
xxiii
Figure P58. Summary of occupants’ response son the perception questionnaire concerning how long (brief or long
period) the hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building is distracting ................................................... 322
Figure P59. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the hearing of
sounds from the equipment in the building is distracting..................................................................................... 323
Figure P60. Specific response son the occupant questionnaire when asked the cause of the distraction from hearing
of sounds from office equipment in the building.................................................................................................. 323
Figure P61. Summary of occupants’ response son the perception questionnaire concerning hearing sound of
mechanical equipment in the building................................................................................................................ 324
Figure P62. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear
sounds of mechanical equipment in the building ................................................................................................ 324
Figure P63. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance/distraction
due to hearing of mechanical sounds in the building........................................................................................... 325
Figure P64. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they were
annoyed/distracted due to hearing of mechanical sounds in the building............................................................ 325
Figure P65. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing of mechanical
sounds in the building affecting their productivity ............................................................................................... 326
Figure P66. Specific responses on the occupant perception quesitonn when asked how often hearing of mechanical
sounds in the building affects their productivity .................................................................................................. 326
Figure P67. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long
period) annoyance/distraction occurs after hearing of mechanical sound sin the building ................................... 327
Figure P68. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly
annoyance/distraction occurs after hearing of mechanical sound sin the building ............................................... 327
Figure P69. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how long (brief or long
period) annoyance/distraction lasts after hearing of mechanical sounds in the building ...................................... 328
Figure P70. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire concerning how long (brief or long period)
annoyance/distraction lasts after hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.................................................. 328
Figure P71. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the location of hearing the
sounds from mechanical equipment in the building ............................................................................................ 329
Figure P72. Specific responses on the occupant perception quesitionnaire when asked what the sounds were from
the mechnical equipment in the building ............................................................................................................ 329
Figure P73. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the cause of the distraction
from hearing of sounds from mechanical equipment in the building .................................................................... 330
Figure P74. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the hearing of sounds
form the air conditioning system the building...................................................................................................... 330
Figure P75. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear
sounds form the air conditioning system the building.......................................................................................... 331
Figure P76. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance/distraction
from hearing sounds from the air conditioning system in the building .................................................................. 331
Figure P77. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often the hearing of
sounds from the air conditioning system in the building is annoyance/distracting ............................................... 332
Figure P78. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing sounds from the
air conditioning system in the building affecting productivity............................................................................... 332
xxiv
NCEMBT-080201
Figure P79. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often hearing sounds
from the air conditioning system in the building affects productivity .................................................................... 333
Figure P80.Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long
period) hearing sounds from the air conditioning system is disturbing ................................................................. 333
Figure P81. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly hearing sounds
fomr the air conditioning system in the building is disturbing............................................................................... 334
Figure P82. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the length (brief or long
period) that the disturbance lasted following hearing sounds from the air conditioning system in the building ...... 334
Figure P83. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the disturbance
lasted following learing sounds form the air conditioning system in the building .................................................. 335
Figure P84. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the cause of the disturbance
from hearing sounds from the air conditioning system in the building .................................................................. 335
Figure P85. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the location of hearing sounds
ofmrthe air conditioning system in the building................................................................................................... 336
Figure P86. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked what the sounds were from the
air conditioning system in the building................................................................................................................ 336
Figure P87. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning privacy to have a
conversation in their work area........................................................................................................................... 337
Figure P88. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked about how often there was
privacy to have a conversation in their work area ................................................................................................. 337
Figure P89. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning privacy to have a
telephone conversation in their work area........................................................................................................... 338
Figure P90. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often there was
acceptable privacy to have a telephone conversation in their work area ............................................................... 338
Figure P91. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning moving to another
location have privacy for a conversation.............................................................................................................. 339
Figure P92. Specific responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they moved to another
location to have privacy for a conversation.......................................................................................................... 339
Figure P93. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning moving to another
location to have a telephone conversation .......................................................................................................... 340
Figure P94. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they moved to
another location for telephone privacy................................................................................................................ 340
Figure P95. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning postponing a
conversation until later due to lack of privacy in their work area ........................................................................... 341
Figure P96. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they postponed a
conversation until later due to lack of privacy in their work area ........................................................................... 341
Figure P97. Summary of occupants’ response on the perception questionnaire concerning postponing a telephone
conversation until later due to lack of privacy in their work area ........................................................................... 342
Figure P98. Specific responses on the occupant perception when asked how often they postponed a telephone
conversation until later due to lack of privacy in their work area ........................................................................... 342
Figure P99. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning closing of a door to gain
privacy in their work area.................................................................................................................................... 343
NCEMBT-080201
xxv
Figure S1. Illuminance-related measurements.................................................................................................... 419
Figure S2. Luminance-related measurements..................................................................................................... 420
Figure S3. Luminance from windows................................................................................................................... 421
Figure S4. Color properties................................................................................................................................. 421
Figure S5. The perception questionnaire results regarding two brightness questions............................................ 422
Figure S6. The perception questionnaire results regarding lighting distribution question, “The distribution of lighting
across the surface of the area(s) where I read at my desk or workstation is,” The answers 1 to 5 represent very
uniform, somewhat uniform, neither uniform nor uneven, somewhat uneven, very uneven .................................... 422
Figure S7. The perception questionnaire results regarding two direct glare questions........................................... 423
Figure S8. The perception questionnaire results regarding two reflected glare questions...................................... 423
Figure S9. The perception questionnaire regarding two satisfaction questions..................................................... 424
Figure S10. Four perception questionnaire results related to productivity ............................................................ 424
xxvi
NCEMBT-080201
LIST OF TABLES
Table E1. Difference between accuracy of Vivo sensors and those stipulated in ASHRAE Standard 55................... 121
Table E2. Listing of the expected range of data for each of the VIVO instruments .................................................. 132
Table E3. Parameter Names in Statistical Plots, their Meaning, and their Unit Values........................................... 134
Table E4. Description of Air Temperature and Operative Temperature Measurements........................................... 135
Table E5. Description of Relative Humidity Measurements .................................................................................. 136
Table E6. Description of Air Velocity Measurements ............................................................................................ 137
Table E7. Descrpition of PMV Definition and Calculations ................................................................................... 138
Table E8. Description of PPD Calculations .......................................................................................................... 140
Table E9. Summary of the Number of Measurements (#) by Category for Raw Data and the Calculated Indices for the
IEQ Instruments for Database Allocation Space .................................................................................................. 141
Table I1. Data Field Names for Storing Values..................................................................................................... 166
Table J1. Summary of features of the meter used to record illuminance ............................................................... 176
Table J2. Summary of features of the meter used to monitor luminance ............................................................... 178
Table J3. Summary of the features of the meter used to monitor light source and surface luminance and chromaticty
......................................................................................................................................................................... 180
Table J4. Summary of the features of the meter................................................................................................... 181
Table K1. Template use dot list the general characteristics of each location (zone) in which lighting measurements
were collected ................................................................................................................................................... 188
Table K2. Template used to describe the type of lighting components at each location (zone)............................... 188
Table K3. Template used to characterize the primary ambient lighting device(s) at each location (zone)................ 189
Table K4. Template used to characterize secondary ambient lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used
if secondary ambient lights are used in the zone ................................................................................................. 189
Table K5. Template used to characterize additional ambient lighting device(s) at each location (zone)’ only to be used
if additional ambient lights are used in the zone ................................................................................................. 190
Table K6. Template used to characterize the primary task lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if
task lighting are used in the zone........................................................................................................................ 190
Table K7. Template use dto characterize secondary last lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if
secondary last lights are used in the zone ........................................................................................................... 191
Table K8. Template used to characterize additional taks lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if
additional task lights are used in the zone .......................................................................................................... 191
Table K9. Template used to describe the light power density ............................................................................... 192
Table K10. Templates used to describe general information at each zone’s workstation(s) ................................... 192
Table K11. Template used to record the illuminance measurements at each zone’s workstation(s) ....................... 192
Table K12. Template used to record the luminance measurements at each zone’s workstation(s)......................... 193
Table K13. Template used to record the color of the lighting at the work surface at each zone .............................. 193
NCEMBT-080201
xxvii
Table K14. Template used to record the color of the lighting at other locations at the zone ................................... 193
Table L1. Energy Usage for the Ten Monitored Buildings...................................................................................... 194
Table O1. Chi square values for presence of a predominant taxon in airborne cultruable fungal samples .............. 279
Table O2. Chi square values for presence of a predominant taxon in airborne non-culturable fungal samples ....... 279
Table O3. Variance component analysis of airborne culturable fungi.................................................................... 280
Table O4. Variance component analysis of airborne non-culturable fungal spores................................................ 280
Table O5. Results of culturable fungi .................................................................................................................. 281
Table O6. Results of non-culutrable fungi ........................................................................................................... 282
Table O7. Across sampling days for airborne culturable fungi .............................................................................. 283
Table O8. Across sampling days for airborne non-culturable fungi ....................................................................... 283
Table O9. Within the same sampling day for airborne culturable fungi ................................................................. 284
Table O10. Within the same sampling day for airborne non-culturable fungi ........................................................ 284
Table O11. Statistical results in comparison of culturable fungi in indoor and outdoor air samples....................... 285
Table O12. Statistical results in comparison of non-culturable fungi in indoor and outdoor air samples................ 286
Table O13. Frequency of wate indicator fungi isolated from indoor culturable air samples.................................... 287
Table Q1. Variance in sound interference level (SIL) measurements..................................................................... 346
Table Q2. Variance in sound dBA measurements ................................................................................................ 347
Table Q3. Variance in sound NC max and RC measurements ............................................................................... 348
Table Q4 Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 1.................................................................................................................................. 349
Table Q5. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 2.................................................................................................................................. 349
Table Q6. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 3.................................................................................................................................. 350
Table Q7. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 4.................................................................................................................................. 350
Table Q8. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 5.................................................................................................................................. 350
Table Q9. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 6.................................................................................................................................. 351
Table Q10. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 7.................................................................................................................................. 351
xxviii
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q11. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 8.................................................................................................................................. 351
Table Q12. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 9.................................................................................................................................. 352
Table Q13. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as
acceptable” for building 10................................................................................................................................ 352
Table Q14. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements in with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “Throughout the course of the entire workday, the sounds or noise in my work area
fluctuates” ........................................................................................................................................................ 353
Table Q15 Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 1 .................................................................... 354
Table Q16. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 2 .................................................................... 354
Table Q17. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 3 .................................................................... 355
Table Q18. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 4 .................................................................... 355
Table Q19. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 5 .................................................................... 355
Table Q20. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 6 .................................................................... 356
Table Q21. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 7 .................................................................... 356
Table Q22. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 8 .................................................................... 356
Table Q23. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 9 .................................................................... 357
Table Q24. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction,
mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.) in my work area” for building 10 .................................................................. 357
Table Q25. Results for “too loud” and L_99 minus L_50 for dBA ......................................................................... 358
Table Q26. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_95 minus L_50 for dBA ............................................ 359
NCEMBT-080201
xxix
Table Q27. Results for “increases/decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA ..................................................... 359
Table Q28. Results for “understandable” and L_90 minus L_50 ......................................................................... 360
Table Q29. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 1............................................................................................................................................ 361
Table Q30. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 2............................................................................................................................................ 361
Table Q31. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 3............................................................................................................................................ 362
Table Q32. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 4............................................................................................................................................ 362
Table Q33. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 5............................................................................................................................................ 362
Table Q34. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 6............................................................................................................................................ 363
Table Q35. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 7............................................................................................................................................ 363
Table Q36. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 8............................................................................................................................................ 363
Table Q37. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 9............................................................................................................................................ 364
Table Q38. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception
questionnaire for the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work
area” for building 10.......................................................................................................................................... 364
Table Q39. Results for “too loud” and L_99 minus L_50 for dBA ......................................................................... 365
Table Q40. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_95 minus L_50 for dBA ............................................ 366
Table Q41. Results for “increases/decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA ..................................................... 367
Table Q42. Results for “understandable” and L_90 minus L_50 for dBA ............................................................. 367
Table Q43. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 1 ................................................................................... 368
Table Q44. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 2 ................................................................................... 368
Table Q45. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 3 ................................................................................... 369
xxx
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q46. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 4 ................................................................................... 369
Table Q47. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 5 ................................................................................... 369
Table Q48. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 6 ................................................................................... 370
Table Q49. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 7 ................................................................................... 370
Table Q50. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 8 ................................................................................... 370
Table Q51. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 9 ................................................................................... 371
Table Q52. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from
conversations that carry into my work area” for building 10 ................................................................................. 371
Table Q53. Results for “too loud” and L_99 minus L_50 for SIL .......................................................................... 372
Table Q54. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_95 minus L_50 for SIL.............................................. 373
Table Q55. Results for “increases/decreases” and L_95 minus L_50 for SIL....................................................... 373
Table Q56. Results for “understandable” and L_95 minus L_50 for SIL............................................................... 374
Table Q57. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 1 ............................................................................. 375
Table Q58. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 2 ............................................................................. 375
Table Q59. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 3 ............................................................................. 376
Table Q60. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 4 ............................................................................. 376
Table Q61. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 5 ............................................................................. 376
Table Q62. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 6 ............................................................................. 377
Table Q63 Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 7 ............................................................................. 377
Table Q64. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 8 ............................................................................. 377
Table Q65. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 9 ............................................................................. 378
Table Q66. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped
In Music Or Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 10 ........................................................................... 378
Table Q67. Results for “too loud” and L_80 minus L_10 for dBA ......................................................................... 379
Table Q68. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA ............................................ 380
Table Q69. Results for “increases/decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA ..................................................... 381
NCEMBT-080201
xxxi
Table Q70. Results for “understandable” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA ............................................................. 381
Table Q71. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 1......................................................................................................... 382
Table Q72. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 2......................................................................................................... 382
Table Q73. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 3......................................................................................................... 383
Table Q74. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 4......................................................................................................... 383
Table Q75. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 5......................................................................................................... 383
Table Q76. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 6......................................................................................................... 384
Table Q77. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 7......................................................................................................... 384
Table Q78. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 8......................................................................................................... 384
Table Q79. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 9......................................................................................................... 385
Table Q80. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office
Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 10....................................................................................................... 385
Table Q81. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound
distraction for “too loud” and L_90 minus L_10 for NC ....................................................................................... 386
Table Q82. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound
distraction for for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_90 minus L_50 for NC...................................................... 387
Table Q83. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound
distraction for for “increases/decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for NC............................................................... 388
Table Q84. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound
distraction for for “understandable” and L_80 minus L_50 for NC....................................................................... 388
Table Q85. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 1......................................................................... 389
Table Q86. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 2......................................................................... 389
Table Q87. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 3......................................................................... 390
Table Q88. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 4 ...................................................... 390
Table Q89. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 5 ...................................................... 390
Table Q90. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 6 ...................................................... 391
xxxii
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q91. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 7 ...................................................... 391
Table Q92. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 8 ...................................................... 391
Table Q93. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 9 ...................................................... 392
Table Q94. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From
Building Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building for Building 10 .................................................... 392
Table Q95. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment
Sound Distraction for “too loud”......................................................................................................................... 393
Table Q96. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment
Sound Distraction for “intermittent/unpredictable” ............................................................................................ 394
Table Q97. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment
Sound Distraction for “increases/decreases” ..................................................................................................... 395
Table Q98. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment
Sound Distraction for “understandable” ............................................................................................................. 395
Table Q99. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 1............................................................................................. 396
Table Q100. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 2............................................................................................. 396
Table Q101. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 3............................................................................................. 397
Table Q102. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 4............................................................................................. 397
Table Q103. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 5............................................................................................. 397
Table Q104. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 6............................................................................................. 398
Table Q105. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 7............................................................................................. 398
Table Q106. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 8............................................................................................. 398
Table Q107. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 9............................................................................................. 399
Table Q108. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air
Diffuser/Air Supply In My Work Area”for Building 10........................................................................................... 399
Table Q109. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply
Sound Distraction for “too loud”......................................................................................................................... 400
Table Q110. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply
Sound Distraction for “intermittent/unpredictable” ............................................................................................ 401
Table Q111. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply
Sound Distraction for “increases/decreases” ..................................................................................................... 401
NCEMBT-080201
xxxiii
Table Q112. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply
Sound Distraction for “understandable” ............................................................................................................. 402
Table Q113. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 1
......................................................................................................................................................................... 403
Table Q114. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 2
......................................................................................................................................................................... 404
Table Q115. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 3
......................................................................................................................................................................... 404
Table Q116. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 4
......................................................................................................................................................................... 405
Table Q117. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 5
......................................................................................................................................................................... 405
Table Q118. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 6
......................................................................................................................................................................... 406
Table Q119. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 7
......................................................................................................................................................................... 406
Table Q120. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 8
......................................................................................................................................................................... 407
Table Q121. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 9
......................................................................................................................................................................... 407
Table Q122. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 10
......................................................................................................................................................................... 408
Table Q123. Cumulative probability sound level by building ................................................................................ 408
Table R1. Descriptions of Ten Office Buildings and Lighting Systems ................................................................... 410
Table T1. Characteristics of Buildings 1-5........................................................................................................... 417
Table T2. Characteristics of Buildings 6-10......................................................................................................... 421
xxxiv
NCEMBT-080201
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Building performance characteristics influence energy usage and environmental conditions in indoor
environments. Therefore, building owners and managers, architects, industry, and regulatory agencies are
focusing on design, construction, maintenance, and remediation solutions for buildings and building
systems to improve energy efficiency and alleviate indoor environmental quality (IEQ) concerns.
However, substantial gaps in knowledge remain and there have been scientific/engineering limitations to
resolving these issues. The lack of integrated building protocols and normative baseline data to assess the
relationships of building performance and energy consumption contribute to problems in solving IEQ and
other building performance concerns. This task was designed to develop protocols for the measurement of
integrated building performance and to measure selected environmental parameters in selected buildings
throughout the United States. A series of hypotheses were developed and challenged, and an occupant
questionnaire was developed to verify or refute the underlying hypotheses.
A literature search was conducted to obtain information on the status of relevant research for this task and
to assist in the selection of measurement methods. Information from the literature search supported the
premise that there are gaps in knowledge in the field of IEQ and monitoring indoor environments.
Recognizing the lack of established protocols for assessing buildings prompted the development of a suite
of measurement protocols to assess IEQ parameters including thermal comfort (i.e., temperature, relative
humidity, and draft), carbon dioxide (CO2), surface, and airborne mold, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in office buildings. Protocols to assess lighting and acoustics were also included as these are
critical to a total quality of the indoor environment, occupant satisfaction and they impact energy usage.
Protocols for documenting energy usage and building operational performance were also developed, and
selection criteria for buildings to participate in the study were integrated in the study design. This study
was tasked to provide data on the selected parameters across ten office buildings in the United States and
to correlate those data with responses of building occupants to a computer-based questionnaire focused on
their perception of their indoor work environment.
Ten office buildings were selected based on building design and construction characteristics as
determined by a series of screening questions answered by the buildings’ facilities department personnel.
This information included the physical characteristics of the building, the age of the structure, its
geographical location, and the type of mechanical air handling system. Critical to building participation
was concern expressed by building management/owners that a costly response would be necessary to
renovate or retrofit their building if poor IEQ or other parameters were evident during the monitoring.
Additionally, there were concerns that the monitoring process itself would place undue hardships on the
work flow of the offices in the building.
A computer-based occupant perception questionnaire was developed to obtain information from the
building occupants regarding their perception of IEQ, lighting, and sound in their workspace and to obtain
sufficient data to verify or refute the underlying hypotheses of the measurements.
In each building, the indoor office area available for participation in the study was divided into six
zones/locations. An attempt was made to make these zones representative of natural divisions within a
building (e.g., floor, interior areas, perimeter areas, private offices, open offices). Measurement
instrumentation was located in each of the six indoor zones. Additionally, an outdoor location was
selected to obtain specific IEQ measurements. Details on the placement and types of instrumentation are
listed in the Methods section of this report.
Based on average values of temperature and humidity, only 6 of the 10 buildings were within the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) measurement
criteria for thermal acceptability. However, thermal comfort (temperature and humidity) was perceived as
acceptable by a majority of building occupant respondents in all ten of the buildings. There was limited
NCEMBT-080201
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
inter-zone variability in the perception of thermal comfort, which was not consistently related to variables
(e.g., frequency of air conditioning, heating, or ability to control or know the value of the temperature).
None of the buildings had both measured conditions and occupant responses to thermal comfort that met
the ASHRAE thermal comfort criteria. Also, in all but two buildings the questionnaire participation rates
were so low that they cannot be considered representative of the entire building population. In the two
buildings with low questionnaire response, acceptability approached 80%. However, these buildings did
not meet the winter ASHRAE temperature criteria. Those two buildings also had the overall highest
workplace environment acceptability ratings, which may or may not have biased the responses to thermal
acceptability. Temperature fluctuation between the morning and the afternoon was not problematic in the
buildings monitored. Occupant perception of temperature acceptability correlated with the minimal
actual temperature fluctuation in only two buildings, one of which had significant inter-zone variability
among respondents. The lack of consistent correlation was likely due to the relatively low number and
percentage of occupants in each building who perceive a temperature fluctuation problem. In most
buildings where occupants could adjust the temperature themselves via a thermostat, <10% did so in
response to temperatures being too cool. The proportion approached 10% in response to being too warm.
The average vertical temp gradient for all ten buildings was <3.0°C. The vertical temperature gradients
were within the acceptable level in all buildings and thermal acceptability was not associated with
perception of thermal discomfort in a particular body part. All but two of the buildings were within the
target humidity range. Inter-zone variability in making adjustments to humidity was limited to one
building, which had a mean humidity below the target range. Most buildings had an average draft rate
that was <15%. The outdoor-indoor CO2 difference was within the ASHRAE range for all but two of the
buildings, but there was significant inter-zone variability in perception responses for five of the buildings.
The CO2 concentrations did not consistently correlate with occupant responses to questions regarding
acceptability of workplace, air freshness or impact on work productivity. Few occupants of the office
buildings monitored had negative opinions as to the acceptability of odors in their workplace. VOC data
were problematic. The VOC sensors selected and used for this study only permitted measurements of
short duration at each location and only measurements of total VOCs were collected. Total VOC
measurements were below the limit of detection at all locations.
Low concentrations of airborne culturable and total fungi were present in the ten typical office buildings
during the monitoring period. No statistically significant differences were noted in airborne mold by
sampling day, indicating that a single sampling period for airborne fungi in non-water damaged buildings
is sufficient. Similarly, no statistically significant differences in airborne mold were noted by zones,
indicating that a limited number of sampling sites is sufficient to determine the airborne fungal poulations
in non-water damaged buildings. Common airborne fungi were noted and airborne culturable
Cladosporium and Penicillium were isolated from 100% of the buildings sampled using the Andersen
sampler. Airborne fungi associated with water intrusion/water damage were rarely present in the
buildings. Airborne culturable Chaetomium and Stachybotrys were never isolated, Trichoderma was
isolated in only one building and Aspergillus flavus was isolated in only two of the buildings. Airborne
Aureobasidium, Stachybotrys, and Trichoderma spores were not observed in any of the 10 buildings with
the Burkard sampler, and Chaetomium was only found in one sample from one building. Surfaceassociated Stachybotrys was isolated in 15 of the 180 vacuum dust samples (8%), but the concentrations
in the majority of the positive samples were at or near the lower limit of detection. No locations were
positive for culturable Stachybotrys in vacuum dust on more than one of the three sampling days at any of
the buildings.
The results of acoustic testing in the ten buildings did not reveal any consistent correlation with measured
sound levels within buildings and occupant responses relating to sound existence, annoyance and effect
on productivity. Thus, it was not shown that sound levels measured in a zone can be a good predictor of
occupant perception of sound and its effect on performance. There can be several reasons for the inability
to identify correlation. One is that there is no relationship between measured sound levels and occupant
2
NCEMBT-080201
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
perception of the effects of sound. However, it is well documented in published literature that occupants
are annoyed by high sound levels and such levels do affect productivity. It is possible that the sound
levels in the ten buildings did not reach a sufficient difference between zones for occupants’ perception to
be sensitive to the differences. In that case, the lack of correlation was due to low variation between
zones. This is likely as none of the buildings were observed to consistently have sound at levels
considered to objectionably outside the normal range for office buildings. In particular, within a building
for nearly all cases measured differences between zones in significant sound levels (L_5 to L_90) were
less than 6 dB. The 6 dB value is considered noticeable, but may not normally be perceived as a large
difference. However if a 6 dB or greater consistent difference actually existed between the zones, that
could result in significant differences in occupants’ perceptions between those zones. The limited
variation in the measured levels cannot be considered the only cause of the inability to identify
correlation. It is possible that other levels would have correlated with the perception questionnaire
results. However, the sound levels used in this study were based on engineering experience and
judgment, and other levels were not collected. A comparison of sound data between buildings suggest
that buildings have similar variation in sound levels from one zone measurement station to the next, but
also have significant differences in average sound levels. Respondent data from different buildings also
show noticeable differences, but the question remains whether the differences correlate.
The ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA standard for lighting recommends 10.76 W/m2 (1.0 W/ft2) for office spaces.
The average lighting power density (LDP) for the ten office buildings overall was 12.71 W/m2 (1.18
W/ft2), 18% over the recommended value. Six of the buildings that used direct lightining systems had
14.27 W/m2 (1.33 W/ft2) and the four buildings that used direct/indirect systems had 10.37 W/m2 (0.96
W/ft2). One building had very low LPD, only 6.89 W/m2 (0.64 W/ft2), because this building uses a great
deal of daylight. The overall illuminance at work surfaces of the ten buildings was 657 Lux (± 243 Lux).
The design guide recommends 300 to 500 Lux for office lighting, depending on the characteristics of
visual tasks. The measured illuminance in the monitored buildings was greater than the maximum of this
design range. The four buildings that utilized direct/indirect lighting systems had lower average
illuminance at the work surface than the other buildings, which used direct lighting systems. The IESNA
lighting handbook lists the uniformity of light distribution on task plane as one of the important design
criteria. Most of buildings monitored had uniform lighting distribution at work surface and the four
buildings with direct/indirect lighting systems had more uniform light distribution and lower variations.
The uniformity of illuminance at the work surface was computed by averaging the ratio of the maximum
illuminance to the average illuminance at work surface. Uniformity less than 3.0 is generally considered
as uniform. The overall uniformity was 1.91 (±1.15), indicating that most of the buildings had uniform
lighting distribution at work surface. The four buildings with direct/indirect lighting systems had more
uniform light distribution and lower variations. The illuminance at the center of computer monitor
screens was close to the vertical illuminance in offices. The vertical illuminance is considered a very
important design criterion in offices, and the recommendation value is 500 Lux. The average measured
illuminance at the screens was 339 Lux, which was lower than the recommendation value. The average
illuminance at VDT source documents and keyboards were 574 Lux and 525 Lux, respectively.
Luminance at partitions or walls and at darkest partitions or walls in the field of view was measured. This
parameter was significantly affected by the color of partitions and the influence of daylight. The average
luminance at partitions was 49 candela per square meter (cd/m2) ± 45 cd/m2. The luminance at darkest
partitions or walls in field of view was 16 cd/m2 ± 45 cd/m2. Daylight was observed to have influence on
a large number of workstations in one of the buildings, resulting in large variations in partition luminance.
Luminance at nearby buildings and at brightest sky from windows greatly depended on the weather,
window orientation and measurement time. Lighting measured at the work surface for all the buildings
demonstrated that the average correlated color temperature (CCT) was 3387 K, which is considered as
slightly warm in color. The average color rendering index (CRI) was 81, which is considered as fair color
rendering. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommends using lamps
NCEMBT-080201
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
with CRI of 70 or greater in offices, or 85 CRI or above if color critical tasks are being performed. No
color critical tasks were performed in any office buildings monitored. Therefore, color rendering
capabilities of the lighting in these offices should be appropriate.
This study resulted in the development of integrated building protocols and normative baseline data to
assess the relationships of building performance and energy consumption, and contributes to solving
problems in IEQ and other building performance concerns. The monitoring was completed for ten
buildings across the United States and the measurements of selected environmental parameters are
available in the NCEMBT Building Sciences Database (www.ncembt.org).
4
NCEMBT-080201
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 THERMAL COMFORT/INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Previous research projects involving the study of thermal comfort in office buildings have utilized
questionnaires. The Center for the Built Environment (CBE) and the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) questionnaires (Appendix A) were reviewed.
Previous research projects focused on performing their engineering studies by sampling the local work
station of participants in the survey for a relatively brief time i.e. 10-20 minutes. An ASHRAE-sponsored
thermal comfort study surveyed a large number of occupants of several buildings in the San Francisco
area (Schiller et al., 1988). In general, occupants’ perceptions were closely related to the acceptable levels
of thermal comfort as defined by engineering data within ASHRAE standard 55-81. More recently,
ASHRAE commissioned a study of thermal comfort in cold climates (Donnini et al., 1999). Occupants of
12 air-conditioned buildings were surveyed; about 15% of the occupants had thermal dissatisfaction.
ASHRAE standard 55-81 allows a maximum of 10% thermal dissatisfaction.
Another ASHRAE-sponsored study surveyed occupants (n=836) of 12 air-conditioned buildings in
Townsville, Australia (deDear et al., 1994). It found the thermal discomfort perception of occupants was
related to the need for a higher air velocity around their air-conditioned work spaces. An ASHRAEsponsored study surveyed occupants (n=935) of 22 mechanically ventilated buildings in KalgoorlieBoulder, Australia, a hot and arid climate (deDear, 1999). During summer months, about 65% of indoor
measurements were within the ASHRAE standard 55, while about 85% of indoor measurements were
within the standard during winter. The study also found that 86% of occupants considered their thermal
conditions acceptable.
Other similar studies have been performed in other locations worldwide. A study was performed in
residential buildings in Harbin, China in winter (Wanget al., 2003). It was found that about 92% of
occupants felt their thermal environment is acceptable. Over 80% of these occupants felt dry at a relative
humidity of 20-30% and over 40% felt dry at a relative humidity of 30-55%. Tham and Ullah (1993)
examined thermal comfort in the humid climate of Singapore. In this study, a computer simulation using
DOE2.1B software was used to evaluate the variations of envelope design on energy performance and
thermal comfort. An equation designed by Fanger (1970) was used to evaluate the expected levels of
thermal comfort of the occupants. By considering the variations of the envelope designs, the predicted
percentage of dissatisfied occupants varied about 1% between the extremes. A study of office buildings
conducted by Chan et al., in Hong Kong (1998) raised concern about the validity of the traditional
ASHRAE standard thermal comfort criteria in the field. Jitkhajornwanich et al., (1998) studied
transitional spaces in Bangkok. Results indicated in several cases that occupants preferred cooler
environments, although some of these transitional spaces were mechanically ventilated.
Demokritou et al., (2002) combined experimental and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies to
evaluate occupants’ comfort in elderly housing in the Boston area. High vertical air temperature
differences (above 6°C) were found which created thermal discomfort for the majority of the occupants. It
was also found that excessive air change rates and the location of the heating equipment were factors in
adding to the thermal discomfort. The CFD approach proved to be a very effective tool for predicting
some of these thermal comfort conditions related to the buildings studied. A questionnaire was also
administered to building occupants.
Various indices, derived by Fenger (1970), have been calculated from these studies, including predicted
percent dissatisfied (PPD), predicted mean vote (PMV) and draft rate (DR). These indices estimate the
percent of dissatisfaction by calculating from these predicted indices using some of the engineering data
obtained from collection sites and comparing it with actual percentages obtained by evaluating the
NCEMBT-080201
5
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
outcome from the administered questionnaire. The basis for these thermal comfort evaluations come from
ASHRAE standard 55 whose different versions were used (Chan, deDear, Stephen 1998; deDear et al.,
1994; deDear 1999; Demokritou et al., 2002; Donnini et al., 1999; Jitkhajornwanich et al., 1998; Schiller
et al., 1988; Tham and Ullah 1993; Wang et al., 2003).
1.2 AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
In the 1980s and early 1990s most of indoor air quality research focused on measuring and implicating
chemical contaminants (e.g., formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds), sources from building
materials and furnishings in occupied spaces (e.g., new carpeting, construction plywood, asbestos) and
general air quality parameters (e.g., carbon dioxide levels, total volatile organic compounds,
environmental tobacco smoke) (Batterman and Ping 1995; Gold 1992; Main and Hogan 1983). Ninetyfive percent of problems were associated with inadequate ventilation, entrainment of outdoor
contaminants, or building furnishings (Seitz 1989). However, it is increasingly evident that
microorganisms in the indoor environment, especially fungi, have a significant role in causing human
health disorders and resultant disability, as well as contributing to unacceptable air quality in the
workplace (Flannigan and Morey 1996; Yang and Johanning 1997). It has been reported that 35-50% of
indoor air quality complaints are probably microbial in origin (Lewis 1995) and fungal contamination was
found in 12% of buildings investigated in Minnesota during a six-year period (Ellringer et al., 2000). The
cost resulting from microbial contaminants in indoor environments has not been adequately investigated,
but a recent report estimated that airborne Rhinovirus alone results in an annual cost of $70 billion due to
respiratory infections, allergies, and asthma (Russell et al., 2002).
Outdoor air serves as a source of microbial contamination indoors, entering buildings through mechanical
air conditioning systems and through open doors and windows (Lighthart and Stetzenbach 1994; Shelton
et al., 2002). Mechanical systems (Bernstein et al., 1983; Burkhart et al., 1993; Foarde et al 1997), and
heating system humidifiers (Fink et al., 1971) serve as reservoirs of contamination and become a means
for dispersal of biocontaminants throughout a building (Sterling 1982). Components of mechanical
systems may become contaminated in areas of high moisture near cooling coils and drain/condensation
pans and lines (Foarde et al., 1997) and as a result of condensation (Pasanen et al., 1993). Condensation
in duct systems can occur when humid air lingers in the duct when the system is turned off (e.g., when the
building is not occupied) (Pasanen et al., 2000b). Installation of HVAC components is also important and
improper installation of humidification systems or improper sizing of air conditioning units can result in
excess moisture (Garrison et al., 1993). Materials that absorb and retain moisture from condensation
(e.g., duct materials) and high humidity (e.g., air filters) can readily become contaminated (Elixmann et
al., 1987; Kemp et al., 1995a, 1995b; Levetin et al., 2001; Martikainen et al., 1990; Pasansen et al., 1992,
1993, 2000a, 2000b; Simmons and Crow 1995). Filters that are composed of cellulose mixed with
polyester fiber on a cardboard frame can serve as nutrient sources (Simmons and Crow 1995), but not all
filter material will support microbial growth in the absence of trapped dust and debris (Maus et al., 1996).
Building materials (e.g., wallboard, ceiling tiles, painted surfaces) and furnishings (e.g., wallpaper,
carpeting and vinyl flooring, upholstery) can also serve as sites for microbial colonization (Hyvarinen et
al., 2001a, b, and c; Shelton et al., 2002, Stetzenbach 2002a). Interior construction in commercial
building primarily involves the use of gypsum wallboard and cellulose-based ceiling tiles, but ceiling tiles
(Górny et al., 2001) and the paper sides of wallboard (Pasansen et al., 2000a and 2000b) have been shown
to serve as a nutritional source for fungal contaminants. Lubricant oils on fiberglass and galvanized steel
ducting may contain nutrients for fungal growth (Hyvarinen et al., 2002a, 2002b, and 2002c).
Insulation of wall cavities and ceiling plenums and fibrous flooring materials provide thermal and
acoustical benefit in buildings, and wall coverings enhance the visual context of indoor environments.
However, if these materials are composed of cellulose (e.g., blown cellulose insulation or paper wall
6
NCEMBT-080201
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
coverings) they may also serve as a nutritional source for microbial contaminants. Even if these materials
are not a source of nutrition, they may trap moisture and organic debris within cavity spaces, thereby
providing a suitable environment for the proliferation of microorganisms (Chang et al., 1996). Thermalbridging and the use of non-porous wall coverings acting as air retarders increase the likelihood of fungal
growth on interior surfaces. Additionally, water intrusion resulting from plumbing and roof leaks,
flooding, and condensation may provide conditions favorable for microbial growth in buildings
(Stetzenbach 2002a).
Moisture may accumulate in floor materials in below grade areas and floors above crawlspaces (Beguin
and Nolard 1996). Placement of gypsum wallboard on masonry subfloor can lead to the transport of
moisture as wicking of moisture in basements increases moisture in lower floors of buildings (Lawson et
al., 1998). Capillary barriers are needed to prevent wicking; amendments to traditional gypsum products
(e.g., the addition of wax to prevent moisture accumulation) have been suggested (Ellringer et al., 2000).
Relative humidity can affect the growth of fungi on insulation materials (Ezeonu et al., 1994; Pasanen et
al., 2000b), but common problems with construction defects that result in accumulation of moisture in
wall cavities, plenum spaces, and other areas of a building can also contribute to biocontamination in
indoor environments (Miller et al., 2000). Catastrophic events (e.g., floods, strong winds and hurricanes,
earthquakes, and fires) also result in water-damage to buildings and building systems (Morey 1993).
In the absence of construction defect and catastrophic events, maintenance practices are important in
minimizing microbial contamination (Foarde et al., 1997; Garrison et al., 1993). Failures of caulking and
joints, and the lack of maintenance of drain pans and sump pumps can result in the proliferation of
biocontaminants (Miller et al., 2000). Floor coverings can serve as sources and reservoirs of microbial
contamination, especially when poorly maintained. Fungal contaminants accumulate in settled dust in
flooring systems and may proliferate if adequate moisture is available (Beguin and Nolard 1996; Hodgson
and Scott 1999). Moisture requirements for colonization and growth of biocontaminants vary. Some
xerophilic fungi that grow under conditions of low availability of water, are capable of growth at 60-75%
relative humidity (Pasansen et al., 1991; Hyvarinen et al., 2002a, 2002b, and 2002c), while others are
organized into groups based on their water activity (availability of water) requirements (Grant et al.,
1989; Pasanen et al., 1991). Penicillium, a primary colonizer that proliferates with relatively low water
activity (Grant et al., 1989; Pasanen et al., 1991), was isolated in over 80% of bulk samples collected
from water-damaged wallboard following incubation in humidity chambers (Pasanen et al., 1991).
Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Stachybotrys, and Trichoderma were also isolated demonstrating the ability
of these fungi to colonize and proliferate in the indoor environment. Fluctuating temperatures and
humidity moderate the growth of fungi (Pasanen et al., 1991), but because many fungi have the ability to
proliferate at low humidity, relative humidity is not a limiting factor for fungal contamination indoors
(Hyvarinen et al., 2002a, 2002b, and 2002c).
Once moisture has accumulated on building surfaces, biocontaminants may proliferate and be dispersed
as bioaerosols. Air flowing over contaminated building materials (Górny et al., 2001) and air handling
duct materials (Buttner et al., 1999; Górny et al., 2001) release biocontaminats to the indoor air. The
organisms present in settled dust are also readily dispersed into the indoor air (Buttner et al., 2002a) and
this release from surfaces is accomplished with normal human activity such as vacuuming and walking on
contaminated flooring materials (Buttner and Stetzenbach 1993).
Unlike chemical contaminants, biocontaminants are particulate, not gaseous; they do not reach
equilibrium in indoor environments; and they have temporal and spatial variations in fungal concentration
and populations (Hyvarien et al., 2001c). Therefore, determining the concentration and populations of
biocontaminants in indoor environments is challenging. Monitoring for microbial contaminants requires
methods that will result in accurate, precise, and representative data (Schmechel et al., 2002). Guidance
documents have been published (ACGIH 1999; AIHA 1996; NYC 2000, USEPA 2001) outlining
sampling and analysis procedures for investigation of indoor environments. These documents and
NCEMBT-080201
7
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
researchers (Buttner et al., 1997a, 2002b; Jensen et al., 1994; Griffiths et al., 1997; Henningson and
Ahlberg 1994; Nevalainen et al., 1992) agree that no one method has been established as a standard for
assessing indoor environments, but that several methods are commonly used to estimate the concentration
of airborne and surface-associated biocontaminants.
Traditional estimations of fungal contamination rely on the analysis of airborne and surface-associated
organisms by culture on artificial growth media or microscopic assay (Burge et al., 1977; Buttner et al.,
1997a and 2002b; Chatigny et al., 1989; Flannigan 1997; Samson and Hoekstra 1994). Air sampling is
used to determine the presence of airborne fungal spores and characterize exposure to building occupants
(Miller et al., 2000). Culture methods for fungal monitoring require typical morphological characteristics
of colonies on laboratory media and recognition of microscopic structures. However, fungi that are either
overgrown by rapid colonizers, require amendments to classical growth media, or fail to produce typical
structures are not detected. Viable methods underestimate concentrations because only culturable spores
are enumerated and identified yet non-culturable organisms can elicit adverse reactions by exposed
populations. Organisms that are difficult to culture due to nutrient requirements (e.g., xerophilic fungi
such as Wallemia and Eurotium) or elevated temperature (e.g. thermophiles such as Aspergillus fumigatus
and Mycopolyspora faeni) are often not isolated because of a limited scope of work for the investigation.
Direct count methods using microscopic assay provide information on the presence of fungal spores and
growth structures, but are unable to distinguish some fungal spores at the genus level (e.g., Aspergillus
and Penicillium are enumerated together as a group) and cannot differentiate species within recognizable
genera. Processing time for direct counts is highly variable, depending on the level of debris adhering to
the test sample surface, the density of the fungal spore deposition, and the efficiency of the analyst.
Despite the current limitations of analysis methods, collection of air and surface samples in the selected
office buildings provide a means to evaluate the microbial component of indoor environmental quality
(IEQ). When poor IEQ is the result of a microbial contamination problem, facilities management
decisions are made that involve costly increases in ventilation and/or repair of HVAC units and ducting.
In contrast, well-designed, well-built, and well-maintained buildings would provide indoor environments
free of microbial contaminantion and could minimize operation costs. Therefore airborne and surfaceassociated mold were included in this project to provide data on the presence of these organisms in nonproblem office buildings. The methods for the microbial sampling and analysis were selected from the
commercially-available instrumentation and analytical support laboratories and this information is
presented in the Methods section of this report. Rationale for selection of the instrumentation is presented
below.
The Andersen single-stage impactor sampler (Graseby Andersen, Atlanta, GA) is a commonly used
device for monitoring airborne culturable microorganisms in indoor environments (Buttner et al., 1997a
and 2002b). This device requires electrical power and positive-hole correction is needed to avoid bias
due to multiple impactions of organisms at the same location (Andersen 1958; Bellin and Schillinger
2001; Buttner et al., 1997a 2002b). Other frequently used impaction samplers with culture-based analysis
are the SAS, Slit-to-Agar (STA), and RCS Plus (Buttner et al., 1997a and 2002b; Montacutelli et al.,
2000). The SAS and RCS Plus samplers are battery-powered and commonly used in clean room
environments (e.g., pharmaceutical and food processing facilities). These samplers operate at higher flow
rates and can be pre-programmed to collected specific volumes of air, but the collection surface is smaller
and overgrowth of fungi is common in environments with a high background population of organisms.
Additionally, newly developed samplers are being designed to capture airborne microorganisms,
especially for use as personal monitoring devices (Aizenberg et al., 2000).
Comparison of air samplers has shown that all these devices have advantages and disadvantages (Bellin
and Schillinger 2001; Buttner and Stetzenbach 1993; Jensen et al., 1992; Smid et al., 1989). The smaller
agar surfaces of the SAS and RCS Plus devices are a concern due to rapid spreading of some fungi over
the smaller surface area making enumeration and identification difficult, but the requirement for electrical
8
NCEMBT-080201
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
power with the Andersen makes sampling in some buildings difficult if outlets are not readily available.
Despite this limitation, the Andersen single-stage impactor sampler supplied with a broad-base fungal
growth medium was used throughout this study. Malt extract agar (MEA) with 2% malt extract is widely
used for the isolation of mesophilic fungi (Shelton et al., 2002) and is often amended with an antibacterial
compound (i.e., chloramphenicol) to minimize the growth of bacteria that will grow quicker and mask the
presence of fungi in the sample.
Total fungal spore samples for non-culturable microscopic assay are often collected using a slit sampler
(Buttner et al., 1997a and 2002b) and analyzed with light microscopy. The Burkard personal impactor
sampler (Burkard Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Rickmansworth Hertfordshire, England) is a battery-operated
fixed flow rate (10 liters/min.) sampler. Samples are collected onto the sticky surface of a prepared glass
microscope slide. The sampler must be decontaminated between the collection of samples. The Air-OCell air sampling cassettes (Zefon International, St. Petersburg, FL) are single-use samplers that require
the use of an external vacuum pump operated at 15 liters/min. Rotorod and Kramer-Collison samplers
have also been used for the collection of airborne spores, usually for outdoor samples (Cage et al., 1996).
Direct sample slides are usually treated with a stain (e.g., lactophenol cotton blue) to enhance the
discrimination of fungal structures. Filtration has been used for collection of fungal spores (Maggi et al.,
2000) using mixed cellulose ester filters with filters either placed face up on culture media (Ellringer et
al., 2000) or collected material is eluted from the filter membrane with a buffer and then inoculated to
growth media. Filtration sampling is useful for monitoring in highly contaminated environments (Eduard
et al., 1990; Palmgren et al., 1986; Thorne et al., 1992) because the sample can be diluted in the
laboratory during processing thereby avoiding overloading of the agar surfaces, and the collected material
can be examined with additional methods such as microscopy. Collection of airborne spores into liquid
using impingement samplers is limited due to the hydrophobicity of many fungal spores, decreased
culturability of vegetative bacteria due to increased sampling stress, and loss of collection buffer due to
evaporation (Buttner et al., 1997a and 2002b).
Because of the variability inherent in air sampling and concern for false-negative results (Burge et al.,
2000), surface sampling is used in conjunction with air sampling to characterize indoor environments
(Duchaine and Meriaux 2001; Tiffany and Bader 2000). Vacuum sampling is used to sample porous or
hard surfaces for settled particulate that may indicate the presence of fungal contaminants indoors
(Hyvarinen et al., 2002a, 2002b, and 2002c). Sampling is conducted using an individual field filter
cassette attached to a vacuum pump (e.g., mixed cellulose ester filters [Ellringer et al., 2000],
polycarbonate [Hogdson and Scott 1999]) or a traditional vacuum cleaner (Macher 2001a and 2001b).
Samples may be collected from materials (e.g., flooring, upholstery, and duct system components) over a
defined area using a template (e.g., 0.1 m2) or the data can be reported per gram of sample processed.
Samples for fungal analysis are blended with a known volume of a buffer solution, serially diluted, and
plated to a variety of culture media (Macher 2001a and 2001b). Enumeration is reported as the number of
colony forming units per area of sampled surface or per gram of collected material (Buttner et al., 1997a
and 2002b; Ellringer et al., 2000; Hodgson and Scott 1999). Storage of samples for up to 25 days at
refrigeration or room temperature has been shown not to affect the results (Macher 2001a and 2001b), but
other researchers recommend storage at ≤-20°C (Koch et al., 2002).
Surveys comparing mold-damaged buildings and reference buildings have been conducted elsewhere
(Hyvarinen et al., 2001b), but few studies have been conducted in the United States comparing buildings
with varying characteristics (Su et al., 1992) and a database of non-problem office buildings is not
currently available. These data would be valuable to assist in comparing office building across the United
States and in the establishment of threshold limit values for exposure to biocontaminants (ACGIH 1999).
NCEMBT-080201
9
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.3 SOUND
Previous research found that sound is a major factor in occupant perception of the quality of their indoor
environment. Beranek (1956) investigated occupant perception of their indoor environment and found
that occupant perception of sound was primarily a function of sound level. Subsequent studies by other
researchers determined that occupant perception was also a function of the frequency composition of the
sound (Blazier 1981a, 1981b, 1995, and 1997; Boner 1994). Hanna (2002) conducted a study in Glasgow,
Scotland, measuring over a typical workday the sound equivalent energy levels (Leq) of L10 and L90
values (the level exceeded 10 and 90 percent of the time respectively). The range between the L10 and
L90 values was defined as the noise climate. A questionnaire determined occupant reaction to the sound,
finding the problems related to sound were associated with a lack of concentration, distraction from work,
annoyance, loss of performance and irritation. Hanna (2002) also concluded that the nature and content of
sound rather than just its level cause occupant annoyance and dissatisfaction.
Office noise is often associated with ventilation and air-conditioning systems. Controlling sound levels
from ventilations systems is one of the most important factors that contribute to the satisfaction of the
system (Op’t Veld and Passlack-Zwaans 1998). To ensure a healthy indoor environment and optimal
performance of building occupants, the environment must be adjusted to desired thermal, visual, and
acoustic conditions (Oral, Yener, and Bayazit 2004).
Zibrowski and Powers (2005; http://gepower.com_serv) compiled a glossary of sound terms. In this text
the following terms are defined. A-weighting is defined as a frequence weighting that relates the
response of the human ear. The term decibel (dB) is used when describing the degree of loudness and is
expressed on a scale from zero for the average least perceptible sound to approx. 130 for the average pain
level. Noise for a sound level meter reading with an A-weighting network simulating the human ear
response at a loudness of 40 phons is termed dBA. The dBb is the loudness at a level of 70 phons and
dBc is a sound level meter reading with no weighting network in the circuit (flat) and has a reference
level of 20 microPa. A steady noise level or continous equivalent noise level is the time A-weighted
average exposure (LeqA). LeqA is the steady noise level which over the period of time contains the same
amount of sound energy as the time varying noise. L1 is the sound pressure level that is exceeded one
percent of the time and L90 is the level of noise that is exceedd 90% of the time. Time weighted average
exposure is important in for noise-at-work regulations and recommendations, where a maximum dBA
level is measured over an eight hour working day. It is acceptable for a worker to be exposed to an
average of 90 dBA for 1 hour every day with peak levels at 100 dB if for the remaining part of the day the
individual sits in an office with an average noise level of e.g. 75 dBA (http://uswww03.gnnetcom/public).
An acceptable sound level in an office area has been reported to be NCB 35 and LeqA - 43 (Unver et al.,
2004).
In offices, there are a number of sources that produce low-frequency noise at moderate levels. These
sources include ventilation systems and networking installations. Researchers have studied the effects of
different noise sources, noise levels, as well as the effects of noise in conjunction with other factors.
Studies on low-frequency noise, particularly ventilation noise, have showed that low-frequency noise has
a negative impact on human comfort, health and performance. Characteristic symptoms of low-frequency
noise reported are fatigue, lack of concentration, and headaches (Persson-Waye et al., 2001; PerssonWaye and Ryland 1997; and 2001). Also, Witterseh et al., (2002) discovered an increase of ventilation
noise from 42 dBA to 45 dBA had a significant effect on the dissatisfaction rate. A study conducted by
Persson-Waye and Ryland (2001) showed “psychological evidence of increased stress related to noise
sensitivity and noise exposure during work.” A ventilation noise level of 40 dBA was used in the study.
In another study, Persson-Wayeet al., (2001) showed that it was more difficult to ignore or habituate to
low-frequency noise. As a result, the performance of subjects decreased when exposed to elevated levels
10
NCEMBT-080201
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
of low-frequency noise. A recent study by Persson-Wayeet al., (2003) found lower levels of sleep quality
and subject mood when exposed to nighttime low frequency noise.
Yamazaki and others (1998) studied the annoyance of indoor sound for different noise levels. Equivalent
sound pressure levels ranging from 40 to 60 dBA were examined. They found that work suitability
decreases monotonically as the sound level increases. In a study investigating annoyance and ventilation
noise, Persson-Waye and Rylander (2001) observed that dBA noise levels were unable to predict
annoyance. Research teams have studied annoyance in an assessment on the effects of sound on building
occupants in real environments (Holmberg et al., 1996 and 1997). They rated sound according to dBLIN,
dBA. dBB, dBC, dBD and the difference (dBC – dBA). They found that these levels alone did not
correlate well with annoyance. Instead, they found significant correlation between the irregularity of the
sound levels and annoyance and many complaints of low-frequency noise referred to its throbbing or
pulsing nature.
The combination of noise and other factors produce effects that are not usually determined by an
investigation performed investigating a single factor. Witterseh et al, (1999) combined ventilation noise
with air pollution and observed that a 3 dBA noise level increase significantly increased the severity of
headaches. Pellerin and Candas (2004) explored the combine effects of noise and heat. They found
thermal unpleasantness increases when noise levels increase. Charles and Veitch (2002) investigated the
effects of three workstation characteristics (area, minimum partition height, and windows) on privacy and
other environmental factors. The statistic results showed that workstation area significantly predicted
satisfaction with privacy including speech privacy.
The effects of noise are complex. Occupant response is related not only to the physical environment but
also to their perception of the environment and their reactions towards them (Charles and Veitch 2002).
As a result, subjective results may not correlate with physical measurements. For example, perceived
enclosure accounted for 43% of the variance in satisfaction with privacy, whereas physical enclosure
(measured as workstation area and average partition height) accounted for only 8% (Charles and Veitch
2002). This is contrary to the physics of sound where the partition height and continuity have a more
significant effect on transmission loss than the mere existence of a physical enclosure. This suggests that
perceptions of enclosure were formed from more than the actual physical effects resulting from the
enclosure. Also, as noted above, there have been challenges in relating annoyance to an actual physical
measurement. Other factors that affect occupant response to noise are the following: gender; job level; job
complexity; organizational tenure; experience of alternative office environments; abilities to screen out
distracting stimuli; personal need for privacy; and how one’s workstation compares to both one’s coworkers workstations and one’s desired workstation.
Wittersehet al., (2002) observed that the effects of noise distraction depend on the job complexity. In this
study, noise decreased the performance of an open-ended creative task; on the other hand, it improved
typing speeds as well as proofreading speeds.
Several previous studies surveyed building occupants for their reaction to noise in terms of annoyance
and distraction (Chiang and Lai 2002), but did not include the questionnaires or surveys administered to
building occupants. The surveys/questionnaires fit in two general categories: those given to test subjects
during laboratory experiments where the room environment is artificially manipulated and those given to
occupants performing their normal tasks in actual functioning work areas. In laboratory experiments, the
sounds are generally constant broadband noises that simulate air conditioning noise (Pellerin and Candas
2003; Toftum 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999). These surveys/questionnaires used in these studies reveal
subject reaction to noise levels but cannot differentiate between noise sources or differentiated sensitivity
to different characteristics in noise at equivalent levels. In the studies where occupants performing their
normal tasks in actual functioning work areas were surveyed, the questions covered sound, thermal,
lighting and air quality issues (Chiang and Lam 2002; Hanna 2002). The survey questions by Chiang and
NCEMBT-080201
11
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Lai did not probe details of the noise character or seek the source of the noise. The occupants surveyed by
Hanna worked in an old, historic building with little sound insulation. Noise sources and character were
identified, and complaints centered on impulse and intermittent sound from moving furniture in the room
one floor above.
The questionnaire used in this investigation was designed to extract occupants’ perceptions of the sound
environment and correlate their perceptions to field measurements of their workspaces. Questions asked
occupants about their perceptions of thermal comfort, ventilation, IAQ, lighting, and sound in their
workspaces. The questionnaire was designed to bridge gaps and also to expand on previous work to
provide a complete picture of the reaction to sound in their work area by office occupants. It was
compared to four major thermal/indoor air comfort questionnaires (ASHRAE 1998; Spagnolo and deDear
2003; Nakanoet al., 2002; CBE 2004). The questionnaire was designed to obtain sufficient data to verify
or refute the following hypotheses:
▪
The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when infrequent
sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily increase by more than 5 dB over general
background sound levels) exist.
▪
Sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily increase by more than 5 dB over general
background sound levels) cause greater annoyance and distractions than more constant
background sound levels associated with background masking and music systems or with the
building ventilation system.
▪
Half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the sound source is a
ventilation system and the sound level is above 45 dBA.
▪
The interaction of high ventilation sound levels and poor indoor air quality conditions increases
the prevalence of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms.
▪
Sound levels above 50 dBA dramatically affect the performance of office workers.
▪
As the noise level increases, thermal comfort decreases.
▪
Work performance of office workers is higher in closed offices than in open-spaces due to noise
distractions.
▪
Low-frequency sound negatively affects work performance.
▪
dBLIN, dBA, dBC alone are poor indicators for annoyance.
It is anticipated that in the occupant perception questionnaire some responses by dissatisfied occupants
will show wider variations than that cited in available standards. For example, previous field studies
suggest ranges for thermal comfort provided by ASHRAE Standard 55 have not captured the expected
percentages of satisfied/dissatisfied people in those studies (Schiller 1990).
12
NCEMBT-080201
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.4 LIGHTING
Lighting is responsible for about 20% to 25% of all electricity used in buildings and about 5% of total
energy consumption in the United States. In addition, the heat dissipation from lighting fixtures accounts
for 15% to 20% of the cooling load of HVAC systems. It is estimated that lighting and its associated
cooling load constitute 30% to 40% of a nonresidential building's energy use. Obviously, lighting should
be considered in studies regarding building energy conservation and building energy performance.
In the 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998) completed two studies: ORIA’s Building
Assessment Survey and Evaluation study and Temporal Indoor Monitoring Evaluation study. While they
collected data from 156 buildings, the focus of the EPA studies was on indoor air quality, not lighting.
In the past ten years, the trend of office lighting design has changed significantly. More daylight is
integrated into the office space, and indirect and direct/indirect lighting has become a more popular trend
than direct lighting in new office buildings. In 2003, the allowable Lighting Power Density (LPD) was
reduced from 1.3 to 1.0 W/ft², according to the ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA Standard (2003). All of these
changes may significantly influence both the office lighting environment and occupants’ satisfaction. This
research will provide information on the lighting environment in relatively new office buildings and
occupants’ perceptions of their lighting environment.
The human body does not respond to an environmental input monotonically. Any response depends on a
great number of factors, including indoor air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, and noise. However, most
previous research regarding indoor environmental factors focused on air quality, thermal comfort and/or
noise. Only a few studies focused on lighting. In the past ten years, no comprehensive field surveys
considering all the parameters of indoor environmental quality included in this study (lighting, noise,
thermal comfort, indoor air quality, and fungal contamination) have been conducted.
Significant research projects related to lighting field surveys in the United States were performed ten or
more years ago. Ne’eman et al., (1984) collected lighting data and occupants’ perceptions (n=162) of
lighting of a nine-story office building in St. Louis, MO. The physical measurements included
illuminance, source luminance, temperature, background sound levels and physical dimensions of
representative furniture. The questionnaire asked occupants’ perceptions and attitudes towards lighting,
windows and lighting controls. The four-point rating scales were used in the questionnaire. Telephone
surveys of occupants in office buildings were conducted for Steel Case Inc. to determine the importance
of various features of the office environment (Harris, 1987). Approximately 1550 office workers took the
survey. The results showed that 91% of occupants considered tasking lighting to be a very important
factor for their task performance. Lighting was only one of the minor features investigated in the study.
Between 1984 and 1986, Collins et al. conducted a large-scale occupant evaluation survey for commercial
office lighting (Collins et al., 1989, 1990; Gillette and Brown 1986, 1987; Marans and Brown 1987; and
Sanders and Collins 1995). The research was sponsored by the DOE and the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority. The primary objective of this survey was to explore possible
causal factors associated with successful lighting design with a special emphasis on the relationship
between the lighting power load and subjective measure of lighting quality. Post-Occupancy Evaluation
(POE) data were collected on LPD, photometric levels, and user attitudes for 912 workstations in 13
office buildings. Physical data were collected including illuminance, luminance, and other environmental
measures. Questionnaire data were collected on the response to the lighting and general environment from
950 respondents. Questions were asked about the overall lighting satisfaction, amount of light for work,
lighting for reading, glare, and whether lighting hindered them in performing their jobs. The conclusions
from the survey by Collins et al. (1989, 1990) indicated that the majority of occupants (69%) were
NCEMBT-080201
13
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
satisfied with their lighting. The mean illuminances at the primary task location were within the IESNA
design suggestions. The median LPD was approx. 2.36 W/ft², compared to the ASHARE/IESNA 90.12001 Addendum which requires 1.0 W/ft² for office buildings. The pattern of illuminances in the space
rather than the illuminance on the task was a major determinant of lighting quality and satisfaction.
Collins et al. (1990) in a second-level POE analysis found that occupants’ satisfaction is related to the
presence of daylight, but not directly related to the illuminance on the work surface. They also concluded
that the pattern of luminances in the space is a more determinant factor to the lighting quality than the
illuminance on the work surface.
Several results from this study were very controversial, however. Collins et al., found that occupants’
satisfaction was consistently lower for workstations with furniture integrated task lighting. They also
found higher rates of occupant satisfaction with direct lighting systems compared with indirect systems.
In the study, fixed task lighting, combined with indirect ambient lighting systems, was rated as the lowest
lighting quality and associated with noticeable dissatisfaction in the survey. However, the furniture
integrated task lighting is still used widely in new office buildings, and indirect lighting, especially in
combination with task lighting, is used in new offices more than ever before. Therefore, additional
research is necessary to investigate these questionable issues.
Rubin and Collins (1988) conducted an environmental survey for three U.S. Army field stations. The
survey included physical measurements of lighting, temperature, humidity, and noise. The illuminances
were measured at primary task locations: the screen and keyboard of Visual Display Terminal (VDT)
stations. Luminances were measured for a standard target which contained white, gray, and black
surfaces. Luminances were also measured in the following locations: the ceiling (between luminaires); the
brightest and darkest surfaces in the field of view; and the center, left, right, top and bottom of the VDT
screens. The researchers also recorded the switching controls, types and positions of luminaires, and
researchers’ observations of the presence of visible reflections on the VDT screens. Occupants (n=621)
responded to questionnaires which contained many questions related to lighting, brightness, flickering,
glare, and occupants’ satisfaction.
The results of Rubin and Collins study (1988) showed that illuminances were generally low for all areas
of the building. The mean was 22 to 28 foot-candles (fc) for all areas and 12 to 20 fc for areas with VDTs.
About 55% of occupants considered the lighting quality as fair to poor. To improve the general lighting
conditions in these buildings, Rubin and Collins (1988) recommended the US army field station buildings
use uniform lighting fixtures and lamps, better CRI sources, and higher overall illuminances, as well as
adding adjustable task lighting for some workstations, and providing localized lighting controls.
Hedge (1991) evaluated two windowless offices, which were mainly used for computer tasks.
Illuminance, temperature, and humidity levels were measured at work surfaces. Using a questionnaire,
Hedge also collected data from 358 workers on complaints related to environmental conditions, lighting
preference and job satisfaction and other issues. The results showed that indirect lighting was more
favorably evaluated than parabolic direct lighting, which was inconsistent with the results from Collins
and others (1990).
Sanders and Collins (1995) performed a post-occupancy evaluation on the Department of Energy
Headquarters Building. Lighting measurements, occupant responses, and other environmental conditions
were collected before and after a lighting retrofit. Physical measurements were conducted on 100
workstations before the lighting retrofit and on 75 workstations after the retrofit. There were 244 occupant
respondents before the retrofit and 220 respondents after the retrofit. The physical measurements
indicated that the lighting levels were higher and more evenly distributed after the retrofit. Postevaluation techniques, including questionnaires and physical measurements, similar to the survey by
Collins et al., (1990), were used. The occupant responses suggested that the appearance of the building
14
NCEMBT-080201
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
and lighting of individual workstations had been improved substantially, and the general lighting was
evaluated more positively.
There are four principal methods of assessing human response to environments: subjective, objective,
behavioral, and modeling (Parsons, 2000). With subjective methods, occupants report on their response to
the environment by answering questionnaires. Subjective methods are easy to deploy and particularly
appropriate for psychological responses such as comfort and annoyance. Objective methods directly
measure the occupant. Examples include body temperature and speed and accuracy of the occupant’s task
performance. Objective methods, however, cannot predict psychological responses, such as comfort and
satisfaction. With behavioral methods, behavior (e.g., changing posture and adjusting environment) is
observed and recorded, but training observers and interpreting behavior remain considerable challenges to
researchers. Finally, the modeling methods are used to predict human response based on previous
investigations. However, modeling methods do not consider all the factors one may encounter in a real
situation. Of these methods, subjective methods are the most appropriate to investigate occupants’
perceptions toward building environments. Questionnaire tools are normally adopted for this purpose.
The physical measurements and perception questionnaire tools were developed based on these basic
design issues and considerations for office lighting. The IESNA Lighting Handbook classifies design
issues by importance. According to IESNA, the very important design issues of office lighting for
intensive VDT use include direct glare, luminances of room surfaces, reflected glare, source/task/eye
geometry and vertical illuminance. The important design issues include appearance of space and
luminaires, color appearance, daylighting integration and control, flicker, lighting distribution on surface,
lighting distribution on task plane, modeling of faces or objects, shadows, surface characteristics, and
horizontal luminance.
Often, questions and questionnaires are designed for a specific building and used only once. Therefore, it
is always very difficult to determine which questionnaires and methodologies are best-suited for obtaining
accurate perceptions of occupants. As Hygge and Lofberg (1999) stated, “the important thing is that the
main set of questions is preserved from one building to the next. In this way the knowledge about
different buildings can be expanded and compared.”
The lighting survey method adopted by most studies and with most available database was developed by
Collins and others. (Collins et al., 1989, 1990; Gillette and Brown 1986, 1987; Marans and Brown 1987;
and Sanders and Collins 1995). In this study, the data from 912 workstations and 950
questionnaires/surveys from 13 buildings were collected using this method. A similar method was
adopted in later studies (Rubin and Collins 1988; Sanders and Collins 1995). Therefore, the physical
measurements and questionnaire of our study were developed mainly based on this research.
The 24-question Tenant Survey Questionnaire was developed by National Research Council Canada
(Tiller and Phil 1992) to determine whether occupants were satisfied with building services. Three
questions were relevant to lighting systems; these asked the occupants to rate the lighting attributes
(electrical lighting, brightness of lights, and glare from lights) of their particular desk location on fivepoint scales. The questionnaire used in this study included questions regarding these three lighting
attributes. The National Research Council Canada researchers also developed a computer-based video
photometer (CapCalc luminance and image analysis system) to capture luminance data in a visual scene.
The bundled software evaluates visibility according to relative visual performance. However, the CapCalc
luminance and image analysis system is used to evaluate visibility of a video scene and does not provide
an overview of office lighting environments. In addition, the instrument is difficult to obtain. Therefore, it
was not used in this study.
NCEMBT-080201
15
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
2.1 THERMAL COMFORT/IEQ
Part of this research project evaluated thermal comfort responses from the occupant participants in a
questionnaire that was prepared with the cooperation of UNLV research staff and Verdi Technology
Associates. The purpose of this questionnaire was to compare the engineering data obtained in the field
with the occupants’ perceptions of their work environment. This type of approach is common in thermal
comfort studies (Schiller et al., 1988; deDearet al., 1994; deDear 1999; Donnini et al., 1999). The
parameters studied in the questionnaire included temperature, humidity, draft, freshness, and odors.
Kuskal-Wallis and Chi Square analyses were used for the analyses of data in this study.
Other research has developed and used questionnaires for occupants’ perceptions of their work
environments (Spagnolo et al., 1988; Nakano et al., 2002; CBE IEQ Survey on the web). This study
emphasized a long term sampling approach at several fixed locations in the building by gathering data for
three consecutive days to detect variances in thermal comfort conditions both over time and time of day.
Past research and the ASHRAE 55-2004 standard obtained data in laboratory rooms using subjects whose
feedback were obtained over a relatively short period and where thermal conditions were controlled. The
situation in a typical study involves persons who occupy the office space for a relatively long period of
time and on a daily basis during different seasons and at different times of operation of the HVAC units
for that particular building. These varying office thermal conditions are suspected to create a variety of
working conditions that may not be duplicated in a laboratory environment.
Differences between the current thermal comfort questionnaire and the ASHRAE questionnaire included
the following:
▪
Use of a five-point Likert scale instead of a seven-point scale. Responses were rescaled using
mean value (MV) calculations to calculate predicted mean vote (PMV) and predicted percentage
of dissatisfied (PPD).
▪
More questions to gather more information about the immediate environment of the building’s
occupants.
▪
Questions to determine the effect of thermal comfort on the productivity of occupants.
The questionnaire was to be completed by the occupants on the day of monitoring by the UNLV survey
team. The questionnaire was computer administered to a subset of all the occupants in the work area
where measurements were collected. The questions were designed to obtain sufficient data to verify or
refute their underlying hypotheses. The questionnaire was converted to a digitized format by Verdi
Technology Associates. The final Word version of the questionnaire is listed in Appendix U.
Eleven hypotheses were posed to answer questions about the ability of the engineering data to predict the
responses of building occupants regarding thermal comfort. The hypotheses rely on the ASHRAE
Standard 55-2004 to define parameters for thermal comfort.
IEQ Hypothesis # 1: ≥80% of occupants in a building will be thermally comfortable if: temperatures
are 27°C ≥ To ≥ 24°C (summer) and 24.5°C ≥ To ≥ 20°C (winter) and 0.012 kg ≥ W ≥ 0.0032kg of
water/kg of dry air.
As defined by ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, the operative temperature (To) is measured and
absolute humidity (W) is calculated from the measured relative humidity and other parameters.
According to the comfort conditions provided by ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, there is a “box” on
the psychometric chart (ASHRAE 55-2004, figure 5.2.1.1, p. 5) that is applicable for summer and
16
NCEMBT-080201
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
winter comfort conditions. This hypothesis addresses values of To and W for the overall
temperature/humidity conditions to judge whether these conditions have been satisfied according
to ASHRAE.
IEQ Hypothesis #2: There is a significant difference in thermal perception by occupants of mornings
versus afternoons.
According to ASHRAE 55-2004 section 5.2.5, fluctuations in temperature can affect the
perception of thermal comfort. In office buildings, HVAC equipment usually runs for only part of
a day. In the mornings, HVAC equipment may take some time to achieve comfortable thermal
conditions at the beginning of the workday due to the large thermal inertia of the structure of the
office building. This hypothesis also uses To and AH values.
IEQ Hypothesis #3: ≤10% of occupants will make adjustments to their work area to make it more
thermally comfortable.
This hypothesis predicts what typical occupants might do faced with options of either being too
cool or too warm.
IEQ Hypothesis #4: If the occupants' work areas are thermally unacceptable, the occupants in that
area will work less efficiently (i.e., less productively).
These four questions focus on the perception of being unproductive due to thermally
unacceptable conditions. The CBE questionnaire (APPENDIX A) is the only one of those cited that
probes the perception of the occupants regarding productivity.
IEQ Hypothesis #5: The occupants of a building will be thermally comfortable if the vertical
temperature gradient is ≤3.0 °C.
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 (sect. 5.2.4.3 p. 8) indicates potential vertical temperature difference
(temperatures over the body) as a possibility for thermal discomfort.
IEQ Hypothesis #6: <15% of building occupants should feel a draft anywhere if the draft rate/percent
feeling draft is ≤15%. If the draft rate is ≥15%, ≥80% of occupants in a building should feel
comfortable.
The draft rate/percent feeling draft (DR, PD) is explained earlier indicating its relationship to the
ambient air temperature, local mean air speed and the mean turbulent intensity of air locally.
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 has also alluded to this effect as a potential cause for thermal
discomfort in section 5.2.4.2.
IEQ Hypothesis #7: ≤20% of occupants will make adjustments to their environment to reduce the
presence of a draft in their work environment.
This hypothesis considers what action the occupants will take to mitigate the effects of perceived
excessive draft.
IEQ Hypothesis #8: Eighty percent or more of the occupants in a work area will not feel stuffy if the
indoor to outdoor differential concentration of CO2 is not greater than about 700 ppm.
The specified ventilation rates and occupant densities for specified spaces listed in ASHRAE
Standard 62 “reflect the consensus that the provision of acceptable outdoor air at these rates
would achieve an acceptable level of indoor air quality by reasonably diluting human
bioeffluents, particulate matter, odors, and other contaminants common to those spaces.”
NCEMBT-080201
17
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
IEQ Hypothesis#9: Occupants who perceive the air in their work area as stuffy or stagnant will make
adjustments to make their work area more comfortable.
The common belief is occupants who perceive air as stuffy or stagnant will do something to
avoid, change or speak out.
IEQ Hypothesis#10: If the occupants feel the air in their work place as stuffy or stagnant, or smell
unpleasant odors, they will likely work less efficiently.
Work place occupants who report physical discomfort may suffer reduced work productivity
(ASHRAE RP 921; Cena and de Dear, 1998).
IEQ Hypothesis#11: If occupants smell unpleasant odors in their work area, some of them will be
uncomfortable and make adjustments to reduce the concentration of odor.
Ventilation, a key element in building design, is necessary for supporting life by maintaining
acceptable levels of oxygen in the air, preventing CO2 from rising to unacceptably high
concentrations, and removing internally produced odor, moisture, and pollution (ASHRAE
Standard 62). Occupants will take action to change something in their immediate surroundings to
mitigate the effect of odors.
2.2 AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
Mold Hypothesis#1: In outdoor air, a mixed population of airborne fungus is expected with no one
genus except Cladosporium predominating and the distribution of which will vary by geographic
region.
Spores of the mold Cladosporium are the most common airborne fungal spores worldwide
(Lighthart and Stetzenbach, 1994; Shelton et al., 2002). Mixed populations of fungal spores are
normative and expected in urban outdoor environments.
Mold Hypothesis#2: Among non-problem buildings, a mixed population of airborne fungus is
expected with no one genus except Cladosporium predominating and the distribution of which will
vary by geographic region.
Due to the abundance of Cladosporium worldwide, spores of this mold or mixed populations of
fungal spores indoors in non-problem buildings are normative and expected (Samson et al., 2001.
Mold Hypothesis#3: The concentration of airborne fungal genera present in non-problem buildings
should reflect the outdoor fungal population in that region.
Outdoor fungal populations are the source for indoor populations (Lighthart and Stetzenbach,
1994; Shelton et al., 2002). In non-water damaged indoor environments, the airborne fungal
populations should reflect that found in the outdoor air (Samson et al., 2001).
18
NCEMBT-080201
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
Mold Hypothesis#4: The ranges of concentration of airborne total spores observed with nonculturable air sampling and the number of colony-forming units (CFU) of culturable fungal particles
isolated with culturable air sampling in non-problem buildings are expected to be similar (<1 order of
magnitude, <10X difference) at different sampling locations in the building.
Because the indoor fungal populations should reflect that found in the outdoor air, the
concentrations indoors should be similar to that found in the outdoors (Lighthart and Stetzenbach,
1994, Samson et al., 2001, Shelton et al., 2002).
Mold Hypothesis#5: The ranges of concentration of airborne total spores observed with nonculturable air sampling and the number of colony-forming units (CFU) of culturable fungal particles
isolated with culturable air sampling in non-problem buildings are expected to be similar (<1 order of
magnitude, <10X difference) on different days of sampling.
In non-problem buildings, the concentrations and populations of airborne culturable fungi and
fungal spores should not vary by the day of sample collection.
Mold Hypothesis#6: Between non-problem buildings, both types of air samples are expected to show
the same genera of fungi, with <1 order of magnitude difference in concentration and absence of
atypical fungi.
The fungal populations in non-problem buildings should be similar in concentration and waterindicating fungal genera should be absent (Samson et al., 2001).
Mold Hypothesis#7: Among non-problem buildings, a mixed population of fungi in the surface dust is
expected with no one genus except Cladosporium predominating and the distribution of which will
vary by geographic region.
Fungal spores will settle from the air onto surfaces and settled spores may become reaerosolized
(Buttner et al., 2002a). The populations of fungi in settled dust in non-problem buildings should
reflect that found in the air samples as mixed populations with no genus except Cladosporium
present as the predominant organism (Horner et al., 2004).
Mold Hypothesis#8: The concentrations of surface-associated fungal genera present in non-problem
buildings are consistent among buildings.
Variation in the concentrations of culturable fungi in settled dust in non-problem buildings should
be minimal as the populations are reflective of that settled from the indoor air (Buttner et al.,
2002a).
NCEMBT-080201
19
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
Mold Hypothesis#9: The concentration of culturable fungi in non-problem buildings is expected to be
≤105 CFU/gram of dust.
Studies have reported populations of fungi in settled dust to be ≤105 CFU/g (Ellringer et al., 2000,
Stetzenbach 2002).
Mold Hypothesis#10: The range of concentration of surface-associated culturable fungi in dust
samples collected in non-problem buildings is expected to be similar (<1 order of magnitude, <10X
difference) at different sampling locations in the building.
Variation in the concentrations of culturable fungi in settled dust in non-problem buildings should
be minimal as the populations are reflective of that settled from the indoor air (Buttner et al.,
2002a).
Mold Hypothesis#11: Within the same building at different times of day in the same location, the same
genera of fungi are expected to be measured in dust samples, with up to a 1 order of magnitude
difference in concentration.
Minimal variation in the concentrations and populations of fungi in settled dust in non-problem
buildings is expected as these organisms are present as background populations (Ellringer et al.,
2000, Hodgson and Scott 1999).
Mold Hypothesis#12: Regional differences between non-problem buildings are reflected in the
different surface dust composition of fungal genera.
Regional differences in fungal populations would be reflected in the populations of fungi in
settled dust.
Mold Hypothesis#13: “Indicator” fungi (i.e., indicators of water intrusion/moisture accumulation of
building materials capable of promoting mold growth) are expected to be “not present” in air samples
in non-problem buildings.
Fungal genera associated with water intrusion/water damage are not present in the air of nonproblem buildings (Samson et al., 2001).
Mold Hypothesis#14: “Indicator” fungi (i.e., indicators of water intrusion/moisture accumulation of
building materials capable of promoting mold growth) are expected to be “not present” in surface dust
samples in non-problem buildings.
Fungal genera associated with water intrusion/water damage are not present in the surface dust of
non-problem buildings (Horner et al., 2004).
20
NCEMBT-080201
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
2.3 SOUND
Sound Hypothesis# 1: Sound in a work area can annoy or distract occupants.
Sound in a work area can annoy or distract workers. dBLIN, dBA, dBC do not predict annoyance
and distraction associated with sound with a confidence level above 70%, and noise criteria
(NC), nosie reduation (NR), PNC and NCB do not predict annoyance and distraction associated
with sound with a confidence level above 80%. Bies and Hansen (1997) cover limitations in the
various measurement criteria. Holmberg, Landstrom, and Kjellberg (1997) found that dBLIN,
dBA, dBB, dBC, and dBD and the difference (dBC – dBA) alone did not correlate well with
annoyance (Beis and Hansen 1997). As a general guideline, the levels of annoyance and
distractions associated with sound will be greater when the reverberation time of the building is
greater than 0.8 seconds. However, the reverberation time changes with different occupancy
levels effecting speech intelligibility (Beranek 1993). There is also some evidence that high sound
levels simultaneous with temperature outside the normal range result in higher incidence of
annoyance and distraction than either condition alone (Pellerin and Candas 2004).
Sound Hypothesis#2: There is variation in an occupant’s preferences and tolerances to sounds or
noise in the work area.
It can be assumed that in every perception measure ever performed on human subjects, variation
exits in the subjects’ perceptions of the measures. Some perception differences in sound can be
physiological (e.g., hearing loss with age and increased sensitivity to loud noises with age).
Other differences can be psychological or task related, such as wanting quiet when concentrating.
Such differences may help explain why standard measures often do not correlate well with
annoyance (Holmberg et al., 1996; Holmberg, Landstrom, and Kjellberg 1997). Information on
the building occupant’s preferences toward sound will help with the correlation of perception data
to field data.
Sound Hypothesis#3: Sound in a work area can fluctuate during the day.
It can be assumed that in many buildings, outdoor activity, work schedules, work activities, and
building equipment operations can cause fluctuations in sound levels during the day. Research
has shown that fluctuations in sound levels and characteristics in the office can be a source of
annoyance (Holmberg et al., 1996; Holmberg, Landstrom, and Kjellberg 1997). Determining
occupants’ perceptions of that fluctuation can be compared to actual fluctuations and perceptions
of the acceptability of sounds and noise in the work area.
Sound Hypothesis#4: Intruding sound in a work area can come from one or more of the following
sound sources: (1) sound from outside the building, (2) conversations in adjacent areas, (3)
telephone/speakerphones conversations, (4) building masking system, piped-in music, paging system,
(5) nearby office equipment, (6) HVAC mechanical equipment, and (7) ceiling, wall, and/or floor airsupply or return air diffusers.
This hypothesis is based on the 2005 ASHRAE Applications Handbook and collective knowledge
of the investigators.
NCEMBT-080201
21
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
Sound Hypothesis#5: Sound in the work area that comes from outside the building can annoy or
distract occupants.
Annoying or distracting sound from outside the building can come from various sources
(collective knowledge of the investigators).
Sound Hypothesis#6: Annoyance or distraction from outside sound can be caused by the overall sound
level, the intermittent nature (on-off cycle) of the sound, time variations in the sound intensity, or
irritating or harsh tones contained in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
Sound Hypothesis#7: Sound in a work area from telephone speakerphone conversations in adjacent
work can annoy or distract building occupants.
The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater than otherwise
when sound content dominated by conversations and speakerphones exist. Intelligibility versus
background noise can make sound more difficult to ignore. The speakerphone frequency
spectrum, which is narrow and centered around the most sensitive region of human hearing, adds
extra harshness to its sound (collective knowledge of the investigators).
Sound Hypothesis#8: Annoyance or distraction from sound from telephone conversations and
speakerphones in adjacent work areas can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature
of the sound, the intelligibility or content of the sound, or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
22
NCEMBT-080201
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
In addition, the levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater than
otherwise when sound content dominated by conversations and speakerphones exist.
Intelligibility versus background noise can make sound more difficult to ignore. The
speakerphone frequency spectrum, which is narrow and centered around the most sensitive region
of human hearing, adds extra harshness to its sound (collective knowledge of the investigators).
Sound Hypothesis#9: Sound in a work area from conversations in adjacent work areas can annoy or
distract building occupants.
The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater than otherwise
when sound content dominated by conversations and speakerphones exist. Intelligibility versus
background noise can make sound more difficult to ignore. The speakerphone frequency
spectrum, which is narrow and centered around the most sensitive region of human hearing, adds
extra harshness to its sound (collective knowledge of the investgators).
Sound Hypothesis#10: Annoyance or distraction from sound from conversations in adjacent work
areas can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound, the intelligibility or
content of the sound or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
In addition, the levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater than
otherwise when sound content dominated by conversations and speakerphones exist.
Intelligibility versus background noise can make sound more difficult to ignore. The
speakerphone frequency spectrum, which is narrow and centered around the most sensitive region
of human hearing, adds extra harshness to its sound (collective knowledge of the investogators).
NCEMBT-080201
23
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
Sound Hypothesis#11: Sound in a work area from building piped-in music, and background-masking
system can annoy or distract building occupants.
While often inserted for speech privacy, paging, speaker music, and background masking sounds
can be annoying and distracting, especially for work that requires high levels of concentration
(Beis and Hansen 1997).
Sound Hypothesis#12: Annoyance or distraction from sound from a building masking or piped-in
music system in adjacent work areas can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature
of the sound, fluctuations in the sound intensity or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
Sound Hypothesis#13: Sound in a work area from nearby office equipment (copy machines,
typewriters, etc.) can annoy or distract building occupants.
Office equipment is an ever-present potential source for significant noise. Office equipment has
changed considerably over the last decade, requiring repeat evaluation of the importance of the
noise it generates (collective knowledge of the investigators).
Sound Hypothesis#14: Annoyance or distraction from nearby office equipment (copy machines,
typewriters, etc.) can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound,
fluctuations in the sound intensity or the irritating or harsh tones contained in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
24
NCEMBT-080201
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
Sound Hypothesis#15: Sound in a work area from ceiling or floor air-supply diffusers can annoy or
distract building occupants.
Sound from the mechanical equipment (e.g., fans, air-conditioning compressors, pumps) and
ceiling, wall, or floor air-supply diffusers is the major source of noise in most office buildings.
The sound can propagate into the work area by various means including through walls, ducting,
and building structures (ASHRAE 1995).
Sound Hypothesis#16: Annoyance or distraction from air-supply or return-air diffusers can be caused
by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound, fluctuations in the sound intensity or
the irritating or harsh tones contained in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
Sound Hypothesis#17: Annoying or distracting sound from ceiling or floor air-supply diffusers can
come from various room boundaries.
Sound from the mechanical equipment (e.g., fans, air-conditioning compressors, pumps) and
ceiling, wall, or floor air-supply diffusers is the major source of noise in most office buildings.
The sound can propagate into the work area by various means including through walls, ducting,
and building structures (ASHRAE 1995).
Sound Hypothesis#18: Annoying or distracting sound from ceiling or floor air-supply diffusers can
have predominant distinguishing characteristics.
Sound from the mechanical equipment (e.g., fans, air-conditioning compressors, pumps) and
ceiling, wall, or floor air-supply diffusers is the major source of noise in most office buildings.
NCEMBT-080201
25
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
The sound can propagate into the work area by various means including through walls, ducting,
and building structures (ASHRAE 1995).
Sound Hypothesis#19: Annoying or distracting sound from ceiling or floor air-supply diffusers can
originate from mechanical equipment.
Sound from the mechanical equipment (e.g., fans, air-conditioning compressors, pumps) and
ceiling, wall, or floor air-supply diffusers is the major source of noise in most office buildings.
The sound can propagate into the work area by various means including through walls, ducting,
and building structures (ASHRAE 1995).
Sound Hypothesis#20: Annoying or distracting sound from ceiling or floor air-supply diffusers can
originate from conversations elsewhere in the building.
Conditions that allow building occupants to clearly hear talking in person or by telephone or
speakerphone can cause building occupants to delay or postpone a private conversation in their
work area. The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when
the inter-zone sound transmission loss is less than 10 dB in the 500 to 2000 Hz range. The size of
the workstation also correlates with worker perception of privacy. Witterseh and others 2002) and
Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon (1999) provide qualitative information concerning privacy for
open offices versus private offices.
Sound Hypothesis#21: Sound in a work area from mechanical equipment within a building can annoy
or distract occupants.
Sound from the mechanical equipment (e.g., fans, air-conditioning compressors, pumps) and
ceiling, wall, or floor air-supply diffusers is the major source of noise in most office buildings.
The sound can propagate into the work area by various means including through walls, ducting,
and building structures (ASHRAE 1995).
Sound Hypothesis#22: Annoyance or distraction from mechanical equipment within the building can
be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound, fluctuations in the sound
intensity or the irritating or harsh tones contained in the sound.
Annoyance and distraction can come from various characteristics of the sound including
intensity, intermittency, fluctuations in intensity, and tonal or harsh character (Hanna 2002). Half
of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound when the background sound level is
above 45 dBA, while half of the sample population will be dissatisfied with sound and report
decreased work efficiency when the background sound level is above 50 dBA. Guidelines for
maximum noise in different environments are available (Beranek 1993; Persson-Waye and
Rylander 2001b; Unver et al., 2004; Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon 2002; Witterseh et al., 1999;
Yamazaki et al., 1998). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be
greater when infrequent sound interruptions (sound levels temporarily, about 10% of the time,
more than 5 dB over general background sound levels) exist. Different studies give varying levels
of the intermittent noise that causes complaints (Westman and Walters 1981; Witterseh, Clausen,
and Wyon 2002). The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater
when fluctuations in the sound intensity of more than 5 dB over general background sound levels
exist. Leventhall and others (2003) made note of this for low frequency noise. The levels of
annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when one or more one-third
octave band sound levels are more than 5 dB over overall sound levels exist. Strong tonal content
has been noted for its irritation and common guidelines specify lower maximum acceptable noise
levels when tonal content is significant (Beis and Hansen 1997; Beranek 1993).
26
NCEMBT-080201
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
Sound Hypothesis#23: Annoying or distracting sound from mechanical equipment within a building
can come from various room boundaries.
Sound from the mechanical equipment (e.g., fans, air-conditioning compressors, pumps) and
ceiling, wall, or floor air-supply diffusers is the major source of noise in most office buildings.
The sound can propagate into the work area by various means including through walls, ducting,
and building structures (ASHRAE 1995).
Sound Hypothesis#24: Annoying or distracting sound from mechanical equipment within a building
can have predominant distinguishing characteristics.
The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when sound
content is dominated by low frequency sound levels (below 250 Hz) and sound levels more than
10 dB over overall exist (Leventhall et al., 2003).
Sound Hypothesis#25: Conditions that allow building occupants to clearly hear talking in person or by
telephone or speakerphone can cause workers to believe that they cannot have a private conversation
in their work area.
Conditions that allow building occupants to clearly hear talking in person or by telephone or
speakerphone can cause building occupants to delay or postpone a private conversation in their
work area. The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when
the inter-zone sound transmission loss is less than 10 dB in the 500 to 2000 Hz range. The size of
the workstation also correlates with worker perception of privacy. Witterseh and others 2002) and
Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon (1999) provide qualitative information concerning privacy for
open offices versus private offices.
Sound Hypothesis#26: Building occupants take positive action to mitigate a distracting or annoying
noise.
Unwanted noise can be enough of a distraction or annoyance to building occupants to motivate
them to take what they consider appropriate action to mitigate the noise. If the noise is caused by
conversations the simplest action is to ask the persons to be quiet or move.
Sound Hypothesis#27: If building occupants believe they cannot have a private conversation in their
work area, they will move to a more private area for confidential conversations.
Conditions that allow building occupants to clearly hear talking in person or by telephone or
speakerphone can cause building occupants to delay or postpone a private conversation in their
work area. The levels of annoyance and distractions associated with sound will be greater when
the inter-zone sound transmission loss is less than 10 dB in the 500 to 2000 Hz range. The size of
the workstation also correlates with worker perception of privacy. Witterseh and others 2002) and
Witterseh, Clausen, and Wyon (1999) provide qualitative information concerning privacy for
open offices versus private offices.
Sound Hypothesis#28: If building occupants believe they cannot have a private conversation in their
work area, they will postpone confidential conversations to a time when people are not present in
adjacent areas.
NCEMBT-080201
27
2. THERMAL COMFORT ASSESSMENT & HYPOTHESES
2.4 LIGHTING
Lighting Hypothesis#1: Most people will be comfortable when the lighting in their work areas is
neither too bright nor too dim.
Collins et al. (1989, 1990) reported that the pattern of illuminances in the space rather than the
illuminance on the task was a major determinant of lighting quality and satisfaction. Collins et al.
(1990) also found that occupants’ satisfaction is related to the presence of daylight, but not
directly related to the illuminance on the work surface and that the pattern of luminances in the
space is a more determinant factor to the lighting quality than the illuminance on the work
surface.
Lighting Hypothesis#2: The lighting over 700 Lux on the work surface will be considered as “very
bright” or “somewhat bright” and lower than 300 Lux may be considered as “very dim or dark” or
“somewhat dim or dark”.
IESNA
Lighting
Handbook,
ASHARE/IESNA
90.1-2001
ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA Standard (2003), and experience of researcher.
and
addendum,
Lighting Hypothesis#3: Lower than 50 Lux of the lighting at computer screens will be considered as
“very dim or dark” or somewhat dim or dark”.
IESNA Lighting Handbook, ASHARE/IESNA 90.1-2001 addendum, ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA
Standard (2003), and experience of researcher.
Lighting Hypothesis#4: The uniformity of illuminance less 3 at work surfaces will be considered as
uniform.
IESNA Lighting Handbook, ASHARE/IESNA 90.1-2001 addendum, ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA
Standard (2003), and experience of researcher.
Lighting Hypothesis#5: When there is too much glare on desk surfaces or workstations, and/or on my
computer screen, most occupants’ productivity will be adversely affected.
Tiller and Phil 1992, Sanders and Collins, 1995, and experienceof researcher.
Lighting Hypothesis#6: Most people prefer to have natural light from outdoors come into their office
or work area.
Hedge 1991 and experience of researcher.
Lighting Hypothesis#7: If the CRI of lighting is 75 or greater, the color of people’s faces and objects in
work area will appear natural.
IESNA Lighting Handbook
Lighting Hypothesis#8: The CCT of the lighting lower than 3000 K will be evaluated as visually warm
and higher than 5000 will be evaluated as visually cool.
IESNA Lighting Handbook
28
NCEMBT-080201
3. METHODS
3. METHODS
3.1 BUILDING
3.1.1 Building Selection Criteria
Prior to making contact with the administration at a prospective building, information about the building
was collected via the Internet. The building selection criteria were designed to qualify a list of potential
non-problem buildings. The criteria focused on the general use of the building, the history of the
building, the location, the construction time, and the ventilation system. These questions helped
determine whether to include or exclude a building based on the outlined criteria. The building selection
criteria are listed in Appendix B.
3.1.2 Building Recruitment
The initial building recruitment strategy involved direct solicitation in the form of an invitation letter to
the building manager. The letter’s objective was to notify the manager of the researcher’s interest in the
building and to request a telephone conversation to discuss the building’s participation further. Once oneon-one communication was established, the project liaison posed the building selection questions to
determine whether or not the building met participation requirements.
3.1.3 Building Selection General Questions
Strategy for the selection of non-problem buildings involved several components. Major components
were types of structures, geographical locations, and the building’s maintenance history. Screening also
included number of floors, the number of daily occupants, and employees’ ability to participate in the
occupation perception questionnaire. The selection questions were asked by the project liaison in a
conversation with the building managers via telephone. The building selection general questionnaire is
listed in Appendix C.
3.1.4 Building Characterization Questionnaire
A more advanced building characterization questionnaire was then sent to building managers of those
buildings that met the requirements addressed in the two previous selection screenings. This
questionnaire was used to ascertain the more detailed features of the building in a comprehensive manner.
Questions focused on multiple aspects of the building’s demographics. The physical characteristics (e.g.,
age of building, amount of windows, total square footage), the types of materials used (e.g., flooring,
lighting, ceiling) and the mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC system, the energy management system) were
asked in the questionnaire. Building characteristics questionnaires were completed by facility managers.
The building characterization questionnaire is listed in Appendix D.
3.1.5 Procedure to Generate MLID
MLID stands for “Minor location ID.” The MLID is unique to all sampling zones from all buildings.
Users can use the MLID to extract information from any specific sampling zone within a specific
building. The MLID is generated sequentially by the Microsoft (MS) Visual Basic (VB) code
implemented within the MS ACCESS database.
NCEMBT-080201
29
3. METHODS
3.2 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY
The IEQ parameters include thermal comfort, CO2, and VOCs.
3.2.1 Thermal Comfort
Six stationary stations obtained data over three days. These stations were usually placed in spaces that
would give an overall evaluation of the differences in space allocations in a typical office building (i.e.
individual offices versus open spaces). The methods including descriptions of equipment used, variables
measured, and indices calculated can be found in Appendix E.
3.2.2 CO2
Measurement of CO2 at indoor and outdoor locations was accomplished using two different instrument
packages. Indoor CO2 was measured using a HOBO with data logger suspended from the tripod housing
the thermal comfort instrumentation. Initially, outdoor CO2 was measured using a Bacharach sensor
placed outdoors away from an entrance, but under an overhang to protect it from the weather. Indoor and
outdoor CO2 was collected during the same time periods that thermal comfort was collected indoors.
Summary of the protocols for the HOBO and the Bacharach instrumentation used in the office buildings
are listed in Appendix F. However, the BACHARACH meter failed during initial data collection. Prior to
the failure, the data were questionable compared to HOBO CO2 meters, so the BACHARACH was no
longer utilized. Instead, one IAQRAE (see VOC section below) was used to measure outdoor CO2
concentrations. The HOBOs attached to each thermal comfort station were used to measure indoor CO2
concentrations in each indoor location. The indoor to outdoor CO2 differential concentration was then
calculated for each location by deducting outdoor CO2 concentration from the indoor CO2 concentration
at each station.
3.2.3. VOCs
Air samples for VOCs were collected for a discrete time period at the same six indoor locations as the
airborne culturable and total fungal spore samples using the RAE Systems’ IAQRAE 042-1211-012 with
Calibration kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Summary of the protocol used is listed in
Appendix G.
3.3 AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
Measurements of airborne and surface-associated mold were determined using commercially available
instrumentation routinely used in the field (Buttner et al., 2002b) and traditional culture-based or
microscopic assay as appropriate. Protocols for sample collection, processing, and analysis are listed in
Appendix H. All samples for airborne and surface-associated mold were collected indoors in proximity to
the six locations where thermal comfort, CO2, VOC, sound, and lighting measurements were collected.
The outdoor air samples were collected in proximity to the CO2 and VOC sensors. Air samplers were
placed on a collapsible cart for transport through the buildings and for consistent height from the floor.
Air samples for culturable fungi were collected using the Andersen single-stage impactor sampler
supplied with malt extract agar amended with an antibacterial compound (chloramphenicol). Analysis of
the samples was conducted by a consultant (Natural Link Mold Laboratory, Sparks, NV). Culturable
fungi on the Andersen samples were identified using macroscopic and microscopic morphology. Samples
for airborne fungal spores were collected using the Burkard personal impactor sampler. Burkard slides
were transported to the UNLV microbiology laboratory for analysis. Vacuum sampling using an
individual field filter cassette attached to a vacuum pump was used to sample porous or hard surfaces for
30
NCEMBT-080201
3. METHODS
settled particulate. Sampling was conducted on the floor at each indoor location. Each cassette was
transported to the consultant laboratory (Natural Link Mold Laboratory) for analysis.
3.4 SOUND
A sound measurement protocol was developed. The protocol was designed to be usable by technicians
with a minimum of special training and standard, quality instruments. An analysis method was developed
for this study by Verdi Technology Associates to evaluate hypotheses and to determine results of field
measurements. The protocol for field measurements includes selection of the testing equipment and
procedures to transport, set-up, and disassemble the equipment and capture and retrieve data (Appendix I).
3.5 LIGHTING
Five groups of data were collected in this study, including: 1) subjective measures of lighting, 2)
photometric and other direct environment measures, 3) lighting power density and other indirect
measures, 4) descriptive characteristics of the occupants and 5) other subjective measures not directly
related to lighting, but which may influence it. These five groups of data are summarized as follows:
The subjective measures were collected through four categories of questions related to the impressions of
satisfaction, performance, attractiveness and appropriateness of the lighting design. In the category of
impressions of satisfaction, occupants were asked about ratings of overall satisfaction with the lighting at
the work space, how well the building is lit overall, satisfaction with the lighting for different tasks,
preference for improved light compared to other possible changes, preference for more daylight compared
to other possible changes, and location of ceiling lights in relation to work area. In the second category of
questions regarding occupants’ impression of performance, questions included ratings of the amount of
light for tasks, annoyance with reflected glare, with glare from ceiling lights, task lights, sunlight, and
light above or behind a CRT screen, flickering off CRT screens. The third category of questions related to
impressions of attractiveness, including ratings of the overall lighting attractiveness, lighting quality,
building attractiveness, and visual environment. The last category of questions concerned the impressions
of appropriateness of the lighting design, which included the ratings of the appropriateness of light for
primary task, secondary task, portions of light source relative to task, opportunity for visual relief,
ambient light sources for overall work space and supplementary task light sources.
The optometric and other direct environmental measures related to lighting included illuminances,
luminances, contrast characteristics, outdoor sky conditions, and other environmental conditions.
Illuminances were measured at primary and secondary task surfaces without and with body shadows,
respectively. Luminances were measured at task for standardized white paper, surface immediately
surrounding task, ceiling between luminaires, brightest light source in field of view, brightest ceiling area
in field of view, darkest area in field of view, walls at eye levels of left, right, and straight ahead,
respectively. Information on contrast characteristics of space was collected at a 25° viewing angle normal,
45 left, 45 right to the desk, respectively. Other environmental data included outdoor sky conditions, type
of window glazing and window treatment, height of space divider, predominant furnishing treatment
used, predominant wall treatment used, colors in workstation, descriptions of supplemental task lamp, and
light control switches.
Lighting power density data were obtained indirectly by computing the ratio of the connected power load
to the workstation floor area. Other indirect environmental data were also recorded (e.g., floor area, the
distance to nearest windows).
Descriptive characteristics of the occupants were collected, including age, gender, professional levels,
whether they wore glasses, how long working at the location, and how many hours/days they were in the
building.
NCEMBT-080201
31
3. METHODS
Other subjective measures not directly related to the visual environment were also collected (e.g., ratings
of convenience of commuting to work, annoyance with surrounding noise, comfort with heating,
ventilation and cooling systems, frequency of health problems).
The measurement protocols used (Appendix J) were modified during the study for three reasonsL First
some information collected did not prove useful (e.g., the measurement of luminances at task for
standardized white paper could be eliminated, because it could be derived from illuminance
measurements and the reflectance of standardized white paper). Second, the color characteristics of the
building lighting were collected, which had not appeared in any previous field survey. Third, one of the
objectives of the project was to develop lighting survey protocols as part of integrated building
monitoring protocols (e.g., can be easily used by others, thus the lighting protocols used in our study were
less complicated).
The surveyor manually recorded the physical measurements and environmental conditions in the lighting
survey table (Appendix K). The table included six sections of data: room descriptions, lighting and control
system types, luminaire information, lighting power density, measurements of workstation, and
luminance of room surfaces and window surfaces.
In the first section, room descriptions, information on location, area, height, window availability,
daylighting control means, and whether computers were present were recorded. Field surveyor also
recorded any lighting-related special issues in the space provided under the note item.
In the second section, lighting and control system types, ambient lighting and task lighting systems were
selected from multiple choices. The choices were from common systems used in office lighting.
The third section, luminaire information, was used to record information regarding the number, voltage,
wattage, mounting height, light source and color properties for ambient and task lighting, respectively. An
office space normally has only one type of ambient lighting system and one type of task lighting system.
However, the table can record up to 3 different types of ambient lighting and task lighting, in case more
systems were used in surveyed buildings.
In the fourth section, Lighting Power Density (LPD) was estimated. The LPD was obtained by two
different means in the survey. One was by seeking information from building facility mangers or building
owners. However, in most cases, they could not provide the LPD information. Therefore, the second
method was more often used, which was to compute the ratio of the total installed power of luminaires,
for both ambient lighting and task lighting, to the floor area. The surveyor tried to obtain the information
on lighting systems, including lamps and ballasts, from the building facility managers. However, if the
information was not available, the surveyor would count the number of lamps and luminaires in the space
and observe lamp information in the field. Then, the total installed power was computed by assuming zero
ballast losses. The floor area of the room was either directly measured with an ultrasonic measuring tool,
or calculated from drawings. With information on the total installed power and floor area, LPD could be
computed. In this study, LPDs were computed for an entire office building, not for different rooms in the
building, so each building had only one LPD value.
The fifth section, measurements of workstations, included the measurements of illuminance, luminance
and color properties of multiple locations. Illuminances were measured with Minolta illuminance meter
T-10, while luminances were measured with Minolta luminance meter LS-100. Illuminances on the work
surfaces, source documents of computer work, computer screens, and floors were measured. Luminances
were measured for ceilings between luminaires, the brightest light source in field of view, brightest
ceiling area in field of view, darkest partition area in field of view, wall and partitions surrounding the
workstations, brightest area of the sky from the window, a nearby building from the windows and floors.
In addition, spectral power distributions (SPDs) of the lighting at work surfaces were measured with
32
NCEMBT-080201
3. METHODS
GretagMacbeth Lightspex spectrometer, and chromaticity coordinates, color rendering index and
correlated color temperature were derived from the measured SPDs.
Illuminance and luminance measurements are very sensitive to locations and directions, which is very
different from other environmental measures. For example, temperature and sound pressure level sensors
are omni-directional and their measurements do not vary much within the space of a workstation.
However, with even as little as one inch or 5° (angle) of difference, two measurements of illuminances
and luminances can be significantly different. This difference is caused by the intrinsic characteristic of
lighting distribution, which is normally not very uniform over a surface and space. Therefore, the
decisions of illuminance and luminance measurement locations in lighting surveys are quite challenging,
and depend greatly upon the surveyor’s lighting knowledge and survey experience.
Lighting was measured for six workstations each day, a total of 18 workstations for each building in three
days. This decision was made because lighting measurements are intrinsically different from other
environmental measurements in that they are discrete measurements on multiple points, not continuous
readings on one point. In addition, monitoring one workstation three times does not provide as valuable a
database as monitoring three different workstations. As a result, 18 workstations were measured for each
building in this study, among which six workstations were the same as for the other measurements. The
other 12 workstations were spread throughout the building, with two in each zone. Six workstations were
monitored each day, with the measurements spaced through the day.
The lighting data were recorded manually and then entered into the database through a data entry tool.
Manually recording into a table was the most convenient way to deal with the lighting measurements,
because the lighting data were discrete and taken at multiple locations with different instruments.
The Building Sciences Database was designed to store the data obtained in the task, and can be efficiently
reused, easily expanded and aggressively searched at www.ncembt.org.
NCEMBT-080201
33
4. RESULTS
4. RESULTS
4.1 BUILDING LOCATIONS
Figure 1 depicts the locations of the selected office buildings overlayed on the International Energy
Conservation Code Climate Zones Map.
10
1 2 3
7
6
9
8
4
5
Figure 1. International Energy Conservation Code Climate Zones Map and Locations of Monitored Buildings
4.1 ENERGY TABLE
Available information gathered from the building’s facilities manager detailing the energy usage and
costs are compiled in Appendix L.
34
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
4.2 OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES
Figures 2 through 11 depict the overview of responses of building occupants to the acceptability of IEQ
(i.e., temperature, relative humidity, draft), odors, sound, and lighting. Specific measurements collected
during monitoring and responses of occupants are presented in Section 4.3 through Section 6.4.
The IEQ questionaire was submitted electronically and occupants could complete it any time during the
monitoring period.
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 2. Building 1: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
NCEMBT-080201
35
4. RESULTS
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 3. Building 2: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 4. Building 3: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
36
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 5. Building 4: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 6. Building 5: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
NCEMBT-080201
37
4. RESULTS
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 7. Building 6: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 8. Building 7: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
38
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 9. Building 8: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 10. Building 9: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
NCEMBT-080201
39
4. RESULTS
Temperature
Humidity
Draft
VOCs
Sound
Lighting
0%
10%
20%
Never
30%
Occasionally
40%
50%
Some of the time
60%
Most of the time
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of the time
Figure 11. Building 10: Summary of occupant responses to the perception questionnaire for acceptability of IEQ (temperature,
relative humidity, draft), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sound and lighting.
4.3 THERMAL COMFORT/IEQ
Results of the IEQ portion of the occupant questionnaire by building are in Appendix M. Results of the
hypotheses test results are shown below.
4.3.1 IEQ Hypotheses Results
IEQ Hypothesis #1: > 80% of occupants in a building will be thermally comfortable if: 27°C ≥To ≥24°C
(summer) and 24.5°C≥ To ≥20°C (winter)] and 0.012 ≥ W ≥ 0.0032 kg of water/kg of dry air.
Null Hypothesis
< 80% of occupants in a building will be thermally comfortable if: 27°C ≥To ≥24°C
(summer) and 24.5°C≥ To ≥20°C(winter) AND 0.012 ≥ W ≥ 0.0032 kg of water/kg of
dry air.
Test Results
One building (Building 8) had an "Env(ironment)Accept(ance)" rating of 81% and its
average temperature and humidity fell within the confort range recommended by
ASHRAE Standard 55-2004.
40
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Interpretation and Comments
Temperature is perceived as acceptable by a majority of respondents in all buildings.
Based on average values of temperature and humidity, only 6 of the 10 buildings were
within the ASHRAE measurement criteria for thermal acceptability. There is limited
inter-zone variability in the perception of thermal comfort, which does not appear to be
consistently related to variables such as frequency of air conditioning, heating, or ability
to control or know the value of the temperature. None of the buildings has both
measured conditions and occupant responses to thermal comfort that meet the ASHRAE
thermal comfort criteria. Also, in all but two buildings (Building 8 and 10) the
questionnaire participation rates are so low that they cannot be considered representative
of the entire building population. In these two buildings, acceptability approached 80%;
however, they did not meet the winter ASHRAE temperature criteria. Those two
buildings also have the overall highest workplace environment acceptability ratings,
which may or may not bias the responses to thermal acceptability.
There are insufficient data to support or refute the null hypothesis.
IEQ Hypothesis #2: There is a significant difference between mornings and afternoons in thermal
perception by occupants.
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between mornings and afternoons in thermal perception
by occupants.
Test Results
In all buildings, most (mean 74%) occupants report that the temperature does not
fluctuate frequently between AM and PM. Most respondents report that the temperature
in the AM and PM (83% and 84%, respectively) does not reach the extremes of too cool
or too warm. In contrast, almost 1/3 (mean 31%) of respondents reported that the
building is frequently too cool at least some part of the day. There is a statistically
significant correlation in perceived temperature acceptability and actual differences in
morning vs. afternoon average (least squared mean) temperatures in Buildings 5 and 8
only. Among the questionnaire variables tested in this hypothesis, knowing the
temperature has the most consistent correlation (Buildings 1, 7, 9, and 10) with actual
AM vs PM temperature differences.
Interpretation and Comments
Temperature fluctuation between AM and PM is not problematic in the population of
buildings studied. Perception of temperature acceptability correlates with this minimal
actual temperature AM/PM fluctuation in only two buildings (Buildings 5 and 8), one of
which (Building 8) has significant inter-zone variability among respondents. The lack of
consistent correlations is likely due to the relatively low number and percentage of
occupants in each building who perceive a temperature fluctuation problem. There are
significant but inconsistent correlations between the other questionnaire variables for
various buildings, which may be due to chance and/or low questionnaire participation
rates.
There are insufficient data to support or refute the null hypothesis.
NCEMBT-080201
41
4. RESULTS
IEQ Hypothesis #3: ≤10% of occupants will make adjustments to their work area to make it more
thermally comfortable.
Null Hypothesis
>10% of occupants will make adjustments to their work area to make it more thermally
comfortable.
Test Results
Questionnaire question on the ability to control the temperature themselves indicates an
average of 21% (range 5-49%) of respondents are able to control the temperature via a
thermostat. In three buildings (Buildings 1, 2, and 3) no occupant can control the
temperature via the thermostat. Responses to knowing the temperature shows that an
average of 82% of respondents cannot determine the specific temperature in their work
area by reading a thermostat. The response questions to the temperature being too cool or
too warm demonstrate that only a small percentage of occupants adjust the thermostat
(2% and 14%, respectively) in response to unacceptable temperature conditions. Very
few respondents use a space heater or fan in response to uncomfortable temperature
conditions. The only personal response observed among a significant percentage (mean
51%) is to put on clothing in response to temperature being too cool. The proportion test
corroborates that fewer than 10% of respondents make adjustments for thermal comfort.
Interpretation and Comments
In most buildings where occupants can adjust the temperature themselves via thermostat,
<10% do so in response to temperature too cool, whereas the proportion approached 10%
in response to too warm. However, there are inconsistencies in the responses to these
questions in the three buildings where occupants report they cannot control the
temperature themselves.
There are insufficient data to support or refute the null hypothesis.
IEQ Hypothesis #4: If the occupants' work areas are thermally unacceptable, the occupants in that
area will work less efficiently (i.e., less productively).
Null Hypothesis
If the occupants' work areas are thermally unacceptable, the occupants in that area will
work more efficiently (i.e., more productively).
Test Results
For the question concerning temperature being to cool and affecting their work, only an
average of 7% of respondents report that their productivity is adversely affected most or
all of the time; 23% are affected some of the time. For temperature being too warm and
affecting their work, these values are 2% and 31%, respectively. Kruskal-Wallis and Chi
Square tests show that there are only two buildings where there is significant inter-zone
variability in responses to work affect questions (Buildings 1 and 3), neither of which has
significant variability in overall temperature acceptability and both of which have very
low questionnaire participation rates. In Building 1 where there is significant inter-zone
variability for productivity from too warm and too cold, there is corresponding inter-zone
variability in the range of desirable thermal conditions, though in this building the
participation rate was very low. Correlation between acceptable temperature and the
various temperature perception questions shows significant correlations to liking the
42
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
temperature (Buildings 2, 6, 8, 9 and 10), frequency of heat (Buildings 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and
10) and ai condicioning frequency (Buildings 1, 7, and 10) in multiple buildings, but only
to temperature affecting their work in Building 2 (Pearson correlation only) and Building
7 (Spearman correlation only; both with low questionnaire participation rates) and to
knowing the temperature (Building 4).
Interpretation and Comments
The prevalence of adverse work productivity perception is relatively low compared with
perception of overall perception of thermal acceptability. There is minimal inter-zone
variability in perceived work productivity impacts related to thermal acceptability in all
of the buildings studied. In comparison to responses to overall thermal acceptability,
there is a disproportionately lower percentage of respondents who report that thermal
unacceptability frequently affects work productivity. Low questionnaire participation
rates likely account for some false positive findings. Perceived thermal unacceptability
does not correlate with perceived lowered work productivity in most buildings.
The null hypothesis is not supported.
IEQ Hypothesis #5: The occupants of a building will be thermally comfortable if the vertical
temperature gradient is ≤3.0 °C.
Null Hypothesis
The occupants of a building will not be thermally comfortable if the vertical temperature
gradient is ≤3.0 °C
Test Results
All 10 buildings have an average vertical temp gradient <3.0C. For the questions asking
about where the occupant feels too cold and too warm, the most prevalent response is "all
over my body" (43% and 58%, respectively). Correlation analysis shows a statistically
significant correlation between acceptable temperature and where the temperature feels
too warm in Buildings 1, 3, and 8; and with where the temperature feels too cold in
Buildings 1 (Spearman correlation), 2 (Pearson correlation), 3 (Pearson correlation), and
8. Buildings 1 and 3 may be false positives due to low questionnaire participation rates.
Interpretation and Comments
Vertical temperature gradients are within the acceptable level in all buildings. Thermal
acceptability is not associated with perception of thermal discomfort in a particular body
part. Perceived thermal unacceptability is correlated with a particular body part in only a
minority of buildings, two of which had very low questionnaire participation rates.
The null hypotheses is not supported.
NCEMBT-080201
43
4. RESULTS
IEQ Hypothesis #6: There is a significant difference between mornings and afternoons in relative
humidity and related occupant comfort perception.
Null Hypothesis
There is no difference between mornings and afternoons in relative humidity and related
occupant comfort perception.
Test Results
Occupant perception of humidity shows that a majority of occupants find the humidity
acceptable most or all of the time (mean 70%, range 43-85%) in all buildings.
Conditions are rated as neither too humid nor too dry amongst nearly all respondents
(96% and 96%, respectively). Only a small percentage of respondents rate the office
environment as too dry (11%) or too humid (2%) during some part of the work day. A
majority (95%) of respondents do not report frequent fluctuations in perceived
humidity/dryness. Correlation analysis shows that changes in perceived humidity
between morning and afternoon do not correlate with actual AM-PM measured humidity
differences within any buildings or among buildings. Changes in perceived humidity
correlate with AM-PM measured temperature differences only in Building 1, but amongst
all buildings there is no significant correlation.
Interpretation and Comments
Most occupants report perceived humidity as acceptable most or all of the time in all
buildings. Fluctuations in humidity are uncommon. Perceived changes in humidity from
morning to afternoon do not correlate with actual measurements of humidity or
temperature in most or all buildings. The latter may be due to minimal changes in actual
humidity (i.e., a small range) and/or the low prevalence of respondents who report
humidity-related problems. Perception questionnaire data from Building 1 should be
considered circumspect because the questionnaire participation rate was very low.
The null hypothesis is supported.
IEQ Hypothesis #7: ≤20% of occupants will make adjustments to their environment when they are in a
too dry (AH<0.0032 Pa) or too humid environment (AH>0.012 Pa).
Null Hypothesis
>20% of occupants will make adjustments to their environment when they are in a too
dry (AH<0.0032 Pa) or too humid environment (AH>0.012 Pa).
Test Results
Of the relatively small proportion of respondents who report conditions too dry or too
humid, the vast majority do not respond by adjusting their environment. The proportion
test shows that in all the buildings, <20% of occupants make any type of adjustment to
excessively dry or humid conditions. The most prevalent perception questionnaire
responses are applying moisturizer when too dry or removing clothing when too humid.
Kruskal-Wallis and Chi Square analysis shows significant inter-zone variability for
perception of s”too dry” in all responses for Building 1 only. For responses of “too hot”
only adjusting the thermostat, opening/closing a door, or leaving are significant for
Building 1. Building 1 is one of only two buildings that falls below the acceptable
minimum humidity level.
44
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Interpretation and Comments
All but two of the buildings fall within the target humidity range. Most occupants in all
the buildings do not report conditions too dry or too hot; of those who do, most do not
make adjustments.
Inter-zone variability in making adjustments is limited to one
building (Building 1), which had a mean humidity below the target range, but which also
had a very low questionnaire participation rate which may have produced a false positive
result(s).
The null hypothesis is not supported.
IEQ Hypothesis #8: <15% of building occupants should feel a draft anywhere if the draft rate is ≤15%.
If the draft rate is ≤15%, ≥80% of occupants in a building should feel comfortable.
Null Hypothesis
>15% of building occupants should feel a draft anywhere if the draft rate is ≤15%. If the
draft rate is ≤15%, <80% of occupants in a building should feel comfortable.
Test Results
The average draft rate exceeds 15% in two buildings (Building 4 and 7). A mean of 64%
of respondents report perceived draft as acceptable most or all of the time. In two
buildings (Building 3 and 6) a majority of respondents rated the draftiness as
unacceptable. 10 of 10 buildings have respondent rates >20% for draft non-acceptability.
The mean rate of feeling a draft during some part of the work day is 17% (range 1327%), with "often drafty" (most work days or every work day) >20% of respondents in 3
buildings (Building 3, 4, and 8); note low respondent rates in the first two buildings). An
average of 99% of occupants prefer the air neither drafty nor stagnant (an expected
finding). Kruskal-Wallis but not Chi Square analysis shows significant inter-zone
variability in responses to the question of too drafty in Buildings 3, 4, and 7; Draft
acceptability shows significant inter-zone variability in Building 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8.
Interpretation and Comments
Most buildings have an average draft rate that is <15%. A majority of respondents find
draft acceptable, and in the two buildings where a majority of respondents report draft
unacceptability, the measured draft rates are within the acceptable criterion. There is
some inter-zone variability in reporting of draftiness; however, low questionnaire rates
may explain some of this. In addition, large standard deviations in draft measurements
may reflect intermittent draftiness that affects respondents' responses to these questions in
some zones within buildings. The significance for KruskalWallis but not Chi Square is
not surprising, given that Chi Square is looking for a much less specific difference (a
different profile of responses, rather than a skewed distribution of responses).
There are insufficient data to support or refute the null hypothesis.
NCEMBT-080201
45
4. RESULTS
IEQ Hypothesis #9: Occupants will make adjustments to their environment to reduce the presence of a
draft in their work environment.
Null Hypothesis
Occupants will not make adjustments to their environment to reduce the presence of a
draft in their work environment.
Test Results
The questionnaire responses show that of those respondents who perceive draft problems,
the percentage who make no adjustments in the work environment is very high in every
building: register (94%); door (100%), complains/reports (98%) or mentions (88%) the
problem, leaves (97%) or perceives an adverse impact on work productivity (94%). The
proportion test shows that the proportion of respondents who make adjustments is
statistically significantly >20% for questions concerning draft from the register (no
buildings) draft closing a door (Building 1); reporting the draft (no buildings); mention
the draft (no buildings); and leave the area because of draft (Building 6). The lack of
significance in other buildings is likely a reflection of a small occupant response rate. The
Kruskal-Wallis/Chi Square tests show significant inter-zone variability in all adjustments
for Buildings 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 (except for leaving the area due to draft Building 8).
Correlation analysis does not demonstrate a consistent correlation between draft rates (at
the three heights measured) and various responses to the questionnaire, including the
various adjustments to the environment to reduce draft, and perceived impact on work
productivity. In the two buildings (Building 4 and 7) with high average draft rate, almost
no significant correlations are observed. Building 1, in which the average draft rate was
well below 15%, has multiple, statistically significant correlations with adjustments.
However, the questionnaire participation rate was exceedingly low in this building,
making the results of questionable significance. Building 10 is the only building with
consistent correlations between questionnaire questions and draft, defined as >15% for
any of the 3 draft height measurements.
Interpretation and Comments
Although draft unacceptability is higher than postulated, most occupants do not respond
to the problem by making adjustments, nor do most perceive it as having an adverse
impact on work productivity. No single building shows a consistent pattern of having
occupants making adjustments to address draft. In some buildings, there is significant
zone-to-zone variability in occupant adjustments, though the overall rate of such
adjustments (as obtained via the perception questonnaire) is relatively low. An elevated
average measured draft rate does not appear to consistently correlate with occupant
responses regarding drafty conditions, adjustments to the environment, or perceived
impact on productivity in most of these buildings.
The null hypothesis is supported.
46
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
IEQ Hypothesis #10: ≥80% of occupants in a work area (zone) will not complain of stuffy air if the
indoor vs. outdoor concentration difference in CO2 ≤ 700 ppm.
Null Hypothesis
<80% of occupants in a work area (zone) will not complain of stuffy air if the indoor vs.
outdoor concentration difference in CO2 ≤ 700 ppm.
Test Results
A majority of occupants (mean 73%) find the freshness of their work environment
acceptable. A mean of 89% report stuffiness infrequently, with high consistency among
buildings. Kruskal-Wallis/Chi Square tests show significant inter-zone variability in
Buildings 1 and 3 for the response of liking the air as it is; Buildings 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7
for the response of too stuffy; and no significant variability for answers to having an air
purifier. The proportion test for the response of too stuffy shows that the dissatisfaction
rate is <20% for 7 of the buildings with Buildings 1, 5, and 6 the exception. The
difference in outdoor-indoor CO2 average concentrations is <700 for all buildings except
Buildings 6 and 7. However, the responses of acceptable and too stuffy as unacceptable
were not larger in these buildings than in other buildings with outdoor-indoor CO2
differences <700.
Interpretation and Comments
Most respondents find the air in the work environment acceptably fresh and infrequently
stuffy. The outdoor-indoor CO2 difference is within the ASHRAE range for all but two
buildings. There is significant inter-zone variability in perception responses for five of
the buildings. The indoor - outdoor CO2 differences are not consistent with occupant
perception responses for buildings with significant differences (>700 ppm) in mean CO2
concentrations.
The null hypothesis is supported.
IEQ Hypothesis #11: ≤20% of occupants who perceive the air is stuffy or stagnant will make
adjustments to their work environment to make their work area more comfortable.
Null Hypothesis
>20% of occupants who perceive the air is stuffy or stagnant will make adjustments to
their work environment to make their work area more comfortable.
Test Results
Among respondents who perceive air as stuffy (56%), the majority infrequently adjust
their thermostat, use a fan, open or close a door, or leave the area. Kruskal-Wallis/Chi
Square tests shows significant intra-building variability in responses for using a fan and
leaving the room in Buildings 1 and 2.
Interpretation and Comments
Of those respondents perceive the air as being stuffy at least some portion of the work
day, nearly all do not make adjustments to their workplace to address the problem.
These findings do not support the null hypothesis.
NCEMBT-080201
47
4. RESULTS
IEQ Hypothesis #12: If the occupants' work areas perceive their air as stuffy or stagnant, the
occupants in that area will work less efficiently (i.e., less productively).
Null Hypothesis
If the occupants perceive their work areas air as stuffy or stagnant, they will work more
efficiently (i.e., more productively).
Test Results
Among respondents who perceive air as stuffy (56%), the majority are not frequently
affected in terms of work productivity. Correlation is significant between indoor-outdoor
CO2 concentration and each of the following questionnaire responses: acceptable fresh air
(Buildings 2 and 9), like it as it is (no buildings), air is too stuffy (Buildings 1, 2, 3, and
5), and freshness of the air effects their work (Building 1 and 3).
Interpretation and Comments
Air stuffiness does not appear to significantly impact work productivity. CO2
concentrations do not consistently correlate with responses to perception questionnaire
regarding acceptability of workplace air freshness or impact on work productivity. Fresh
air being too stuffy correlates with CO2 in four buildings, all of which have low
perception questionnaire participation rates.
The null hypothesis is not supported.
IEQ Hypothesis #13: If occupants smell unpleasant odors in their work area, no more than (≤) 20%
will be uncomfortable and make adjustments in their environment to reduce the odor.
Null Hypothesis
If occupants smell unpleasant odors in their work area, >20% will be uncomfortable and
make adjustments in their environment to reduce the odor.
Test Results
Preception questionntaire responses shows that the vast majority of occupants (87%
mean) rate the smells as acceptable all or most of the time. An average of 49% of
respondents (range 29-73%) never notice odors. Of the 199 of 390 total respondents
(51%) who do notice odors, food odors comprise the single, largest category (32% mean),
consistently across all buildings. Musty odors are rarely (2%) reported. Across all
buildings, odors are infrequently noticed, unpredictably and/or sporadically, without a
consistent AM vs PM vs all day pattern. Fewer than 10% of respondents in any building
have symptoms (e.g., sneezing, blowing nose) or respond to odors frequently. An
average of 5% of respondents report that odors frequently affect their work productivity.
Kruskal-Wallis/Chi Square analysis shows that none of the odor response questions
varies significantly from zone to zone within buildings. This latter finding may be due to
the relatively small numbers of respondents who report any response to odors.
Interpretation and Comments
Nearly all occupants of this set of non-problem buildings do not report frequent odors.
Of those who do report odors, food odors are consistently the most frequent type of odor.
No consistent temporal pattern of odor observation is reported. Few occupants
experience adverse effects or respond to odors. Work productivity is affected in only a
small minority (average 5%) of occupants; when buildings with low perception
48
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
questionnaire response rates are eliminated, this rate is even lower. Response to odors
does not vary from zone to zone within all of the buildings.
The null hypothesis is not supported.
IEQ Hypothesis #14: ≥80% of occupants will have job satisfaction when the indoor environmental
quality is acceptable.
Null Hypothesis
<80% of occupants will have job satisfaction when the indoor environmental quality is
acceptable.
Test Results
Kruskal-Wallis/Chi Sqare shows that there is significant inter-zone variability in response
to the questionnaire asking about having a rewarding job in Buildings 1, 6, 7, and 9.
Interpretation and Comments
This analysis was omitted because the perception questionnaire response rates are so low.
4.3.2 IEQ Summary
The hypotheses were tested and useful results were obtained. The IEQ data analysis completed found
some correlation between the IEQ data (i.e, temperature, humidity, draft, vertical temperature and CO2
difference) and the corresponding questionnaire querry by zones. Some inter-zone variability was also
found. However, correlating the IEQ data to the corresponding questions by zone, has the following
weaknesses:
▪
Lack of correlation between the measured data and corresponding perception responses: Only one
IEQ measurement station was in each zone. Therefore, it may not be representative of actual
prevailing conditions in that zone. This is especially true for draft data because the velocity
variation is so high. However, the zone defined in this project is a geometrical zone, which may
cover several air conditioning zones which have their own thermostats in big buildings. The
respondents who participated in tie questionnaire may not stay in or nearby the office (cubicle)
where the IEQ station located. In most cases, the IEQ station was located in an office (cubicle)
where there was no occupant. Therefore, there was no occupant in that office (cubicle) to
participate in the questionnaire.
▪
Narrow data range: The variations of measured IEQ data within a building surveyed are small for
all the parameters except draft. Such a small variation makes it hard to build a correlation
between measured parameters and their corresponding perception responses.
NCEMBT-080201
49
4. RESULTS
4.4 AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
4.4.1 Mold Results
Summary statistics were performed by Verdi Technology Associates and UNLV statisticians. Data are
illustrated in a series of figures for air and surface mold measurements in Appendix N. Statistical tables for
analyses of these measurements are listed in Appendix O.
The percentage of buildings in which airborne culturable fungi were isolated is illustrated in Figure N1.
Airborne Cladosporium were isolated from 100% of the buildings sampled using the Andersen sampler
while airborne culturable Chaetomium and Stachybotrys were never isolated. Airborne culturable
Trichoderma was only isolated in Building 7 and Aspergillus flavus was only isolated from Building 4
and 6.
The percentage of buildings in which airborne fungal spores were observed using the Burkard nonculturable method is illustrated in Figure N2. Airborne Aureobasidium, Stachybotrys, and Trichoderma
spores were not observed in any of the 10 buildings, and Chaetomium was only found in one sample from
one building (Building 5).
Surface-associated Stachybotrys was isolated in 15 of the 180 vacuum dust samples (8%). Stachybotrys
positive vacuum dust samples were found in at least one sample in eight of the 10 buildings; no positive
Stachybotrys vacuum samples were found in Building 5 and Building 7. No locations were positive for
Stachybotrys in dust samples on more than one of the three successive sampling days and at any of the
buildings.
4.4.2 Mold Hypotheses Results
Mold Hypothesis#1: In outdoor air, a mixed population of airborne fungus is expected with no one
genus except Cladosporium predominating and the distribution of which will vary by geographic
region.
Null Hypothesis
In outdoor air samples a predominant fungal taxon other than Cladosporium is found.
Test Results
The majority of outdoor air samples demonstrated the presence of a predominant taxon
and Cladosporium was commonly found as the predominant taxon.
Interpretation and Comment
The null hypothesis is not supported as Cladosporium was the predominant taxon in
outdoor air samples collected during this study. The study was limited to ten buildings
resulting in an insufficient number of buildings that varied by geographic region.
Therefore, variation by region was not considered and this was excluded in the null
hypothesis.
50
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Mold Hypothesis#2: Among non-problem buildings, a mixed population of airborne fungus is
expected with no one genus except Cladosporium predominating and the distribution of which will
vary by geographic region.
Null Hypothesis
In indoor air samples a predominant fungal taxon is found and it is not Cladosporium.
Test Results
A predominant taxon was only observed in a few air samples, and only Building 6
demonstrated more than 50% of samples with a predominant taxon. The prevalence of
Cladosporium as the predominant taxon in culturable and non-culturable indoor air
samples was low in all buildings. The effect of zone (i.e., zone-to-zone differences) on
Cladosporium predominance was not statistically significant for either culturable or nonculturable air samples. This was confirmed in logistic regression analyses using
"building" as the effect instead of zone. Logistic regression also demonstrated no
significant zone effect on whether samples were predominant for culturable air.
However, for non-culturable air samples, zone had an effect in one building (Building 7)
on predominance. Variance components analysis showed that zone accounted for zero
percent of Cladosporium predominance variability for culturable air vs. 20% for nonculturable air samples. This is consistent with the findings reported above. The effect of
sample date (i.e., day 1 vs day 2 vs. day 3) accounted for 24% of the variability in
Cladosporium predominance for culturable air samples, but only 7% for non-culturable
air samples.
Interpretation and Comments
Among the ten buildings sampled, a finding of mixed populations of mold taxa and/or
Cladosporium predominance was not consistently found in culturable and non-culturable
air samples. Thus, the null hypothesis is not confirmed. There was a high degree of
consistency within each building between culturable and non-culturable air samples with
regard to Cladosporium predominance and whether samples showed the presence of a
predominant taxon. The effect of zone differences on these parameters was relatively
small and the effect of day-to-day sampling variability was more significant for
culturable air than non-culturable air on Cladosporium predominance. Some of these
results may be due to the overall low concentrations which affect the mathematical
definition (determination) of rank predominance and mixed populations, as defined for
this study. Initially, this hypothesis included the phrase “and the distribution of which
will vary by geographic region.” However, due to limitations on the number of buildings
(i.e., 10), there were insufficient numbers of building in each region. Therefore, this was
excluded in the null hypothesis.
NCEMBT-080201
51
4. RESULTS
Mold Hypothesis#3: The concentration of airborne fungal genera present in non-problem buildings
should reflect the outdoor fungal population in that region.
Null Hypothesis
The airborne fungal genera present indoors in non-problem buildings significantly differ
from the outdoor airborne fungal population.
Test Results
As reported above, the majority of outdoor air samples (86%) demonstrated the presence
of a predominant taxon and Cladosporium was commonly found (55%) as the
predominant taxon in outdoor culturable air samples. Cladosporium was found as the
predominant taxon in fewer non-culturable outdoor air samples. However, Cladosporium
was the predominant taxon in few indoor culturable or non-culturable air samples.
Differences between indoor and outdoor culturable data were statistically significant
(p<0.05) in four of the 10 buildings; Building 2 (Pearson p = 0.00 and Spearman p =
0.00), Building 6 (Pearson p=0.00; Spearman p=0.70), Building 8 (Pearson p=0.03), and
Building 9 (Pearson p=0.00 and Spearman p=0.01). Differences between indoor and
outdoor non-culturable data were also statistically significant (p<0.05) in four of the 10
buildings; Building 1 (Pearson p=0.01), Building 4 (Pearson p=0.01 and Spearman
p=0.00), Building 6 (Pearson p=0.00, Spearman p=0.02), and Building 8 (Pearson p=0.01
and Spearman p=0.01).
Interpretation and Comment
Statistically significant differences in indoor and outdoor culturable and non-culturable
measurements were observed for four of the ten buildings. While Cladosporium was
commonly found in outdoor air samples, indoors this taxon was rarely observed.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed. Originally this hypothesis included the
phrase “is dependent on the geographic region.” However, due to limitations on the
number of buildings (i.e., ten), there were insufficient numbers of buildings in each
region. Therefore, this was excluded in the null hypothesis.
Mold Hypothesis#4: The ranges of concentration of airborne total spores observed with nonculturable air sampling and the number of colony-forming units (CFU) of culturable fungal particles
isolated with culturable air sampling in non-problem buildings are expected to be similar (<1 order of
magnitude, <10X difference) at different sampling locations in the building.
Null Hypothesis
Culturable and non-culturable fungal taxa in air samples collected in non-problem
buildings are not similar and will vary by >1 order of magnitude at different indoor
sampling locations.
Test Results
Results for both culturable and non-culturable air samples were consistent within or very
close to one order of magnitude for the indoor locations (1-6). Logistic regression
showed that zone (location) had no effect on concentration ranges for both culturable and
non-culturable air samples. Similarly, variance components showed no zone effect. This
results from the concentrations being uniform within one order of magnitude for the
respective types of air samples within a building.
52
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Interpretation and Comment
The null hypothesis for both culturable and non-culturable air samples is not supported
as the results were consistent and did not vary over an order of magnitude in the indoor
locations.
Mold Hypothesis#5: The ranges of concentration of airborne total spores observed with nonculturable air sampling and the number of colony-forming units (CFU) of culturable fungal particles
isolated with culturable air sampling in non-problem buildings are expected to be similar (<1 order of
magnitude, <10X difference) on different days of sampling.
Null Hypothesis
Culturable and non-culturable fungal taxa in air samples collected in non-problem
buildings are not similar and will vary by >1 order of magnitude on different sampling
days.
Test Results
Results for both culturable and non-culturable fungal taxa in air samples were
consistently within or very close to one (1) order of magnitude across the three days of
sampling. Statistical analysis demonstrated that there was no difference by sampling day.
Interpretation and Comment
The null hypothesis for both culturable and non-culturable air samples is not confirmed
as the results were consistent and did not vary over an order of magnitude between the
days of sampling for the majority of the buildings.
Mold Hypothesis#6: Between non-problem buildings, both types of air samples are expected to show
the same genera of fungi, with <1 order of magnitude difference in concentration and absence of
atypical fungi.
Null Hypothesis
Culturable and non-culturable air samples do not demonstrate the presence of similar
fungal taxa.
Test Results
The results for differences in concentration indicate that concentrations are within one
order of magnitude for the two types of air samples. As reported above, airborne
culturable Cladosporium and non-culturable Cladosporidium spores were detected in
100% of the buildings. Culturable Penicillium species were isolated from 100% of the
buildings sampled, but airborne Aspergillus/Penicillium spores were only sporadically
detected. Airborne culturable atypical (water indicating) Chaetomium and Stachybotrys
were never isolated and spores of these genera were never detected in the non-culturable
air samples. However, other atypical fungi were isolated although airborne culturable
Trichoderma was isolated only in Building 7 and Aspergillus flavus was isolated only
from Building 4 and 6.
Interpretation and Comment
The null hypothesis is not supported.
NCEMBT-080201
53
4. RESULTS
Mold Hypothesis#7: Among non-problem buildings, a mixed population of culturable fungi in the
surface dust is expected with no one genus except Cladosporium predominating and the distribution of
which will vary by geographic region.
Null Hypothesis
In surface dust samples a predominant culturable fungal taxon is found and it is not
Cladosporium.
Test Results
Cladosporium was isolated from vacuum dust samples in all ten of the buildings and was
present in 171 of the 180 samples (95%). Cladosporium predominance in surface dust
samples varied widely among the ten buildings, but this taxon was often predominant.
Logistic regression for zone effect on Cladosporium predominance in dust was
significant in two buildings (Building 2 and 10) and significant for any predominant
taxon in only one building (Building 2). Variance component analysis showed that the
building accounted for 21% of the variability in Cladosporium predominance, but zone
explained very little (7%). However, zone did explain 25% of variability for any taxon
predominance. In contrast, sampling date explained very little (8%).
Interpretation and Comment
Cladosporium predominated in surface dust samples in the non-problem buildings and
mixed populations were present.
The null hypothesis is not supported.
Mold Hypothesis#8: The concentrations of surface-associated fungal genera present in non-problem
buildings are consistent among buildings.
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference in the concentration of surface-associated fungal genera
between non-problem buildings.
Test Results
Frequency statistics show that the ratio of maximum to minimum culturable fungal
concentrations in dust in each building is within 1.5 orders of magnitude, except for
Building 8. The standard deviations of these ratios are relatively large compared to the
mean in over half the buildings, indicating a wide distribution of concentrations. Logistic
regression analysis shows no statistically significant inter-zone variability in dust
concentrations in all buildings. Similarly, variance components analysis shows no
variability due to zone. The comparison of these data is illustrated in a box and whisker
plot in the appendix with the mold statistics tables (Appendix O).
Interpretation and Comment
Null hypothesis is generally confirmed with regard to the distribution of concentrations.
Some buildings have wider ranges of distributions (max-min) than others. Originally
this hypothesis included the phrase “and vary by geographic region.” However, due to
limitations on the number of buildings (i.e., ten), there were insufficient numbers of
buildings in each region. Therefore, this section of the hypothesis was excluded.
54
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Mold Hypothesis#9: The concentration of culturable fungi in non-problem buildings is expected to be
≤105 CFU/gram of dust.
Null Hypothesis
Concentrations of culturable fungi in surface dust samples collected in non-problem
buildings are >105 CFU/gram of dust.
Test Results
Mold summary statistics shows that the proportion (%) of dust samples in each building
with total CFU/gm<105 varies widely among buildings, ranging from 11% to 61%.
Logistic regression analysis demonstrates a zone effect for Building 5 only. Variance
components analysis shows that neither zone nor building nor sample day is a significant
factor in explaining total dust concentration variability.
Interpretation and Comment
Total dust concentrations <105 vary widely within buildings. The zone effect is relatively
small on these findings, and sampling date has virtually no effect.
The null hypothesis is not supported.
Mold Hypothesis#10: The range of concentration of surface-associated culturable fungi in dust
samples collected in non-problem buildings is expected to be similar (<1 order of magnitude, <10X
difference) at different sampling locations in the building.
Null Hypothesis
There is a significant difference in the concentration of culturable surface-associated
fungi by location in non-problem buildings.
Test Results
The average ratio of the logarithm of concentrations of fungi cultured from surface dust
samples was 1.36 in all but one building (Building 8) where the ratio was less than 1.5
orders of magnitude. There were significantly large outliers which skewed the data.
Logistic regression analysis showed no statistically significant inter-zone variability in
dust concentrations in all buildings. Variance components confirmed this finding.
Interpretation and Comment
Sample dust concentrations were generally within 1.5 orders of magnitude at different
locations within a building. Results showed that in most buildings the range of
concentrations is <106. The specific effect of different zones did not explain the
variability in data among buildings.
The null hypothesis is not supported.
NCEMBT-080201
55
4. RESULTS
Mold Hypothesis#11: Within the same building at different times of day in the same location, the same
genera of fungi are expected to be measured, with up to a 1 order of magnitude difference in
concentration.
Samples were only collected at one time period. Therefore, this hypothesis was not tested in the
final experimental design used in this task.
Mold Hypothesis#12: Regional differences between non-problem buildings are reflected in the
different surface dust composition of fungal genera, not the distribution among them.
Due to limitations on the number of buildings (i.e., ten), there were insufficient numbers of
buildings in each region. Therefore, this hypothesis was not tested in the final experimental
design used in this task.
Mold Hypothesis#13: “Indicator” fungi (i.e., indicators of water intrusion/moisture accumulation of
building materials capable of promoting mold growth) are expected to be “not present” in air samples
in non-problem buildings.
Null Hypothesis
Fungi commonly associated with water intrusion will be present in air samples collected
non-problem buildings.
Test Results
Neither Stachybotrys nor Chaetomium were isolated from any of the indoor culturable air
samples (Andersen data; Figure N1). Trichoderma and Aureobasidium were isolated, but
infrequently and in low concentrations compared to the total concentration of culturable
airborne fungi in indoor samples. Chaetomium was the only water intrusion taxon
observed in the indoor non-culturable samples (Burkard data; Figure N2) and it was
present as 1% of the observed spores; no Stachybotrys, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium
spores were present in the indoor non-culturable samples. Aspergillus versicolor was
isolated as 15% of the culturable fungi in 2% of the indoor air samples fungi. A. flavus
was isolated as 1% of the culturable fungi and A. niger was isolated as 4% Penicillium
spp. were present as >30% of the culturable fungi in 1% of samples, but in the nonculturable air samples, Aspergillus/Penicillium spores were never observed as >30%
Interpretation and Comment
Null hypothesis is confirmed for some of the water indicator fungal taxa but marginally
as the majority of the taxa were not found. Chaetomium was observed as >1% in the
non-culturable air samples and A. versicolor was isolated as >30% of the culturable
fungi. Stachybotrys was not present in indoor air samples.
56
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Mold Hypothesis#14: “Indicator” fungi (i.e., indicators of water intrusion/moisture accumulation of
building materials capable of promoting mold growth) are expected to be “not present” in surface dust
samples in non-problem buildings.
Null Hypothesis
Fungi commonly associated with water intrusion will be present in surface dust samples
collected in non-problem buildings
Test Results
Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, and Trichoderma were not isolated as greater than 1% of the
culturable fungi in vacuum dust samples. A. versicolor, A. flavus and A. niger were not
isolated as ≥30% of the culturable fungi in vacuum dust samples. Penicillium spp. were
not isolated as ≥30% of the cultruable fungi.
Interpretation and Comment
The high prevalence of Auerobasidium likely accounts for the overall elevated presence
of atypical fungi in dust samples. The other water indicator fungal taxa were rarely
isolated in elevated concentrations from the vacuum dust samples.
Null hypothesis is confirmed.
4.4.3 Mold Summary
Cladosporium, was isolated from 100% of the buildings sampled. Airborne Stachybotrys spores were
never found indoors. However, surface-associated Stachybotrys was isolated in 8% of the settled dust
(vacuum) samples. The airborne fungal spores in the ten typical office buildings did not vary over the
three days nor did they vary by the six indoor locations sampled. Similarly, surface vacuum samples
were consistent over the three days of sampling by location and the majority of the buildings
demonstrated similar concentrations of spores.
NCEMBT-080201
57
4. RESULTS
4.5 SOUND
4.5.1 Sound Results
A depiction of the responses of building occupants to questions concerning sound/noise are listed in
Appendix P and statistical tables for analyses of questionnaire responses and sound measurements are
listed in Appendix Q.
4.5.2 Sound Hypotheses Results
Sound Hypothesis#1: Sound in a work area can annoy or distract occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
To determine the general opinion of acceptable sound/noise, responses of “all of the
time” and “most of the time” were summarized as acceptable and responses of “some of
the time” and “occasionally” and “never” were summarized as unacceptable. Specific
responses by building demonstrate that a majority of occupants rated sounds/noise as
acceptable most of the time. Correlation with sound measurements in the buildings were
statistically significant (p<0.05) for Building 1 (L50_dBA Pearson p=0.03), Building 3
(L5_dBA Pearson p=0.01 and Spearman p=0.00; L50_dBA Pearson and Spearman
p=0.00; L95 dBA; Spearman and Pearson p=0.00), and Building 7 (L95_dBA Spearman
p=0.4). Moderate significance (0.05<p<0.075) was observed for Building 6 (L_5 dBC
and L50_dBC Spearman p=0.06) and for Building 9 (L95_dBA Pearson p=0.07 and
Spearman p=0.06).
Interpretation and Comments
Building occupants rated the sound/noise in their building as acceptable. Specific
responses by building demonstrate that a majority of occupants rated sounds/noise as
acceptable most of the time. Larger numbers of respondents may have resulted in the
moderate values being listed as statistically significant.
Sound Hypothesis#2: Annoyance or distraction from fluctuations in sound correlates with the
midrange of the probability plot of sounds levels over the course of one day using the measurements of
L_80 minus L_10 for sound interference level (SIL).
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
The majority of respondents reported that the sound in their building did not fluctuate.
Specific responses of “never” and “occasionally” and “some of the time” predominated.
Correlation with sound measurements in the buildings were only statistically significant
(p<0.05) for Building 4 (Pearson p = 0.02 and Spearman p = 0.03).
58
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Interpretation and Comments
Nearly all of the occupants in all of the buildings did not perceive sound as fluctuating
during the course of the day. Mid-range of the probability plot of sound levels over the
course of one day did not correlate with perceived sound fluctuations except for Building
4. This negative finding may be due to the absence of perceived fluctuation and the low
number of participants. Larger numbers of respondents may have resulted in the
moderate values being listed as statistically significant.
Sound Hypothesis#3: Sound in the work area that comes from outside the building can annoy or
distract occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using the measurements L_90 minus L_10 for dBA. A series
of questions probed this hypothesis. The overall question “Over the past 4 weeks: In
general, I'm most comfortable when my work area is…” resulted in a majority of
responses liking “neither quiet” nor “loud” with most specific responses stating
“somewhat quiet” or “neither quiet” or “loud.” When asked if in their work area they
could hear sounds from outside of the building such as airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment, or sirens most respondents replied that they did not
hear sounds. When asked how often they heard these sounds, the majority replied “some
of the time” or “occasionally” or “never”. Statistical correlation was demonstrated with
occupant responses and hearing of sounds for Building 3 (Spearman p=0.00), Building 7
(Pearson p=0.02), Building 8 (Pearson p=0.04 and Spearman p = 0.01), and Building 9
(Pearson p=0.00 and Spearman p=0.02). When asked if sound from outside of the
building was annoying or distracting the majority of respondents replied that they were
not annoyed or distracted and specific answers focused on “never” or “occasionally”.
However, for Building 2 there was statistical correlation between occupant responses for
annoying and outdoor sound measurements (Pearson p=0.02) and moderate significance
was observed in this building using Spearman (p=0.07). The majority of respondents
replied that sound from outside the building affects their productivity and this occurred
all or most of the time. For Building 2 there was statistical correlation between occupant
responses concerning productivity and outdoor sounds (Pearson p=0.01). Moderate
significance was observed for outdoor sounds and productivity for Building 2 using
Spearman (p=0.07). The majority of respondents replied that the period of time between
when the sound/noise occurred and they were distracted was brief with the majority of
answers on specific time as “a few seconds” and “up to 30 seconds”. There were no
significant or moderately significant correlations for this question and the sound
measurements. The majority of respondents replied that the length of time that they were
distracted from sound outside of the building was brief with the majority of answers on
specific time as “a few seconds” and “up to 30 seconds”. For Building 6 there was
moderate significance for the length of annoyance/distraction and sound measurements
(Pearson p=0.08).
Interpretation and Comments
Most occupants heard sounds outside the building intermittently or never. Of those
occupants who did hear outside sounds, nearly all were neither frequently annoyed nor
NCEMBT-080201
59
4. RESULTS
was their productivity affected. Most such occupants were annoyed/distracted within 30
seconds, and the sound is annoying/distracting for no more than 30 seconds in 2/3 of
affected occupants. The response of hearing sounds outside of the building correlated
with the measurement L_90 minus L_10 for dBA for buildings with higher questionnaire
participation rates. Larger numbers of respondents may have resulted in other statistically
significant results.
Sound Hypothesis#4: Annoyance or distraction from outside sound can be caused by the overall sound
level, the intermittent nature (on-off cycle) of the sound, time variations in the sound intensity, or
irritating or harsh tones contained in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using several measurements. The response of “too loud” was
tested using L_99 minus L_50 for dBA. The response of “intermittent/unpredictable”
was tested using L_95 minus L_50 for dBA. The response “increases/decreases” was
tested using L_80 minus L_50 for dBA. The response “one tone dominates” was not
tested by measurements but the response “understandable” was tested using L_90 minus
L_50. The majority of responses were either “too loud” or “intermittent/unpredictable”,
especially by occupants of Building 3. Statistically significant correlations were
observed for sound measurements and the response “too loud” for Building 2 (Pearson
p=0.04 and Spearman p=0.04) and moderate significance was observed for Building 7
(Spearman p=0.07).
Responses of “intermittent/unpredictable” were moderately
significant for Building 7 (Pearson p=0.07 and Spearman p=0.07) and
“increases/decreases” were moderately significant for Building 9 (Pearson p=0.06). No
correlations were observed for “understandable” for any building.
Interpretation and Comments
Sound that is too loud or intermittent/unpredictable accounts for most of the causes of
occupant annoyance/distraction from outside sounds. There were not consistent
correlations between various sound measurements and characteristics of outside sounds.
Sound Hypothesis#5: Sound in a work area from telephone/speakerphone conversations can annoy or
distract building occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using the measurement of L_80 minus L_50 for sound
interference level (SIL) and a series of questions on the occupant perception
questionnaire. The responses on hearing of telephone/speakerphone conversations were
approximately evenly divided between hearing and not hearing sounds. Specific
responses as the frequency of hearing telephone/speakerphone conversations was also
mixed. The only statistically significant correlation observed for L_80 minus L_50 for
SIL in hearing telephone/speakerphone conversations was Building 9 (Spearman p=0.04).
The majority of responses concerning annoyance from telephone/speakerphone
conversations were negative and the occurrence of annoyance was mixed. Only
60
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
moderately significant correlation for annoyance from telephone/speakerphone
conversations and sound measurements was found in Building 6 (Spearman p=0.05).
The majority of responses stated that hearing telephone/speakerphone conversations
affected their productivity, but “never” or “occasionally” or “some of the time” were the
most often cited answers. Correlation between telephone/speakerphone conversations
affecting productivity and sound measurements was only observed for Building 6
(Pearson p=0.06 and Spearman p =0.04). “Brief” was most response for the period after
which annoyance occurred and responses of “within a few seconds” up to “2 minutes”
predominated.
“Significant correlation of how quickly the disturbance from
telephone/speakerphone conversation occurs and sound measurements was found for
Building 7 (Spearman p=0.05). The length of annoyance reported on the questionnaire
was mixed and the length varied from a few seconds to 15 minutes. Statistically
significant correlation for the length of the disturbance from telephone/speakerphone
conversation and sound measurements was found for Building 5 (Spearman p=0.04).
Interpretation and Comments
There is a wide distribution of frequency of hearing sounds from telephone
conversations. Annoyance/distraction and adverse impact on productivity is intermittent
and the majority of responses concerning annoyance from telephone/speakerphone
conversations for the buildings visited was negative. The annoyance/distraction tends to
occur soon after the sound is heard, but lasts longer than 30 seconds and this was
reflected in the responses of the building occupants.
Sound Hypothesis#6: Annoyance or distraction from sound from telephone/speakerphone
conversations in adjacent work areas can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature
of the sound, the intelligibility or content of the sound or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using several measurements. The response of “too loud” was
tested using L_95 minus L_50 for SIL. The response of “intermittent/unpredictable” was
tested using L_95 minus L_50 for SIL. The response “increases/decreases” was tested
using L_80 minus L_50 for SIL. The response “one tone dominates” was not tested by
measurements but the response “understandable” was tested using L_90 minus L_50.
Responses of “too loud” or “understandable” were most often cited as the cause of
annoyance from telephone/speakerphone conversations, but statistically significant
correlations were only observed for sound measurements and the response
“understandable” for Building 2 (Spearman p=0.03) and Building 5 (Spearman p=0.06).
Interpretation and Comments
Sound that is too loud or understandable accounts for most of the causes of occupant
annoyance/distraction from outside sounds. There are not consistent correlations between
various sound measurements or calculations and responses to sound from
telephone/speakerphone conversations. The L_90 minus L_50 was not significantly
correlated with understandable conversation except in Building 2, which had a low
questionnaire participation rate, although it was moderately significant in Building 5
which had a higher participation rate.
NCEMBT-080201
61
4. RESULTS
Sound Hypothesis#7: Sound in a work area from conversations in adjacent work areas can annoy or
distract building occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
Most occupants in all buildings frequently heard conversations from adjacent work areas
and the frequency of hearing these conversations was mixed. Most occupants were never
or only occasionally annoyed/distracted. The majority of respondents reported that their
productivity was never or only occasionally affected. The sound most commonly annoys
or distracts occupants within 30 seconds and the majority responded that it was a brief
period after hearing the conversations that the annoyance/distraction occurs. Ranges
from “within a few seconds” to “up to two minutes” the most often cited times. The
duration of time that the annoyance/distraction continued was divided among the
respondents as there was a wide distribution of the duration of annoyance/distraction.
Statistically significant correlation between the L_80 minus L_50 for SIL sound
measurement and occupant perception questionnaire responses were observed for hearing
of conversations Building 1 (Spearman p=0.02), Building 3 (Pearson p=0.00), and
Building 9 (Pearson and Spearman p=0.00). No correlations were observed in any
buildings for the conversations being annoying, having an affect on productivity, or for
the time within the annoyance occurs. Statistically significant correlations were found for
the duration of the time of annoyance/distraction and the sound measurement for
Building 4 (Pearson p=0.04 and Spearman p=0.03) and Building 6 (Spearman p=0.03).
Moderate correlation was also observed for Building 6 using Pearson (p=0.06).
Interpretation and Comments
Most respondents reported frequently hearing conversations from adjacent work areas.
However, most were never or infrequently annoyed/distracted and their productivity was
never or infrequently affected. The sound most commonly annoyed or distracted within a
short time, but there was a wide distribution of the duration of annoyance/distraction.
The measurement L_80 minus L_50 for SIL did not consistently correlate for any of the
questions concerning sound from conversations in adjacent work areas.
Sound Hypothesis#8: Annoyance or distraction from sound from conversations in adjacent work areas
can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound, the intelligibility or
content of the sound or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using several measurements. The response of “too loud” was
tested using L_99 minus L_50 for SIL. The response of “intermittent/unpredictable” was
tested using L_95 minus L_50 for SIL. The response “increases/decreases” was tested
using L_80 minus L_50 for SIL. The response “one tone dominates” was not tested by
measurements but the response “understandable” was tested using L_90 minus L_50.
Respondents to the occupant perception questionnaire answered that most of the
annoyance/distraction from conversations in the work area was associated with the sound
being too loud or being understandable. However, there was no statistical correlation
62
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
between the sound measurements and the occupant responses except for Building 2
(Spearman p=0.03) which had a low response rate.
Interpretation and Comments
Sound that is too loud or understandable accounts for most of the causes of occupant
annoyance/distraction. There were no consistent correlations between various sound
measurements or calculations and occupant responses to sound from overflow
conversations from adjacent work areas. The L_99 minus L_50 did not correlate with
understandable sound or conversation except in Building 2 which had a very low
participation rate.
Sound Hypothesis#9: Sound in a work area from piped-in music or background masking system can
annoy or distract building occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using the sound measurements L_50 minus L_10 for dBA
with the assumption that the values will inversely correlate with background noises. The
majority of the respondents never hear music or masking sounds in their work area. Most
respondents were never or infrequently annoyed/ distracted by it, although no responses
were recorded for Building 2 and Building 5 for this question. The majority responded
that music or masking did not affect productivity, although no responses were recorded
for this question in Building 2 and Building 5. After hearing the sound it is a brief period
until it is distracting and the length of the distraction is long. No statistical correlation
was observed for hearing of piped music or masking, or the period of this between
hearing the sound and being annoyed and sound measurements in any of the 10 buildings.
However, significant inverse correlation with L_50 minus L_10 for dBA was observed
for annoyance in Building 9 (Pearson p=0.02 and Spearman p=0.075) and for the
duration of the annoyance for Building 8 (Spearman p=0.075).
Interpretation and Comments
The majority of respondents never hear piped in music or masking sounds. Of those that
did, most were only infrequently annoyed/distracted. The measurement L_50 - L_10 for
dBA does not consistently inversely correlate with background noises from piped-in
music or masking sounds.
Sound Hypothesis#10: Annoyance or distraction from sound from piped in music or masking sounds
can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound, the intelligibility or
content of the sound or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using L_80 minus L_10 for dBA for “too loud” and L_80
minus L_50 for dBA for “intermittent/unpredictable” and “increases/decreases.” The
response “one tone dominates” was not tested by measurements, but the response
“understandable” was tested using L_80 - L_50 for dBA. Of the small number of
NCEMBT-080201
63
4. RESULTS
respondents who heard piped-in music or masking sounds, there were several reasons for
distraction, with no one predominating. The only statistically significant correlation was
observed in Building 10 (Pearson p=0.02 and Spearman p=0.01) and “too loud.”
Interpretation and Comments
Of the small number of respondents who hear piped-in music or masking sounds, there
are several sources of distraction, with no one predominating. None of the perception
questionnaire resposnses correlated with the various calculated measurements, except for
Building 10.
Sound Hypothesis#11: Sound in a work area from nearby office equipment (e.g., copy machines,
typewriters) annoys or distracts building occupant.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using L_90 minus L_50 for noise criteria (NC). The majority
or respondents did not hear sounds of office equipment, with 78% selecting “never” or
“occasionally”. Of those who heard office equipment sounds, nearly all (95%) were
infrequently or never annoyed/distracted and 97% never or infrequently had productivity
affected. The sound most commonly annoys or distracts quickly within 30 seconds, and
59% reported that the annoyance/distraction lasts a brief period, less than 2 minutes.
Statistically significant correlations were observed for hearing equipment sounds) for
Building 1 (Spearman p=0.04) and 10 (Pearson and Spearman p=0.00). Moderately
significant correlation was also found for Building 1 (Pearson p=0.05). No correlations
were found for the other variables of annoyance, productivity affected, period of time
from hearing equipment sound to annoyance/distraction or the length of the
annoyance/distraction.
Interpretation and Comments
Most respondents never or only occasionally heard sounds of office equipment. Of those
who heard those sounds, nearly all were infrequently or never annoyed/distracted and
never or infrequently had productivity affected. It was a brief period to distraction and it
lasted a short time.
Sound Hypothesis#12: Annoyance or distraction from the sound of office equipment (e.g., copy
machines, typewriters) can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound,
the intelligibility or content of the sound or the irritating or harsh content in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using L_90 minus L_10 for NC for “too loud” and L_90
minus L_50 for NC for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_80 minus L_50 for NC for
“increases/decreases.”
The response “one tone dominates” was not tested by
measurements, but the response “understandable” was tested using L_80 minus L_50 for
NC. Sounds from nearby office equipment that were “too loud” or “intermittent
/unpredictable” represented the majority of responses for annoyance/distraction.
64
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Statistically significant correlation was observed for the sound measurement and the
response “too loud” for Building 1 (Pearson p=0.047 and Spearman p=0.03) and For
Building 6 (Spearman p=0.02). Moderate correlation was also observed for Building 6
(Pearson p=0.07). Statistically significant correlation was observed for the sound
measurement and the response “intermittent/unpredictable” for Building 2 (Pearson
p=0.00 and Spearman p=0.03) and For Building 6 (Pearson and Spearman p=0.03).
Interpretation and Comments
Sounds from nearby office equipment that are too loud or are intermittent/unpredictable
represent most of the reasons of annoyance/distraction. No measured or calculated sound
values consistently correlated with perception questionnaire responses regarding sound
from nearby office equipment.
Sound Hypothesis#13: Sound in a work area from mechanical equipment within a building annoys or
distracts occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using sound measurements L_80 minus L_10 for RC. The
majority of respondents did not report hearing the sound of mechanical equipment in the
building and specifically replied “never” when asked the frequency of hearing
mechanical sounds. The majority of respondents was not annoyed/distracted by
mechanical sounds and replied “never” or only “occasionally”. The majority did not
report affect on their productivity and specifically responded “never” or “infrequently”.
The period of time before a mechanical sound becomes distracting was brief, generally
within 30 seconds, and the period of distraction generally was also brief and within 30
seconds. Statistically significant correlation was observed for sound measurements L_80
minus L_10 for RC and hearing of mechanical sounds for Building 7 (Pearson p=0.01
and Spearman p=0.02) and Building 9 (Pearson p=0.01 and Spearman p=0.00).
Moderate correlation was observed for Building 6 (Pearson p=0.05). Significant
correlation was observed for the sound measurements and the duration that the distraction
occurred for Building 10 (Pearson p=0.05). The majority of respondents answered that
the mechanical sounds came from the ceiling, but “can’t tell” was also noted. The sound
of the mechanical equipment was predominately described as a “hiss/whistle” or a
“rumble’.
Interpretation and Comments
Most occupants in all buildings never or only occasionally heard sounds from mechanical
equipment. Of those who did, nearly all were infrequently or never annoyed/distracted
and never or infrequently had their productivity affected. The sound most commonly
annoyed or distracted within 30 seconds, but there was a wide distribution of its duration.
None of these questions correlated consistently with L_80 minus L_10 for RC.
NCEMBT-080201
65
4. RESULTS
Sound Hypothesis#14: Annoyance or distraction from the sound of mechanical equipment within the
building can be caused by the overall sound level, fluctuations in the sound intensity or harsh tones
contained in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using the sound measurements L_80 minus L_10 for NC for
“too loud” and L_80 - L_50 for NC for intermittent/unpredictable. L_80 minus L_50 for
NC for “increases/decreases.” The response “one tone dominates” was not tested by
measurements, but the response “understandable” was tested using L_80 minus L_50 for
NC. Sounds from mechanical equipment that were too loud or intermittent/unpredictable
represented most of the reasons for annoyance/distraction. Statistically significant
correlations were observed for “too loud” and the sound measurements for Building 4
(Pearson p=0.01 and Spearman p=0.02) and Building 6 (Pearson and Spearman p=0.02).
Statistically significant correlation was observed for Building 6 (Spearman p=0.01) and
Building 7 (Pearson p=0.03) for “increases /decreases.” No correlation was observed for
“understandable.”
Interpretation and Comments
Sounds from mechanical equipment that were “too loud” or “intermittent/unpredictable”
were the most distracting, but most responses were not annoyed/distracted. No measured
or calculated sound values consistently correlated with occupant perception questionnaire
responses regarding sound from mechanical equipment.
Sound Hypothesis#15: Sound in a work area from the air conditioning system (air supply or air return)
within a building annoys or distracts occupants.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was tested using L_80 minus L_50 for RC, RC® [rumble]. Most (70%)
respondents reported never or occasionally hearing sounds from air supply or return
diffusers, but 17% heard it constantly. Of those who did hear these sounds, most (76%)
were infrequently or never annoyed/distracted. The majority (88%) of respondents’
productivity was not affected and reported “never” or “infrequently” on specific
responses. The time period from hearing the sounds and being annoyed/distracted is
generally brief and the sound most commonly annoys or distracts within 30 seconds. The
duration of the annoyance/distraction is brief and is usually <30 seconds. Statistically
significant correlation was observed with L_80 minus L_50 for RC; RC® [rumble] and
hearing the sounds for Building 2 (Pearson p=0.03). Significant correlation was observed
for being annoyed for Building 6 (Pearson p=0.02). No correlation was found for
affecting productivity or for the time period within the sound was annoying. However,
statistically significant correlation was observed for Building 7 (Spearman p=0.04) and
Building 10 (Pearson and Spearman 0.00) for the length of the disturbance.
66
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Interpretation and Comments
Most of the occupants never or only occasionally heard sounds from air supply or return
diffusers. Of those who did hear these sounds, most were infrequently or never
annoyed/distracted and their productivity was never or infrequently affected. The sound
most commonly annoyed or distracted within 30 seconds, and the duration of the
annoyance/distraction was usually less than 30 seconds. None of the occupant perception
questions consistently correlated with L_80 minus L_50 for RC.
Sound Hypothesis#16: Annoyance or distraction from sound from ceiling or floor air-supply diffusers
can be caused by the overall sound level, the intermittent nature of the sound, fluctuations in the sound
intensity or the irritating or harsh tones contained in the sound.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was testing using the sound measurement L_90 minus L_10 for RC for
“too loud.”
L_90 minus L_50 for RC was used for the response
“intermittent/unpredictable” and L_80 - L_50 for RC was used for the response
“increases/decreases.”
The response “one tone dominates” was not tested by
measurements, but the response “understandable” was tested using L_80 minus L_50 for
NC. The majority of respondents selected “too loud” (46%), intermittent/unpredictable
(20%), or one tone dominants (25%) when asked the cause of the annoyance/disturbance
from sounds from ceiling or air supply diffusers. Statistically significant correlation was
observed for sound measurements and “too loud” for Building 4 (Pearson p=0.03 and
Spearman p=0.04) and Building 6 (Pearson 0.03 and Spearman 0.048). Moderate
correlation was observed for sound measurements and “intermittent/unpredictable” for
Building 9 (Spearman p=0.053). Statistically significant correlation was observed for
“increases/decreases” for Building 7 using Pearson (p=0.02) and moderate correlation
was found using Spearman (p=0.06). Nearby walls was the location most often cited as
the location of the sound from air diffusers/supply registers and a variety of sounds were
reported.
Interpretation and Comments
Too loud or intermittent/unpredictable sounds from ceiling or air supply diffusers
represented most of the reasons of annoyance/distraction. No measured or calculated
sound values consistently correlated with occupant perception questions regarding sound
from ceiling or air supply diffusers.
Sound Hypothesis#17: Conditions that allow building occupants to clearly hear other people talking,
having telephone and/or speakerphone conversations can cause workers to believe that they cannot
have a private conversation in their work area.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis was testing using sound measurements L_50 for SIL. The respondents
varied in their responses to privacy to have a private conversation. Respondents also
were asked about telephone privacy and responses were mixed. There was little
NCEMBT-080201
67
4. RESULTS
correlation for the sound measurement and these questions. The only correlation was
observed in Building 8 were moderate significance was observed for telephone privacy
(Pearson p=0.08).
Interpretation and Comments
There is wide variability in the proportion of respondents and the extent of sound privacy
acceptability, including speech privacy for person-to-person and telephone conversations.
Responses to the perception questionnaire consistently correlated with L_50 for SIL only
in one building which had the highest participation rate.
Sound Hypothesis#18: If building occupants believe they cannot have a private conversation in their
work area, they will move to a more private area for confidential conversations.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis includes conversations on the telephone and was tested using sound
measurements L_50 for SIL. Respondents were divided as to moving to another location
to obtain privacy. The only correlations observed for sound measurements and responses
to these questions concerning privacy were observed in Building 8. Statistically
significant correlations for this building were observed for leaving to have a conversation
(Pearson p=0.04). Moderate significance was observed using Spearman (p =0.051).
Responses were varied when asked if they moved to another location to obtain telephone
privacy. Statistically significant correlation was observed for leaving the area to have a
telephone conversation (Pearson p= 0.02).
Interpretation and Comments
There is wide variability in the proportion of respondents and the extent of sound privacy
acceptability, including speech privacy for person-to-person and telephone conversations.
The only correlation between perception responses and L_50 for SIL was observed in one
building which has the highest participation rate.
Sound Hypothesis#19: If building occupants believe they cannot have a private conversation in their
work area, they will postpone confidential conversations to a time when people are not present in
adjacent areas.
Null Hypothesis
N/A.
Test Results
This hypothesis included telephone conversations and was tested using sound
measurements L_50 for SIL. Many of the respondents postpone conversations until a
later time to gain privacy. The only correlations observed for sound measurements and
responses to these questions concerning privacy were observed in Building 8.
Statistically significant correlation was observed for postponing a conversation until later
(Pearson p=0.02). Postponing telephone conversations to obtain privacy was a common
response. Statistically significant correlation was observed for postponing a telephone
call until later (Pearson p=0.00). The questionnaire also asked if they closed a door to
gain privacy. Many occupants responded that they closed a door to obtain privacy.
68
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Interpretation and Comments
There is wide variability in the proportion of respondents and extent of sound privacy
acceptability, including speech privacy for person-to-person and telephone conversations.
Occupant perception questionnaire responses concerning privacy only consistently
correlated with L_50 for SIL in one building which has the highest participation rate for
the questionnaire.
4.5.3 Sound Summary
Results of the sound portion of the occupant questionnaire by building and field measured sound level
data, by building and by minor location ID number are in Appendix Q. For the correlation, an assumption
was made that the data for both microphones and all three days could be combined to form a single
measure per zone. Correlation of the perception data and measured sound level data was performed for
each building and question affinity group combination. An affinity group normally has five related
questions dealing with that type of sound. The questions ask if the sound is heard, does it annoy or
distract, does it affect productivity, within how long does it affect productivity, and for how long does it
affect productivity.
4.6 LIGHTING
4.6.1 Lighting System Results
A brief description of the ten buildings’ lighting systems is found in Table R1 (Appendix R). Most of the
buildings monitored have cubicle setups, while Building 9, 10 and part of Building 8 have open office
setups. The cubicle partitions are about 1.66 m (5.4 ft) high, while the open office partitions are only 1.06
to 1.26 m (3.5 to 4.2 ft) high.
The ambient lighting systems of six of the buildings are direct recessed fluorescent with parabolic
louvers, and those of the other four are direct/indirect fluorescent, pended mounted. All the building
ambient lighting systems have four feet 32 W T8 light sources, but with different correlated color
temperatures (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI). The CCT and CRI numbers provided in the table
were measured by a Lightspex spectrometer, and thus are different from the nominal values marked on
the lamps. The CCTs vary from 3100 K to 3840 K, and CRIs were from 75 to 86.
Except for Building 10 and part of open office area in Building 8, all the other buildings have task lights,
most of which are furniture-integrated units, and only one building uses desk movable units. The light
sources used in the task lights are T8, T12 and compact florescent lamps (CFL). The CCT ranges from
2718 to 3913 K and CRI ranges from 63 to 85. Note that Buildings 6 and 8 have relatively low CRIs, 63
and 67, respectively, which have very poor color rendering capability.
Buildings 6, 8 and 9 are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings with
ratings of gold, silver and platinum respectively. Although all the buildings have windows, three LEED
buildings have more windows, and provide more daylight and window views for their occupants than the
other buildings. This is because the U.S. Green Building Council gives LEED credits for buildings that
provide daylight to 75% of spaces and views for 90% of space. Except Building 9, all the others have
blinds as daylight controls. Building 9 has overhang, but no blinds, and it uses neutral color lowtransmittance windows with transmittance from 18% to 37% at different locations.
The main lighting control systems in the buildings are timing devices and local override light switches.
Most buildings have occupancy sensors in some areas, such as meeting rooms and copy rooms. Buildings
NCEMBT-080201
69
4. RESULTS
1, 2 and 3 have occupancy sensors for task lighting. Building 6 has dimming ballasts and photosensors for
ambient lighting systems. According to its building facility manager, however, dimming ballast and
photosensors are not functional because of lighting design problems.
4.6.2 Lighting Measurement Results
Measurement results including illuminance, luminance, color property and LPD, of ten office buildings
are summarized in Appendix S. The mean and standard deviation values of measurements for each
building are listed, providing baseline lighting measurement data for typical office buildings. Figure S1
provides illuminance-related measurements of ten buildings. For each building, its mean and standard
deviation over 18 measured workstations are shown in the figure. Figure S1 (a) plots illuminances at work
surface, which were computed by averaging four measurements at far left, far right, near left and near
right of primary surfaces. The overall illuminance at work surfaces of ten buildings was 657 Lux with the
standard deviation of 243 Lux. The design guide recommends 300 to 500 Lux for office lighting,
depending on the characteristics of visual tasks. The measured illuminance is higher than the high end of
this design range. The LEED certified buildings (Buildings 6, 8, 9 and 10), which all use direct/indirect
lighting systems, had lower average illuminance at the work surface than the other buildings, which use
direct lighting systems. Figure S1 (b) illustrates the uniformity of illuminance at the work surface, which
was computed by averaging the ratio of the maximum illuminance to the average illuminance at work
surface and the ratio of the maximum illuminance to the average illuminance at work surface. The overall
uniformity was 1.91 with the standard deviation of 1.15. A uniformity of less than 3.0 is generally
considered uniform. The IESNA lighting handbook lists the uniformity of light distribution on task plane
as one of the important design criteria. Figure S1 (b) shows that most buildings had uniform lighting
distribution at the work surface, except Building 3 that had greater uniformity and larger variations. The
three buildings with direct/indirect lighting systems (Buildings 6, 8, 9 and 10) had more uniform light
distribution and lower variations.
Figures S1 (c) and (e) plot illuminances at the center of screens, at source documents and keyboards of
VDTs. The illuminance at the center of screens is close to the vertical illuminance in offices. The vertical
illuminance is considered a very important design criterion in offices, and the recommendation value is
500 Lux. The average measured illuminance at the screens was 339 Lux, which is lower than the
recommendation value. The average illuminance at VDT source documents and keyboards were close,
574 Lux and 525 Lux, respectively. Figures S1 (f) shows illuminances at the floor for all the buildings.
The average was 350 Lux with the standard deviation of 143 Lux. Figure S2 provides luminance-related
measurements. Figures S2 a-c display luminances at ceilings between luminaires, at brightest ceilings and
at brightest light sources in field of view. The luminances at ceilings in direct/indirect lighting systems are
much higher than those in direct systems, due to the influence of upbeat light in the direct/indirect
systems. The average luminances between luminaires were 98 and 36 cd/m2 for buildings with
direct/indirect and direct systems, respectively. The results for luminances at brightest ceilings were 471
and 55 cd/m2 for two systems, respectively. In addition, the variations in direct/indirect systems were
much higher than those in direct systems. The luminances at brightest light sources were 2089 and 4839
cd/m2 respectively, for two different lighting systems. Compared to direct/indirect systems, direct systems
obviously have much brighter light sources and darker ceilings.
Figure S2 (d) plots luminances at floor levels. The luminance greatly depends on floor colors. Dark colors
are normally used on floors. The average floor luminance measured in this study was 10 cd/m2. Figures S2
e-f show luminances at partitions or walls, and at the darkest partitions or walls in the field of view. These
two results were significantly affected by the colors of partitions and influence of daylight. The average
luminance at partitions was 49 cd/m2 with the standard deviation of 45 cd/m2. The luminance at darkest
partitions or walls in field of view was 16 cd/m2 with the same magnitude of standard deviation. Daylight
70
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
had great influence on a large number of workstations in Building 9, which caused large variations in
partition luminances.
Figure S3 a-b illustrate luminances at nearby buildings and at brightest sky from windows, respectively.
The results greatly depended on the weather, window orientation and measurement time. These data
provide an indication of luminances and variations from windows in a typical office building. Figure S4 ab show CRIs and CCTs of the lighting measured at the work surface for all the buildings. The average
CCT was 3387 K, which is considered a slightly warm color. The average CRI was 81, which is
considered to be fair color rendering properties. IESNA recommends using lamps with CRI of 70 or
greater in offices, or 85 CRI or above if color critical tasks are being performed. According to these
observations, no color critical tasks were performed in any office buildings. Therefore, color rendering
capabilities of the lighting in these offices should be appropriate.
The ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA standard recommends 10.76 W/m2 (1.0 W/ft2) for office spaces. The
lighting power density for ten office buildings overall is 12.71 W/m2 (1.18 W/ft2), 18% over the
recommended value. The six non-LEED buildings, using direct systems, have 14.27 W/m2 (1.33 W/ft2),
and four LEED buildings, using direct/indirect systems, have 10.37 W/m2 (0.96 W/ft2). The
ANSI/ASHARE/IESNA standard recommends 10.76 W/m2 (1.0 W/ft2) for office spaces. Building 9 had
very low LPD, only 6.89 W/m2 (0.64 W/ft2), because this building uses a great deal of daylight.
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze whether different buildings had
statistically different lighting measurements. The building was the independent variable with ten levels
(Buildings 1 to 10). The six key measurements, including illuminance at work surface, luminance at walls
or partitions, luminance at floor, luminance at ceilings between luminaires, luminance at brightest
ceilings, luminance at brightest light sources, were used as dependent variables. Multivariate tests show
that the buildings had significantly different lighting measurements [F(54, 1020) = 9.411, p < 0.001].
Univariate testing for the six dependent variables showed that all these dependent variables are
significantly different [all p < 0.001].
The same MANOVA analysis was performed for buildings with direct lighting systems (Buildings 1-5,
and 7). The results show that the buildings had significantly different lighting measurements [F(30, 505)
= 3.713, p < 0.001], although they all use direct systems. Univariate testing for the six dependent
variables showed that all these dependent variables are significantly different [all p < 0.05].
The analysis was also performed for buildings with direct/indirect lighting systems (Buildings 6, 8, 9 and
10). The results showed that the buildings had significantly different lighting measurements [F(18, 195) =
12.7606, p < 0.001], although they all use indirect systems. Univariate testing for the six dependent
variables show that five of all these dependent variables are significantly different [all p < 0.05], except
the luminance at brightest are not significantly different for buildings [F(3, 68) = 1.782, p = 0.159].
In summary, the above analyses show that there are significant differences in lighting measurements for
different buildings.
For each building, a total of 18 workstations were measured in three days, with six measurements in each
day. The MANOVA statistical method was used to analyze whether different days had different lighting
results. The day is taken as the independent variable with three levels (Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday). The six measurements, same as in the above analysis, are used as dependent variables.
Separate tests were run for different buildings. Multivariate tests show that the day is significant only to
Building 3, [F(12, 22) = 6, p = 0.02]. All the other eight tests show that the day is not significant, with p
values of 0.835, 0.367, 0.661, 0.807, 0.991, 0.756, 0.301, 0.291 and 0.852 for Buildings 1, 2 and 4 to 10,
respectively. The results of a univariate test for Building 3 shows that two of the six measures,
illuminance at work surface [F(2, 157737) = 6, p = 0.12] and illuminance at partitions or walls [F(2,
150.2) = 3.76, p = 0.047] are significantly different.
NCEMBT-080201
71
4. RESULTS
From the above statistical analyses, it was determined that the lighting measurements were not
significantly different for different days for most of buildings, with only one exception, Building 3.
A question in the perception questionnaire asked about the respondents’ attitudes toward brightness in
office work areas (“I am most comfortable when the lighting in my work area is: very bright, somewhat
or slightly bright, neither bright nor dim, somewhat or slight dim, or very dim or dark”). Most lighting
experts believe that people should be most comfortable when the lighting in the work area is neither
bright nor dim. Only 24% respondents, however, chose this answer. Most respondents (69%) liked very
bright and somewhat or slightly bright lighting in their work area. Seven percent respondents liked
somewhat dim lighting. This result is very important, allowing correlation of brightness perception with
psychological comfort.
Figure S5 a-b provide the results of two questions regarding brightness on work surfaces and computer
screen. As can be seen, most respondents thought that the lighting on their desk and computer screens was
somewhat bright or neither bright nor dim. These results correspond with the illuminance measurements,
which were 657 Lux on the work surface and 339 Lux on the computer screens.
Figure S6 shows the repondents’ answers on the uniformity of light distribution across work surfaces. A
majority of respondents felt that lighting was uniform. This result also corresponds with the measurement,
which was 1.9 for the ten buildings overall.
Figure S7 shows that about a third of office occupants (35%) experienced direct glare sometime during the
day, and the most noticeable source was direct sunlight or daylight in general. Ceilings can also be
important glare sources. Figure S8 provides the result of reflected glare on computer screens. It shows that
some office occupants (28%) experienced reflected glare sometime during the day, and the most
noticeable glare source was sunlight or daylight.
There are two questions on the perception questionnaire related to color property of the lighting: whether
the color of people’s faces and objects appear natural, and whether the lighting is visually cool or warm.
These two questions were designed according to two important color properties of lighting, color
rendering and color temperature. Results show that 70% of respondents agreed the color appeared natural,
only 5% did not agree, and the other 25% were neutral or did not know. The results of the second
question show that most respondents (79%) were neutral or did not know how to answer the question.
During this study, it was found that many people (none of whom were lighting experts) had a difficult
time in answering these two questions. People generally do not pay much attention to color rendering and
the color tone of lighting, due to lack of lighting knowledge. Although they may observe some differences
in the colors of objects, they seldom correlate this with the lighting. The answers given for these two
questions show a high percentage of neutral opinions or did not know, which emphasizes this point.
Among 394 respondents, 64% of them were in the buildings with windows facing the outdoors. Only
these respondents were allowed to answer questions regarding daylight. The results of the survey show
that a majority of these people (91%) who answered questions preferred natural light, and only less than
2% somewhat disliked natural light.
Approximately 19% of the respondents thought the amount of lighting entering their work area was very
or somewhat excessive. 71% thought it was neither excessive nor insufficient, and 10% thought it was
somewhat or very insufficient.
When the amount of natural sunlight or daylight that enters the office or work area was excessive or
insufficient, 66% of the respondents never or occasionally adjusted windows drapes or blinds. 7% of the
respondents adjusted some of the time, and 26% adjusted most of time or all of the time.
In the questionnaire occupants were queried about flickering, buzzing sounds, irregular and distracting
lighting patterns, and shadows. The survey results show flickering and buzzing sounds are not a big
72
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
problem as less than 2% of respondents experienced flickering or buzzing sounds most of the time or all
the time. This may be because electronic ballasts which generally do not produce flickering or noise were
used in all of the buildings surveyed. Irregular lighting patterns were also not a reason for complaints,
because less than 2% of respondents noticed them. Shadows were also not a big problem: over 83% of
respondents did not observe much shadow, and only 10% reported some shadows in their work area.
There are two very similar questions regarding respondents’ satisfaction towards the overall lighting
environment. One is, “in the past 4 weeks, I would rate my satisfaction with the lighting in my work
area,” and the other is, “over the past 4 weeks, I have been satisfied with the lighting in my office.” These
two questions are placed at the beginning and near the end of the group of lighting questions. This
repetition was designed intentionally because respondents’ satisfaction towards lighting was very
important information, and reliable answers could be obtained by asking them repetitively. In both these
questions, a time frame of the past four weeks was added, because the building lighting may change over
time, and this time frame helps clarify the questions.
The answers to these two questions are shown as Figure S9. The results of two questions were very close,
which suggested that respondents take the questions seriously and they had consistent opinions about
their lighting satisfaction. A majority of respondents (72%) were satisfied with their lighting, with 36%
(averaging the results of two questions) were very satisfied and the same percentage of respondents were
somewhat satisfied. About 14% of the respondents had neutral opinions, and 12% were somewhat
dissatisfied, while 2% were very dissatisfied.
In the questionnaire, there are four questions related to productivity. The results are shown in Figure S10.
As to the first question, “the quality of lighting in my work area is important to my ability to be
productive in my job,” about 90% of respondents agreed, 9% stayed neutral and only 0.8% somewhat
disagreed. This result suggests that occupants believe that lighting is an important indoor environmental
factor, which affects the occupants’ productivity.
The second question is regarding the lighting factor that most adversely affects productivity. About 23%
of respondents chose that the lighting is too bright or too dim. Another 19% of respondents chose too
much glare. Very few respondents chose other factors, including light flickering, lighting patterns and
distorted colors. About 42% of respondents did not answer this question at all.
As to the question, “when there is too much glare on my desk surface or workstation, and/or on my
computer screen, my productivity is adversely affected,” 70% of respondents believed that their
productivity never or only occasionally was affected by glare, but 20% thought they were affected some
of the time and 10% were affected most of the time or all the time.
The last productivity related question is, “when the lighting in my work area, on my desk surface or
workstation, and/or on my computer screen is deficient or unacceptable during my work day, my
productivity is adversely affected.” The results were similar to the above question regarding glare. Also,
most respondents (68%) did not think their productivity was affected by deficient or unacceptable
lighting, but about a third of respondents (32%) thought they were affected some of the time, most of time
or all the time.
In summary, from the results of these four productivity related questions, it was found that: 1) most
respondents believe that the quality of lighting is important to their productivity; 2) lighting levels and
glare are the most important lighting factors that affect productivity; and 3) approximately a third of
respondents think inappropriate lighting levels and too much glare affect their productivity.
NCEMBT-080201
73
4. RESULTS
4.6.3 Lighting Hypotheses Results
Lighting Hypothesis#1: Most people will be comfortable when the lighting in their work areas is
neither too bright nor too dim.
Test Results
The results of the occupant perception questionnaire show that only 24% respondents
chose “neither too bright nor too dim” and most respondents (71%) chose “very bright”
and “somewhat or slightly bright” lighting in their work area.
Lighting Hypothesis#2: The lighting over 700 Lux on the work surface will be considered as “very
bright” or “somewhat bright” and lower than 300 Lux may be considered as “very dim or dark” or
“somewhat dim or dark.”
Test Results
The mean illuminances at work surface of three buildings (Building 3, 4 and 7) were over
700 Lux and the median values of occupant perception questionnaire results are
“somewhat bright.” In comparison, the median illuminances at work surface of two
buildings (Building 8 and 9) were lower, 547 and 542 Lux respectively, and the median
responses of the perception questionnaire were “neither bright nor dim.” In the second
part of the hypothesis there are not enough data, because no building had a mean
illuminance lower than 300 Lux.
Lighting Hypothesis#3: Lower than 50 Lux of the lighting at computer screens will be considered as
“very dim or dark” or somewhat dim or dark”.
Test Results
All the measurements in this questionnaire are much greater than 50 Lux at the computer
screens, with the average of 327 Lux. Most respondents evaluated the lighting at their
commuter screens as “neither bright nor dim” and some evaluated it as “somewhat
bright.”
Lighting Hypothesis#4: The uniformity of illuminance less than 3 at work surfaces will be considered
as uniform.
Test Results
Eight buildings had the uniformities <3 and Building 3 had the uniformity a little higher
(3.5). All the buildings had median values of perception questionnaire results of
“somewhat uniform.”
Lighting Hypothesis#5: When there is too much glare on desk surfaces or workstations, and/or on my
computer screen, most occupants’ productivity will be adversely affected.
Test Results
The occupant perception questionnaire results show that 70% of respondents believed
that their productivity never or only occasionally was affected by glare and only 30%
believed that they were affected from some of the time to most of the time and all the
time.
74
NCEMBT-080201
4. RESULTS
Lighting Hypothesis#6: Most people prefer to have natural light from outdoors come into their office
or work area.
Test Results
The results of the questionnaire show that a majority of respondents (91%) who answered
questions preferred natural light, and only less than 2% somewhat disliked natural light.
Lighting Hypothesis#7: If the CRI of lighting is 75 or greater, the color of people’s faces and objects in
work area will appear natural.
Test Results
The CRIs of all the buildings were all over 75 and with the average of 81. The median
answers of the perception questionnaire results were that respondents somewhat agreed
that people’s faces and objects in work area appear natural.
Lighting Hypothesis#8: The CCT of the lighting lower than 3000 K will be evaluated as visually warm
and higher than 5000 will be evaluated as visually cool.
Test Results
All the buildings recorded CCTs between 3000 to 5000 K and most respondents had neutral
opinions or did not know how to answer this question.
NCEMBT-080201
75
5. CONCLUSIONS
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Access to office buildings was problematic. Therefore, the geographic and climate diversity of the
monitored buildings was compressed. Details of the building characteristics are listed in Appendix T. The
true value of the data in this study will increase as additional building measurements are added to the
database.
Placement of monitoring instrumentation required space in work areas without disruption of the work
activities of the space. Every effort was made to be the least disruptive as possible as still gather reliable
data representative of the building. Figure 12 depicts the standard set up of the static instrumentation
(IEQ and sound). Lighting and mold measurements were made with additional instrumentation by a
member of the research time visiting the area.
Figure 12. Standard setup of the static IEQ and sound instrumentation.
5.2 THERMAL COMFORT/ INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Temperature was perceived as acceptable by a majority of respondents in all buildings (Figures 1-10).
There is limited inter-zone variability in the perception of thermal comfort. Temperature fluctuation
between AM and PM was not problematic in the population of buildings studied. In most buildings
where occupants can adjust the temperature themselves via thermostat, <10% did so in response to
temperature too cool, whereas the proportion approached 10% in response to too warm. The prevalence
of adverse work productivity perception was relatively low compared with overall perception of thermal
acceptability. Vertical temperature gradients were within the acceptable level in all buildings. Thermal
acceptability was not associated with perception of thermal discomfort in a particular body part. Most
76
NCEMBT-080201
5. CONCLUSIONS
occupants report perceived humidity as acceptable most or all of the time in all buildings. Fluctuations in
humidity were uncommon. Most occupants in all the buildings did not report conditions to be too dry or
too hot; of those who did, most do not make adjustments. Most buildings had an average draft rate that
was less than 15%. A majority of respondents found draft acceptable. Although unacceptability of the
draft parameter was higher than postulated, most occupants did not respond to the problem by making
adjustments, nor did most perceive it as having an adverse impact on work productivity. Most
respondents found the air in the work environment acceptably fresh and infrequently stuffy. Among those
respondents who perceivde the air as being stuffy at least some portion of the work day, nearly all did not
make adjustments to their workplace to address the problem. Air stuffiness did not appear to significantly
impact work productivity. Nearly all occupants of this set of non-problem buildings did not report
frequent odors. Among those who did, food odors were consistently the most frequent type of odor.
5.3 AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
The most prevalent airborne fungal spore worldwide, Cladosporium, was isolated from 100% of the
buildings sampled. Airborne Stachybotrys spores were never found indoors. However, surfaceassociated Stachybotrys was isolated in 8% of the settled dust (vacuum) samples. The airborne fungal
spores in the 10 typical office buildings did not vary over the three days nor did they vary by the six
indoor locations sampled demonstrating that for non-water damaged buildings the airborne fungal spore
populations can be characterized with a single day of sampling in a limited number of locations.
Similarly, surface vacuum samples were consistent over the three days of sampling by location and the
majority of the buildings demonstrated similar concentrations of spores. However, in four of the 10
buildings there were wide ranging concentrations indicating variability in the presence of settled spores in
the sampled locations. A larger data set of vacuum samples is needed to address variability by day and by
location.
5.4 SOUND
The literature review indicated that the physical sound environment does affect occupant’s perception of
the indoor environment, but that other factors not directly related to or affecting sound may influence that
perception. The search for correlation of perception and actual environment involves analysis of the data
from the questionnaire and the field measurements. Information that may help explain variation in the
correlation could come from knowledge of the variation in the building characteristics. For example, the
literature review indicated that the architectural and mechanical characteristics of a building may affect
building occupants’ perception of their indoor environment. The literature review also indicated that
those characteristics may effect occupant’s perception of the sound environment even if the sound of the
indoor comfort environment is not significantly affected.
The sound data analysis completed did not find any consistent correlation between the sound level data
chosen and the corresponding questionnaire question. Thus, it was not shown that sound levels measured
in a zone can be a good predictor of occupant perception of sound and its effect on performance. There
can be several reasons for the inability to identify correlation. A root cause analysis of the problem
“analysis failed to show that measured sound levels can be used to predict sound related occupant
perceptions” was performed to help identify all the possible causes.
The possible causes identified were:
▪
There is in fact no correlation between measured sound levels and occupant perception of the
effects of sound. This is not a cause because it is well documented in published literature that
occupants are annoyed by high sound levels and such levels do affect productivity.
NCEMBT-080201
77
5. CONCLUSIONS
▪
The sound levels in the buildings did not reach a sufficient difference between zones such that
occupants’ perception would be sensitive to the differences. In that case, there was no correlation
between measured sound levels and occupant perception of the effects of sound due to low
variation between zones. None of the buildings were observed to consistently have sound at
levels considered to objectionably outside the normal range for office buildings. In particular,
within a building for nearly all cases measured differences between zones in significant sound
levels (L_5 to L_90) were less than 6 dB. 6 dB is considered noticeable but well below twice as
loud and may not normally be perceived as a large difference. However if a 6 dB or greater
consistent difference actually existed between the zones, that can result in significant differences
in occupants’ perceptions between those zones. Therefore the limited variation in the measured
levels cannot be considered the main cause of the inability to identify correlation.
▪
The measured sound levels used in the correlation were not the correct levels and other levels
would have correlated with the perception questionnaire results. The sound levels used were
based on engineering experience and judgment. However, other levels were not tried and may be
better suited for the correlation. Therefore, this is a possible contributor in some correlations but
not likely to be the cause of the inability to identify any consistent correlation.
▪
The questionnaire failed to capture the true perceptions of the occupants. The sound related
questions were developed through a cooperative effort by sound engineers and perception
questionnaire experts. The questionnaire no doubt introduced some experimental error but is
unlikely to be the cause of the inability to identify any consistent correlation.
▪
Insufficient sample size of questionnaire respondents reduced the chances of identifying
correlation. This certainly applies for some buildings where sample size was small. The way that
data were correlated, the smaller the sample size, the harder to achieve a 95 percent confidence
level in a positive correlation. This would have reduced the number of positive correlations but
would not account for the absence of any consistent correlation.
▪
The sound level measured in the zone does not accurately represent the sound level in the
immediate environment of the questionnaire respondent. In a typical building, a zone covered a
large area, in some cases nearly 2000 square feet. Based on personal observation of the co-PI,
and a study of the HVAC systems on a floor, the sound levels that exist in a zone over a distance
of less than 50 feet can vary significantly, equal to or greater than the sound level variation that
was measured between zones. However, the sound level that was used to represent a zone was
measured in one area with two microphones separated by 10 feet on average. The location of the
microphones was determined by the criteria covered in Section 3 which made the locations a
reasonable cross-section of locations in the building but not for any zone. It is quite likely that for
many buildings, sound level variation within a zone was often as high or higher than the zone-tozone variation. An additional inaccuracy was introduced by the proximity of zones. Often a
particular floor of an office building was divided into two or more zones that were contiguous.
This resulted in cases where a respondent may actually be much closer to the microphones of the
neighboring zone than those of their zone yet had their answer paired to the results from the latter.
In statistical terms, the sample rate was two samples per zone, that were not independent but
closely coupled, and thus there was only one independent sample per zone. Because of the known
noise level variation within the zone, one independent noise measurement sample per zone is an
insufficient sample size. Such an analysis is highly susceptible to a Type II error. Specifically,
an analysis performed under these circumstances can easily fail to identify any existing
correlation between actual sound levels and the occupants’ perception of the effect of those
levels. This is the dominant reason that the inter-zone comparisons failed to identify consistent
correlation.
78
NCEMBT-080201
5. CONCLUSIONS
The failure to identify any correlation between inter-building zone sound levels and occupant perceptions
does not preclude the existence of a correlation in general between sound levels and occupant perceptions.
A comparison between buildings of the sound data suggest that buildings have similar variation in sound
levels from one zone measurement station to the next but also have significant differences in average
sound levels. Respondent data from different buildings also shows noticeable differences (Figures 1-10).
It remains to be determined if the differences correlate.
The method of coupling questionnaire respondents with zone sound levels introduced sufficient error into
the data to guarantee a failure to accurately identify any correlation between the measured sound levels
and the questionnaire respondents’ data. The physical characteristics of the sound in the buildings, in
particular, the significant variation of sound levels within a zone, the contiguous locations of many zones
and the lack of evidence of significant differences in the overall sound environment between the zones
made the method inappropriate.
Although the measured sound levels do not accurately represent the respondents to whom they were
paired, the levels may be representative of the sound environment in the building. Using six stations
with a total of twelve microphones is below the desired number of samples to accurately represent the
sound environment of a building yet it is much better than the sample of one location with two
microphones used to represent a zone. Thus a building-to-building correlation analysis may yield useful
results.
The correlation data for sound should be disregarded due to error introduced by the small sample size of
only one independent sound measurement per zone. A building-to-building correlation analysis should
be conducted to determine if sampling in a building can be used to accurately predict occupant
perceptions about the sound environment and its effect on worker productivity.
Any follow-on studies need to decide how closely the study should tie a measured sound level to a
questionnaire respondent. One choice is to colocate the microphones with the respondent so that the
sound level measured has a high probability of being representative of the respondents’ immediate
environment. The other is to sample in sufficient numbers the sound environment in the area used in the
comparison, and sample a sufficient number of occupants so that in the aggregate, the sound levels and
their variation accurately represent the sound level environment in the area and the respondents answers
accurately represent occupant perceptions.
5.5 LIGHTING
Significant differences in lighting measurements were observed for different buildings. However, the
lighting measurements were not significantly different for different days for most of buildings, with only
one exception. The overall illuminance at work surfaces of ten buildings was higher than the high end of
the design range. Most of buildings had uniform lighting distribution at work surface. The three buildings
with direct/indirect lighting systems had more uniform light distribution and lower variations. Luminance
results greatly depended on the weather, window orientation and measurement time. The results provided
in this study provide an indication with regards to luminances and variations from windows in a typical
office building. Respones to lighting on the perception questionnaire were summarized in Figures 1-10.
Results from the four productivity related questions in the questionnaire, it was found that: 1) most
respondents believe that the quality of lighting is important to their productivity; 2) lighting levels and
glare are the most important lighting factors that affect productivity; and 3) approximately a third of
respondents think inappropriate lighting levels and too much glare affect their productivity.
NCEMBT-080201
79
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.6 LESSONS LEARNED
Through all stages of this research task lessons were learned by the investigators in regards to efficiency,
accessibility, and communication. The following are items that can be used to improve the quality of
further research of this type.
▪
Shipping the instrumentation and equipment used in this task posed a challenge because of its
size and the purchase costs resulting in expenses for insurance. Instrumentation and equipment
required two shipping pallets (Figure 13). Equipment traveling in such bulk needed to be
scheduled for shipment at least 14 days prior to sampling. The investigators chose to send the
equipment from sample location to sample location without having it shipped back to the
university between locations. If all sampling trips were scheduled in advance, then the equipment
only had to cross the country once instead of being shipped back and forth. Scheduling this way
keeped shipping costs down because the distance traveled was much smaller and the time
between field sampling was less. Therefore, a research location could be sampled every other
week this way instead of once a month. However, the equipment could not be stored at a
sampling location for an extended period of time. Shipping schedules should be made in advance
and communicated to the shipping company as well as an employee at the pickup and the drop off
locations.
Figure 13. Photograph of the two shipping pallets required for transport of the instrumentation and equipment for this task.
80
NCEMBT-080201
5. CONCLUSIONS
▪
The use of the VIVO probes for temperature, humidity, and draft took a great deal of time to set
up, download, and disassemble. First, the set up of the VIVO meters required many small,
tedious connections. Second, each of the six thermal comfort stationstook 20 minutes to
download, for a total of two hours post-data collection just for downloading. If the research time
frame was from 8am to 4pm, then the equipment was not boxed up and ready for the next
shipment until 7pm at the earliest. Many buildings did not keep the doors open that late; security
alarms could be activated. For other security reasons, the building administration may not want
outsiders on the premises without supervision. Finally, as previously mentioned, the VIVO
stations are time-consuming to disassemble as well. New Cabbage Cases were purchased to
transport the VIVO equipment so that it would not have to be completely disassembled for every
shipment. Yet, this might be a threat to the delicate nature of the instruments. Several probes
needed repair after sampling trips.
▪
A recruiting trip by the liaison to the respective field location prior to the sampling trip was
helpful in establishing a relationship with the building’s employees. A meeting with the building
manager was helpful for two main reasons. First, the manager knows the project on a more
personal level. The liaison could discuss the logistics of what would be expected in a clearer
manner with the manager as well as other administrative staff who might need to be aware of the
project. They have opportunity to ask questions as they think of them instead of back and forth
over email and missed telephone calls over the course of multiple months. Second, the liaison
could view the environment of the building. Issues such as the building’s shipping dock for
unloading/loading the equipment, a refrigerator for storing the microbiological media, a quiet
space/conference room to set up the perception questionnaire, and meeting the front desk staff are
examples of steps that make the sampling team’s time at the building smoother. As learned,
sometimes building managers error in the accessibility of their respective building and do not
know who needs to be made aware of this research prior to the sampling. The liaison can settle
these issues prior to travel. Also, maps can be acquired and zone locations can be planned prior
to traveling.
▪
The office building’s administration must be active in recruiting for the perception questionnaire.
If the administration does not encourage the employees to participate, then participation rates will
be low. An active administration greatly increased the participation rate. Also, once word out
out about the length of the questionnaire, the amount of participation dropped off if
administrationwas not involved in the recruiting process.
▪
Space was limited within the zones for the tripods of equipment as well as minimal availability of
electrical outlets. The team traveled with six extension cords and six power strips that had to be
used in most of the offices. So, finding adequate power sources was sometimes a challenge.
▪
Finally, a timetable dictating technician responsibilities for setup, monitoring, and downloading
was constructed. This helped structure the work periods and was a way to verify that nothing was
skipped or overlooked. It also aided the field team in working more efficiently.
NCEMBT-080201
81
6. REFERENCES
6. REFERENCES
Aizenberg, V., S. A. Grinshpun, K. Willeke, J. Smith, and P. A. Baron. 2000. Performance characteristics
of the button personal inhalable aerosol sampler. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 61:398-404.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 1995. ASHRAE
handbook HVAC applications.
———. 2002. Risk management guidance for health and safety under extraordinary incidents. American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.
ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992, Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy.
ANSI/ASHRAE 62-2001, Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality.
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA. 2003. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Addendum G to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-2001, energy standard for buildings except low-rise residential buildings.
Awbi, H.B. 1998. Ventilation. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 2 (1-2):157-188.
Andersen, A. A. 1958. New sampler for the collection, sizing, and enumeration of viable airborne
particles. Journal of Bacteriology 76:471-484.
Andersen, B., and A. T. Nissen. 2000. Evaluation of media for detection of Stachybotrys and Chaetomium
species associated with water-damaged buildings. Internat Biodeterioration Biodegradation 46:111-116.
Batterman S. and C. Ping. 1995. TVOC and CO2 concentrations as indicators in indoor air quality
studies. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 56:55-65.
Beguin, H. and N. Nolard. 1996. Prevalence of fungi in carpeted floor environment: analysis of dust
samples from living-rooms, bedrooms, offices and school classrooms. Aerobiologia 12:113-120.
Beis, D.A. and C.H. Hansen. 1997. Engineering Noise Control, London: E & FN Spon.
Bellin, P., and J. Schillinger. 2001. Comparison of field performance of the Andersen N6 single stage and
the SAS sampler for airborne fungal propagules. Indoor Air 11:65-68.
Beranek, L.L. 1956. Criteria for office quieting based on questionnaire rating studies. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 19:883-851.
———. 1993. Acoustics. New York: Acoustical Society of America.
Bernstein, R. S., W. G. Sorenson, D. Garabrant, C. Reaux, and R. D. Treitman. 1983. Exposures to
respirable, airborne Penicillium from a contaminated ventilation system: clinical, environmental and
epidemiological aspects. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 44:161-169.
Bischof, W., A. Koch, U. Gehring, B. Fahlbusch, H.E. Wichmann, and J. Heinrich. 2002. Predictors of
high endotoxin concentrations in the settled dust of German homes. Indoor Air 12:2-9.
Blazier, W. E. 1981a. Revised noise criteria for the design and rating of HVAC systems. ASHRAE
Transactions 87 (1).
———. 1981b. Revised noise criteria for applications in the acoustic design and rating of HVAC
systems. Noise Control Engineering Journal 16 (2):64-73.
———. 1995. Sound quality considerations in rating noise from heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) systems in buildings. Noise Control Engineering Journal 43 (3):53-63.
82
NCEMBT-080201
6. REFERENCES
———. 1997. RC Mark II: A refined procedure for rating the noise of heating, ventilating, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings. Noise Control Engineering Journal 45 (6):243-250.
Broner, N. 1994. Determination of the relationship between low-frequency HVAC noise and comfort in
occupied spaces. ASHRAE Transactions 100 (2).
Buchanan, L. M., J. B. Harstad, J. C. Phillips, E. Lafferty, C. M. Dahlgren and H. M. Decker. 1972.
Simple liquid scrubber for large-volume air sampling. Appl Microbiol 23:1140-1144.
Burge, H. A., D. L. Pierson, T. O. Groves, K. f. Strawn and S. K Mishra. 2000. Dynamics of airborne
fungal populations in a large office building. Cur Microbiol 40:10-16.
Burge, H. P., J. R. Boise, J. A. Rutherford, and W. R. Solomon. 1977. Comparative recoveries of airborne
fungus spores by viable and non-viable modes of volumetric collection. Mycopathologia 61:27-33.
Burkhart, J. E., R. Stanevich, and B. Kovak. 1993. Microorganism contamination of HVAC
humidification systems: case study. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 8:1010-1014.
Buttner, M. P., and L. D. Stetzenbach. 1993. Monitoring airborne fungal spores in an experimental indoor
environment to evaluate sampling methods and the effects of human activity on air sampling. Appl
Environ Microbiol 59:219-226.
Buttner, M. P., K. Willeke, and S. Grinshpun. 1997a. Sampling for Airborne Microorganisms. In Manual
of environmental microbiology, ed. C.J. Hurst, G. Knudsen, M. McInerney, M. V. Walter, and L. D.
Stetzenbach, 629-640. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.
———. 2002a. Sampling and analysis of airborne microorganisms. In Manual of environmental
microbiology, 2nd edition, ed. C.J. Hurst, G. Knudsen, M. McInerney, M. V. Walter, and L. D.
Stetzenbach, 814-826. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.
———. 2002b. Sampling for Airborne Microorganisms. In Manual of Environmental Microbiology, 2nd
edition, ed. C.J. Hurst, G. Knudsen, M. McInerney, M. V. Walter, and L. D. Stetzenbach, 814-826.
Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.
Buttner, M. P., A. J. Alvarez, L. D. Stetzenbach, and G. A. Toranzos, 1997b. PCR detection of airborne
microorganisms. In Environmental applications of nucleic acid amplification techniques, ed. G. A.
Toranzos, 145-158. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Co.
Buttner, M. P., P. Cruz-Perez, P. J. Garrett, and L. D. Stetzenbach. 1999. Dispersal of fungal spores from
three types of air handling system duct material. Aerobiologia 15:1-8.
Buttner, M. P., P. Cruz-Perez, and L. D. Stetzenbach. 2001. Enhanced detection of surface-associated
bacteria in indoor environments using quantitative PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:2564-2570.
Buttner, M.P., P. Cruz-Perez, L.D. Stetzenbach, P.J. Garrett, and A.L. Luedtke. 2002a. Measurement of
airborne fungal spore dispersal from three types of flooring materials. Aerobiologia, 18:1-11.
Cage, B. R., K. Schreiber, C. Barnes, and J. Portnoy. 1996. Evaluation of four bioaerosol samplers in the
outdoor environment. Ann Allergy 77:401-406.
Carter, D. J., R. C. Sexton, and M. S. Miller. 1989. Field Measurement of Illuminance. Lighting Research
and Technology 21(1):29-35.
CBE. 2004. Occupant Indoor Environmental Quality Survey: College of Environmental Design, UC
Berkeley.
CBE IEQ Survey on the web: http:// www.CBE.Berkley.edu/research/briefs-survey.htm
NCEMBT-080201
83
6. REFERENCES
Cena, K., ed. 1998. Field study of occupant comfort and office thermal environments in a hot arid
climate. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE).
Cena, K. and R. de Dear. 1998. Field Study of Occupant Comfort and Office Thermal Environments in a
Hot-arid Climate – Final Report on ASHRAE RP-921. Perth: Institute of Environmental Science.
Chan, D., J. Burnett, R. de Dear, R., and N. Stephen. 1998. Large-Scale Survey of Thermal Comfort in
Office Premises in Hong Kong. ASHRAE Transactions 104:1172-1180.
Chang, J. C. S., K. K. Foarde and D. W. VanOsdell. 1996. Assessment of fungal (Penicillium
chrysogenum) growth on three HVAC duct materials. Environ Internat 22:425-431.
Charles, K. E., and J. A. Veitch. 2002. Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: Effects of
workstation size, partition height and windows. Institute for Research Construction.
Chatigny, M. A., J. M. Macher, H. A. Burge, and W. R. Solomon. 1989. Sampling airborne
microorganisms and aeroallergens. In Air sampling instruments for evaluation of atmospheric
contaminants, 7th edition, ed. S. V. Hering, 199-220. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Chiang, C. M. and C. M. Lai. 2002. A study on the comprehensive indicator of indoor environment
assessment for occupants' health in Taiwan. Building and Environment 37(4):387-392.
Collins, B. L., W. S. Fisher, G. Gillette, and R. W. Marans. 1989. Evaluating office lighting
environments: Second-level analysis. NISTIR 89-4069. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standard
and Technology.
———. 1990. “Second Level Post-occupancy Evaluation Analysis.” Journal the Illuminating
Engineering Society 19(2):21-44.
Cruz-Perez, P., M. P. Buttner, and L. D. Stetzenbach. 2001a. Specific detection of Stachybotrys
chartarum in pure culture using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Mol Cellular Probes 15:129-138.
———. 2001b. Detection and quantitation of Aspergillus fumigatus in pure culture using polymerase
chain reaction. Mol Cellular Probes 15:81-88.
DeDear, R. J., M. E. Fountain, and K. Cena. 1994. Field Experiments on Occupant Comfort and Office
Thermal Environments in a Hot-Humid Climate. ASHRAE Transactions 100(2):457-474.
DeDear, R.J. 1999. Field Study of Occupant Comfort and Office Thermal Environments in a hot, arid
Climate. ASHRAE Transactions 105:204-217.
Dillon, H. K., P. A. Heinsohn, and J. D. Miller, eds. 1996. Field guide for the determination of biological
contaminants in environmental samples. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Donnini, G., D. H. C. Lai, M. Laflamme, J. Molina, H. K. Lai, V. H. Nguyen, C. Martello, C. Y. Chang,
and F. Haghighat. 1999. Field Study of Occupnat Comfort and Office Thermal Environments in a Cold
Climate. ASHRAE Transactions 105:204-217.
Duchaine, C. and A. Mériaux. 2001. The importance of combining air sampling and surface analysis
when studying problematic houses for mold biodiversity determination. Aerobiologia 17:121-125.
Eduard, W., J. Lacey, K. Karlsson, U. Palmgren, G. Ström, and G. Blomquist. 1990. Evaluation of
methods for enumerating microorganisms in filter samples from highly contaminated occupational
environments. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 51:427-436.
Elixmann, J. H., W. Jorde, and H. F. Linskens. 1987. Filters of an air-conditioning installation as
disseminators of fungal spores. Adv Aerobiology 10:238-286.
84
NCEMBT-080201
6. REFERENCES
Ellringer, P. J., K. Boone, and S. Hendrickson. 2000. Building materials used in construction can affect
indoor fungal levels greatly. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 61:895-899.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. ORIA’s Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation
(BASE) Study, and Temporal Indoor Monitoring Evaluation (TIME) Study. Available online:
http://env1.kangwon.ac.kr/project/sdwr2004/litsurv/intwebsites/epaost/epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/base_page.htm. March 20, 2006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Ezeonu, I. M., J. A. Noble, R. B. Simmons, D. L. Price, S. A. Crow, and D. G. Ahearn. 1994. Effect of
relative humidity on fungal colonization of fiberglass insulation. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:2149-2151.
Fanger, P. O. 1970. Thermal Comfort. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press.
Fanger P. O., and A. K. Melikov. 1989. Turbulence and draft. ASHRAE Journal 31(4):18-25.
Fetters J. L. 1998. The handbook of lighting surveys and audits. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Fink, J. N., E. F. Banazak, W. H. Thiede, and J. J. Barboriak.1971. Interstitial pneumonitis due to
hypersensitivity to an organism contaminating a heating system. Ann Intern Med 74:80-83.
Flannigan, B. 1997. Air sampling for fungi in indoor environments. J Aerosol Sci 28:381-392.
Flannigan, B. and P. R. Morey. 1996. Control of moisture problems affecting biological indoor air
quality, In ISIAQ guideline: Task Force I, 1-55. Ottawa, Canada: International Society of Indoor Air
Quality and Climate.
Foarde, K., D. VanOsdell, and E. Meyers. 1997. Investigation of contact vacuuming for remediation of
fungally contaminated duct materials. Environ Internat 23:751-762.
Garrison, R. A., L. D. Robertson, R. D. Koehn, and S. R. Wynn. 1993. Effect of heating-ventilation-air
conditioning system sanitation on airborne fungal populations in residential environments. Ann Allergy
71:548-556.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1996. School facilities: Conditions of america’s schools. GAOHEHS-95-61.
Gillette, G. 1988. Evaluating office lighting environments: Reference lighting power density data, NBSIR
88-369. Gaithersburg MD: National Bureau of Standards.
Gillette, G., and M. Brown. 1986. Occupant evaluation of commercial office lighting: Volume I,
methodology and bibliography. ORNL/TM-10264/V1. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
———. 1987. Occupant evaluation of commercial office lighting: Volume III, data archive and database
management system. ORNL/TM-10264/V3. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Gold, D. R. 1992. Indoor air pollution. Clin Chest Med 13:215-229.
Górny, R. L., J. Dutkiewicz, and E. Krysińska-Traczyk. 1999. Size distribution of bacterial and fungal
bioaerosols in indoor air. Ann Agric Environ Med 6:105-113.
Górny, R. L., T. Reponen, S. A. Grinshpun, and K. Willeke. 2001. Source strength of fungal spore
aerosolization from moldy building material. Atmos Environ 35:4853-4862.
Grant, C., C. A. Hunter, B. Flannigan, and A. F. Bravery. 1989. The moisture requirements of moulds
isolated from domestic dwellings. Internat Biodeterioration Biodegradation 25:259-284.
Gravesen, S., P. A. Nielsen, R. Iversen, and K. F. Nielsen. 1999. Microfungal contamination of damp
buildings – Examples of risk constructions and risk materials. Environ Health Perspect 107:505-508.
NCEMBT-080201
85
6. REFERENCES
Griffiths, W. D., I. W. Stewart, S. J. Futter, S. L. Upton, and D. Mark. 1997. The development of
sampling methods for the assessment of indoor bioaerosols. J Aerosol. Sci 28:437-457.
Griffiths, W. D., I. W. Stewart, J. M. Clark, and I. L. Holwill. 2001. Procedures for the characterization of
bioaerosol particles. Part II: Effects of environment on culturability. Aerobiologia 17:109-119.
Hanna, R. 2002. Environmental appraisal of historic buildings in Scotland: The case study of the Glasgow
School of Art. Building and Environment 37:1-10.
Harris, L. Lou Harris Associates for Steelcase. 1987. The office environment index: 1987 full report and
1987 summary report. Steelcase.
Haugland, R. A., and J. L. Heckman. 1998. Identification of putative sequence specific PCR primers for
detection of the toxigenic fungal species Stachybotrys chartarum. Mol Cellular Probes 12: 387-396.
Haugland, R. A. S. J. Vesper, and L. J. Wymer. 1999. Quantitative measurement of Stachybotrys
chartarum conidia using real time detection of PCR products with the TaqManTM fluorogenic probe
system. Mol Cellular Probes 13:329-340.
Hedge, A. 1991. Healthy office lighting for computer workers: a comparison of lenses-indirect and direct
systems. Proceedings IAO 91-Healthy Buildings, 61-66. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers.
Henningson, E. W. and M. S. Ahlberg. 1994. Evaluation of microbiological aerosol samplers: A review. J
Aerosol Sci 25:1459-1492.
Hodgson, M., and R. Scott. 1999. Prevalence of fungi in carpet dust samples. In Bioaerosols, fungi and
mycotoxins: Health effects, assessment, prevention and control, ed. E. Johanning. Albany, New York:
Eastern New York Occupational and Environmental Health Center.
Holmberg, K., U. Landstrom, and A. Kjellberg. 1997. Low frequency noise level variations and
annoyance in working environments. Journal of Low Frequency Noise and Vibration 16:81-88.
Holmberg, K., Landström, U., Söderberg, L., and Kjellberg, A. 1996. Hygienic assessment of low
frequency noise annoyance in working environments. Journal of Low Frequency Noise and Vibration
15:7-16.
Hygge, S. and H. A. Löfberg. 1999. Post Occupancy Evaluation Of Daylight In Buildings. A Report of
IEA SHC Task 21/ESBCS Annex 29. International Energy Agency Solar Heating & Cooling Programme.
Available online: www.iea-shc.org/task21/D_POE_procedures_and_results/Task21POE.pdf. November 22,
2004. International Energy Agency Solar Heating & Cooling Programme.
Hyvärinen, A., T. Meklin, A. Vepsäläinen, and A. Nevalainen. 2002. Fungi and actinobacteria in
moisture-damaged building materials – concentrations and diversity. International Biodeterioration
Biodegradation 49:27-37.
Hyvärinen, A., T. Reponen, T. Husman, and A. Nevalainen. 2001. Comparison of the indoor air quality in
mould damaged and reference buildings in a subarctic climate. Center Eur J Public Health 3:133-139.
Hyvärinen, A., T. Reponen, T. Husman, J. Ruuskanen, and A. Nevalainen. 1993. Characterizing mold
problem buildings – concentrations and flora of viable fungi. Indoor Air 3:337-343.
Hyvärinen, A., M. Vahteristo, T. Meklin, M. Jantunen, A. Nevalainen, and D. Moschandreas. 2001.
Temporal and spatial variation of fungal concentrations in indoor air. Aerosol Sci Tech 35: 688-695.
IES-PHS. 1963. How to make a lighting survey. Illuminating Engineering. February.
Jensen, P. A., W. F. Todd, G. N. Davis, and P. V. Scarpino. 1992. Evaluation of eight bioaerosol samplers
challenged with aerosols of free bacteria. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 53:660-667.
86
NCEMBT-080201
6. REFERENCES
Jensen, P. A., B. Lighthart, A. J. Mohr, and B. T. Shaffer. 1994. Instrumentation used with microbial
bioaerosols, p. 226-284. In B. Lighthart and A. J. Mohr (ed.), Atmospheric microbial aerosols, Theory
and Applications. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Jitkhajornwanich, K.; A. C. Pitts, A. Malama, S. Sharples. 1998. Thermal Comfort in Transitional spaces
in the Cool Season of Bangkok. ASHRAE Transactions Symposium n Pt. 1B, SF-98-11-4, 104:1181-1191
Juozaitis, A., K. Willeke, S. A. Grinshpun, and J. Donnelly. 1994. Impaction onto a glass slide or agar
versus impingment into a liquid for the collection and recovery of airborne microorganisms. Appl Environ
Microbiol 60:861-870.
Kemp, S. J., T. H. Kuehn, D. Y. H. Pui, D. Vesley, and A. J. Streifel. 1995a. Growth of microorganisms
on HVAC filters under controlled temperature and humidity conditions. ASHRAE Transactions, Part 1.
101:305-316.
———. 1995b. Filter collection efficiency and growth of microorganisms on filters loaded with outdoor
air. ASHRAE Transactions, Part 1. 101:228-238.
Koch, A., K. J. Heilemann, and W. Bischof. 2002. Storage stability of viable mould spores and endotoxin
in house dust samples. Monterey, CA: Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002, 9th International Conference of
Indoor Air Quality and Comfort.
Kozak Jr., P. P., J. Gallup, L. H. Cummins, and S. A. Gillman. 1980. Currently available methods for
home mold surveys, II, examples of problem homes surveyed. Ann Allergy. 45:167-176.
Leventhall, G., P. Pelmear and S. Benton. 2003. A review of published research on low frequency noise
and its effects. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Levetin, E., R. Shaughnessy, C. A. Rogers, and R. Scheir. 2001. Effectiveness of germicidal UV radiation
for reducing fungal contamination within air-handling units. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:3712-3715.
Lewis, F. A. 1995. Regulating indoor microbes: The OSHA proposed rule on IAQ. International
Conference on Fungi and Bacteria in Indoor Air Environments. Saratoga Springs, NY: Eastern New York
Occupational Health Program,
Lightheart, B., and L. D. Stetzenbach. 1994. Distribution of microbial bioaerosols. In Atmospheric
microbial aerosols, theory and applications, ed. B. Lighthart and A. J. Mohr, 68-69. New York: Chapman
and Hall.
Lin, X., T. A. Reponen, K. Willeke, S. A. Grinshpun, K. K. Foarde, and D. S. Ensor. 1999. Long-term
sampling of airborne bacteria and fungi into a non-evaporating liquid. Atmos Environ 33:4291-4298.
Macher, J. M. 1999. Bioaerosols: Assessment and control, 12-1–12-8. Cincinnati: American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
———. 2001a. Review of methods to collect settled dust and isolate culturable microorganisms. Indoor
Air 11:99-110.
———. 2001b. Evaluation of a procedure to isolate culturable microorganisms from carpet dust. Indoor
Air 11:134-140.
Macher, J. , H. A. Burge, D. K. Milton, and P. R. Morey, eds. 1999. Assessment and Control of
Bioaerosols in the Indoor Environment. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Government Industrial
Hygienists.
MacNeil, L. and K. T. Robertson. 1995. Molecular techniques and their potential application in
monitoring the microbiological quality of indoor air. Can J Microbiol 41:657-665.
NCEMBT-080201
87
6. REFERENCES
Maggi, O., A. M. Persiani, F. Gallo, P. Valenti, G. Pasquariello, M. C. Sclocchi and M. Scorano. 2000.
Airborne fungal spores in dust present in archives: proposal for a detection method, new for archival
materials. Aerobiologia 16:429-434.
Main D.M. and T. J. Hogan. 1983. Health effects of low-level exposure to formaldehyde. J Occup Med
25:896-900.
Martin, R. A., C. Federspiel, and D. Auslander. 2002. Responding to thermal sensation complaints in
buildings. ASHRAE Transactions 108:407-412.
Martikainen, P. J., A. Asikainen, A. Nevalainen, M. Jantunen, P. Pasanen, and P. Kalliokoski. 1990.
Microbial growth on ventilation filter materials. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Indoor Air Quality and Climate, 203-206. Ottawa, Canada: International Conference on Indoor Air
Quality and Climate.
Maus, R., A. Goppelsröder, and H. Umhauer. 1996. Viability of micro-organisms in fibrous air filters. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Nagoya. 3:137-143.
Mehta, S. K., S. K. Mishra, and D. L. Pierson. 1996. Evaluation of three portable samplers for monitoring
airborne fungi. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:1835-1838.
Menizes, D., J. Pasztor, T. Rand, and J. Bourbeau. 1999. Germicidal ultraviolet irradiation in air
conditioning systems: effect on office worker health and wellbeing: a pilot study. Occup Environ Med
6:397-402.
Miller, J. D., P. D. Haisley, and J. H. Reinhardt. 2000. Air sampling results in relation to extent of fungal
colonization of building materials in some water-damaged buildings. Indoor Air 10:146-151.
Montacutelli, R., O. Maggi, G. Tarsitani, and N. Garielli. 2000. Aerobiological monitoring of the “Sistine
Chapel”: airborne bacteria and microfungi trends. Aerobiologia 16: 441-448.
Morey, P. 1993. Microbiological events after a fire in a high rise building. Indoor Air 3:354-360.
Nakano, J., S. Tanabe and K. Kimura. 2002. Differences in perception of indoor environment between
Japanese and non-Japanese workers. Energy and Buildings 34 (6):615-621.
Näsman, A., G. Blomquist, and J. O. Levin. 1999. Air sampling of fungal spores on filters: An
investigation on passive sampling and viability. J Environ Monitoring 1:361-365.
Ne'eman, E., G. Sweitzer, and E. Vine. 1984. Office worker response to lighting and daylighting issues in
workspace environments: A pilot survey. Energy and Buildings 6:159-171.
Nevalainen, A., J. Pastuszka, F. Leibhaber, and K. Willeke. 1992. Performance of bioaerosol samplers:
collection characteristics and sampler design considerations. Atmos Environ 26A:531-540.
New York City Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Disease
Epidemiology. 2002. Guidelines on Assessment and Remedation of Fungi in Indoor Environments.
www.ci.nyc.ny.us.
Odom J. D. and C. R. Barr. 1997. Sick building litigation: the role that occupant outrage plays. Synergist
(Oct): 28-30.
Op't Veld, P. and C. Passlack-Zwaans. 1998. IEA ANNEX 27: Evaluation and demonstration of domestic
ventilation system: Assestments on noise. Energy and Buildings 27 (3):263-273.
Oral, K. G., A. K. Yener and N. T. Bayazit. 2004. Building envelope design with the objective to ensure
thermal, visual and acoustic comfort conditions. Building and Environment 39 (3):281-287.
88
NCEMBT-080201
6. REFERENCES
Pahl, O., Phillips, V. R., J. Lacey, J. Hartung, and C. M. Wathes. 1997. Comparison of commonly used
samplers with a novel bioaerosol sampler with automatic plate exchanger. J Aerosol Sci 28:427-235.
Palmgren, U., G. Strom, G. Blomquist, P. Malmberg. 1986. Collection of airborne micro-organisms on
Nuclepore filters estimation and analysuis – CAMNEA method. J Appl Bacteriol 61:401-406.
Parks, S. R., A. M. Bennett, S. E. Speight, and J. E. Benbough. 1996. An assessment of the Sartorius
MD8 microbiological air sampler. J Appl Bacteriol 80:529-534.
Parsons, K. C. 2000. Environmental Ergonomics: A Review of Principles, Methods and Models. Applied
Ergonomics 31:581-594.
Pasanen, A. L., P. Kalliokoski, P. Pasanen, M. J. Jantunen, and A. Nevalainen. 1991. Laboratory studies
on the relationship between fungal growth and atmospheric temperature and humidity. Environ Internat
17:225-228.
Pasanen, A. L., J. P. Kasanen, S. Rautiala, M. Ikäheimo, J. Rantamäki, H. Kääriäinen, and P. Kalliokoski.
2000b. Fungal growth and survival in building materials under fluctuating moisture and temperature
conditions. Internat Biodeterioration Biodegradation 46:117-127.
Pasanen, A. L., T. Juutinen, M. J. Jantunen, and P. Kalliokoski. 1992. Occurrence and moisture
requirements of microbial growth in building materials. International Biodeterioration Biodegradation.
30:273-283.
Pasanen P., A. L. Pasanen, and M. Jantunen. 1993. Water condensation promotes fungal growth in
ventilation ducts. Indoor Air. 3:106-112.
Pasanen, A. L., S. Rautiala, J. P. Kasanen, P. Raunio, J. Rantamäki, and P. Kalliokoski. 2000a. The
relationship between measured moisture conditions and fungal concentrations in water-damaged building
materials. Indoor Air 11:111-120.
Pellerin, N. and V. Candas. 2003. Combined effects of temperature and noise on human discomfort.
Physiology and Behavior 78 (1): 99-106.
———. 2004. Effects of steady-state noise and temperature conditions on environmental perception and
acceptability. Indoor Air 14:129-137.
Persson-Waye, K., J. Bengtsson, A. Kjellberg and S. Benton. 2001. Low frequency noise pollution
interferes with work performance. Noise and Health 4:33-49.
Persson-Waye, K., A. Clow, S. Edwards, F. Hucklebridge, and R. Rylander. 2003. Effects of nighttime
low frequency noise on the cortisol response to awakening and subjective sleep quality. Life Sciences
72:863-875.
Persson-Waye, K., S. Benton, H. G. Leventhall, and R. Rylander. 1997. Effects on performance and work
quality due to low-frequency ventilation noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration 205 (4):467-474.
Persson-Waye, K. and R. Rylander. 2001. The prevalence of annoyance and effects after long-term
exposure to low-frequency noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration 240 (3):483-497.
Pessi, A-M., J. Suonketo, M. Pentti, M. Kurkilahti, K. Peltola, and A. Rantio-Lehtimaki. 2002. Microbial
growth inside insulated external walls as an indoor air biocontamination source. Appl Environ Microbiol
68:963-967.
Rea, M. S. 2000. IESNA lighting handbook: Reference and application, 9th Edition. New York:
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
Reynolds, D.D. 2003. Engineering principles of acoustics. Las Vegas: DDR, Inc.
NCEMBT-080201
89
6. REFERENCES
Rintala, H., A. Nevalainen, and M. Suutari. 2002. Diversity of streptomyces in water damaged building
materials based on 16S rDNA sequences. Letters in Appl Microbiol 34:439-443.
Roe, J. D., R. A. Haugland, S. J. Vesper, and L. J. Wymer. 2001. Quantification of Stachybotrys
chartarum conidia in indoor dust using real time, fluorescent probe-based detection of PCR products. J
Exposure Analysis Envrion. Epidemiol 11:12-20.
Roponen, M., M. Toivola, T. Meklin, M. Ruotsalainen, H. Komulainen, A. Nevalainen, and M.-R.
Hirvonen. 2001. Differences in inflammatory responses and cytotoxicity in RAW264.7 macrophages
induced by Streptomyces anulatus grown on different building materials. Indoor air 11:179-184.
Rubin, A. I. and Collins, B. L. 1998. Evaluation of the working environment at selected U.S. army field
stations: Suggestions for improvement. Gaithersburg, MD: NBS, NBSIR 88-3827.
Russell, M. L., R. Goth-Goldstein, M. G. Apte, and W. J. Fisk. 2002. Method for measuring the size
distribution of airborne Rhinovirus. In Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002. Monterey, CA: 9th International
Conference of Indoor Air Quality and Comfort.
Samson, R. A., and E. S. Hockstra. 1994. Common fungi occurring in indoor environments. In Health
implications of fungi in indoor environments, ed. R. A. Samson, B. Flannigan, M. E. Flannigan, A. P.
Verhoeff, O. C. G. Adan, and E. S. Hoekstra, 541-546. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
Schiller, G. E. 1990. “A comparison of measured and predicted comfort in office buildings.” ASHRAE
Transactions 96 (1):609-622.
Schiller, G. E.; E. A. Arnes; F. S. Bauman; C. Benton; M. Fountain, and T. Doherty. 1988. A field study
of thermal environment and comfort in office buildings. ASHRAE Transactions 94 (2):280-308.
Schmechel, D., J. P. Simpson, and D. M. Lewis. 2002. The production and characterization of
monoclonal antibodies to the fungus Aspergillus versicolor. In Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002.
Monterey, CA: 9th International Conference of Indoor Air Quality and Comfort.
Sebastian, A., and L. Larson. 2002. Characterization of the microbial community in indoor environments;
a chemical-analytical approach. In Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002. Monterey, CA: 9th International
Conference of Indoor Air Quality and Comfort.
Seitz, T. A. 1989. NIOSH indoor air quality investigations: 1971-1988. In Proceedings of the Indoor Air
Quality International Symposium. Cincinnati, OH: National Occupational Safety and Health.
Sheeran, T. J. 2002. Bioterrorism. In Encyclopedia of environmental microbiology, ed. G. Bitton, 771782. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Shelton, B. G., K. H. Kirkland, W. D. Flanders, and G. K. Morris. 2002. Profiles of airborne fungi in
buildings and outdoor environments in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:1743-1753.
Simmons, R. B. and S. A. Crow. 1995. Fungal colonization of air filters for use in heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. J Indust Microbiol 14:41-45.
Smid T., E. Schokin, J. S. M. Boleij, and D. Heederik. 1989. Enumeration of viable fungi in occupational
environments: a comparison of samplers and media. Am Indust Hyg Assoc J 50:235-239.
Sorenson, W. G., D. G. Frazer, B. B. Jarvis, J. Simpson and V. A. Robinson. 1987. Trichothecene
mycotoxins in aerosolized conidia of Stachybotryis atra. Appl Environ Microbiol 53:1370-1375.
Spagnolo, J. and R. de Dear. 2003. A field study of thermal comfort in outdoor and semi-outdoor
environments in subtropical Sydney Australia. Building and Environment 38 (5):721-738.
Sterling, D. A., C. Clark, and Bjjornson. 1982. The effect of air control systems on the indoor
distributions of viable particles. Environ Internat 8:409-414.
90
NCEMBT-080201
6. REFERENCES
Stetzenbach, L. D. 2002a. Introduction to aerobiology. In Manual of environmental microbiology, 2nd
edition, ed. C.J. Hurst, G. Knudsen, M. McInerney, M. V. Walter, and L. D. Stetzenbach, 801-813.
Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.
———. 2002b. Enhanced detection of airborne microbial contaminants. In Encyclopedia of
environmental microbiology, G. Bitton, 1130-1136. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Su, H. J., A. Rotnitzky, H. A. Burge, and J. D. Spengler. 1992. Examination of fungi in domestic interiors
by using factor analysis: correlations and associations with home factors. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:181186.
Syzdek, L. D., and J. H. Haines. 1995. Monitoring Aspergillus fumigatus aerosols from a composting
facility. Aerobiologia 11:87-93.
Szponar, B., and L. Larsson. 2000. Determination of microbial colonization in water-damaged buildings
using chemical marker analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Indoor Air 10:13-18.
Teeuw, K. B., C. M. J. E. Vandenbroucke-Grauls, and J. Verhoef. 1994. Airborne gram-negative bacteria
and endotoxin in sick building syndrome. Arch Intern Med 154:2339-2345.
Tham, K. W. and M. B. Ullah. 1993. Building Energy Performance and Thermal Comfort in Singapore”
ASHRAE Transactions 99:308-321.
Thorne, P. S., M. S. Kiekhaefer, P. Whitten, and K. J. Donham. 1992. Comparison of bioaerosol sampling
methods in barns housing swine. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:2543-2551.
Tiffany J. A. and H. A. Bader. 2000. Detection of Stachybotrys chartarum: the effectiveness of
culturable-air sampling and other methods. J Environ Health 62:9-11.
Tourville, D. R., W. I. Weiss, P. T. Wertlake, and G. M. Leudemann. 1972. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis
due to contamination of home humidifier. J Allergy Clin Immunol 49:245-251.
Toftum, J. 2002. Human response to combined indoor environment exposures. Energy Buildings 34:601606.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Mold remediation in schools and
commercial buildings. Washington, D.C.: Office of Air and Radiation Indoor Environments Division
Unver, R., N. Y. Akdag, G. Z. Gedik, L. D. Ozt'urk, and Z. Karabiber. 2004. Prediction of building
envelope performance in the design stage: An application for office buildings. Building and Environment
39:143-153.
Wang, Z., L. Wang , and L. Lian. 2003. A field study of the thermal environment in residential buildings
in Harbin. ASHRAE Transactions 109 (2):350-355.
Westman, J. C., and J. R. Walters. 1981. Noise and stress: A comprehensive approach. Environmental
Health Perspectives 41:291-309.
Witterseh, T., G. Clausen, and D.P. Wyon. 2002. Heat and noise distraction effects on performance in
open offices. Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002 4:1084-1089.
Witterseh, T., P. Wargocki, L. Fang, G. Clausen, and P. O. Fanger. 1999. Effects of exposure to noise and
indoor air pollution on human perception and symptoms. The 8th International Conference on Indoor Air
Quality and Climate 2:125-130.
Wu, P. C., H. J. J. Su, and H. M. Ho. 2000. A comparison of sampling media for environmental viable
fungi collected in a hospital environment. Environ Res Section 82:253-257.
NCEMBT-080201
91
6. REFERENCES
Yamazaki, K., S. Nomoto, Y. Yokota and T. Murai. 1998. The effects of temperature, light, and sound on
perceived work environment. ASHRAE Transactions 104:711-720.
Yang, C. S. and E. Johanning. 1997. Airborne fungi and mycotoxins. In Manual of environmental
microbiology, ed. C.J. Hurst, G. Knudsen, M. McInerney, M. V. Walter, and L. D. Stetzenbach, 651-660.
Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.
Yizai, X. and Z. Rongyi. 2000. Effect of turbulent intensity on human thermal sensation in isothermal
environment. Qinghua Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Tsinghua University 40 (10):100-103.
Zaninović, K. 1979-1998 Bio-meteorological potential of Croatian Adriatic coast. 257-264.
Meteorological
and
hydrological
service
of
Croatia.
http://www.mif.unifreiburg.de/isb/ws/papers/18_zaninovic.pdf.
Zhongping, L. and D. Shiming. 2003. The outdoor air ventilation rate in high-rise residences employing
room air conditioners. Building and Environment 38 (12):1389-1399.
Zhou, G., W. Z. Whong, T. Ong, and B. Chen. 2000. Development of a fungus-specific PCR assay for
detecting low-level fungi in an indoor environment. Mol Cellular Probes 14:339-348.
92
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
This is a standard questionnaire developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The questionnaire was used in three identical benchmark studies in
San Francisco (USA), Townsville (Australia) and Montreal (Canada) referenced earlier.
1.
Name
2.
Date:
3.
Time:
In this part of the survey we would like to know how you feel RIGHT NOW, at this moment.
4a. (Thermal environment) Please tick the scale below at the place that best represents how you feel at
this moment. You may tick in an appropriate place between two categories, if you wish.
Cold
Cool
slightly
Neutral
Cool
4b. Is the thermal environment acceptable to you?
Slightly
Warm
Hot
Warm
1 ‫ ٱ‬unacceptable
2 ‫ٱ‬acceptable
4c. Please select the box below that best represents how you feel at this moment.
I would like to be:
3. ‫ ٱ‬Warmer
5.
2. ‫ ٱ‬No Change 1. ‫ ٱ‬Cooler
Please select the boxes that best represent how you feel at the moment about the air
movement in your office.
6
‫ ٱ‬very acceptable
5
‫ ٱ‬moderately acceptable
4
‫ ٱ‬slightly acceptable
3
‫ ٱ‬slightly unacceptable
2
‫ ٱ‬moderately unacceptable
1
‫ ٱ‬very unacceptable
NCEMBT-080201
93
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
I would like:
6.
3.
‫ٱ‬More Air movement
2.
‫ ٱ‬No change
1.
‫ٱ‬Less Air movement
(General Comfort) How comfortable is your office right now?
6
‫ٱ‬
very comfortable
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately comfortable
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly comfortable
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly uncomfortable
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately uncomfortable
1
‫ٱ‬
very uncomfortable
7.
(Temperature) What would you estimate the temperature to be Right now?
8.
(Activity) What activities have you been engaged in during the preceding hour?
Sitting
sitting
standing
on your feet
driving
walking
quietly
typing
still
working
a car
around
Last 10 minutes?
The 10 minutes preceding?
The 10 minutes before that?
The half hour before that?
9.
(Clothing) Please indicate whether you are wearing any of the items listed below by circulating
the appropriate number. 0 = not wearing item, 1 = light weight item, 2 - medium weight item, 3 = heavy
weight item.
94
FEMALES:
MALES:
Under layer:
under layer
0 1 2 3
top
0 1 2 3
top
0 1 2 3
bottom
0 1 2 3
bottom
0 1 2 3
slip
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
Footwear:
0 1 2 3
socks
0 1 2 3
socks
0 1 2 3
pantyhose
0 1 2 3
shoes
0 1 2 3
shoes
Mid layer
Mid layer
0 1 2 3
short sleeved shirt
0 1 2 3
short sleeved shirt
0 1 2 3
long sleeved shirt
0 1 2 3
long sleeved shirt
0 1 2 3
dress
0 1 2 3
pants
0 1 2 3
skirt
0 1 2 3
shorts
0 1 2 3
pants or slacks
0 1 2 3
shorts
Outer layers
10.
11.
Outer layers
0 1 2 3
sweater
0 1 2 3
sweater
0 1 2 3
vest
0 1 2 3
vest
0 1 2 3
jacket
0 1 2 3
jacket
Please indicate whether you have consumed any or the flowing items within the last 15
minutes.
‫ٱ‬
Hot drink
‫ٱ‬
Caffeinated drink
‫ٱ‬
Cold drink
‫ٱ‬
Cigarette
‫ٱ‬
Snack or Meal
Are you presently using air conditioning at home and/or or in your car?
Compressor based air
Evaporative air
Not
Conditioning
conditioning
available
yes
No
Yes
No
at home in my bedroom
at home in my living area
in my car
NCEMBT-080201
95
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
A1. INDOOR BACKGROUND SURVEY QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ASHRAE SURVEY
1. Name:
2.
Date:
3. Department or group:
4. Occupation:
5. Company name or organization
6. Work phone number:
7. Location in Building
8. How long have you lived in the “area”?
Years
Months
9. Are you using your home air-conditioner at this time of year?
1 ‫ ٱ‬Yes
2 ‫ٱ‬
No
3 ‫ٱ‬
not available
10. On the average, how many hours per week do you work at this job?
Hour’s at work
11. On the average, how many hours per day do you sit at your work area?
Hours at desk
12. What is your approximate height?
Centimeters
13. What is your approximate weight?
Kilograms
14. What is your age?
Years
Please tick the following
15.
What is your gender?
16
Your ethnic background?
‫ٱ‬
1 ‫ٱ‬
Native American
2 ‫ٱ‬
Asian or Pacific Islander
3 ‫ٱ‬
Hispanic
4 ‫ٱ‬
African American
5 ‫ٱ‬
Other (please specify:)
17. Is English your primary language?
Male
‫ ٱ‬Female
1‫ٱ‬
18. What is the highest grade of school you completed?
96
NCEMBT-080201
Yes
2‫ٱ‬
No
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
1 ‫ ٱ‬school leaving certificate or less
5 ‫ ٱ‬university college bachelors degree
2 ‫ ٱ‬higher school certificate (Yr. 12)
6 ‫ ٱ‬some graduate school
3 ‫ ٱ‬some college
7 ‫ ٱ‬university higher degree
4 ‫ ٱ‬college diploma
8 ‫ ٱ‬PhD
Work Area Satisfaction
Using the scale below, please indicate how SATISFYING YOUR WORK AREA IS with respect to each
characteristic by circling the number that reflects how you feel
6
very satisfied
5
moderately satisfied
4
slightly satisfied
3
slightly dissatisfied
2
moderately dissatisfied
1
very dissatisfied
(Circle one number for each item)
How satisfied are you with:
1. The type and levels of sounds? ........................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. The lighting? ..................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. The temperature?............................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. The air quality? ..............................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. The ventilation and air circulation? .................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. The colors of walls or partitions? ..................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. The furniture and equipment?..........................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
8. The amount of space available to you? ............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. The level of privacy? ......................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. The comfort of your chair? .............................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. Provision of non-smoking work areas? ............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
In terms of comfort, how acceptable is your office work area overall? (Check one below)
NCEMBT-080201
97
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
6
5
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
very acceptable
moderately acceptable
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly acceptable
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly unacceptable
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately unacceptable
1
‫ٱ‬
very unacceptable
Do you have any additional comments about the comfort of your office work area?
Personal Comfort
Please complete each of the following statements by checking the box that best expresses your personal
feelings or preferences.
1. On average, I perceive my work area to be: (check one)
6
‫ٱ‬
very comfortable
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately comfortable
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly comfortable
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly uncomfortable
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately uncomfortable
1
‫ٱ‬
very uncomfortable
2. On average, I perceive the temperature of my work area to be: (disregarding the effects of air
movement, lighting, and humidity)
6
‫ٱ‬
very warm
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately warm
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly warm
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly cool
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately cool
1
‫ٱ‬
very cool
3. On average, I perceive the air Movement of my work area to be: (disregarding the effects of air
movement, lighting, and humidity. Answer on both scales.)
98
3‫ٱ‬
too much
6
‫ٱ‬
very acceptable
2‫ٱ‬
just right
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately acceptable
1‫ٱ‬
too little
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly acceptable
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly unacceptable
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately unacceptable
1
‫ٱ‬
very unacceptable
4. On average, I perceive the Lighting of my work area to be: (disregarding the effects of temperature,
air movement and humidity)
6
‫ٱ‬
very bright
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately bright
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly bright
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly dim
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately dim
1
‫ٱ‬
very dim
5. On average, I perceive the humidity of my work area to be: (disregarding the effects of temperature,
air movement, and lighting)?
6
‫ٱ‬
very humid
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately humid
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly humid
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly dry
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately dry
1
‫ٱ‬
very dry
Personal Control
To what extent are you able to control the environment of the office space where you usually work? For
each question below make a check mark next to the statement that best expresses your personal feelings
or behavior patterns.
1. HOW much control do you feel you have over the thermal conditions of your workplace? (Check
one).
5
‫ٱ‬
complete control
4
‫ٱ‬
high degree of control
3
‫ٱ‬
moderate control
2
‫ٱ‬
slight control
1
‫ٱ‬
no control
2. How satisfied are you with this level of control? (Check one)
NCEMBT-080201
99
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
6
‫ٱ‬
very satisfied
5
‫ٱ‬
moderately satisfied
4
‫ٱ‬
slightly satisfied
3
‫ٱ‬
slightly dissatisfied
2
‫ٱ‬
moderately dissatisfied
1
‫ٱ‬
very dissatisfied
3. Can you exercise any of the following options to adjust the thermal environment at your workplace?
(Check Y = yes or N = no for each item)
1
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ٱ‬
open or close a window
2
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ ٱ‬open or close a door to the outside
3
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ ٱ‬open or close a door to an interior space
4
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ ٱ‬adjust a thermostat
5
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ ٱ‬adjust the drapes or blinds
6
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ ٱ‬turn a local space heater on or off
7
Y
‫ٱ‬
N
‫ ٱ‬turn a local fan on or off
4. In general, how often do you exercise any of the following options to adjust the thermal environment
at your workplace?
6
always
5
often
4
sometimes
3
rarely
2
never
1
not available
(Circle one number for each item)
1. Open or close a window...................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Open or close a door to the outside...................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. Open or close a door to an interior space..........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. Adjust a thermostat..........................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. Adjust the drapes or blinds...............................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
100
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
6. Turn a local space heater on or off ...................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. Turn a local fan on or off .................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
Job satisfaction
The questions below ask about different characteristics of your job. Please indicate how satisfying your
job is with respect to each characteristic by circling the number that reflects how you feel:
6
very satisfied
5
moderately satisfied
4
slightly satisfied
3
slightly dissatisfied
2
moderately dissatisfied
1
very dissatisfied
How generally satisfied are you with:
(Circle one number for each item)
1. Your job overall?............................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Your company’s policies? ...............................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. The degree of access to other people you work with? ....................... 1
2
3
4
5
6
4. The opportunity to develop your skills? ...........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. Your job security? ..........................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. Your relations with your co-workers?..............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. Your relations with your supervisors? .............................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
8. Your pay? ......................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. Your chances or advancement? .......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. Your level of responsibility?............................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. Your independence or autonomy?....................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. The degree of recognition for good work?........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. Your interest in the work itself?.......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. The quality of equipment you work with?........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
NCEMBT-080201
101
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
15. The time pressures of your job? ......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. Your interest in the work itself?.......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. The quality of equipment you work with?........................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. The time pressures of your job? ......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
Health Characteristics
Below are some symptoms that people experience at different times. Please indicate how often you have
experienced each symptom in the past month by circling the appropriate number for the scale below
5
very often
4
often
3
sometimes
2
rarely
1
never
Circle one number for each symptom)
1. Headache........................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
2. Dizziness........................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
3. Sleepiness.......................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
4. Sore or irritated throat ....................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
5. Nose irritation (itch or running).......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6. Eye irritation ..................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
7. Trouble focusing eyes .....................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
8. Difficulty concentrating ..................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
9. Skin dryness, rash or itch ................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
10. Fatigue ...........................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
11. Do you take over-the-counter or prescription medication that might influence your comfort while at
work?
102
1
‫ٱ‬
Yes
2
‫ٱ‬
No
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
On the average:
12. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day?
cigarettes
13. How many cups of caffeinated beverages do you drink per day?
Cups per day
14. How many hours do you exercise per week?
Hours
Your Environmental Sensitivity
A number of questions related to your typical response to environmental conditions are given below. To
indicate your answer to a question circle the number from the following scale which best expresses how
you typically feel.
6
very sensitive
5
moderately sensitive
4
slightly sensitive
3
slightly insensitive
2
moderately insensitive
1
very insensitive
Circle one number for each question
1. Do you tend to be SENSITIVE to environments which are
Too noisy? ......................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
......................................................................... 1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Do you tend to be Sensitive to environments which are
Too hot?
3. Do you tend to be Sensitive to environments which are
Too cold?........................................................................
4. Do you tend to be SENSITIVE to environments which have
Too little air movement? ......................................
5. Do you tend to be SENSITIVE to environments which have
Too much air movement? .....................................................
6. Do you tend to be SENSITIVE to environments which are
NCEMBT-080201
103
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
Too dimly lit?...............................................................
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. Do you tend to be SENSITIVE to environment which are
Too bright?....................................................................
8. Do you tend to be SENSITIVE to environments which have
Poor air quality? .......................................................
104
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
A2. SPAGNOLO AND DE DEAR, 1988 QUESTIONNAIRE.
NCEMBT-080201
105
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
A3. NAKANO, ET AL., 2002 QUESTIONNAIRE
106
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEWED
A4. CENTER FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY
NCEMBT-080201
107
APPENDIX B: BUILDING SELECTION CRITERIA
APPENDIX B: BUILDING SELECTION CRITERIA
Criterion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Comments
Location(s)
One major city in each of 5
selected geographic regions in
US (NW, SW, MW, NE, SE).
Location in heavily polluted
area (noise, particulate, odors
from adjacent facilities).
If the city is a state capital, there is a
higher likelihood of recruiting state
government buildings. In some
cases, it may be necessary to extend
buildings to 2 cities within a region.
Age
(construction
completion
date)
≥1989.
<1989; building may have been
previously occupied by another
owner/tenant, but if
information is not available, this
should be an exclusion criterion.
This ensures buildings will have a
modern construction and ventilation
system, no asbestos, and relatively
modern furnishings. A range of 15
years is sufficient to stratify into three
5-year categories for analysis of age
as a confounding variable on various
outcomes. The building may have
additions or remodeling after initial
construction date.
Type/function
All office/non-manufacturing;
single building or campus;
government; businessadministrative; may be open to
the public but not a public
facility per se.
Hospitals/health care facilities;
schools (non-university);
prisons; casino/hotels;
museums/
theatres/other primarily public
facilities; any mixed residential
usage.
The exclusion criteria are designed to
avoid uncontrollable confounding
variables inherent to the building
function as opposed to
structure/operation. Subsequent
studies may incorporate some of the
excluded list with more specific
protocols. The mix of government vs.
private will not be fixed, but ideally
no more than 33-50% government. A
manufacturing facility can be
attached but not directly connected
to the same ventilation system.
Number of
employers in
building
Preferably one, but multiple
divisions of same agency or
employer is acceptable.
Multiple employers (>3).
Logistical constraints of recruitment.
Number of
floors
One or multiple.
108
NCEMBT-080201
Multiple floors preferred so that
floors can be randomly selected for
testing.
APPENDIX B: BUILDING SELECTION CRITERIA
Criterion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Comments
Number of
occupants
≥75 full-time occupants.
<75.
The perception questionnaire has
time constraints. This quantity
increases the number of potential
participant buildings (vs. Bluyssen
cutoff of 125). For buildings with >20
occupants, a random selection of
respondents in building or within
target floors will be conducted.
Ideally a range of occupant numbers
between 75 and 500 will be
identified. Building type distribution
does not need to be equal in each
city.
Time in building
≥75% of occupants spend at
least 75% of their time in the
building, 5 days per week. “Fulltime” = 30+ hrs/week. Building
may operate during normal
business work-week or 24/7.
Information
Building must have a manager
or other individual who is
familiar with its operating
history, maintenance records,
layout, floor plan, HVAC, and IAQ
issues. Energy usage and
maintenance cost information
must be available.
Ventilation
Mechanically ventilated
(central).
This ensures a stable occupant
population for whom meaningful
perception questionnaire can be
obtained.
Operable windows; non-central
ventilation.
Reflects building stock that will be
relevant to our study for future data
usage. Parking in basement is
acceptable.
NCEMBT-080201
109
APPENDIX B: BUILDING SELECTION CRITERIA
Criterion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Comments
Building history
History of: significant
construction or design defects;
significant water intrusion or
mold problems that have
required formal remediation
(minor leaks that were
immediately repaired are
acceptable); significant
insect/pest, particulate, or gas
contaminants; systematic or
recurrent occupant health
complaints that have required
formal IEQ investigation or
workers’ comp claims; recurrent
or systematic complaints of
odors or climate problems;
major ventilation repairs due to
malfunction (scheduled
maintenance is acceptable)
These exclusion criteria maximize the
likelihood of obtaining truly nonproblem buildings. No significant
OSHA violations or litigation related
to any of the exclusion criteria
Smoking
Smoking permitted anywhere in
building (preferably since
building has been open, but at
least 75% of its operating age)
This ensures that smoking is
eliminated entirely as a confounding
variable for building and occupant
perception. Virtually all buildings in
US today prohibit smoking.
Resources
At least one designated person
is available onsite to coordinate
logistics. Designee must have
access to computer and
internet. Space is available onsite to conduct questionnaires.
Must commit to recruiting 75%
of all or randomly selected
occupants to participate in
questionnaires.
Employee
representation
Unions encouraged.
110
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX C: BUILDING SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX C: BUILDING SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Criterion
Contact
Questions
N/A
Location(s)
Age (construction
completion date)
In which city is the building located?
In what year was the building opened for occupancy?
Has the building undergone any major additions?
Has the building undergone any major remodeling?
What is the primary function of the operations in the building?
Type/function
Number of
employers in
building
Number of floors
Number of
occupants
Time in building
Information
Ventilation
Building history
Is there a single employer in the building?
If no, how many different employers?
How many occupied floors are in the building?
Is there more than one building?
How many occupants work full time in the building?
Do at least 75% of occupants spend at least 75% of their time in the
building?
Do all employees have the same work week?
What are operating hours of the building (not when open, but when
occupied)?
Is there a manager or other individual who is familiar with its operating
history, maintenance records, layout, floor plan, HVAC, and IAQ issues?
Is energy usage and maintenance cost information available to us in
advance of the study?
Is the building mechanically ventilated?
Does the building have any history of
• significant construction or design defects?
• significant water intrusion or mold problems that have required formal
remediation (minor leaks that were immediately repaired are
acceptable)?
• significant insect/pest, particulate, or gas contaminants?
• systematic or recurrent occupant health complaints that have required
formal IAQ investigation or workers’ comp claims?
• recurrent or systematic complaints of odors or climate problems?
• major ventilation repairs due to malfunction (scheduled maintenance
is acceptable)?
Responses1
Name, phone, address,
email of contact (text)
List of cities and states
Year
Yes/No-Text
Yes/No-Text
Administrative;
government; other
Yes/No
Number; text (describe)
Number (min. = 1)
Yes/No-if yes, list number
Number (actual or
estimate)
Yes/No
Yes/No
Select (MF 8-6; second
shift; 24/7)
Yes/No—List name,
phone, email address
Yes/No—Comments (text)
Yes/No—list type (VAV,
etc.)
Yes/No—Comments (brief
description, year,
response, outcome)
NCEMBT-080201
111
APPENDIX C: BUILDING SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Criterion
Smoking
Resources
Questions
Is smoking permitted anywhere inside the building?
Is there at least one designated person who is available onsite to coordinate
logistics?
Does this person have access to computer and internet?
Is there adequate space available on-site to conduct questionnaires?
Is client capable and willing to recruit 75% of all or randomly selected
occupants to participate in questionnaires?
Are employees represented by a union?
Responses2
Yes/No
Yes/No—Comments
Yes/No—Comments
Yes/No—Comments
Yes/No—Comments
Employee
Yes/No—Name of union
representation
1 If exclusion criterion is met, continue questions if criterion is not absolute for exclusion. Data on building selection need to be
maintained in this exercise for documentation and analysis of building selection methods.
112
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Building Characteristics: Location: ________________________; Bldg # _________________
1. The number of floors in the building is:
One
Two
Three
1
2
3
Four or more
4
2. The building was constructed after 1990:
Yes
No
1
2
3. Is the building oriented on a North/South axis:
Yes
No
1
2
4. The building’s major glass areas face (check all that apply):
East
West
1
2
Northeast
5
North
South
3
Equally
4
Northwest
Southeast
6
7
distributed
Southwest
9
8
5. The total area of windows on each orientation is:
North:
East:
South:
West:
6. The building construction type is (choose only one):
-Heavy masonry material (e.g. cement block, poured cement, or stone facing)
1
-Framed walls with exterior sheathing (e.g. wood, metal)
2
-Insulated masonry-type panels
3
7. The total roof area is: _____________________
NCEMBT-080201
113
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
8. The building has a flat type roof:
Yes
No
1
2
9. The building has a light-colored reflective roof coating:
Yes
No
1
2
10. The building’s windows have a low E type insulated glass:
Yes
No
1
2
11. The window system of the building is capable of reducing solar penetration by:
Awning Technique
Shading Technique
1
2
Tinted Technique
3
12. The R-value of the building’s roofing system in regards to the current standard required by the local
building energy code is:
Not Met
Met
Exceeded
Don’t Know
13. The specific R-value for the roofing system is: ________________________
14. The R-value of the insulation installed in the perimeter walls in regards to the current standard
required by the local building energy code is:
Not Met
Met
Exceeded
Don’t Know
15. The specific R-value for the perimeter walls is: __________________________
16. The building’s HVAC system is controlled by an Energy Management Control System (EMCS) other
than energy saving thermostats:
Yes
No
1
2
17. If yes, it is:
Set Back
1
114
NCEMBT-080201
If “Set Back”, the schedule is:
Turn Off
2
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
18. The building has an EMCS and the system is programmed to turn-off non-essential
equipment on a 24/7 type operating schedule:
Yes
No
1
2
19. The EMCS is used for electrical demand limiting:
Yes
No
1
2
20. If the building does not have an EMCS, are there programmable energy saving thermostats:
Yes
No
1
2
21. If there are controllable thermostats in offices, the thermostats are enclosed in tamper-proof covered
boxes:
Yes
No
1
2
22. The type of office is:
Cubicles
Enclosed
1
Mixed
2
3
Other
4
23. The majority size of offices is:
Less than 50 sq. ft.
50-100 sq. ft.
1
More than 100 sq. ft.
2
3
24. The typical shape an office is:
Square
Rectangular
1
2
25. Types of surfaces used in the offices are: (check all that apply)
Carpet on
Carpet on
permanent floor
raised floor
1
2
Matted
3
Vinyl/linoleum
4
NCEMBT-080201
115
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
26. The heights of the ceiling in the offices are:
less than 10 feet
10 feet or greater
1
2
27. The types of ceiling surfaces in the offices are: (check all that apply)
cement/structural
acoustical tile/
drywall/sheetrock
hard surface
hung ceiling
1
cathedral
2
3
4
28. These fixed outdoor sound sources are from:
air handling
equipment
motor/engines
1
wind on building
2
construction
other
4
5
3
29. Sources of sound from transportation are from:
highways
railways
1
airplanes
2
other
3
4
30. Sources of sound within the building, but outside of the work area are:
pumps/
activity above
motors on floor
conversations in
plumbing/
adjacent rooms
1
2
air handler
3
other
4
5
31. Sources of sound within the work area are:
copiers/fax
machines
1
computers
2
conversations air conditioning
3
32. Do work areas have background music?
116
Yes
No
1
2
NCEMBT-080201
4
speech-masking
system
5
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
33. There are self-contained roof top or mechanical equipment room units?
Yes
No
1
2
34. The type of control system used in the building is:
Variable Air
Constant Air
Volume (VAV)
Volume (CAV)
1
VAV&CAV
2
Dual Duct
3
4
35. The type of supply registers used in the building is:
Ceiling
Linear
diffusers
diffusers
1
2
Other
3
36. The type of return air flow system in the building is:
Plenum type
Ducted type
1
2
37. The Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning system is:
A chilled-water type system with cooling towers
1
A chilled-water type system with air cooled
2
A packaged roof-type
3
A wall-mounted unit
4
A hydronic (radiator) system with mechanical ventilation
5
38. The energy performance of the chiller in kW/Ton is:
0.8- 0.7
0.7- 0.6
1
2
0.6- 0.5
3
39. The building has a thermal storage system:
Yes
No
1
2
NCEMBT-080201
117
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
40. There are small self-contained water-source heat pumps within the rooms:
Yes
No
1
2
41. There is a use of an economizer cycle:
Yes
No
1
2
42. The air distribution system is
Ceiling Air
Under floor
Distribution (CAD)
air distribution (UFAD)
1
2
Both
3
43. The type of control system the building has is:
Direct Digital
control (DDC)
Pneumatic control
1
2
44. The filters are installed in the buildings HVAC units and are regularly replaced in adherence with
preventive maintenance schedule:
Yes
No
1
2
45. The building has a:
boiler with standard efficiency
1
boiler with high efficiency
2
furnace with standard efficiency
3
furnace with high efficiency
4
packaged air-conditioning w/ gas pack heater 5
46. The type of light fixtures is:
Diffusers
1
118
NCEMBT-080201
Parabolic
2
a
APPENDIX D: BUILDING CHARACTERIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
47. The type of lighting used is:
Indirect
Direct
1
2
48. There is a usage of task lighting:
Yes
No
1
2
49. The type of lighting used for general purposes is:
Incandescent
Magnetic core ballasts/ T-12
1
Electronic core ballasts/ T8
2
3
50. The average installed load including ballast in offices is:________ w/ft2
51. The voltage for office lighting system is: (Choose all apply)
277V
1
208V
2
120V
3
52. The lighting control methods used in the offices are: (Choose all apply)
Manual Switching
1
Timing Device
2
Occupancy Sensors
3
Photosensors
4
53. What is the regular cleaning schedule for luminaries: ____________
54. Luminaries were last cleaned: ______________
55. The lamp replacement is:
on burnout
1
on group replacement
2
56. If the lamp is on group replacement, what is group replacement interval? _________
NCEMBT-080201
119
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
E1. DESCRIPTION OF SENSORS
Thermal comfort engineering data were collected using VIVO sensors with tiltable arms mounted on a
movable, telescoping stand (Figure E1).
Figure E1. Schematic diagram based on the VIVO sampling cart and related hardware
(assembled from VIVO/Dantec information on line).
A single operative temperature sensor (Figure E2) measured the operative temperature, a measure of the
temperature experienced by a person as a result of the actual temperature, convection, and the effects of
radiant heat. The unit provides a very close representation of the body’s perception of temperature.
Figure E2. VIVO operating temperature sensor.
A single relative humidity (RH) sensor (Figure E3) used a capacitive sensor that measures the relative
humidity as a percentage (range 0-100). This unit also had a sensor to measure air temperature.
120
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Figure E3. VIVO relative humidity sensor
Three draught sensors (Figure E4) measure low air velocity and air temperature using omnidirectional,
spherical, thin-film sensors. The unit’s measurement range for velocity was 0.05-5 m/s; it measured
fluctuations up to 2 Hz in air velocity.
Figure E4. VIVO draught sensor
The accuracy of VIVO sensors come reasonably close to the accuracy range recommended by ASHRAE
55 (Table E1).
Table E1. Difference between accuracy of VIVO sensors and those stipulated in ASHRAE Standard 55
Type of measurement
Unit of measurement
Range of measurement
ASHRAE standard
VIVO accuracy
Air temperature
°C
0-45°C
±0.2°C
±0.5°C
Air velocity
m/s
0.05-1 m/s
±0.05 m/s
±0.01 m/s
Operative temperature/
mean radiant temperature
°C
0-45°C
±0.2°C
±0.5°C
Relative humidity
%
0-100%
-
-
NCEMBT-080201
121
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
E2. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR VIVO IEQ INSTRUMENTS
(PREPARED IN PART WITH INFORMATION FROM THE VIVO INSTRUCTION MANUAL)
Experienced users may move directly to secrtion E2.2 Recommended Installation Of Testing Station
Please note that field applicability can override these recommendations.
Important! Read this before you use the VIVO units.
Read all instructions carefully before installation and use. Connect units to only one platform at a time –
either PC or Palm Pilot. Do not use the VIVO Battery as a communication unit, either with cable or
infrared. Use only original cables. Avoid all kinds of moisture.
Warning! Connecting cables while power is ON may cause permanent damage to VIVO units. Always
disconnect power before a cable is connected or disconnected. The VIVO units must be stored within the
temperature range –20°C to +45°C. If stored outside of this interval the lifespan of the units will be
significantly reduced.
The VIVO Battery has a built-in overload protection. Always use original Dantec replacement parts. This
unit contains both a Lithium-ion and a Ni-MH rechargeable battery. When exposed to temperatures
above 60°C (140°F) battery cells could explode or vent, posing a risk of fire. The batteries may also be
damaged if the unit is exposed to excessive mechanical shocks. If the batteries are damaged, electrolyte
may leak from the unit and cause personal injury. Keep the unit away from children.
This unit must not be disposed of in fire or with the normal household waste. Before disposal, the
rechargeable batteries must be removed from the unit and delivered to the nearest battery deposit site
according to local regulations. Contact the local waste disposal agency for the address of the nearest
battery deposit site.
E2.1 Set-up of VIVO Instruments
Four units are used for measuring thermal comfort: VIVO Draught, VIVO Temperature, VIVO Humidity
and VIVO Battery.
The following characteristics are common to VIVO instruments:
▪
A display showing the unit’s status.
▪
A power indicator and infrared communication port.
▪
A mechanical arm for positioning the unit’s sensor.
▪
A female connector, used when combining several units.
▪
A female connector for mechanical mounting bolt, used when combining several units.
▪
A plug for connecting units in a network.
▪
A mechanical wheel, used to turn mounting bolt.
▪
A mounting bolt.
▪
A plug for the power supply.
▪
A male connector, used when combining several units.
The VIVO base is illustrated in Figure E5.
122
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Figure E5. VIVO base
VIVO Temperature
VIVO Temperature measures the operative temperature, which is a measure of the temperature
experienced by a person as a result of the actual temperature, convection, and the effects of
radiant heat. The unit provides a very close representation of the body’s perception of
temperature. In the vertical position the unit represents a standing person, at an angle of 30o it
represents a sitting person and when it is horizontal it represents a person reclining.
VIVO Humidity
VIVO Humidity measures the relative humidity of the air and the air temperature.
VIVO Draught
VIVO Draught is capable of measuring air velocities in the range 0 to 1 m/s (type 01) or 0 to 5
m/s (type 02). Both types also measure air temperature.
VIVO Field Control
VIVO Field Control (Figure E6) is a hand held PDA that helps interface between the sensors to
randomly intermittently check the values of various thermal indices.
Figure E6. VIVO Field control.
NCEMBT-080201
123
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
To connect two VIVO Temperature units (see Figure E7):
1. Press the two units together so the male and female connectors meet.
2. Turn the mechanical wheel until the two units are locked securely together.
3. Connect the units with the network cable. Note that the arrow on the cable must line up with
the arrow on the connector.
4. When the cable has been plugged in, turn the cable’s metal ring clockwise until the cable is
locked in the connector.
Figure E7. VIVO connection assembly sequence
None of the sensors should be touched, as that will affect precision. The mechanical arm can be adjusted
by moving it up or down (Figure E8). The arm can be positioned from 0° to 90°, with fixed notches at 0°,
30° and 90°. Change the positions by using the arm alone. DO NOT USE OR TOUCH THE SENSOR
for positioning.
124
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Figure E8. Positioning of the mechanical arm
The VIVO Draught instrument is different from the thermal sensors as it has a protective cover (cap) that
has to be removed before the usage of the sensor. Lower the protective cap by turning the screw counterclockwise to release it (Figure E9). When the cap has been lowered, tighten the screw again.
Figure E9. Hollow shaft of the VIVO Draught
VIVO units are mounted on a stand using a clamp (Figure E10) that can grip rounded items with a
diameter of 13 to 55 mm. The units can be mounted on the clamp using the mounting bolt and a male
connector (Figure E11).
NCEMBT-080201
125
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Figure E10. Clamping unit for VIVO stand
Figure E11. Mounting holes for clamping unit
Using different mounting holes makes it possible to mount the units at different angles. There are 2 places
where the mounting bolt can be secured and 6 locations for the male connector (Figure E12).
Figure E12. Locations of mounting bolts.
Either a current feed or a VIVO battery can be used as the power supply. Connect the current feed to the
220 V or 110 V electricity mains.
126
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Before starting a measurement, check that all cables are connected and that the battery is fully charged.
Starting a measurement using a PDA:
1. Switch the PDA on. Select the VIVO icon.
5. Check that it has the desired time set-up. Select the synchronize button.
6. Synchronization starts automatically. It is finished when the program says that it is ready.
7. Synchronization can be stopped by pressing the Cancel icon.
8. If units are not interconnected, you must synchronize them individually.
9. Measurement starts automatically. Measurement finishes with an acoustic signal and a
message: “Status is finished.”
10. When the measurement is finished, the units are resynchronized.
A Screen shot of the PDA is illustrated in Figure E13.
Figure E13. Screen shot of the PDA.
To maintain accuracy, it is mandatory for to check the output of sensors at regular intervals to see if it is
within the expected range. Results can be checked periodically using the PDA as an interface. Connect a
cable between the PDA and the VIVO assembly (Figure E14).
Figure E14. VIVO assembly with connection to PDA
NCEMBT-080201
127
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
When a measurement is finished, the PDA will beep 4 times. Confirmation of this is displayed with the
finished measurements in the “Pending” folder. The measurement data will be transferred to the PDA on
synchronization and any new measurement set-up will be transferred to the VIVO units at the same time.
If the measurement consists of data from several VIVO units that have not been interconnected during the
measurement, you must synchronize with each unit individually.
After synchronization with all units, the measurement is moved from the “Pending” folder to the “Inbox”
folder (Figure E15).
Figure E15. Screen shot of PDA Inbox
E2.2 Recommended Installation Of Testing Station
Please note that field applicability can override these recommendations!
The sensors on the six stationary carts and one movable cart are positioned at three different heights 0.1m,
0.6m and 1.1m for seated occupants. The six stationary carts are placed in a representative location in the
room studied and operated for 8 hours in that location. A suggested layout can be found in Figure E16.
Figure E16. A representation of the geometric location of the monitoring stands in an office building
128
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
The battery has an output which can be connected to any one of the sensors. Make sure that the VIVO
draught sensors (at all the three heights) are out of the shaft before starting to record any data. Once the
sensors are setup, the display should record the sensors’ serial number, location of the instrument, and
position of the occupant (seated or standing). This is an indication that the sensors and the connections
have been properly made. After this is done, the output cable from the sensors is plugged to the laptop
using the RS 232 cable.
E2.3 Collecting VIVO Data Using Laptop
There are two programs (VIVO Explorer and VIVO Controller). VIVO Explorer is used for monitoring
the unit and to verify that the instrument is operating properly. Figure E17 is a screen shot of the VIVO
Explorer. Make sure that the correct communication port (COM1) is used.
Figure E17. Screen shot of the VIVO Explorer
The second program, the VIVO Controller, is the most important one. This is the program that helps
download the data from sensors to the laptop.
NCEMBT-080201
129
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
To download data:
1. Install the VIVO Controller software in the laptop. Only install the software once.
2. From the Start Menu, select Programs/Dantec/VIVO controller. Figure E18 illustrates the
screen as it appears.
Figure E18. Screen Shot of VIVO Controller
3. Select File/Open/Project. (Ex.: project beta test, the project file is predefined.)
4. Modify the project by inputting information about the locations and heights of the sensors for
sedentary or standing occupants.
5. Click the synchronize button. This helps in setting up all the required files and reads the
required data from the sensors. Make sure that this process is done twice: once before the
field study is conducted and once after the readings are all taken.
6. All data are shown initially in the INBOX. They are transferred to PENDING after the
synchronization.
7. Finally the data are shown in the OUTBOX when the data acquisition is completed.
8. To display all graphics for all values, both measured and calculated:
130
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
9. Double-click the project name; or
10. Select Window/Cascade (Figure E19).
Figure E19. Screen View of VIVO Controller with Graphical Analysis
To save data:
11. Select File/Export.
12. Save as a text file. A default name will appear.
13. Select Export.
E2.4 Output From Sensors (Both Measured And Calculated)
The range and units of output data from the sensors are listed in Table E2. The output obtained from the
sensors include:
1. Operative temperature
2. Relative Humidity
3. Air velocity
4. Draught rate
5. Equivalent temperature
NCEMBT-080201
131
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
6. PMV
7. PPD
8. Radiant temperature
9. Air temperature
Type of senor
Table E2. Listing of the expected range of data for each of the VIVO instruments
Measures
Expected Range
Units of Measurement
VIVO Draught
Low air velocity measuring unit
0.05–5
m/s
VIVO Temperature
Measures the operative temperature
5–40
°C
VIVO Humidity
Measures the humidity of the air
0–100
%RH
VIVO Draught
Air Temperature
5–40
°C
VIVO Draught
Turbulence Intensity
132
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
E2.5 Assembly Of Super Battery And Stand
A super battery was purchased with an additional device for the regular battery. In a case of exigency,
this provides an uninterrupted power supply. The battery is placed in the space provided at the bottom of
the stand (Figure E20). The battery has a LED and a sensor which shows the adequacy of electric charge
(Figure E21) so that the battery can be charged at regular intervals (8 hours) and be ready for the next data
collection.
Figure E20. Complete Assembly of the Stationary Cart Stand with the Portable Battery
NCEMBT-080201
133
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Figure E21. Battery Indicator
E3. TYPES OF RAW VARIABLES MEASURED FOR THERMAL COMFORT
Several variables are measured using the VIVO instruments and several others are calculated by the
sensors such as the different indices PMV and PPD to help in evaluating the overall thermal comfort in
each of the different offices. Table E3 summarizes these variables knowing that the dry bulb temperature,
relative humidity, and velocity (draft) were the measured variables while the remaining variables are all
calculated.
Table E3. Parameter Names in Statistical Plots, their Meaning, and their Unit Values
Parameter Name in Table E2
Parameter Name in
Parameter Meaning
Statistical Plots
Temperature
AirTempLA0_6m
Dry bulb air temperature at 0.6 m above the
floor
Operative Temperature
OpTemp
Operative Temperature measured at 0.6 m
above the floor
Relative Humidity
RelHumidity
Relative Humidity measured at 0.6 m above the
floor
Humidity Ratio
HumidityRatio
Calculated Humidity Ratio based on
temperature and relative humidity
Velocity
LoAirVel0_6m
Air velocity at 0.6 m above the floor
Draft Rate (DR)
MaxDraftRate
Maximum draft rate among the draft rates in
three heights, i.e. 0.1 m, 0.6 m and 1.1 m
above the floor.
PMV
PredMeanvote
Predicted Mean Vote
PPD
PredPctDissatis
Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied
Vertical Air Temperature
VertAirTempDiff
Vertical Air Temperature Difference between
Difference
the air temperatures at 1.1 m and 0.1 m above
the floor.
Indoor to Outdoor CO2
Indoor to Outdoor CO2 Differential
Differential Concentration
Concentration
134
NCEMBT-080201
Unit
°C
°C
%
kg water/
kg dry air
m/s
%
%
°C
ppm
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Dry bulb air temperature data (Table E4) are obtained from the VIVO instruments at a height of 0.6m,
which represents the location of torso of a person of average height sitting at a desk in an office setting.
Criteria
Table E4. Description of Air Temperature and Operative Temperature Measurements
(adapted from VIVO Documents available)
Measurement Information
Citation
Parameter
Air temperature, operative temperature
Symbol
ta, to
Unit
[°C]
Definition
Air temperature is the temperature of the air around the human body.
Operative temperature is the equivalent uniform temperature of an
imaginary black enclosure in which an occupant would exchange the same
amount of heat by radiation plus convection as in the actual non-uniform
environment.
Applies to
Global comfort (Measurement Procedure 1)
Local comfort (Measurement Procedure 2).
Types of sensors: VIVO Temperature sensor each for ambient air
temperature and operative temperature.
Minimum required characteristics for measurement instruments:
• Measuring range: 5°C to 40°C
• Accuracy: ±0.5°C
Response time should as short as possible.
Precautions to be taken during use: Do not touch sensor with hands.
Place sensor where the building occupants normally conduct daily activity or
a limited zone of occupancy in poorly defined rooms. Measurement should
be conducted in a number of positions. If the occupants' distribution is
unknown, measurement should be conducted in the center of the room and
0.6 m from every surrounding wall or large window.
Height:
• In homogeneous environments: abdomen level. Height is 0.6 m
(sitting) or 1.1 m (standing).
• In heterogeneous environments: head, abdomen, ankle levels. Height
is 1.1-0.6-0.1 m (sitting) or 1.7-1.1-0.1 m (standing).
Suggested observation period is 480 minutes (8 hours) at a rate of 0.5-3
minutes.
Place sensor where the building occupants normally conduct daily activity or
a limited zone of occupancy in poorly defined rooms. Measurement should
be conducted in a number of positions. If the occupants' distribution is
unknown, measurement should be conducted in the center of the room and
0.6 m from every surrounding wall or large window
Height, head and ankle levels:
• 1.1-0.1 m (sitting) and 1.7-0.1 m (standing)
Suggested observation period is 480 minutes (8 hours) at a rate of 0.5-3
minutes.
Equipment
Measurement
(Procedure 1)
Measurement
(Procedure 2)
ISO 7726:1998
Ergonomics of the thermal
environment-Instruments for
Measuring Physical
Quantities
(http://www.iso.org)
ISO 7726:1998
ISO 7726:1998
ANSI/ASHRAE 55:2004 and
Addendum 55a:1995
ISO 7726:1998
ANSI/ASHRAE 55:2004 and
Addendum 55a:1995
The actual relative humidity data used to deduce the statistical information (Table E5) are similarly
obtained to that of the air data using the information from the VIVO instruments at 0.6m height. The
NCEMBT-080201
135
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
absolute humidity needed for determining where the average thermal conditions lie on the psychometric
table is calculated from the relative humidity measured and the ambient air temperature.
Criteria
Parameter
Symbol
Unit
Definition
Applies to
Equipment
Measurement
Comfort limits
Table E5. Description of Relative Humidity Measurements
Measurement Information
Relative humidity
RH
[%]
The relative humidity (RH) is the ratio between the partial pressure of water vapor (P)
in humid air and the water vapor saturation pressure (Pas) at the same temperature
and total pressure.
Relative humidity is normally expressed as a percentage.
Global comfort
Types of sensors: VIVO relative humidity sensor (figure 2).
Required characteristics for measurement instruments: 0-100% RH
Precautions to be taken during use: Sensor should not be touched with the hands.
Place sensor where the building occupants normally conduct daily activity or a
limited zone of occupancy in poorly defined rooms. Measurement should occur at
one point in the room.
Level
Height, abdomen level:
• 0.6 m (sitting)
• 1.1 m (standing)
Suggested observation period is 480 minutes (8 hours) at a rate of 3 minutes.
Absolute Humidity should not exceed 0.012 kg water/kg dry air.
Citation
ISO 7726:1998
ISO 7726:1998
ISO 7726:1998
ANSI/ASHRAE
55:2004
and
Addendum
55a:1995
The mean air speed for statistical data manipulations (Table E6) is also obtained mainly from the VIVO
sensor at a height of 0.6m. The Draft Rate (DR) is determined by sorting the maximum DR among three
elevations at each station location: 0.1m, 0.6m, and 1.1m.
136
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Criteria
Parameter
Symbol
Unit
Definition
Applies to
Equipment
Measurement,
Procedure 1
Measurement,
Procedure 2
Table E6. Description of Air Velocity Measurements
Measurement Information
Air velocity
va
[m/s]
The air velocity is a quantity defined by its magnitude and direction. The quantity to
be considered in the case of thermal environments is the speed of the air (i.e., the
magnitude of the velocity vector of the flow at the measuring point considered).
Global comfort (Procedure 1);
Local comfort (Procedure 2).
Types of sensor: VIVO draught sensor
Minimum required characteristics for measurement instruments:
• measuring range: 0.05 – 5 m/s;
• accuracy: ± (0.02 + 0.07 va) m/s.
Response time should be the shortest possible.
The following factors have to be considered for accurate velocity measurements:
• the calibration of the instrument;
• the response time of the sensor and the instrument;
• the measuring period.
Place sensor where the building occupants normally conduct daily activity or a
limited zone of occupancy in poorly defined rooms. Measurement should be
conducted in a number of positions. If the occupants' distribution is unknown,
measurement should be conducted in the center of the room and 0.6 m from every
surrounding wall or large window.
Height:
• In homogeneous environments: abdomen level. Height is 0.6 m (sitting) or 1.1
m (standing).
• In heterogeneous environments: head, abdomen, ankle levels. Height is 1.10.6-0.1 m (sitting) or 1.7-1.1-0.1 m (standing).
Suggested observation period is 480 minutes (8 hours) at a rate of 3 minutes.
Place sensor where the building occupants normally conduct daily activity or a
limited zone of occupancy in poorly defined rooms. Measurement should be
conducted in a number of positions. If the occupants' distribution is unknown,
measurement should be conducted in the center of the room and 0.6 m from every
surrounding wall or large window.
Height, head and ankle levels:
• 1.1-0.1 m (sitting)
• 1.7-0.1 m (standing)
Suggested observation period is 480 minutes (8 hours) at a rate of 3 minutes.
Citation
ISO 7726:1998
ISO 7726:1998
ISO 7726:1998
ANSI/ASHRAE
55:2004 and
Addendum
55a:1995
ISO 7726:1998
ANSI/ASHRAE
55:2004 and
Addendum
55a:1995
NCEMBT-080201
137
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
E4. CALCULATED INDICES FOR THERMAL COMFORT
The PMV is calculated from an equation provided in Table E7. The effects of several variables and
parameters are taken into account. In the present study, no measurements were made to characterize the
M, W, lcl, fcl. While ta was measured, hc and pa were calculated.
Criteria
Parameter
Symbol
Unit
Definition
Applies to
Determination
Table E7. Description of PMV Definition and Calculations
Measurement Information
Predicted Mean Vote
PMV
None
The PMV is an index that predicts the mean value of the votes of a large group of persons on
the following 7-point thermal sensation scale:
+3
hot
+2
warm
+1
slightly warm
0
neutral
–1
slightly cold
–2
cool
–3
cold
Global comfort
The PMV index is derived for steady-state conditions, but can be applied with good
approximation during minor fluctuations of one or more of the variables, provided that
time-weighted averages are applied.
Measure the following environmental parameters:
• air temperature;
• mean radiant temperature;
• relative air velocity;
• partial water vapour pressure, or relative humidity.
In homogeneous environments these parameters should be measured at the abdomen level
only. In heterogeneous environments they should be calculated as the average of the
measured values at the head, abdomen and ankle levels.
Estimate the following personal parameters:
• activity (metabolic rate);
• clothing (thermal resistance).
Determine the PMV index either from the equation given in ISO 7730 (which may be solved
by iteration) or using tables given in ISO 7730.
Calculating equations are the following:
where:
138
NCEMBT-080201
Reference
ISO
7730:1994
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
Calculation
M is the metabolic rate [W/m2];
W is the external work [W/m2];
Icl is the thermal resistance of clothing [m2°C/W];
fcl is the ratio of “man’s surface while clothed” to “man’s surface while nude”;
ta is the air temperature [°C];
pa is the partial water vapour pressure [Pa];
hc is the convective heat transfer coefficient [W/m2°C]
The PMV index can be determined when:
• the activity (metabolic rate) and the clothing (thermal resistance) are estimated;
• air temperature, mean radiant temperature, relative air velocity, and partial water
vapor pressure are measured.
ASHRAE 552004
The mean vote (MV) represents the mean value of the votes of the questionnaire participants on the
seven-point thermal sensation scale. Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) is an index that predicts the mean
value of the votes of a large group of persons on the seven point thermal sensation scale (ASHRAE,
2004). PMV can be calculated from the known air temperature, mean radiant temperature, humidity,
mean air speed, metabolic rate, and clothing insulation (ASHRAE, 2004).
The ASHRAE seven-point thermal sensation scale is defined as follows:
+3 hot
+2 warm
+1 slightly warm
0 neutral
–1 slightly cool
–2 cool
–3 cold
In the perception questionnaire, however, a five point thermal sensation scale was used:
1 very cool
2 somewhat or slightly cool
3 neither cool nor warm
4 somewhat or slightly warm
5 very warm
To calculate MV, the five point scale is converted to a seven point scale by using the following equation:
MV =
3X − 9
2
(1)
Where, X = the mean value of votes based on the five point thermal sensation scale. PMV is then
compared to MV.
NCEMBT-080201
139
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
The predicted percentage of dissatisfied occupants (PPD) is an index that establishes a quantitative
prediction of the percentage of thermally dissatisfied people determined from PMV (ASHRAE 55- 2004).
The following equation is used to calculate PPD:
PPD = 100 − 95 exp(− 0.03353PMV 4 − 0.2179 PMV 2 )
(2)
The percent dissatisfied (PD) represents the percentage of occupants that are dissatisfied due to
discomfort, including vertical air temperature difference (either cool in feet or warm on head), humid or
dry air (either very humid or very dry), and stuffy environment (never or occasionally feel fresh). To
verify the correctness of the PPD value (Table E8), the PD is calculated by the following equation:
PD = 100 − 95 exp(− 0.03353MV 4 − 0.2179 MV 2 )
(3)
MV is the scaling factor that links survey responses to ASHRAE standards.
Table E8. Description of PPD Calculations
Criteria
Parameter
Symbol
Unit
Definition
Applies to
Determination
Measurement Information
Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied
PPD
[%]
The PPD is an index that predicts the number of thermally dissatisfied persons among a large
group of people.
Global comfort
PPD can be determined by the equation:
or the graph:
Reference
ASHRAE
55-2004
ASHRAE
55-2004
The vertical air temperature difference is usually defined as the difference of the air temperature between
the head location (for a seated person 1.1m) and the feet (i.e. 0.1m). This has been suggested also as a
possible contributor to thermal discomfort for occupants. Although its value is not included in any of the
calculated indices i.e. PPD its effect on thermal comfort is being sensed from the questionnaire and also
in the section involving the hypotheses to be tested from the engineering data and the questionnaire
presented later on.
Draft rate (DR) is a function of local air temperature, mean air speed and turbulence intensity. It
represents the predicted percentage of people dissatisfied due to annoyance from drafts. The model used
to calculate DR (DR-ASHRAE) is based on known air temperature, mean air speed, and turbulence
intensity (ASHRAE, 2004). Based on the occupant perception questionnaire results, the percentage of
140
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX E: THERMAL COMFORT SENSORS
people dissatisfied due to draft (DR-Survey), either very drafty or very stagnant, can be calculated and
compared to DR-ASHRAE (ASHRAE 2004). The DR-ASHRAE may or may not agree with the DRSurvey because the DR-ASHRAE model was developed from laboratory tests and survey results, but the
DR-Survey is derived from field measurements. The equation governing DR is (ASHRAE 55-2004):
DR = ([34 − ta ] * [ν − 0.05]0.62 ) * (0.37 *ν * Tu + 3.14)
(4)
Where DR is the predicted percentage of people dissatisfied due to draft; ta is the local air temperature
measured in °C; ν is the local mean air speed measured in m/s; and Tu is the local turbulence intensity, %.
The total number of estimated measured and calculated entries for the database is summarized in Table
E9.
Table E9. Summary of the Number of Measurements (#) by Category for Raw Data and
the Calculated Indices for the IEQ Instruments for Database Allocation Space
Height
Sensors
Raw Data
Calculated Indices
Category(s)
#
Category(s)
#
0.1m
VIVO Draught
Air Temperature
3
PD/DR
1
Air Velocity
3
PD/DR
1
0.6m for sedentary
VIVO Draught
Air Temperature
occupants/
Air Velocity
1.1m for standing occupants
VIVO
Operative
1
PMV
5
Operative
Temperature
PPD
Temperature
ET*
Radiant Temperature
EHT for car measurement
VIVO Humidity Relative Humidity 2
Absolute Humidity
1
1.1m for sedentary
VIVO Draught
Air Temperature
3
PD/DR
2
occupants
Air Velocity
Vertical Air Temperature
1.7m for standing occupants
Difference
Total
12 10
Number of
Bins
NCEMBT-080201
4
4
6
2
5
21
141
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
F1. DESCRIPTION OF SENSORS
Three different instruments were used to measure CO2 concentrations. A single Bacharach comfort check
sensor (Figure F1) measured outdoor CO2 concentrations for eight hours every day of data collection.
Figure F1. Bacharach Comfort Check Sensor
Six Hobo sensors (Figure F2) were used to measure indoor CO2 concentrations in six locations
continuously during data collection.
Figure F2. HOBO CO2 Sensor
(http://www.onsetcomp.com/Products/Product_Pages/HOBO_H08/H08_family_data_loggers.html#Anchor-HOBO23240#Anchor-HOBO-23240).
142
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
One IAQRAE sensor (Figure F3) was used to measure indoor CO2 concentrations for a short time period
(less than 10 minutes) in six locations to compare readings with those of the Hobo. Another IAQRAE was
used to measure outside CO2 concentrations continuously.
Figure F3. IAQRAE Sensor
F2. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF THE BACHARACH
The Standard Operating Procedure for the use of BACHARACH for the measurement of outside CO2 was
developed from the manufacturer’s user manual.
TO LAUNCH THE BACHARACH:
1. Ensure temp probe is locked in place.
2. Push and hold orange button to turn on. This makes a loud beep, so try to muffle the
monitor with your hands. It takes a couple of minutes to warm up.
3. Plug the IrDA interface cable into the computer.
4. Open the Plus-Com/Bacharach program.
5. The top left data box should read “Not active” with the LINK button right next to it.
6. Line up the CO2 monitor and the IrDA cable. (The sensor sight should be about 1 inch
apart.)
7. Select “LINK”.
8. Check the battery status on the bottom left.
9. Check the memory status on the bottom right.
10. Check the time to make sure it matches the computer.
11. Select configure monitor from top menu. A Log frequency menu will appear. Select the
Log time that you want. (We have been logging every 5 MINUTES)
12. Hit Program.
13. Hit OK.
NCEMBT-080201
143
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
DO THE FOLLOWING STEPS OUTSIDE AS THE MONITOR MAKES A LOUD BEEPING SOUND
WHEN YOU TURN IT ON!!!
TO BEGIN DATALOGGING:
▪
On the CO2 Monitor PRESS AND HOLD F1 until the blinking “Ө” appears on the right side of
the menu screen.
▪
You are now Datalogging.
TO SAVE THE DATA:
▪
OUTSIDE of the building (because of loud beep) PRESS AND HOLD F1 for 3 SECONDS. The
“Ө” will disappear. This stores the data.
▪
DO NOT SHUT THE MONITOR OFF.
1. Attach the cord and line up the IrDA sensor with the CO2 monitor sensor.
2. Select Link.
3. Select Download.
4. Select Save.
5. At this point you have the option of where you like to save it.
6. Once you have saved the data, you must erase it from the monitor. To do this select
CLEAR. It will look like the data are still there but when you shut the monitor down and
power up again it will be gone.
THIS MONITOR NEEDS TO BE CHARGED EVERY NIGHT.
F3. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR THE USE OF HOBOS
The Standard Operating Procedure for the use of HOBOS for the measurement of inside CO2 was
developed from the manufacturer’s user manual.
TO LAUNCH HOBO DATALOGGERS:
1. Connect GREY cord to back of computer and to the HOBO.
2. Turn on CO2 Monitor by pressing blue button.
3. Open BOXCAR 3.7 (Saved on Desktop).
4. Select LOGGER.
5. Select LAUNCH. (Launch Screen appears.)
6. Check battery status. (NOTE: This is the battery level for the HOBO ONLY).
7. Change Description ID to the appropriate MINOR ID#.
8. Change Log Interval to 1 Minute. (It should already be set at one minute, but check just in case.)
9. DESELECT “Wrap around when full”.
10. Select Start------. A warning screen will appear “UNPLUG THE LOGGER BEFORE
SELECTING OK”.
144
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
TO DOWNLOAD DATA:
1. Connect cord to computer and HOBO.
2. Open BOXCAR/HOBO Program.
3. Select LOGGER.
4. Select HOBO SHUTTLE READOUT.
5. UNPLUG LOGGER BEFORE SELECTING OK.
6. A “Save As” Screen will appear.
7. HIT CANCEL.
8. Select FILE.
9. Select EXPORT.
10. Select MICROSOFT EXCEL.
11. Under Data Setting select the following Channels:
12. Temperature in Celsius
13. Humidity
14. Dew Point in Celsius
15. THE LAST VOLTAGE CHANNEL (Channel 4).
LAST voltage channel. This is our CO2 Data.
It is VERY important that you select the
16. Select EXPORT. The EXPORT screen will appear.
17. Under File Name Change this to the MINOR ID #.txt. ENSURE THAT IT IS SAVING AS A
“TXT” FILE.
18. Select the appropriate folder for saving this file.
F4. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR THE USE OF IAQRAE
The Standard Operating Procedure for the use of IAQRAE for the measurement of CO2 was developed
from the manufacturer’s user manual.
To Turn ON:
1. Press [MODE]. The unit will beep once and screen will display program information.
2. The monitor will display the sensor name after the monitor is turned on.
3. The IAQRAE begins the instantaneous reading of the actual gas concentrations.
4. The Instantaneous Reading function alternately displays the instantaneous reading and the sensor
name.
5. The instantaneous reading is the actual gas concentration in parts per million (PPM) for CO2 or
VOC gases; percent relative humidity (%RH) for relative humidity; and degrees Celsius (°C) or
degrees Fahrenheit (°F) for temperature.
6. The monitor displays the number of minutes that the instrument has been running. To stop
instantaneous readings turn off the IAQRAE.
NCEMBT-080201
145
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
You may enter an eight-character site identification which will be included in the datalog report. To
change the site identification:
1. At the “Change Site ID” screen:
2. Press [Y/+] and the display will have the current site ID: “Site ID = xxxxxxxx”.
3. Press [MODE] to move the cursor to the left most digit.
4. Press [Y/+] or [N/-] to cycle through all 26 letters and 10 numerals. Hold down [Y/+] or [N/-] for
rapid scrolling.
5. Press [MODE] to advance to the next digit on the right.
6. Repeat until all 8 digits have been entered.
7. Press [MODE] to move the cursor to “SAVE?”
8. Press [Y/+] to accept the new site identification and exit the submenu.
9. Press [N/-] to discard the changes and advance to the next submenu.
10. To Turn OFF:
11. Press and hold [MODE] for 5 seconds. The monitor will beep once every second during the
power-down sequence
12. The screen will flash “Off” and then go blank
NOTE: A fully charged battery pack should show 7.7 volts or higher. When the battery charge falls
below 6.6 volts, a flashing “Bat” will appear as a warning message. This means, there will be
approximately 20-30 minutes of operating time remaining before the monitor automatically turns off as
the battery voltage falls below 6.4V.
Calibration of the IAQRAE
The IAQRAE uses a two-point calibration process with “zero” or “low Conc. Gas” as the first point of
reference and a “standard higher conc. Gas” as the second point of reference. A standard reference gas
(span gas) contains a known concentration of a given gas. Zero calibration should be done before
performing span calibration of sensors.
NOTE: Fresh ambient air cannot be used to zero the VOC, CO2 or RH sensors because of the background
presence of these components.
1. The PID sensor zero should be performed using a cylinder of dry zero-VC air or nitrogen.
2. When the “Calibrate Monitor?” screen appears. Press [Y/+] to start calibration
3. If a bottle of zero air is being used, attach the calibration adapter to the gas inlet port. Connect
the other end of the tube to the bottle of zero air.
4. NOTE: If a bottle of zero air is not available, place the monitor in a contaminant-free area
outdoors or attach a single use zeroing tube.
5. Press [Y/+] to start zero air calibration.
6. The display will show “calibration is progress” followed by the name and reading of the CO
and VOC sensors, and the messages “zeroed.”
7. The display should show a reading “0.0” or a very small number for both sensors.
146
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX F: CO2 SENSORS
8. After a two-second pause, the display will show “Zero-Cal Done!” and flash sensor readings
for about ten seconds before moving to the next submenu.
9. The next display will read “Multiple Sensor Calibration?”.
10. Press [N/-] to move onto the next submenu, “ingle Sensor Calibration”.
11. At the “Single Sensor Calibration” screen, press [Y/+].
12. The display shows the sensors installed in the monitor with the cursor blinking on “GO?”.
13. Press [Y/+] to select a sensor and start the calibration or press [MODE] to move to the next
sensor location.
14. Turn gas flow off. Disconnect calibration tube from monitor.
NCEMBT-080201
147
APPENDIX G: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX G: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
MEASUREMENTS
G1. DESCRIPTION OF SENSOR
The IAQARE is a highly versatile indoor air quality measurement device that offers upto fiie plug-in
sensors. It continually measures VOCs at 0 to 500 ppm with 0.01 ppm (10 ppb) resolution continuously
up to 24 hours from built-in lithium-ion battery. It can datalog up to 20,000 data points and has a built-in
motorized sample-draw pump. It combines a photoionization detector for total VOC measurement with
traditional indoor quality measurement parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide,
and an additional substance-specific toxic gas sensor all in one portable instrument (see Appendix F;
Figure F1).
G2. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
The following protocol was used to measure the total VOC concentration.
G2.1 To Launch IAQRAE
1. Turn IAQRAE on – Push MODE button
2. Plug interface cable into the right side of the IAQRAE and the back of the computer
3. Push MODE button 7 times, until “Communicate with PC?” appears on IAQRAE screen
4. Select “Y/+” (This means Yes)
5. IAQRAE display should say, “READY…….”
6. Open ProRAE Suite program
7. Select COMMUNICATION from the menu on top
8. Select Receive Configuration
9. Select OK when warning about connecting the instrument to serial port……..
10. The computer screen should say “Contacting instrument”
11. You will then get a screen that is titled Config 1
12. On the top menu behind the Config 1 page, select EDIT
13. Then select CONFIGURATION
14. Under the General tab do the following:
15. Change the Site ID
16. Ensure the Datalog Interval is 30 seconds
17. Clock from PC---Select YES
18. Under Datalog Mode---select SCHEDULED START/STOP
19. Set the Start/Stop time for 10 minutes (09:02-09:13; use the 24 hour [military] time). It will
stop sampling at the beginning of the 10th minute so you have to set it for 11 minutes.
20. Select OK
148
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX G: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS MEASUREMENTS
21. The Config page should show the changes
22. Select Communication
23. Select SEND Configuration
24. You will get a warning page----Just select OK
25. At this point the computer monitor should read “Sending data packets to instrument…….”
26. You will then get a success box. IF you do not get this box you will need to
27. RE-SEND the configuration (start over at step 16).
28. Once this is complete:
29. Disconnect the IAQRAE
30. Press MODE, ONCE on the IAQRAE to return it to normal sampling mode
31. Move the IAQRAE to the sampling location
32. The IAQRAE will automatically turn on and off
33. When the IAQRAE begins datalogging, a small “L” will blink in the center of the monitor
display.
TIPS:
If you get a “PUMP” warning blinking in the center of the display on the IAQRAE, turn the it off (hold
the MODE button for 5 seconds as it powers down) And turn it back on.
If that does not work, then you may need to change the filter on the pump. There are extra filters in the
case.
G2.2 To Save Data
The IAQRAE has finished datalogging when the “L” is no longer blinking on the display
1. Follow Steps 2-6 Under “TO LAUNCH IAQRAE”
2. Select COMMUNICATION
3. Select Receive Data
4. A screen will appear with the datalog
5. Your data will be that LAST EVENT OR HIGHEST NUMBERED EVENT under text mode
of the Event Column(Left Side of Screen)
6. Select Option, then Export data
7. The Save as Box will appear. Select the location where you want the file save to. File name
should be the Minor ID location. File type is tab delimited text file.
8. Go to folder on the computer and open the file you just saved
9. TO OPEN THE FILE YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING
10. RIGHT Click on the file
11. Select OPEN WITH
12. Select EXCEL
NCEMBT-080201
149
APPENDIX G: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS MEASUREMENTS
13. The Date and Time will be ########
14. Highlight the column
15. RIGHT Click and Select Format Cell
16. Select Date
17. Select “3/14/01 13:30” Format
18. Resave File
150
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX H: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD Protocols
APPENDIX H: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
PROTOCOLS
H1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING LOGISTICS
Air samples for culturable fungi and total fungal spores were collected using commercially available
instrumentation positioned on a collapsible cart for ease of transport within the buildings and a consistent
height from the floor. The height of the cart was fixed at 1.0 m. Settled dust was collected using vacuum
sampling. Air and surface samples were collected in the morning at each of the six indoor locations.
Outdoor air samples were collected prior to the first indoor sample and a second outdoor sample was
collected after the 6th indoor sample.
H2. CULTURABLE AIR SAMPLING PROTOCOL
Air samples for culturable fungi were collected using the Andersen single-stage impactor sampler
(Graseby Andersen, Atlanta, GA) operated at 28.3 liter/min. flow rate for 2 min. (0.057 m3 of air per
sample). Samples were collected onto malt extract agar (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) amended
with chloramphenicol (MEAC). The sampler was decontaminated with an ethanol wipe between each
sample location. All agar plates were taped, bagged, and transported to the laboratory consultant (Natural
Link Mold Laboratory, sparks, NV) the day of collection via commercial overnight carrier. Culturable
fungi on the Andersen samples were identified using macroscopic and microscopic morphology. The
number of colony forming units (CFU) of fungi collected with the Andersen sampler were recorded as
CFU/plate. The concentration of culturable CFU per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) were determined using
the airflow rate and sampling time. Positive hole correction was used as needed according to
manufacturer’s protocol. The lower limit of detection for air sampling with the Andersen sampling
method as described above was 18 CFU/m3. The resulting colonies were identified to the genus level,
although Aspergillus and Penicillium were identified to the species level.
H3. NON-CULTURABLE AIR SAMPLING PROTOCOL
Samples for airborne fungal spores were collected using the Burkard personal impactor sampler (Burkard
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Rickmansworth Hertfordshire, England) operated at the fixed flow rate of 10
liters/min. Samples were collected for 2-5 minutes (0.02-0.05 m3 of air). The sampler was
decontaminated with an ethanol wipe between each sample location. Burkard slides were transported to
the UNLV microbiology laboratory for analysis where they were stained and viewed with light
microscopy for the presence of recognizable fungal spores. The number of spores per slide were recorded
and the concentration of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) determined using the airflow rate and
the sampling time. The lower limit of detection for air sampling with the Burkard sampling method
described above varies was 20-50 spores/m3 depending on the length of sampling collection. This
methodology permits identification of recognizable spores to the genus level. Additional non-fungal
structures (i.e., skin cells, particulate) were recorded semi-quantitatively.
H4. VACUUM SAMPLING PROTOCOL
Vacuum sampling using an individual field filter cassette attached to a vacuum pump was used to sample
porous or hard surfaces for settled particulate. Sampling was conducted on flooring at each indoor
location. A fixed area was not sampled because the data were reported as the number of CFU per gram of
sample processed. Each cassette was labeled and placed in a plastic bag and transported to the consultant
laboratory (Natural Link Mold Laboratory). The material collected in the vacuum samples were weighed,
NCEMBT-080201
151
APPENDIX H: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD Protocols
processed and spread plated onto a series of growth media. The plates were incubated and the resulting
fungal colonies identified to the genus level, although Aspergillus and Penicillium were identified to the
species level. The fungal colonies cultured from the vacuum samples were identified by microscopic and
macroscopic morphology, and recorded as the number of CFU/plate. Enumeration of the concentration of
organisms per gram of material sampled was calculated using the dilution factor and appropriate sample
information. Storage of samples for up to 25 days at refrigeration or room temperature has been shown
not to affect the results (Macher, 2001a and b), but the samples were shipped at the end of each day’s
collection to avoid degradation of the samples.
152
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
I1. INSTRUMENT SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION
Meters were chosen based on the investigators’ personal knowledge of sound testing and knowledge
gained from the literature review on what data should be captured. Svantek sound level meters were
chosen for measurement of sound in the building interior. Six Svantek 948 meters that can record up to
four microphones each and the one backup Svantek 947 that can record one microphone were determined
to be suitable for the measurements desired (Figure I1).
The meters recorded one-third octave band and three overall sound levels for each interval specified. For
Task 1, two microphones per meter were used. One-third octave band levels from 0.8 Hz to 20K Hz were
recorded, but based on microphone sensitivity, only the one-third octave levels from 20 Hz to 10K Hz
were faithfully captured. The three overall levels were the weighted sound levels of dBA, dBC, and
Linear. The overall levels, full octave band levels, and all the sound descriptors can be derived from the
one-third octave band levels. The meters were set up for autonomous automatic startup and shutdown for
a specific period each day of testing. Power from a local electrical receptacle was used for nearly all
testing, but meter could also record for approximately 24 hours, slightly over two days of Task 1 testing,
on internal batteries.
Figure I1. Svantek SVAN 948 and SVAN 947 Sound Level Meters
To support the microphones and sound level meters, various length BNC cables, microphone stands, and
microphone clips were used. One microphone could be placed up to 100 feet from the meter while the
other was on a 10-foot cable. The stands allow placing the microphone anywhere on the floor space. The
microphone clips made it possible to place the microphone near any object, shelf, or piece of furniture
without occupying floor space. The clips were also much smaller and lighter than the stands.
The Svantek meters store all measurements in their on-board, non-volatile memory. This has the
advantage of storing multiple measurements and retaining measurement data even if the meter is
NCEMBT-080201
153
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
shutdown or loses power. The data can be easily downloaded in file format to any PC using Svantek
software.
I2. FIELD-TESTING PROCEDURES
Beta testing was performed with the meters to measure the sound environment of several rooms on the
UNLV campus as an example of the types of measurements that would be collected during Task 1. From
this, a standard operating procedure (SOP) for Task 1 was developed to compensate for any difficulties
that may be encountered during sampling of the buildings.
The SOP included safety instructions, equipment lists, field testing departure checklist, packing and
shipping procedures, on-site setup, and office testing. It was designed to be a stand-alone document for
field team members who have some familiarity with sound testing and instruments knowledge of the
instruments. The manufacturer-supplied user guides are used for in-depth knowledge of the equipment
and for troubleshooting equipment problems.
Sound measurements were made at two locations in each of six zones in the tested building. The intent
was to have one microphone in a typical location in an area of normal activity and the second microphone
in a location away from normal activities (where sound levels may be typical of the background sound in
study area). In practice, this was not practical because those two locations, if they existed, were often too
far apart to safely run connecting microphone cables safely. In some cases there was no location away
from normal activity that was accessible.
Therefore, for all cases the microphones were positioned such that one was co-located with the
monitoring stand. The other was positioned as far away as possible, consistent with safety and not
interfering with normal work at the location. In nearly all cases, the close microphone was located in a
cubicle with the comfort station. The second microphone could be at a different area of the same cubicle,
in the neighboring cubicle, or in the hallway near that cubicle. This arrangement is shown in Figure I2.
In a few cases the first microphone and the monitoring stand were in a hallway or common area. That
alternate arrangement is shown in Figure I3. In those cases, the second microphone was located in the
same hallway or common area but 10 to 50 feet away from the first microphone.
Each location measured for 10 hours each day, enough time to capture continuous sound levels of the
general background sound with no building occupants present and continuous sound levels over a typical
workday. Continuous 1 to 10-second time-averaged energy equivalent sound levels (Leq) for all one-third
octave bands between 0.8 Hz and 20 kHz were measured, time stamped, and stored in the SLMs. A Leq
value is defined as the sound level for a constant sound over a specific time period that has the same
sound energy as the actual sound measured over the same period. Following the measurements, data were
downloaded to a computer for post processing.
154
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
Figure I2. Typical microphone locations (left, the first microphone is in the cubicle with the comfort station;
right, the second microphone is in the hallway next to the cubicle.
Figure I3. Alternate microphone locations (both microphones are in a common use hallway between cubicles).
I3. SOUND RELATED PORTION OF THE DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS
Although all the necessary data were contained in the data files, the format is not suitable for immediate
entry into the project database. Therefore, a data conversion software program was created for
reformatting the data into a database entry format. The program is interactive, with a graphical interface
that prompts the user to supply the necessary information to categorize the data. This ensured that data
collected were always properly identified and presented in a consistent, useful format. An illustration of
the user interface is shown in Figure I4. The format of the data file output of the program consisted of
header lines where identifying information was written so that data could always be identified with the
test. The columns of data began with the time of the recording, the three overall levels, the full octave
band levels, and then the one-third octave band levels. Figure I4 only illustrates the time, overall levels,
and a few of the full octave band levels for several measurements of a test. The full octave band data were
calculated from the one-third octave band data and were entered into the data file for easy use in
determining some of the derived acoustic parameters. The one-third octave band levels from 12.5 Hz to
10000 Hz were transferred to the database format file. The interface displayed some important details of
NCEMBT-080201
155
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
the data file immediately after converting the data. The example file shown in Figure I5 shows the date
the data were taken, the starting time, the sample interval and the number of measurements in the file. A
typical data file for Task 1 testing will have approximately 3600 measurements (10 hours). The size and
format of the converted data files are formatted for entry and storage as permanent records into the
database used for statistical analysis.
Figure I4. User Interface for Conversion of Svantek Files to Database Entry Files.
Data recording date: 30AUG01
Data recording start time: 13:13:44
Building address:
4505 S Maryland Pky
Las Vegas NV
Building floor: first
Location on floor: VAST laboratory
Time
SPL_A
13:13:44
13:13:54
13:14:04
13:14:14
13:14:24
13:14:34
13:14:44
13:14:54
13:15:04
13:15:14
13:15:24
13:15:34
13:15:44
SPL_C
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
SPL_lin
39.1
39
39
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.8
39
39
39
38.8
39
40.9
40.8
41.1
40.8
40.8
40.6
40.8
40.6
40.9
40.9
40.8
40.6
40.8
1/1 16 Hz
1/1 31.5 Hz
1/1 63 Hz
33.1
34.6
33.8
32.9
34.6
33.3
34.3
34.6
33.3
33.2
34.5
32.9
33.8
34
33.2
32.2
34.5
33
33.3
34.2
33.2
32.9
33.8
32.8
33.4
34.5
33.4
33.8
34.3
33.5
33.1
34.2
33.6
33.2
34.1
33
32.8
34.5
33.4
Figure I5. Representation of a Spreadsheet Data File Created for Svantek Database Input.
156
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
The following sound descriptors were derived from the measured sound data:
▪
RC values (RC – Room Criteria): Room Criteria (Mark II method) is the ASHRAE recommended
method to determine the acceptability of background HVAC related sound in unoccupied indoor
areas (Reynolds 2003). RC curves have the advantages of assessing the speech communication
or masking properties of the noise, identifying the quality or character of the background noise
due to both its spectrum shape and level, and assessing the possibility of perceptible vibration in
buildings by using data in the 16 to 31.5 Hz frequency range (ASHRAE 1995).
▪
NC values (NC – Noise Criteria): Noise criteria curves were originally developed to specify just
acceptable air conditioning noise but have been extended to more general purposes. Experience
has indicated that correlation is poor between the calculated NC levels and an individual’s
subjective response to the corresponding background sound (Reynolds 2003).
▪
NCB values (NCB – Balanced Noise Criterion): Balanced Noise Criteria is similar to NC but
with adjustments made to the shape of the curves to better correspond to an individual’s
subjective response to the corresponding background sound (Reynolds 2003).
▪
dBA values (dBA – A-weighted sound level): The A-weighted sound criteria was designed to
approximate the response of the human ear at low sound levels. The characteristic of the criteria
is to adjust the linear (raw) sound level values in relation to the ears sensitivity. Liner levels at
frequencies below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz are progressively adjusted down while
frequencies between 1000 and 5000 Hz are adjusted slightly up with 2500 Hz the highest with a
1.3 dB addition (Beis and Hansen 1997). A-weighted is probably the most common, well-known
sound level measure.
▪
SIL values (SIL – Speech Interference Level): Speech Interference Level values are averages of
sound levels in 500, 1000, 2000, and 4,000 Hz octave bands. SIL emphasizes the frequency
range sensitivity that is most critical for understanding human speech (Reynolds 2003).
▪
PSIL values (PSIL – Preferred Speech Interference Level): Preferred Speech Interference Level
values are averages of sound levels in 500, 1000, 2000, Hz octave bands. PSIL is the same as
SIL, without the 4000 Hz contribution. PSIL is used to set the level of the RC curves at 1000 Hz
(ASHRAE 1995).
▪
dBC – dBA values (dBA – A-weighted sound level, dBC – C-weighted sound level): The Cweighted sound criteria was designed to approximate the response of the human ear at sound
levels of 85 dB. Because at 85 dB, down to 125 Hz the human ear has a much flatter frequency
response than at low sound levels (A-weighting criteria), subtracting dBC from dBA results in
highlighting the low frequency content of the sound (Beis and Hansen 1997).
▪
dBLin – dBA values (dBA – A-weighted sound level, dBLin – Linear weighted sound level):
This also results in highlighting the low frequency content of the sound but has higher emphasis
on very low frequencies (below 125 Hz) than the dBC-dBA values (Beis and Hansen 1997).
Values associated with the above sound descriptors, if not directly recorded, were calculated from the
recorded data. All measures were calculated for each 10-second interval over a continuous time intervals
that comprise a typical workday. Statistical analyses were then conducted on the descriptors in the form
of a cumulative probability function. From that function, it was straightforward to determine the
following levels that define the percent of the time that the sound exceeds that level (Reynolds 2003):
▪
L01– the level of sound that is exceeded 1% of the time;
▪
L05 – the level of sound that is exceeded 5% of the time (normally representative of average of
peak sound levels);
NCEMBT-080201
157
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
▪
L10 – the level of sound that is exceeded 10% of the time;
▪
L20 – the level of sound that is exceeded 20% of the time;
▪
L33 – the level of sound that is exceeded 33% of the time (normally representative of overall
average sound level);
▪
L50 – the level of sound that is exceeded 50% of the time;
▪
L67 – the level of sound that is exceeded 67% of the time;
▪
L90 – the level of sound that is exceeded 90% of the time (normally representative of general
background sound levels);
▪
L95 – the level of sound that is exceeded 95% of the time.
Other levels such as L15 or L25 are also available for use. To account for possible occupant
accommodation to certain levels, differences in the levels were also used to look for correlation with
occupant perception of their sound environment. For example, L05 - L90 gives the incremental
difference in sound level from background to peak levels.
I4. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR SOUND MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS
The purpose of these procedures is to detail safe effective procedures for the required sound testing,
protest the equipment from damage and misuse, reduce the uncertainty and workload of the testing team
and to help ensure consistent successful measurements. These procedures are designed to cover all
anticipated test situations. However, it is likely that unanticipated situations will occur and require
deviation from these procedures. The test team must use good judgment at all times when following or
deviating from these procedures, keeping in mind the goals for the testing and motivation for these
procedures.
I4.1 Safety Instructions
To avoid personal injury, equipment damage and lost data, be familiar with all instructions before
installation and use of the sound measurement equipment. Standard precautions include:
Carefully connect microphones and cables, avoiding bending connector pins
Pay attention when disconnecting the microphones from the preamp, the diaphragm cover can be
inadvertently removed from the microphone body instead of the microphone from the preamp. Never
touch the diaphragm of the microphone.
Consider trip hazards and the possibility of knocking over the microphone or sound level meter when
cables are run from the meter to the microphones and when stands are placed on the floor. Tape cables as
necessary to minimize hazards.
Connecting microphones or cables while meter power is on may cause permanent damage to the
microphones or the sound level meters. Always turn off power before a cable is connected or
disconnected.
None of the sound measurement equipment is waterproof and has only mild shock resistance. The
equipment must be kept dry, handled with care and stored within the temperature range –20 to +45oC.
Further details on handling and use of the equipment are contained in the product user manuals. A copy
of manuals should be taken with the equipment on each field measurement for reference.
158
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
I4.2 Equipment List
Quantity
6
6
Item
Svantek 948 Sound Level Meter (SLM)
Sets of microphone cables/connectors
Comments
Can record 4 microphones
For use with SLM,
Microphone 1,2,3,4 cable
Svantek to BNC connector F/F
Svantek to BNC connector M/F
BNC cable connector M/M
1
Svantek 948 power supplies
Primary power for SLM
1
Svantek 947 SLM
Backup SLM unit
13
Svantek 1/2 in microphones*
Compatible with 947-948
13
Svantek microphone preamps*
Compatible with 947-948
6
10 ft BNC cables
For remote microphones
6
50 ft BNC cables
For remote microphones
6
100 ft BNC cables
For remote microphones
12
Standard microphone stands
One for each microphone
12
Microphone holders/stand adaptors
For mounting microphones
12
Microphone mounting clips
Used instead of mic stand
24
AA size batteries
Backup power for SLM
1
Laptop with SVEN program
Downloads data from SLM
6
12 ft 3-wire extension cords
Power for SLM adaptors
* Microphones and preamps are matched to a specific SLM channel and labeled accordingly. The SLM has the specific
calibration correction for that microphone-preamp combination entered into the corresponding channel.
I4.3 Pre-departure Checks
Verify proper operation of all instruments prior to departure. Make checks sufficiently early so that, if
necessary, replacements or suitable substitutes can be obtained. See On-Site Setup and Testing below for
detailed instructions on SLM use or refer to the SLM operation manual.
1. Connect one microphone, turn on the SLM, and check for standard startup and full battery level.
Replace batteries if level is below full.
2. Ensure data stored on SLM is recorded elsewhere or not needed, then clear all buffers and files.
3. Set up SLM for sound recording on the channel with the microphone.
4. Set up for continuous recording with 10-second integration time and buffer on Lin.
5. Set the display to display the same channel SPL dB.
6. Record sound for a short time (about a few minutes), making some loud noises and observing
proper indications on the SLM. Save the file.
7. Check the file by downloading the data to a computer or loading it into the SLM for display.
If you encounter any problems, refer to SLM troubleshooting. Otherwise shut down the SLM and
disconnect microphone, preamp, and cables.
NCEMBT-080201
159
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
I4.4 Packing/Shipping Procedure
Svantek SLMs are somewhat delicate instruments and should be packed surrounded by protective
material. One half inch of packing foam in a hard-shell case should be sufficient. Ensure the SLM is held
in place and cannot move in the case.
Microphones and preamps are kept together and packed in a bag. That bag is packed with the chs. 1-3
cable, the ch. 4 cable, power adaptors, a 10 ft BNC cable, and connectors in an individually marked bag.
Batteries should be packed in their store or equivalent packaging to avoid electrical shorting.
Other items such as tripods, microphone holders, cables, and Velcro straps are packed in a large case.
They should be packed with foam or suitable material to prevent shifting while in transit.
I4.5 On Site Setup
The goal is to take sound recordings from the office space in two locations, one that is at or near a
common center of human activity and one that is in a location away from normal activities and more
typical of a study or personal work area. Often conditions demand setting both microphones a short
distance apart. It may be preferable to locate one microphone near the comfort station and the second
microphone as far as safety and non-interference with occupants allows.
Begin the recordings before the start of the workday and continue recording until some time after the end
of the workday. The time span should be long enough to capture both the general background sound with
no occupants present and the sound levels over a typical workday.
I4.6 Sound Meter Automatic Recording Setup
1. Turn on the meter. To turn on power to the meter, hold down the PROCEED button and press
the START button. Refer to the Svantek front panel illustration (Figure I6).
Figure I6. Svantek Front Panel
160
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
2. Start a recording by pressing START and check for proper operation. Stop the meter by
pressing STOP. Do not save the checkout.
3. Set up the SLM for recording.
4. With SLM on and warm up time expired or skipped, enter the setup menu; Hold down SHIFT
and press MENU. Figure I7 illustrates the main menu with different selections highlighted.
Highlighted items are selected using the UP or DOWN arrows. Other menus behave
similarly.
Figure I7. Illustration of Main Menu
5. With FUNCTION highlighted, press ENTER.
6. In the FUNCTION menu, choose MEASUR. FUNCTION by pressing the UP arrow and
pressing ENTER.
7. Select 1/3 OCTAVE from the display that appears after step 2 by using the DOWN arrow. It
should show 1/3 OCTAVE [*]. Press ENTER.
8. The display will return to MEASUR. FUNCTION.
9. Press ENTER again to confirm that 1/3 OCTAVE is selected.
10. Press ENTER then ESC or ESC twice to return to the MENU display.
11. Select INPUT with the down arrow key and press ENTER.
12. Highlight MEASURE SETUP and press ENTER.
13. Set up the meter to show on the display:
14. START DELAY:
15. INT. TIME
1s
: 10h
16. REP. CYCLE:
1
17. BUF. STEP :
10s
18. Press ENTER to enter and go up the menu. Press ENTER again to confirm the settings.
19. Press ENTER or ESC to return to the INPUT display.
20. Highlight CHANNELS SETUP using the DOWN arrow and press ENTER.
21. For a normal two channel setup, setup Channel 1 and Channel 4.
NCEMBT-080201
161
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
22. Highlight CHANNEL 1 and press ENTER.
23. Set up the meter to show on the display:
24. MODE(1) : SOUND
25. RANGE
: 105dB
26. FILTER
: LIN
27. DETECT. :
FAST
28. Press ENTER. Press ENTER again to verify settings.
29. Press ENTER or ESC to go up the menu to the channel setup display.
30. Highlight CHANNEL 4 and press ENTER. Set up the same as Channel 1.
31. When channel setup is complete, press ESC twice to return to the input display.
32. Highlight BUFFERS SETUP and press ENTER.
33. Select BUFFERS: ON using the arrow keys and press ENTER.
34. Select PEAK, MAX, MIN, or RMS for the channels.
35. Press ENTER to confirm BUFFERS settings.
36. Press ENTER again or ESC to go up the menu to the input setup display.
37. Highlight 1/3 OCTAVE SETUP and press ENTER.
38. Select CHANNEL 1: ON and press ENTER.
39. Set up the meter to show on the display:
40. SPECTRUM
41. FILTER
: LIN
42. BUFFER
: RMS
43. Then press ENTER. Repress ENTER to verify settings.
44. Repeat for CHANNEL 4.
45. Press ENTER again or ESC to go up the menu to the input setup display.
46. Highlight TRIGGER SETUP and press ENTER.
47. Select TRIGGER: Off and press ENTER.
48. Press ENTER again to confirm then ESC twice to go up to the menu display.
49. Highlight DISPLAY and press ENTER.
50. The display settings do not affect the stored data. It is recommended that you select a display
that allows easy monitoring of the data real-time.
51. For example: In DISPLAY MODES, check SPECTRUM, and STATISTICS,.
DISPLAY SETUP, for Channels 1 and 4, select:
52. DISPLAY SCALE
53. SCALE
162
NCEMBT-080201
: LOG
For
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
54. DYNAMIC : 80dB
55. X-ZOOM
: 1x
56. For total values:
57. Select A for 1.
58. Select C for 2.
59. Select LIN for 3.
60. For SPECTRUM TYPE select RMS.
61. Ignore other display setup items.
62. Back in the menu display highlight SETUP and press ENTER. Enter or verify the following
settings:
63. Set TIMER to EVERYDAY.
64. Set RTC to the local time and date of the location being monitored (know your time zone).
65. Set FIELD CORRECTION to FREE.
66. For USER FILTERS, set all SOUND filters to 0.0.
67. For STAT. LEVELS, default settings are fine (1, 10, 20, 30, etc.).
68. For EXT. I/O SETUP, set MODE to ANALOG for all channels.
69. For SHIFT MODE:
70. Set SHIFT to SHIFT.
71. Set ST/SP to Normal.
72. Only use CLEAR SETUP to reset the setup.
73. Set RMS INTEGRATION to LINEAR.
74. For REFERENCE LEVEL, set SOUND to 20micro Pa.
75. Set VIBRATION UNITS to METRIC. This does not affect the data.
76. Set WARNINGS to RES. NOT SAVE.
77. Set VECTOR DEF. to1.00 for all. This does not affect sound data.
78. The default settings for HAV/WBV DOSE are fine. They do not affect sound data.
79. The last item is AUX. FUNCTIONS.
affect sound data.
The default settings are fine. These settings do not
80. Before exiting the setup menu, enter the TIMER settings last (again if already entered
previously). Hit ESC to get out of the menu and into the test ready mode. You can always
check any settings by reentering the menu mode and selecting the item of interest.
Once out of the menu mode, the SLM returns to whatever display was last up when you entered the menu
mode. Because all files and buffers have been cleared, the displays should be blank.
The display selection can be changed with the UP or DOWN keys.
The channel display should show battery status, time, CH 4 (or CH 1), SPL, dB, FAST. You can change
the displayed channel by holding SHIFT and pressing the UP or DOWN keys.
NCEMBT-080201
163
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
Pressing the LEFT or RIGHT keys will change the type of value shown (SEL, Ld, Ltm3, Ltm5, L01,
PEAK, MAX, MIN).
If SPECTRUM was checked in DISPLAY MODES, you can click through plots of each channel with the
UP or DOWN keys.
The STATISTICS plot is for one channel. Hold down the SHIFT key and press the UP or DOWN keys to
change to a different sound channel.
In both the SPECTRUM and STATISTICS plot, clicking the LEFT or RIGHT keys steps along the
location of the cursor and the digital readout on the right.
Holding down the SHIFT key and clicking the LEFT or RIGHT keys moves the cursor to either end.
I4.7 Equipment Setup
Review each station for the physical setup possibilities and where microphones can be mounted. Several
options exist for the set up:
▪
One microphone on the comfort station, one clipped to room furniture.
▪
One microphone on the comfort station, one on a stand.
▪
One microphone clipped to furniture, one on a stand.
▪
Both microphones on stands.
Consider pre-mounting the microphones on the comfort stations. Pre-mounting may speed up setup in the
room where recording is done. If needed, consider pre-building the microphone stands. This depends on
the ease of carrying a built-up stand to the test room and the amount of interference setup in the test room
will cause occupants.
Be careful to avoid locating directly at a dominant noise-generating device such as directly below a noisy
register or a loud printer. The SLM can be located on a cabinet, desk or on the floor near the number 4
microphone. Select a location, being careful to choose a location where the SLM could get knocked onto
the floor, kicked, or stepped on.
Run cable to the remote microphone, routing the cable to avoid trip hazards or cable pulling. Tape down
cables as necessary. Use channels 1 and 4 for the microphones, being sure to match the microphones with
the proper channel. The channel 1 cable can be extended using the BNC cables. Pick an appropriate
length of cable. Do not exceed 100 ft. Because channel 4 has the shorter cable, that microphone is
normally situated with or near the comfort station.
I4.8 Office Sound Data Recording
Once setup is complete, running the test should entail only placing the turned off SLM in the proper
location and monitoring as desired.
Confirm the start time for testing with the test team.
If the meter was set up properly and functions properly, it will come on automatically and start recording
data after the warm-up delay.
Check the display for proper operation.
The time display will change to a count of the time passed in that integration time (10 hours).
164
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
A small speaker icon with waves will appear on the top of the display showing that data is being taken as
shown below.
If a bell icon appears instead, check system settings. This is a warning for things such as low battery or
high input signal.
If the meter does not come on at the proper time, manually turn on the meter and check the settings for
accuracy. Push start to start the recording.
In some cases, a meter will turn on at the proper time but fail to start recording.
Push start to start the recording.
In that case, the meter will run for the programmed time, stop recording but not shut down.
It may or may not save the data.
If you encounter this problem, check if the data was saved and manually save if necessary before starting
the next days recording or shutting down.
When testing is complete, the meter should stop, save the recording, and shut down automatically.
If automatic shutdown does not occur, if the meter is still recording, press the START STOP key to stop
the recording. The meter should then automatically save the recording.
If not, manually save the recording with a unique name.
1. Record the data into the SLM memory using the FILE menu.
2. Hold the SHIFT key and press MENU
3. Highlight FILE and press ENTER
4. Highlight SAVE and press ENTER
5. The display shows SAVE and the date as DDMMM. Press ENTER
6. The display shows FILE NAME and the date. Enter a number after the date to have a unique file
name, such as 01JAN01.
7. Use the LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to move the cursor and the UP and DOWN arrow keys to
select numbers or letters for the file name.
8. Press ENTER to save the file.
The display should show file saved, and the file name.
Check meter settings for accuracy and redo the setup as necessary.
You can now turn off the SLM or start a new test. The saved test data will remain in the SLM memory
until you delete it.
WARNING! Do not turn off the SLM prior to saving the data. All data will be lost.
I4.9 Packing/Shipping Procedure For Return To UNLV Or Next Building.
Use the same caution and procedures detailed in Packing/Shipping for departure.
NCEMBT-080201
165
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
I5. CALCULATION ALGORITHMS
Sound algorithms were developed by Verdi Technology Associates.
I5.1 dBA Bumps
dBA Bumps examine sound power levels at various octave band/frequencies and describes the
identification and extent that each level exceeds that of its neighbors. A level that exceeds that of its
neighbors by the specified amount will be identified with a value of 1, otherwise its value will be 0.
dBA values will be calculated at various frequencies and with the specified amounts of 4, 6 and 8.
Table I1 describes the data field names for storing the various values.
Table I1. Data Field Names for Storing Values
Field Name
Description
Columns
1/1 octave band, 4dB variance
DBA11_63_6 through DB11_4000_4
7
1/1 octave band, 6dB variance
DBA11_63_6 through DB11_4000_6
7
1/1 octave band, 8dB variance
DBA11_63_6 through DB11_4000_8
7
1/3 octave band, 4dB variance
DBA13_63_6 through DB13_8000_4
22
1/3 octave band, 6dB variance
DBA13_63_6 through DB13_8000_6
22
1/3 octave band, 8dB variance
DBA13_63_6 through DB13_8000_8
22
For L = the measured dB for each subject frequency, x = the sequential position the data are located in the
sample row and R = the result:
If Lx >= Lx-1 + 8 And Lx >= Lx + 1 + 8 Then R = 1 Else R = 0
I5.2 NC – Noise Criteria
NC calculations reference a standard table of reference values by NC value and frequency as:
NC
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
8000Hz
L_ref
10
43
32
26
18
11
9
8
7
L_ref
20
50
40
34
27
21
19
18
17
L_ref
30
57
48
42
36
31
29
28
27
L_ref
40
64
56
50
45
41
39
38
37
L_ref
50
71
64
58
54
51
49
48
47
L_ref
60
78
72
66
63
61
59
58
57
166
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
L_ref
70
85
80
74
72
71
69
68
67
L_ref
80
92
88
82
81
81
79
78
77
L_ref
90
99
96
90
90
91
89
88
87
L_ref
100
106
104
98
99
101
99
98
97
L_ref
110
113
112
106
108
111
109
108
107
Correction
10
7
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
Values granular to 1dB are calculated by interpolation or by using the following formula:
Lref = LrefNC10 + Corrfreq/10 * (LrefNC – 10)
Where LrefNC10 is the base value shown in the first (NC = 10) row of the table, Corrfreq is the Correction
for the selected frequency, (divided by the base value CorrNC of 10) and NC is the selected NC level, (or
row).
Therefore, the Lref for an NC of 80 at 500Hz would be:
18 + 9/10 * (80 - 10) or 81
The Lref for an NC of 105 at 63Hz would be:
44 + 7/10 * (105 - 10) or 110.5
For each sample, the lowest NC row possible is chosen where all 1/1 octave band levels from 63 to
8000Hz are at or below those shown in the table: Consider the following table excerpt and sample
measurement:
NC
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
8000Hz
L_ref
51
72.7
64.8
58.8
54.9
52
50
49
48
L_ref
52
73.4
65.6
59.6
55.8
53
51
50
49
L_ref
53
74.1
66.4
60.4
56.7
54
52
51
50
30
40
50
55
50
48
38
30
L_x
In this case an NC of 52 is the highest permissible row as the 500Hz level of 55 becomes the first value
that would exceed Lref value at NC = 51.
Once the appropriate row of the table is determined, a value for each frequency in the sample is
determined as:
NC + 10/Corrfreq * (Lx – Lref)
Where NC is the lowest NC selected in the prior paragraph, Corrfreq is the Correction for the selected
frequency taken from the table, Lx is the measured level for the frequency and Lref is the value shown in
the table for the NC and the frequency.
63Hz = 52 + 10/7 * (30 – 73.4) = -10.00
125Hz = 52 + 10/8 * (40 – 65.6) = 20.00
NCEMBT-080201
167
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
250Hz = 52 + 10/8 * (50 – 59.6) = 40.00
500Hz = 52 + 10/9 * (55 – 55.8) = 51.11
1000Hz = 52 + 10/10 * (50 – 53) = 49.00
2000Hz = 52 + 10/10 * (48 – 51) = 49.00
4000Hz = 52 + 10/10 * (38 – 50) = 40.00
8000Hz = 52 + 10/10 * (30 – 49) = 33.00
These NC values are shown as:
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
8000Hz
Lx
30
40
50
55
50
48
38
30
NC value
-10.00
20.00
40.00
51.11
49.00
49.00
40.00
33.00
The highest calculated NC value is 51.44 which will be stored in the NCMax field and the frequency, 500
will be stored in the NCFreq field. In the event of a tie, any frequency having the highest value can be
saved as the NCFreq.
I5.3 NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria - Rumble
The Balanced Noise Criteria (BNC) is used to analyze for rumble and hiss. Both criteria use a standard
table appearing as:
NCB
16Hz
31.5Hz
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
8000Hz
L_ref
10
69
61
40
31
22
15
12
8
5
2
L_ref
20
74
66
47
39
31
25
22
18
15
12
L_ref
30
79
71
54
47
40
35
32
28
25
22
L_ref
40
84
76
61
55
49
45
42
38
35
32
L_ref
50
89
81
68
63
58
55
52
48
45
42
L_ref
60
94
86
75
71
67
65
62
58
55
52
L_ref
70
99
91
82
79
76
75
72
68
65
62
L_ref
80
104
96
89
87
85
85
82
78
75
72
L_ref
90
109
101
96
95
94
95
92
88
85
82
L_ref
100
114
106
103
103
103
105
102
98
95
92
L_ref
110
119
111
110
111
113
115
112
108
105
102
10
5
5
7
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
Correction
168
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
NCB values as granular as 1 dB are calculated either by interpolation or by using the formula:
Lfreq = Lref10 + Corrfreq/10 * (LrefNCB – 10)
The Lfreq for an NCB of 70 at 250Hx would be:
26 + 8/10 * (70 - 10) or 74
The Lfreq for an NCB of 64 at 63Hx would be:
40 + 7/10 * (64 - 10) or 77.8
To determine rumble, first SIL is calculated as follows:
SIL = Round(Avg(H1_500 + H1_1000 + H1_2000 + H1_4000))
Which means that SIL is the average of the 1 /1 octave band levels for the 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000Hz
frequencies rounded to the nearest integer. The non-rounded value is stored as SIL.
SIL is then used to select an NCB row from the above level. (SIL = NCB) If ANY of the measured 1 /1
octave band levels from 16 to 500Hz is more than 3dB above the values shown in the table, the sample is
said to have rumble.
The rumble value will be stored in a field named NCBRumble as a 1 if rumble exists, otherwise as a 0.
I5.4 NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria - Hiss
The Hiss calculation uses a simplified least squared fit to match the lower frequencies (125, 250 and
500Hz) in a sample to the referenced NCB table above and then examines some of the higher frequencies
to determine whether Hiss is present.
A number is calculated using the sample measurement for each row of the table as follows:
FIT = (Lref_125Hz – Lx_125Hz)2 + (Lref_250Hz – Lx_250Hz) 2 + (Lref_500Hz – Lx_500Hz) 2
The row exhibiting the smallest FIT value is chosen for the next step and the reference NCB is stored as
NCBRefHiss.
Consider the following case:
NCB
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
L_ref
37
52.6
47.6
42
(52.6 – 50)^2 + (47.6 – 50)^2 + (42 – 44)^2
16.52
L_ref
38
53.4
48.4
43
(53.4 – 50)^2 + (48.4 – 50)^2 + (43 – 44)^2
15.12
L_ref
39
54.2
49.2
44
(54.2 – 50)^2 + (49.2 – 50)^2 + (44 – 44)^2
18.28
50
50
44
Lx
Calculation
FIT
In this excerpt the lowest FIT number is 15.12. (All other values not shown are higher.) Therefore the
NCB of 38 is the best fit and 38 is stored in the NCBRef_Hiss field.
NCEMBT-080201
169
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
Higher frequencies are then compared using the selected NCB row:
NCB
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
38
40
36
33
40
40
32
L_ref
Lx
If any of the sample levels in the 1000, 2000 or 4000Hz bands are higher than those shown in the selected
NCB row, the sample is said to have hiss. This value is stored in a field named NCBHiss as a 1 if hiss
exists, otherwise as a 0. In this case we store a 1 as the measured 2000Hz level is above the reference
level.
I5.5 RC – Room Criteria
Similarly to prior derivatives, room criteria (RC) relies on a standard table for many of its calculations:
Rumble
Hiss
RC
16Hz
31.5Hz
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
RC_ref
10
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
RC_ref
20
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
RC_ref
30
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
RC_ref
40
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
RC_ref
50
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
RC_ref
60
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
RC_ref
70
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
RC_ref
80
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
RC_ref
90
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
Note that the 16Hz band is not used for RC calculations, but will be used for the RCII calculations further
on.
The Correction factor for the RC and for every value is always 10.
RC values as granular as 1 dB are calculated either by interpolation or by using the formula:
RCref = RCFreq10 + (RC – 10)
The RCref for an RC of 70 at 250Hz would be:
25 + (70 - 10) or 85
The RCref for an RC of 64 at 63Hz would be:
35 + (64 - 10) or 89
An RC value for each sample line is calculated as:
170
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
RC = Round (Avg(H1_500 + H1_1000 + H1_2000)
Which means that RC is the average of the 1 /1 octave band levels for the 500, 1000 and 2000Hz
frequencies rounded to the nearest integer. The non-rounded value is stored as RC.
Using the following sample:
Lx
31.5Hz
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
32
41
40
72
55
50
48
38
The RC value is calculated as:
Round(Avg(55 + 50 + 48)) = 51
A table excerpt for a RC of 51 is:
Rumble
RC_freq
Hiss
RC
31.5Hz
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
51
81
76
71
66
61
54
51
46
If any sample value exceeds the table value within the range of 31.5 to 500Hz by 5 or more dB then
rumble exists. In this case, the 250Hz value of 72 exceeds 66 in the table by 6 dB so the field RCRumble
is set to 1.
When any of the values in the 1000 through 4000Hz frequency range exceed the table by 3dB or more,
the sample is said to have hiss and the RCHiss field is set to 1. The above sample does not have hiss.
If both the RCRumble and RCHiss fields are 0, the sample is considered neutral.
I5.3.1 RC Mark II (RCII - f(31.5Hz band to 4000Hz band)
RCII is used to determine quality descriptors for low frequency rumble, medium frequency roar and high
frequency hiss.
RCII uses the same table as that of RC and is inclusive of the 16Hz band
An RCII for each sample line is calculated the same way that RC, above is as:
RCII = Round (Avg(H1_500 + H1_1000 + H1_2000)
Using the following sample:
Lx
16Hz
31.5Hz
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
70
70
68
65
61
58
54
50
38
RCII is calculated as:
Round(Avg(58 + 54 + 50)) = 54
NCEMBT-080201
171
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
The table excerpt for an RCII of 54, (and the measured values) are:
Rumble
Hiss
RCII
16Hz
31.5Hz
63Hz
125Hz
250Hz
500Hz
1000Hz
2000Hz
4000Hz
54
84
79
74
69
64
59
54
49
44
70
70
68
65
61
58
54
50
38
RC_ref
First differences or ‘delta’ values for 3 of the low frequency bands are calculated as:
∆L16 = LM16 – LRCII16 = 70 – 84 = 14
∆L31.5 = LM31.5 – LRCII31.5 = 70 – 79 = -9
∆L63 = LM63 – LRCII63 = 68 – 74 = -6
A cumulative low frequency delta is calculated as:
∆LF
= 10 * Log10 (1/3 * (10^(∆L16/10) + 10^(∆L31.5/10) + 10^(∆L63/10)))
= 10 * Log10(1/3 * (10^(-14/10) + 10^(-9/10) + 10^(-6/10)))
= 8.571
Calculations for the medium frequency are processed similarly:
∆L125 = LM125 – LRCII125 = 65 – 69 = -4
∆L250 = LM250 – LRCII250 = 61 – 64 = -3
∆L500 = LM500 – LRCII500 = 58 – 59 = -1
A cumulative medium frequency delta is calculated as:
∆MF = 10 * Log10 (1/3 * (10^(∆ L125/10) + 10^(∆ L250/10) + 10^(∆L500/10)))
= 10 * Log10 (1/3 * (10^(-4/10) + 10^(-3/10) + 10^(-1/10)))
= 2.483
As is the calculations for the high frequency:
∆L1000 = LM1000 – LRCII1000 = 54 – 54 = 0
∆L2000 = LM2000 – LRCII2000 = 50 – 49 = 1
∆L4000 = LM4000 – LRCII4000 = 38 – 44 = -6
A cumulative medium frequency delta is calculated as:
∆HF = 10 * Log10 (1/3 * (10^(∆ L1000/10) + 10^(∆ L2000/10) + 10^(∆L4000/10)))
= 10 * Log10 (1/3 * (10^(0/10) + 10^(1/10) + 10^(-6/10)))
= -0.774
The selected RCII reference level is stored in the RCII field. (54)
The cumulative frequency deltas are stored in the DeltaLF, DeltaMF and DeltaHF fields. (-8.571, -2.483
and –0.774)
172
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
The largest difference between any pair of DeltaLF, DeltaMF and DeltaHF fields is stored as DeltaMAX
(QAI).
If DeltaMax is less than or equal to 5, RCIIQual is set to 0. Otherwise RCIIQual is set to; 1 if the
DeltaLF field is highest, 2 if DeltaMF is highest and 3 if DeltaHF is highest. If there is a 2 way tie for
highest, RCIIQual is set to the lower of the two possible values.
I5.4 CPL - Cumulative Probability Levels
Cumulative probability levels are calculated for dBA, dBC, dBC_dBA, NCMax, RC and SIL measures.
In each case both a consolidated set of data for the overall building is generated plus sets of data for each
MinorLocationID that was documented.
To calculate CPLs, the data for the specific measure will be ordered from the lowest value, (L_00) to the
highest value, (L_100). The following cumulative probabilities will be calculated:
10. L_99
11. L_95
12. L_90
13. L_80
14. L_50
15. L_33
16. L_10
17. L_05
For example the L_99 value is that value where 99% (as closely as possible) of the samples fall at or
below the value and 1% of the samples are above. L_50 is similar to the statistical median of the sample
but not exact as this method does not interpolate between values.
dBA is the raw SPL_A reading taken directly from the table.
dBC is the raw SPL_A reading taken directly from the table.
dBC_dBA is the raw SPL_A minus the raw SLP_C reading taken directly from the table.
NCMax is the reference value for the lowest row chosen from the NC reference table. (NCRef)
RC is the Avg(H1_500 + H1_1000 + H1_2000) as previously described. (RC)
SIL is the Avg(H1_500 + H1_1000 + H1_2000 + H1_4000) as previously described. (SIL)
I6. SUMMARY OF CALCULATED VALUES
I6.1 dBA Bumps
Used to describe sound level measurements for various frequencies that exceed the levels of their
immediate neighbors by the variances shown below. Items that equal or exceed the variance are
identified with the value of 1 otherwise they contain the value of 0 (Integer).
dBC – See SPL_C in raw data (Float)
dBC - dBA – Use SPL_C - SPL_A in raw data (Float)
NCEMBT-080201
173
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
I6.2 NC – Noise Criteria
NC selects the highest measured sound level that fits within a standardized sound level.
NCMax stores the maximum sound level found. (Float)
NCFreq stores the frequency where this sound level was found. (Integer)
I6.3 NCB – Balanced Noise Criteria
NCB is one method to determine if rumble and hiss exist in a sound sample.
SIL stores the Sound Interface Level used to select the NCB reference level for rumble (Float)
NCBRumble stores a 1 if rumble is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
NCBRefHiss stores the NCB reference level for hiss (Integer)
NCBHiss stores a 1 if hiss is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
I6.4 RC – Room Criteria
RC stores the RC table level that is used for analyzing hiss and rumble (Float)
RCRumble stores a 1 if rumble is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
RCHiss stores a 1 if hiss is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
I6.5 RC Mark II (RCII) Alternate Room criteria
RCII is another derivative that analyzes rumble, hiss and an intermediate quality descriptor named roar.
RCII stores the RC table level that is used for analyzing hiss, rumble and roar (Integer)
DeltaLF stores a cumulative difference between the table and the measured low freq values (Float)
DeltaMF stores a cumulative difference between the table and the measured med freq values (Float)
DeltaHF stores a cumulative difference between the table and the measured high freq values (Float)
RCIIQual stores the indicator for the highest Delta, 0=none, 1=LF, 2=MF, 3=HF, whenever DeltaMax is
greater than 5 (Integer)
DeltaMax (QAI) stores the largest difference between any pair of Deltas above (Float)
I6.6 CPL - Cumulative Probability Levels
CPL defines a level for a measurement where a specified percentage of the samples fall at or below the
indicated percentage. The following table shows how to construct the eight field names for the each of
the four measurements, dBA, dBC, dBC_dBA, NCMax, RC and SIL:
Prefix
Suffixes
L_99_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
L_95_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
L_90_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
174
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX I: SOUND PROTOCOLS
L_80_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
L_50_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
L_33_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
L_10_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
L_05_
dBA
dBC
dBC_dBA
NCMax
RC
SIL
dBA is raw SPL_A data taken form the samples (Float)
dBA is raw SPL_C data taken form the samples (Float)
dBA_dBA is raw SPL_C minus the raw SLP_A data taken form the samples (Float)
NCMax is the calculated sound level from the NC sections above (Float)
RC is the value stored in the RC sections above (Float)
SIL is the value stored in the NCB sections above (Float)
NCEMBT-080201
175
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
APPENDIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
J1. DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS
J1.1 Illuminance Meter T-10
Table J1. Summary of the features of the meter used to record illuminance.
Make
Konica Minolta
Model
T-10 Multi-function digital illuminance meter with detachable receptor
Receptor
Silicon photocell
Relative spectral response Within 8% (f1') of the CIE spectral luminous efficiency V(λ)
Cosine correction
Within ±1% at 10°; Within ±2% at 30°; Within ±6% at 50°; Within ±7% at 60°; Within ±25% at
characteristics
80°
Measuring range
Auto range (5 manual ranges for analog output)
Measuring functions
Illuminance (lx, fcd); Illuminance difference (lx, fcd); Illuminance ratio (%); Integrated illuminance
(lx.h, fcd.h); Integration time (h); Average illuminance (lx, fcd)
Measurement range
Illuminance: 0.01 to 299,900lx (0.001 to 29,990fcd) Integrated illuminance: 0.01 to 999,900 x
103lx.h (0.001 to 99,990 x 103fcd.h); 0.001 to 9,999h
User calibration function
CCF (Color Correction Factor) setting function
Accuracy
±2% ±1 digit of displayed value (based on Konica Minolta standard)
Temperature/humidity
Within ±3% ±1 digit (of value displayed at 20°C/68°F) within operating temperature/humidity
drift
range
Digital output
RS-232C
Analog output
1mV/digit, 3V at maximum reading; Output impedance: 10kΩ; 90% response time: FAST setting:
1ms, SLOW setting: 1s
Display
3- or 4-significant-digit LCD with backlight illumination
Operating temperature
-10 to 40°C, relative humidity 85% or less (at 35°C) with no condensation
/humidity range
Storage temperature
-20 to 55°C, relative humidity 85% or less (at 35°C) with no condensation
/humidity range
Power source
2 AA-size batteries / AC adapter (optional)
Battery life
72 hours or longer (when alkaline batteries are used) in continuous measurement
Dimensions
69 x 174 x 35mm (2-3/8 x 6-7/8 x 1-7/16 in.)
Weight
200g (7.0 oz.) without batteries
Standard accessories
Ø3.5mm (Ø1/8 in.) subminiature plug for analog output; Receptor cap; Neck strap; Case; Batteries
Optional accessories
Receptor head; Adapter Unit for Main Body; Adapter Unit for Receptor Head; AC Adapter; Data
Processing Software
176
NCEMBT-080201
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
Names and Functions of Parts
This section is limited to discussion of the parts be used in this task. The following are features of the
meter (Figure J1):
1. Receptor window.
2. Display window.
3. Response speed selector switch.
This feature switches between
FAST and SLOW. The FAST mode
is used to measure a normal light
source such as daylight, lamplight
and fluorescent light. The SLOW
mode is used to measure average
illuminance of a flicker light such as
a movie projector, video projector
and TV screen.
4. Tripod fixing screw hole.
5. Power switch.
6. Battery cover.
Figure J1. Illuminance Meter T-10.
Basic Operation
1. Uncover the receptor window
2. Set the power switch to “I” (ON). The illuminance value will be shown in the display widow.
Notes on Use
18. Take care not to scratch or allow the receptor window to get dirty. If you are not going to use
it, attach the cap.
19. If the receptor window gets very dirty, wipe it gently with a soft dry cloth. If the dirt cannot
be removed or the receptor window is scratched, contact the nearest KONICA MINOLTA
SENSING-authorized service facility.
20. This instrument should be stored at temperatures of between 20° and 55°C at ≤85% RH. Do
not leave the instrument near the rear window or inside the trunk of a car. Under strong
sunlight, the increase in temperature can be extreme and may result in breakdown or
deformation. If you are not going to use the instrument for two or more weeks, remove the
batteries from the instrument. Failure to do so may cause leakage of electrolyte, resulting in
damage to the instrument.
NCEMBT-080201
177
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
J1.2 Luminance Meter LS-100
Table J2. Summary of the features of the meter used to monitor luminance.
Make
Konica Minolta
Model
LS 100 Digital SLR spot luminance meter
Acceptance angle
1°
Optical system
85mm f/2.8
Angle of view
9°
Focusing distance
1014mm (40 in.) to infinity
Minimum measuring area
Ø14.4mm
Measurement distances
Close-Up Lens
(areas) with close-up lenses No.153: 623mm to 1,210 (Ø18.7 to Ø8.0mm)
No.135: 447mm to 615 (Ø5.2 to Ø8.7mm)
No.122: 323mm to 368 (Ø3.2 to Ø4.3mm)
No.110: 203mm to 205 (Ø1.3 to Ø1.5mm)
Receptor
Silicon photocell
Relative spectral response
Within 8% (f1') of the CIE spectral luminous efficiency V(λ)
Response time
FAST: Sampling time: 0.1s, Time to display: 0.8 to 1.0s;
SLOW: Sampling time: 0.4s, Time to display: 1.4 to 1.6s
Luminance units
cd/m2 or fL (switchable)
Measuring range
FAST: 0.001~299,900cd/m2 (0.001 to 87,530fL)
SLOW: 0.001~49,990cd/m2 (0.001 to 14,590fL)
Accuracy
0.001 to 0.999 cd/m2 (or fL): ±2% ±2 digits of displayed value
1.000 cd/m2 (or fL) or higher: ±2% ±1 digit of displayed value
(Illuminant A measured at ambient temperature of 20 to 30°C/68 to 86°F)
Repeatability
0.001 to 0.999 cd/m2 (or fL): ±0.2% ±2 digits of displayed value
1.000 cd/m2 (or fL) or higher: ±0.2% ±1 digit of displayed value
(Measurement subject: Illuminant A)
Temperature/humidity drift Within ±3%, ±1 digit (of value displayed at 20°C/68°F) within operating temperature
humidity range
Calibration mode
Konica Minolta standard or user-selected standard (switchable)
Color correction factor
Set by numerical input; Range: 0.001 to 9.999
Reference luminance
1; set by measurement or numerical input
Measurement modes
Luminance, luminance ratio, peak luminance, or peak luminance ratio
Display
External: 4-digit LCD with additional indications
Viewfinder: 4-digit LCD with LED backlight
Data communication
RS-232C; Baud rate: 4,800bps
External control
Measurement process can be started by external device connected to data output terminal
Power source
One 9V battery; Power can also be supplied by optional Data Printer DP-10
Power consumption
While measuring button is pressed and viewfinder display is lit: 16mA average
While power is on and viewfinder display is not lit: 6mA average
Operating
0 to 40°C, relative humidity 85% or less (at 35°C) with no condensation
temperature/humidity
range
178
NCEMBT-080201
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
Storage
temperature/humidity
range
Dimensions
Weight
Standard accessories
-20 to 55°C, relative humidity 85% or less (at 35°C) with no condensation
79 x 208 x 150mm (3-1/8 x 8-3/16 x 5-7/8 in.)
850g (30 oz.) without battery
Lens cap; Eyepiece cap; ND eyepiece filter; 9V battery; Case
Names and Functions of Parts
This section is limited to discussion of the parts used for this task.
The following are features of the meter (Figure J2):
1. Distance scale.
2. Measuring trigger. This feature collects a measurement when the trigger is pulled in and
measurements are continuously made while trigger is held in.
3. Power switch. This switches the
meter ON and OFF.
4. External display.
5. Eyepiece.
6. Measuring mode selector switch.
7. Response speed selector switch.
This feature switches between
FAST and SLOW. The FAST
mode is used to measure a
normal light source such as
daylight,
lamplight
and
fluorescent light. The SLOW
feature is used to measure
average illuminance of a flicker
light such as a movie projector,
video projector and TV screen.
8. Focal-plane indication.
9. Tripod socket.
10. Handgrip.
Figure J2. Luminance Meter LS-100
11. Wrist strap.
Basic Operation
1. Slide power switch to ON.
2. Set the MEASURING MODE selector switch to ABS.
3. Aim the LS-100 at the subject and turn the focusing ring until the subject appears sharp.
NCEMBT-080201
179
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
4. Pull the measuring trigger and hold it in until the luminance value appears in the viewfinder
display (approximately 2 seconds at FAST response speed or 4 seconds at SLOW response
speed). The luminance value will also be shown in the external display.
5. Read the number on the display window.
Notes on Use
1. When taking measurements, be sure that subject fills the measurement area. If the subject
does not fill measurement area, move closer and refocus. Measurements of subjects smaller
than the measurement area will not be accurate.
2. Measuring-mode information (e.g. cd/m2) will appear and measured values will not be
displayed if the measuring trigger is released before the measurement has been completed.
3. The viewfinder display will automatically turn off approximately 5 seconds after the trigger is
released.
4. If the meter is mounted on a tripod for extended metering and there is a bright light source
near the viewfinder, meter readings may be affected by this light source. Cover the eyepiece
with the included eyepiece cap whenever measurements will be taken without looking
through the viewfinder.
5. If the LS-100 is being used to measure a CRT, do not place the meter closer than 8 inches
from the CRT.
J1.3 Chroma Meter CS-100A
Table J3. Summary of the features of the meter used to monitor light source and surface luminance and chromaticity.
Make
Konica Minolta
Type
CS-100A SLR spot colorimeter for measuring light-source and surface luminance and
chromaticity
Acceptance angle
1°
Optical system
85mm f/2.8 lens; SLR viewing system; flare factor less than 1.5%
Angle of view
9° with 1° measurement area indication
Focusing distance
1014mm (40 in.) to infinity
Receptors
3 silicon photocells filtered to detect primary stimulus values for red, green, and blue light
Spectral response Closely matches CIE 1931 Standard Observer curves
Response time
FAST: Sampling time: 0.1s, Time to display: 0.8 to 1.0s; SLOW: Sampling time: 0.4s, Time to
display: 1.4 to 1.6s
Luminance units: cd/m2 or fL (switchable)
Measuring range
FAST: 0.01 to 299,000cd/m2 (0.01 to 87,530fL); SLOW: 0.01 to 49,900cd/m2 (0.01 to
14,500fL)
Accuracy
Luminance (Y): ±2% of reading ±1 digit
Chromaticity (x,y): ±0.004 (Illuminant A measured at ambient temperature of 18 to 28°C/64 to
82°F)
Repeatability
Luminance (Y): ±0.2% of reading ±1 digit
Chromaticity (x,y): FAST: Y 100cd/m2 or above: ±0.001; 48.1 to 99.9cd/m2: ±0.002; Below
48.1cd/m2: Below measurement range
SLOW: Y 25.0cd/m2 or above: ±0.001; 12.0 to 24.9cd/m2: ±0.002; Below 12.0cd/m2: Below
measurement range (Measurement subject: Illuminant A)
180
NCEMBT-080201
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
Target value
Measurement modes
Display
Data communication
External control
Power source
Operating
temperature/humidity range
Storage
temperature/humidity range
Dimensions (W x H x D)
Weight
Standard accessories
1; set by measurement or numerical input
Absolute color: Yxy; Color difference: Δ(Yxy)
External: LCD; 3 values (Y, x, and y) of 3 digits each with additional indications
Viewfinder: 3-digit LCD (showing luminance value y ) with LED backlight
RS-232C; baud rate: 4800bps
Measurement process can be started by external device connected to data output terminal
One 9V battery; Power can also be supplied via data output terminal
0 to 40°C, relative humidity 85% or less (at 35°C) with no condensation
-20 to 55°C, relative humidity 85% or less (at 35°C) with no condensation
79 x 208 x 154mm (3-1/8 x 8-3/16 x 6-1/16 in.)
890g (2 lb.) without battery
Lens cap; Eyepiece cap; Protective filter; ND eyepiece filter; 9V battery; Chromaticity chart; Case
The exterior appearance, names and functions of parts, basic operation procedures, and notes on use of
Chroma Meter CS-100A are exactly the same as the Luminance Meter LS-100 (see Section J3.2 above).
The only difference between these two meters is that the values of luminance and chromaticity
coordinates x and y will be shown on the display window by the Chroma Meter CS-100A, but only
luminance will be shown on the display window of the Luminance Meter LS-100.
J1.4 Spectroradiometer
Make
Model
Spectral Range
Spectral Bandwidth / Accuracy
Illuminant Calibrations
Wavelength Resolution
Illuminance Range / Accuracy
Observer Functions
Repeatability
Chromaticity
Color Temperature Accuracy
Dimensions
Weight
Operating Temperature
NIST* Traceable Calibration
I/O
Table J4. Summary of the features of the meter.
GregtagMacbeth
LightSpex
360nm to 750nm
4nm (FWHM) / ± 0.2 nm
A (2856K) and D65 (6500K) Standard
1.7 nm / pixel
~ 0.1-10,000 fc / ±2% Traceable to NIST* at A & D65
(CMFs) 5 nm, CIE 1931 2deg & CIE 1964 10deg Supported
± 0.1% Short Term ± 0.5% Long Term
± .001 xy at 2856K and 6500K
± 25K at 2856K and 6500K
4”H x 4”W x 8”D (10x10x20 cm)
3.5 lbs. (1.6 kg) Battery Included
45°F to 90°F (5°C to 32°C)
6 Month Recommended Interval
RS-232 and Type II PCMCIA
NCEMBT-080201
181
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
Names and Functions of Parts
This section is limited to discussion of the parts that will be used in this task. The following are features
of the meter:
1. Top Handle.
2. Cosine Receptor with the Dust Cap uncovered. Cosine Receptor is a precision optical
element. This element should be kept covered with a Dust Cap unless measurement is being
taken.
3. Display Window. The Display Window shows all menus and screens and provides the labels
for the Softkeys.
4. Softkeys. There are four Softkeys, with the
numbers from 1 to 4. Softkeys activate a variety of
system functions. Keys re assigned to operate only
with the current screen.
1
2
5. Power switch. Toggle the switch to the “1”
position to turn the instrument ON; toggle it to the
“0” position to turn the instrument OFF.
6. Sliding Cover. When sliding down the Sliding
Cover on the side of the instrument, you will see a
Ram Card Slot and a RS-232C Connector. The
Ram Card Slot can hold a Ram Card, which
provides an external storage space. The RS-232C
connector enables you to connect the instrument to
an external computer and to the battery charger.
4
3
7
8
5
6
Figure J3. GregTag Macbeth Light Spec.
7. Escape Key. It returns the display to the previous screen or menu. Press this several times to
return to the Main Menu.
8. Menu Key. Toggles the Softkeys between menus.
Basic Operation
1. Recharge the battery when the low battery indicator appears in the Display Screen. The
battery recharging procedure is described as follows:
2. Turn the instrument Power Switch to the OFF position.
3. Connect the RS-232C Charger-Communications Cable to the Unit.
4. Insert the Charger Pigtail of the RS232C Cable into the charger Cord.
5. Insert the Charger AC plug into an electrical outlet. The battery will automatically begin to
recharge.
6. Recharge the battery pack for a minimum of 16 hours.
Taking a measurement
Measurement may be initiated from any of the Measurement Option Screens by pressing the Softkey
MEAS in the Screen’s Primary function line. When a measurement is initiated, the LightSpex
182
NCEMBT-080201
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
automatically samples the light level present and adjust its sensitivity automatically to compensate. This
process is known as “Auto ranging.”
7. If no adjustment is required, the LightSpex will continue to sample the light under test. When
complete, the results of this measurement are then displayed. You can toggle through the
various Measurement Screens to view the SPD or reduced data calculated from it.
8. Periodically, the unit needs to sample the signal generated by the detector with no light
present. This is called the “Dark Rage” or simply the “Dark.” When LightSpex requests a
dark, a screen will prompt, “PLACE DARK CALIBRATION CAP IN POSITION AND
PRESS MENU KEY TO CALIBRATE.”
9. Whenever the LightSpex displays this, firmly place the Dust Cap on the Cosine Receptor
assembly.
10. Press the MENU key.
11. When complete, the LightSpex will add additional text to the bottom of the Display Screen,
“CALIBRATION COMPLETED REMOVE CAP”.
12. Press any Softkey to continue.
Save a measurement
Measurement may be saved from any of the Measurement Option Screens by completing the following:
13. Press the Softkey SAVE in the Screen’s Primary Function Line.
14. Enter a filename by move the Active cursor to the letter you wish to select using the Softkeys
and finish the filename entering by press “FINISHED”.
15. The measurement is then stored in the Active Memory under the filename entered.
16. Retrieve the measurement data to a computer using LightSoft software.
J2. ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENTS
For all of the illuminance measurements the surveyor should choose locations which are representative of
the area, not obviously brighter or darker than the surrounding area.
1. Primary work surface, far left: divide the primary work surface into four approximately equal
areas, far left, far right, near left and near left, respectively. Choose a location near the center
of each area whose illuminance is not obviously darker or brighter than the surrounding area
which generally represents this area.
2. Primary work surface, far right
3. Primary work surface, near left
4. Primary work surface, near right
5. Primary work surface, brightest: Move the illuminance meter around on the primary surface
to find the brightest spot. If task lighting is used, the brightest spot is generally the center of
the task light beam. To make the measurements more meaningful and to minimize the
influence from partitions or other barrels, all the measurements should be at least 3 inches
from partitions or other barrels because they block light.
6. Primary work surface, darkest: Move the illuminance meter around on the primary surface to
find the darkest spot. If task lighting is used, the darkest spot is normally located near the
NCEMBT-080201
183
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
border of the work surface. To make the measurements more meaningful and to minimize the
influence from partitions or other barrels, all measurements should be at least 3 inches from
partitions or other barrels because they block light.
7. VDT workstation, source document: Identify where the worker usually puts the source
document. The document location is obvious if there is a document holder or a document
present. Otherwise, the surveyor should decide the location according to computer setup,
keyboard, and any other observations of the workstation. The source document is normally
set on the left or right of the keyboard. If a document holder is used, measure the illuminance
by putting the illuminance meter on the top of the holder, parallel with the document. If the
source document is horizontal on the work surface, measure the horizontal illuminance.
8. VDT workstation, center of VDT screens: Put the illuminance meter on top of the VDT,
parallel with the screen. Measure the illuminance near the center.
9. VDT workstation, keyboard: Put the illuminance meter on top of the keyboard and measure
the illuminance near its center.
10. Floor: Put the illuminance meter on the floor and measure three locations, which represent
geographically the workstation floor area. Record the average value in the space provided in
the table.
J3. LUMINANCE MEASUREMENTS
For luminance measurements the surveyor should always sit in the seat at the workstation and face the
computer. If no computer is present, face the primary worktable instead. The surveyor should always
adjust the luminance meter to the appropriate focus before taking measurements.
11. Ceiling between luminaries: The surveyor should measure from a spot on the ceiling between
luminaires, which is near the middle of two luminaires. It can be most easily seen from the
normal sitting position.
12. Brightest light source in field of view: The surveyor should measure the brightest spot from
the light source in the field of view, which can be seen from the normal sitting position with
eyes horizontal. The field of view here is defined as 120° vertically and 160° horizontally to
the eyes.
13. Brightest ceiling area in field of view: The surveyor should measure the brightest spot of
ceiling area in the field of view, which can be seen from the normal sitting position. In
indirect or direct/indirect lighting systems, the brightest ceiling area is generally located right
above luminaires. For a location with daylighting, the brightest ceiling area is generally
located at the place where daylight has the greatest input. When the brightest area is not
obvious, the surveyor should take several measurements and choose the brightest one among
them.
14. Darkest walls or partition area in field of view. The surveyor should measure the darkest
walls or partition area in the field of view, which can be seen from the normal sitting position.
The surveyor should not choose the darkest area that is very small, such as a black plastic
edge of a partition or a small area of shadow caused by a hanging telephone bookshelf,
because the very small area does not have significant influence on the entire field of view. As
a rule in this study, the area should be more than 0.25 m2 (2.7 ft2), which corresponds to 5%
of field of view when viewed at the distance of 1 m (3.3 ft).
184
NCEMBT-080201
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
15. Wall or partition area, straight ahead: The surveyor should measure the representative
location of the wall or partition area straight ahead, at eye level, when seated at normal sitting
position.
16. Wall or partition area, 90° to the right
17. Wall or partition area, 90° to the right
18. Brightest area of the sky from the window: The surveyor should move close to the nearest
window and measure the brightest area of the sky from the window. If the workstation is
windowless, the surveyor does not need to take this measurement. As windowless
workstation exists when: 1) the worker does not have a direct view to windows when
normally seated in the workstation; 2) there are more than 6 m (20ft) from worker’s seat to
the nearest window; or 3) the worker has a direct view to windows but there is more than 10
m (33ft) to the nearest window.
19. A nearby building from the window. Measure the brightest spot of a nearby building. The
surveyor should not take this measurement if the workstation is windowless or there is no
building or construction in the field of view through the window.
20. Floor: Measure three locations on the floor which represent geographically the workstation
floor area. Record the average value in the space provided in the table.
21. The last section of the table records luminances of room surfaces and window surfaces. The
surveyor divides each surface approximately into 15 pieces of equal area, five horizontally by
three vertically. The lighting surveyor then takes the luminance of a representative point of
each area, located near the center of each area. This last section of data was not collected for
the first six office buildings because this was not included in the original measurement
protocols. We added this data because we realized later in the project that it might provide
important information to the building lighting environment.
J4. LIGHTING DATA ENTRY PROCEDURE
The lighting data are entered manually into the database. The procedure is described as below:
6. Start the Online Data Entry Module by opening the file, “CondEntry.adp.”
following screen will appear:
Then the
NCEMBT-080201
185
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
7. Click on “Location Survey Set” button under the Lighting Section. A “Lighting Data
Location” window props up to ask you to “Enter Minor Location ID for Light Measurement
Data Set”, shown as below:
8.
9.
10. After entering the Minor Location ID, which you may get from the database administrator,
you will get the following screen:
11.
186
NCEMBT-080201
AppendIX J: LIGHTING PROTOCOLS
12.
13. Enter the required information, and then click “Maintain Data Sets” bar at the bottom of the
screen. Then you enter the following screen:
Input the information as recorded in the lighting field survey form. The above screen is an example from
one of the building monitoring events.
NCEMBT-080201
187
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
K1.ROOM DESCRIPTIONS
Table K1. Template used to list the general characteristics of each location (zone) in which lighting measurements were
collected.
City, building, room
Area of the room (m2)
Room height (m)
Work surface height (m)
Windows availability (Circle one that applies)
yes/no
Daylighting control means (Circle all that applies)
blinds/shades/overhang/shelf/none/others
Whether have computers (Circle one that applies)
Yes/no
Notes and comments
K2. LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
Table K2. Template used to describe the type of lighting components at each location (zone).
Lighting control methods (circle all that apply):
▪ Manual
▪ Timing devices
▪ Photo sensors
▪ Occupancy sensors
▪ Others
Type of ambient lighting system (circle one that applies):
▪ Direct recessed fluorescent with parabolic louvers
▪ Direct recessed fluorescent with prismatic lens
▪ Direct fluorescent surface mounted with egg grate
▪ Indirect fluorescent furniture integrated
▪ Indirect fluorescent pendant mounted
▪ Direct/indirect fluorescent pendant mounted
▪ Indirect metal halide HID pendant mounted
▪ Other configurations
Type of task lighting (circle one that applies):
▪ No task units
▪ Furniture integrated units
▪ Desk movable units
▪ Others
188
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
K3. LUMINARY INFORMATION
K3.1 Ambient Light 1
Table K3. Template used to characterize the primary ambient lighting device(s) at each location (zone).
Numbers of luminaries in the room
Voltage (V)
Total wattages (W)
Numbers of lamps in a luminaire
Light source
T12/T8/T5/CFL/Incandescent/Metal Halide/others
Mounting height (m)
Chromaticity (x, y)
CCT (K)
CRI
File name for the SPD
K3.2 Ambient Light 2
Table K4. Template used to characterize secondary ambient lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if
secondary ambient lights are used in the zone.
Numbers of luminaries in the room
Voltage (V)
Total wattages (W)
Numbers of lamps in a luminaire
Light source
T12/T8/T5/CFL/Incandescent/Metal Halide/others
Mounting height (m)
Chromaticity (x, y)
CCT (K)
CRI
File name for the SPD
NCEMBT-080201
189
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
K3.3 Ambient Light 3
Table K5. Template used to characterize additional ambient lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if
additional ambient lights are used in the zone.
Numbers of luminaries in the room
Voltage (V)
Total wattages (W)
Numbers of lamps in a luminaire
Light source
T12/T8/T5/CFL/Incandescent/Metal Halide/others
Mounting height (m)
Chromaticity (x, y)
CCT (K)
CRI
File name for the SPD
K3.4 Task Light 1
Table K6. Template used to characterize the primary task lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if task lights
are used in the zone.
Numbers of luminaries in a workstation
Voltage (V)
Total wattages (W)
Numbers of lamps in a luminaire
Light source
Work surface height (m) for workstation
Chromaticity (x, y)
CCT (K)
CRI
File name for the SPD
190
NCEMBT-080201
T12/T8/T5/CFL/Incandescent/Metal Halide/others
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
K3.5 Task Light 2
Table K7. Template used to characterize secondary task lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if secondary
task lights are used in the zone.
Numbers of luminaries in a workstation
Voltage (V)
Total wattages (W)
Numbers of lamps in a luminaire
Light source
T12/T8/T5/CFL/Incandescent/Metal Halide/others
Work surface height (m) for workstation
Chromaticity (x, y)
CCT (K)
CRI
File name for the SPD
K3.6 Task Light 3
Table K8. Template used to characterize additional task lighting device(s) at each location (zone); only to be used if additional
task lights are used in the zone.
Numbers of luminaries in a workstation
Voltage (V)
Total wattages (W)
Numbers of lamps in a luminaire
Light source
T12/T8/T5/CFL/Incandescent/Metal Halide/others
Work surface height (m) for workstation
Chromaticity (x, y)
CCT (K)
CRI
File name for the SPD
NCEMBT-080201
191
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
K4. LIGHT POWER DENSITY
Table K9. Template used to describe the light power density.
LPD for the building (w/m2):
Write down how to obtain the LPD here:
K5. MEASUREMENTS OF WORKSTATIONS
K5.1 General Information
Table K10. Templates used to describe general information at each zone’s workstation(s).
Location ID
Date
Time
Window availability (Yes/No)
Window orientation (North/ Northeast/ East /
Southeast/ South/ Southwest/ West/ Northwest)
Distance to nearest window
Weather (clear/partly cloudy/overcast)
Note
K5.2 Illuminance Measurements
K11. Template used to record the illuminance measurements at each zone’s workstation(s).
(1). Primary work surface, far left
Lux
(2). Primary work surface, far right
Lux
(3). Primary work surface, near left
Lux
(4). Primary work surface, near right
Lux
(5). Primary work surface, brightest
Lux
(6). Primary work surface, darkest
Lux
(7). VDT workstation, source document
Lux
(8). VDT workstation, center of VDT screen
Lux
(9). VDT workstation, keyboard
Lux
(10). Floor (average over 3 measurements on the floor of
the workstation)
Lux
192
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX K: LIGHTING FIELD SURVEY TABLE
K5.3 Luminance Measurements
K12. Template used to record the luminance measurements at each zone’s workstation(s).
(11). Ceiling between luminaries
cd/m2
(12). Brightest light source in field of view
cd/m2
(13). Brightest ceiling area in field of view
cd/m2
(14). Darkest walls or partition area in field of view
cd/m2
(15). Wall or partition area straight ahead
cd/m2
(16). Wall or partition area 90 deg. to the right
cd/m2
(17). Wall or partition area 90 deg. to the left
cd/m2
(18). Brightest area of the sky from the window
cd/m2
(19). A nearby building from the window
cd/m2
(20). Floor (average over 3 measurements on the floor of
the workstation)
cd/m2
K5.4 COLOR MEASUREMENTS
K5.4.1 Color of the lighting at work surface
Table K13. Template used to record the color of the lighting at the work surface at each zone.
Chromaticity (x,y)
CCT
K
CRI
File name for the SPD
K5.4.2 Color of the lighting at other places
Table K14. Template used to record the color of the lighting at other locations at each zone.
Chromaticity (x,y)
CCT
K
CRI
File name for the SPD
Note (locations of the measurement)
NCEMBT-080201
193
APPENDIX L- ENERGY USAGE
APPENDIX L- ENERGY USAGE
Table L1. Energy Usage for the Ten Monitored Buildings.
Time Period1
Electric Energy
Consumed
in kWh
Cost of Electric
Energy
Consumed
40,650
Jan - Dec. 2004
1,044,695
Unknown2
7,079
$6,102
2
107,000
Jan – Dec. 2004
2,304,621
Unknown
31,675
$24,154
3
229,000
Jan – Dec. 2004
7,988,258
Unknown
29,132
$22,763
4
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
5
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
6
189,500
Jan. – Dec. 2004
2,003,040
$158,547
Unknown
Unknown
7
180,000
Oct. 2003 - Sept. 2005
5,559,900
$752,191
103,595
$14,787
Jan. – Aug. 2005
371,040
$45,186
1,460
$1,796
Jan. - July 2004
245,600 0
$34,047
2,405
$2,602
Sept. – Nov. 2003
177,280
$22,782
1,101
$1,316
Building
ID
Gross Square
Footage
1
8
52,300
9
110,000
Unknown
10
52,000
Jan. - Dec. 2005
Unknown
751,428
Unknown
$121,432
Notes:
1.
Time period for which consumption of both electric enegy and natural gas was reported
2.
Unknown marks a field for which no data could be obtained from the building operator
194
NCEMBT-080201
Natural Gas
Consumed
in therm
Unknown
231,120
Cost of Natural
Gas Consumed
Unknown
Appendix M: IEQ Results
Responses (%)
APPENDIX M: IEQ RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M1. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they would rate the
acceptability of the temperature in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M2. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the temperature in their
work area fluctuates throughout the course of an entire work day.
NCEMBT-080201
195
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Very warm
Somewhat warm
Neither cool nor warm
Somewhat cool
Very cool
10
Repsonses (%)
Figure M3. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the temperature in their work area
when they are the most comfortable.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
Very warm
Somewhat warm
Neither cool nor warm
Somewhat cool
Very cool
10
Figure M4. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the temperature in their work area
throughout the mornings.
196
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Very warm
Somewhat warm
Neither cool nor warm
Somewhat cool
Very cool
10
Responses (%)
Figure M5. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the temperature in their work area
throughout the afternoons.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
Every work day
Most work days
Some work days
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M6. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the temperature in their
work area has been too cool.
NCEMBT-080201
197
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Every work day
Most work days
Some work days
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M7. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the temperature in their
work area has been too warm.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M8. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust the thermosat
in their work area when the temperature is too cool.
198
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M9. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a personal space
heater when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M10. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they wear warmer clothes
when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
NCEMBT-080201
199
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M11. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they open/close a door
when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M12. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
200
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M13. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention to their coworkers when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M14. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they temporarily leave
their work area when the temperature is too cool.
NCEMBT-080201
201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M15. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they block or unblock air
supply registers when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M16. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their productivity is
affected when the temperature in their work area is too cool.
202
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No particular body part
All over my body
Hands
Feet
Head or face
9
Building ID
10
Responses (%)
Figure M17. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked where they feel it the most when the
temperature in their work area is too cool.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M18. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust the
thermostat when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
NCEMBT-080201
203
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M19. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a personal fan
when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M20. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they wear lighter clothing
or remove clothing when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
204
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M21. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they open/close a door
when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M22. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
NCEMBT-080201
205
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M23. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention to their coworkers when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M24. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they temporarily leave
their work area when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
206
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M25. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they block or unblock air
supply registers when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M26. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their productivity is
adversely affected when the temperature in their work area is too warm.
NCEMBT-080201
207
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No particular body part
All over my body
Hands
Feet
Head or face
9
Building ID
10
Responses (%)
Figure M27. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked where they feel it most when the
temperature in their work area is too warm.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M28. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the humidity in their work
area throughout the course of an entire work day is acceptable.
208
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M29. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the humidity fluctuates in
their work area during the course of an entire work day.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
Very dry
Somewhat dry
Neither humid nor dry
Somewhat humid
Very humid
10
Figure M30. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the humidity in their work area when
they are the most comfortable.
NCEMBT-080201
209
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Very dry
Somewhat dry
Neither humid nor dry
Somewhat humid
Very humid
10
Responses (%)
Figure M31. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how humid the air in their work area
is throughout the mornings.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
Very dry
Somewhat dry
Neither humid nor dry
Somewhat humid
Very humid
10
Figure M32. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how humid the air in their work area
is throughout the afternoons.
210
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Every work day
Most work days
Some work days
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M33. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their work area
is too dry.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
Every work day
Most work days
Some work days
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M34. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their work area
is too humid.
NCEMBT-080201
211
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M35. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a personal
humidifier when the air in their work area is too dry.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M36. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust the
thermostat when the air in their work area is too dry.
212
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M37. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a
moisturizer/lotion on their skin when the air in their work area is too dry.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M38. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use lubricant drops
in their eyes when the air in their work area is too dry.
NCEMBT-080201
213
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M39. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the air in their work area is too dry.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M40. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention to coworkers when the air in their work area is too dry.
214
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M41. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they open/close a door
when the air in their work area is too dry.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M42. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they temporarily leave
their work area when the air in their work area is too dry.
NCEMBT-080201
215
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M43. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their productivity is
adversely affected when the air in their work area is too dry.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M44. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a personal fan
when the air in their work area is too humid.
216
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M45. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust the
thermostat when the air in their work area is too humid.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M46. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they put on lighter
clothing or remove clothing when the air in their work area is too humid.
NCEMBT-080201
217
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M47. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the air in their work area is too humid.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M48. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention to coworkers when the air in their work area is too humid.
218
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M49. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they open/close a door
when the air in their work area is too humid.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M50. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they temporarily leave
their work area when the air in their work area is too humid.
NCEMBT-080201
219
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M51. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their productivity is
adversely affected when the air in their work area is too humid.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M52. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the movement of air in
their work area is acceptable.
220
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M53. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their work area
fluctuates from drafty to stagnant and vice versa throughout the course of an entire work day.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Very stagnant
Somewhat stagnant
Neither drafty nor stagnant
Somewhat drafty
Very drafty
9 10
Figure M54. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the movement of air in their work
area when they are the most comfortable.
NCEMBT-080201
221
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Very stagnant
Somewhat stagnant
Neither drafty nor stagnant
Somewhat drafty
Very drafty
9 10
Responses (%)
Figure M55. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the movement of air in their work
area throughout the mornings.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Very stagnant
Somewhat stagnant
Neither drafty nor stagnant
Somewhat drafty
Very drafty
9 10
Figure M56. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the movement of air in their work
area throughout the afternoons.
222
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Every work day
Most work days
Some work days
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M57. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they feel a draft in the air
in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M58. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they block or unblock air
supply registers when they feel a draft in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
223
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M59. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they open/close a door
when they feel a draft in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M60. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when they feel a draft in their work area.
224
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M61. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention to coworkers when they feel a draft in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M62. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they temporarily leave
their work area when they feel a draft in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
225
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M63. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their productivity is
adversely affected when they feel a draft in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M64. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the freshness of air in
their work area is acceptable.
226
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M65. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air fluctuates between
fresh and stuffy throughout the course of an entire work day.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
Very stuffy
Somewhat stuffy
Neither fresh nor stuffy
Somewhat fresh
Very fresh
10
Figure M66. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the freshness of air in their work
area when they are the most comfortable.
NCEMBT-080201
227
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
Every work day
Most work days
Some work days
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M67. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often the air in their work area
is too stuffy.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M68. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they adjust the
thermostat when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
228
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M69. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they use a personal fan
when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M70. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they open/close a door
when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
NCEMBT-080201
229
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M71. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they report to
management or facilities personnel when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M72. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they mention to coworkers when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
230
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Responses (%)
Figure M73. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often they temporarily leave
their work area when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
10
Figure M74. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked how often their productivity is
adversely affected when the air in their work area is too stuffy.
NCEMBT-080201
231
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
Responses (%)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building
Acceptable
Unacceptable
9
10
Figure M75. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if the odors in their workplace were
acceptable.
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building
6
7
8
Never
9
10
Total
Figure M76. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the frequency of acceptable odors
in their workplace.
232
NCEMBT-080201
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Only once or rarely
Occasional work days
0%
1
Some work days
2
3
4
5
Most work days
6
7
Building
Every day
8
9
10
Figure M77. Summary of occupant responses on the perception questionnaire when asked the frequency of unacceptable odors
in their workplace.
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Other parts of bldg./not my work area
Work area/throughout bldg.
Work area/throughout office
Work area/elsewhere in bldg.
Work area/nearby
Only in my work area
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building
6
7
8
9
10
Figure M78. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked where they believed there were
odors in their building.
NCEMBT-080201
233
Appendix M: IEQ Results
70%
60%
Responses (%)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Occasional or sporadic
Unpredictably
Mornings and afternoons
0%
1
2
3
4
Afternoons only
5
6
7
Building
Mornings only
8
9
10
Figure M79. Summary of occupant responses on the perception questionnaire when asked when during the day there were
unacceptable odors in their workplace.
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Don't notice smells
Food
Exhaust/machine chemicals
Sewage/garbage
Body odor/human odor
Perfume or cologne
Musty/moldy
Cleaning chemicals
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building
6
7
8
9
10
Figure M80. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked what they believed the sources of
odors to be in their workplace.
234
NCEMBT-080201
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
Some of the time
2
3
4
5
Most of the time
6
Building
7
All of the time
8
9
10
Figure M81. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a noticeable odor
it made them sneeze.
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Building
Most of the time
6
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M82. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a noticeable odor
it made them blow their nose.
NCEMBT-080201
235
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Most of the time
6
Building
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M83. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a noticeable odor
they used an air freshner.
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Building
Most of the time
6
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M84. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a noticeable odor
they used a fan in their work area.
236
NCEMBT-080201
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
0%
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Most of the time
6
Building
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M85. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a noticeable odor
in their building they closed a door.
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Building
Most of the time
6
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M86. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if they reported to management
when there was a noticeable odor in their building.
NCEMBT-080201
237
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
Some of the time
2
3
4
5
Most of the time
6
Building
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M87. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if they mentioned odors to others
when there was a noticeable odor in their building.
100%
90%
80%
Response (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Building
Most of the time
6
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M88. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if they left the area when there was a
noticeable odor in their building.
238
NCEMBT-080201
Appendix M: IEQ Results
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
0%
Occasionally
1
2
Some of the time
3
4
5
Building
Most of the time
6
7
8
All of the time
9
10
Figure M89. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire when asked if when there was a noticeable odor
in their building it affected their work.
NCEMBT-080201
239
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD
RESULTS
100
% of samples
80
60
40
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0
Penicillium
Clad
o s p o rium
Aureo
b asloidr ium
A.
vers ico
A. nig er
A. flavus
Chaet o mium
Tricho d erma
Stachyb o trys
Building
Figure N1. Percentage of samples in which selected fungal genera were isolated using the Andersen sampler reported as the
percent (%) of samples by building and the percent of samples
for all 10 buildings (total).
% of samples
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10
Bldg ID
Other
Cladosporium
T richoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
Asp/Pen
Figure N2. Percentage of samples in which selected fungal genera were observed using the Burkard sampler reported as the
percent (%) of samples by building and the percent of samples
for all 10 buildings (total).
240
NCEMBT-080201
Samples (%)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Non-cuulturable
Culturable
9
10
Samples (%)
Figure N3. The percentage of outdoor culturable and non-culturable air samples in which
a predominant organism was observed.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Non-culturable
Culturable
9
10
Figure N4. The percentage of outdoor culturable and non-culturable air samples in which Cladosporium
was present as the predominant taxon.
NCEMBT-080201
241
Samples (%)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Non-culturable
Culturable
9
10
Samples (%)
Figure N5. The percentage of indoor culturable and non-culturable air samples in which
there was a predominant fungal taxon.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Non-culturable
Culturable
9
10
Figure N6. The percentage of indoor culturable and non-culturable air samples where Cladosporium
was present as the predominant taxon.
242
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Penicillium
Other
Unknown
Aspergillus
Other
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Unknown
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Penicillium
0
6
7
Location
Figure N7. Building 1: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
CFU/m3
Log10
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Stachybotrys
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Stachybotrys
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
0
6
7
Location
Figure N8. Building 2: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
NCEMBT-080201
243
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
Stachybotrys
Aspergillus
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Aspergillus
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Other
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Figure N9. Building 3: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Penicillium
Other
Unknown
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Penicillium
Unknown
Aspergillus
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
Other
Other
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
0
7
Location
Figure N10. Building 4: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
244
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Other
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
Aspergillus
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Figure N11. Building 5: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
4
5
6
Cladosporium
Other
Aspergillus
Penicillium
Other
Unknown
Stachybotrys
2 3
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Other
Other
1
Cladosporium
Other
Other
Unknown
0
Unknown
Aspergillus
Unknown
Cladosporium
0
7
Location
Figure N12. Building 6: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
NCEMBT-080201
245
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
3
4
5
6
Other
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Unknown
Other
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
Unknown
Other
2
Unknown
Unknown
1
Other
Unknown
0
Penicillium
Unknown
0
7
Loctation
Figure N13. Building 7: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
Unknown
Aspergillus
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Aspergillus
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Stachybotrys
Penicillium
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Figure N14. Building 8: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
246
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
6
Other
5
Cladosporium
4
Penicillium
gp
Unknown
3
Unknown
Unknown
2
1
Aspergillus
gp
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
0
7
Location
Figure N15. Building 9: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
4
3
CFU/m3
2
Log10
1
4
5
6
Other
Unknown
Aspergillus
gp
Penicillium
gp
Cladosporium
3
Unknown
Aspergillus
gp
Unknown
2
Cladosporium
Unknown
1
Unknown
Unknown
0
Other
Unknown
0
7
Location
Figure N16. Building 10: Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) reported as the number of colony forming units per cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) in
6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times (other = fungal
genera not Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not
identified).
NCEMBT-080201
247
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
Other
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cladosporium
spores/m3
Log10
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
7
Location
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stachybotrys
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
spores/m3
Log10
Figure N17. Building 1: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Figure N18. Building 2: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
248
NCEMBT-080201
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
Unknown
Other
Other
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
Other
Other
Cladosporium
Cladosporium
Unknown
Other
Unknown
Other
Other
Cladosporium
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Aspergillus
spores/m3
Log10
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
7
Location
Figure N19. Building 3: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
spores/m3
Log10
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
6
Other
5
Cladosporium
4
Stachybotrys
Other
Other
Penicillium
gp
Unknown
Cladosporium
Other
2
Other
1
Other
0
Other
Cladosporium
Other
0
7
Location
Figure N20. Building 4: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
249
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
spores/m3
Log10
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
Unknown
Other
Stachybotrys
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
0
7
Location
Figure N21. Building 5: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
spores/m3
Log10
6
5
4
3
2
1
Unknown
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
Unknown
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
Stachybotrys
Aspergillus
Cladosporium
Other
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Figure N22. Building 6: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
250
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
6
5
4
spores/m3
3
Log10
2
1
4
6
7
5
Other
Other
Penicillium
gp
Cladosporium
Cladosporium
Other
3
Other
Penicillium
gp
Cladosporium
2
Unknown
Other
1
Unknown
Other
0
Other
Unknown
0
Location
Figure N23. Building 7: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
spores/m3
Log10
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
0
7
Location
Figure N24. Building 8: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
251
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
spores/m3
Log10
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
3
4
5
6
Other
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Unknown
Other
Unknown
Other
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Other
2
Unknown
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
0
7
Location
Figure N25. Building 9: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
spores/m3
Log10
6
5
4
3
2
1
5
6
7
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
4
Other
3
Unknown
Penicillium
gp
2
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Unknown
Other
1
Unknown
0
Cladosporium
Unknown
0
Location
Figure N26. Building 10: Concentrations of selected fungal spores (i.e., Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaeetomium,
Cladosporium, and Trichoderma in the non-culturable air samples reported as the number of spores per cubic meter of air
(spores/m3) in 6 indoor locations (1-6) and at the outdoor location in the morning (0) and the afternoon (7) sampling times
(other = fungal genera not Aspergillus/Penicillium, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, or Trichoderma ; unknown =
fungi not identified).
252
NCEMBT-080201
4
3
2
Unknown
Other
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
1
Other
2
1
0
Unknown
CFU/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
3
Day
4
3
Other
Penicillium
Other
Penicillium
2
1
0
Cladosporium
CFU/m3
(Log10)
Figure N27. Building 1. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
1
2
3
Day
Figure N28. Building 2. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
253
4
3
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
1
Other
2
1
0
Cladosporium
CFU/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
2
3
Day
4
3
1
2
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Unknown
Other
Other
Penicillium
2
1
0
Aspergillus
CFU/m3
(Log10)
Figure N29. Building 3. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
3
Day
Figure N30. Building 4. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
254
NCEMBT-080201
4
3
1
2
Unknown
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
2
1
0
Cladosporium
CFU/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
3
Day
4
3
Other
2
Cladosporium
1
Aspergillus
Penicillium
2
1
0
Other
CFU/m3
(Log10)
Figure N31. Building 5. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
3
Day
Figure N32. Building 6. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
255
4
3
1
Trichoderma
Other
Aspergillus
Other
Penicillium
Unknown
2
1
0
Cladosporium
CFU/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
2
3
Day
4
3
1
2
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Aspergillus
Other
Penicillium
Cladosporium
Other
Penicillium
2
1
0
Cladosporium
CFU/m3
(Log10)
Figure N33. Building 7. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
3
Day
Figure N34. Building 8. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
256
NCEMBT-080201
4
3
Unknown
Cladosporium
Unknown
1
Aspergillus
2
1
0
Other
CFU/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
2
3
Day
4
3
1
2
Unknown
Aspergillus
Other
Unknown
2
1
0
Cladosporium
CFU/m3
(Log10)
Figure N35. Building 9. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
3
Day
Figure N36. Building 10. Concentrations of selected airborne culturable fungi (i.e., Aspergillus, Aureobasidium, Chaetomium,
Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Trichoderma) in indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per
cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (other = fungal genera not Aspergillus,
Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Penicillium, or Trichoderma,; unknown = fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
257
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
Spores/m3
(Log10)
5
4
3
2
1
2
Unknown
Other
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Aureobasidium
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Cladosporium
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
0
Cladosporium
1
3
Day
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
Figure N37. Building 1. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
1
2
3
Day
Figure N38. Building 2. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
258
NCEMBT-080201
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
1
2
3
Day
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
Figure N39. Building 3. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
1
2
3
Day
Figure N40. Building 4. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
259
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
1
2
3
Day
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
Figure N41. Building 5. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
1
2
3
Day
Figure N42. Building 6. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
260
NCEMBT-080201
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
1
2
3
Day
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
Figure N43. Building 7. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
1
2
3
Day
Figure N44. Building 8. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
NCEMBT-080201
261
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
1
2
3
Day
5
4
3
2
1
0
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Asp/Pen
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
Other
Unknown
Spores/m3
(Log10)
Figure N45. Building 9. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number of
spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen = Aspergillus/Penicillium
spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or Aureobasidium;
unknown = fungi not identified).
1
2
3
Day
Figure N46. Building 10. Concentrations of fungal spores in the non-culturable indoor air samples reported as the log10 number
of spores per cubic meter of air (spores/m3) during the three days of sampling (Day 1, 2 and 3) (Asp/Pen =
Aspergillus/Penicillium spores; other = fungal genera not Cladosporium, Aspergillus/Penicillium, Chaetomium, Trichoderma, or
Aureobasidium; unknown = fungi not identified).
262
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
100
% of samples
80
60
40
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0
Penicillium
Clad
o s p o rium
Aureo
b asloidr ium
A.
vers ico
A. nig er
A. flavus
Chaet o mium
Tricho d erma
Stachyb o trys
Building
8
6
4
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
CFU/g (Log10)
Figure N47. Presence of selected culturable fungi in vacuum samples.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Location
Figure N48. Building 1. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
NCEMBT-080201
263
CFU/g (Log10)
264
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
CFU/g (Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
8
6
4
1
1
NCEMBT-080201
2
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
6
Location
Figure N49. Building 2. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
8
6
4
6
Location
Figure N50. Building 3. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
CFU/g (Log10)
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
CFU/g (Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
8
6
4
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
6
Location
Figure N51. Building 4. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
8
6
4
6
Location
Figure N52. Building 5. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
NCEMBT-080201
265
CFU/g (Log10)
266
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
CFU/g (Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
8
6
4
1
1
NCEMBT-080201
2
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
6
Location
Figure N53. Building 6. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
8
6
4
6
Location
Figure N54. Building 7. . Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
CFU/g (Log10)
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
CFU/g (Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
8
6
4
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
6
Location
Figure N55. Building 8. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
8
6
4
6
Location
Figure N56. Building 9. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
NCEMBT-080201
267
8
6
4
2
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
Aspergillus
Aureobasidium
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Stachybotrys
Trichoderma
All fungi
All mold
CFU/g (Log10)
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
Location
Figure N57. Building 10. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) in 6 indoor locations (1-6).
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All fungi
All mold
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
3
3
Day
Figure N58. Building 1. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
268
NCEMBT-080201
8
7
6
5
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
4
3
Aureobasidium
CFU/g Log10
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
3
Day
Figure N59. Building 2. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
3
3
Day
Figure N60. Building 3. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
NCEMBT-080201
269
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
8
7
6
5
4
3
Aureobasidium
CFU/g Log10
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
3
Day
Figure N61. Building 4. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
3
3
Day
Figure N62. Building 5. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
270
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
3
3
Day
8
7
6
5
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
4
3
Aureobasidium
CFU/g Log10
Figure N63. Building 6. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
3
Day
Figure N64. Building 7. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
NCEMBT-080201
271
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
8
7
6
5
4
3
Aureobasidium
CFU/g Log10
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
3
Day
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
8
7
6
5
4
3
Aureobasidium
CFU/g Log10
Figure N65. Building 8. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
3
Day
Figure N66. Building 9. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
272
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
8
CFU/g Log10
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
All mold
All fungi
Trichoderma
Stachybotrys
Chaetomium
Aureobasidium
3
3
Day
Figure N67. Building 10. Concentrations of Aureobasidium, Chaetomium, Stachybotrys, Trichoderma and the sum concentration
of all culturable fungi (All fungi = mold + yeast+ non-sporulating mycelia) and culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples
reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
8
CFU/g Log10
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N68. Building 1. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
NCEMBT-080201
273
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
A.
versicolor
A. niger
A. flavus
All mold
A.
versicolor
A. niger
A. flavus
All mold
A.
versicolor
A. niger
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N69. Building 2. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N70. Building 3. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
274
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N71. Building 4. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
8
CFU/g Log10
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N72. Building 5. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
NCEMBT-080201
275
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N73. Building 6. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N74. Building 7. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
276
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N75. Building 8. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N76. Building 9. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
NCEMBT-080201
277
APPENDIX N: AIRBORNE AND SURFACE-ASSOCIATED MOLD RESULTS
CFU/g Log10
8
7
6
5
4
1
2
All mold
All fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
All mold
A. niger
A.
versicolor
All fungi
A. flavus
All mold
Alll fungi
A. niger
A.
versicolor
A. flavus
3
3
Day
Figure N77. Building 10. Concentrations of water indicating species of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. niger, and A. versicolor) and the
sum concentration of all culturable mold (All mold) in vacuum dust samples reported as the Log10 number of colony forming units
per gram (CFU/g Log10) for the three sampling days (Day 1, 2, and 3).
278
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O1. Determination of zone effect on the presence of a predominant taxon in air samples (Bldg ID =
building designation; yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant
[0.05<p<0.075]).
Building ID
Table O1. Chi square values for presence of a predominant taxon in airborne culturable fungal samples.
Chi Square
Prob. Chi Square
1
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
5
5.004024
0.08192000
6
3.819085
0.14814815
7
0
8
6.278978
0.09879871
Table O2. Chi square values for presence of a predominant taxon in airborne non-culturable fungal samples.
Building ID
Chi Square
Prob Chi Square
1
3.819085
0.14814815
3
1.726092
0.1889107
5
7.050924
0.21688052
6
0
1
7
7.63817
0.05411256
9
0
NCEMBT-080201
279
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O2. VARIANCE COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF AIRBORNE FUNGI
CovParm
Table O3. Variance component analysis of airborne culturable fungi.
Estimate
Variable
Sum
Bldg ID
0
Cladosporium
Zone(Bldg ID)
0.000115588
Cladosporium
0%
Day (Bldg ID)
0.006160102
Cladosporium
24%
Residual
0.019623549
Cladosporium
76%
Bldg ID
0
Predominant taxon
Zone(Bldg ID)
0.1602806
Predominant taxon
61%
Day(Bldg ID)
0.071218099
Predominant taxon
27%
Residual
0.029758526
Predominant taxon
11%
0.025899239
0.261257225
Percentage
0%
<1%
Table O4. Variance component analysis of airborne non-culturable fungal spores.
Estimate
Variable
Sum
Percentage
CovParm
Bldg ID
0.000833100
Cladosporium
Zone(Bldg ID)
0.012780036
Cladosporium
20%
Day (Bldg ID)
0.004459805
Cladosporium
7%
Residual
0.044856452
Cladosporium
71%
Bldg ID
0.072852852
Predominant taxon
Zone(Bldg ID)
0.081739682
Predominant taxon
32%
Day(Bldg IDI)
0.010588304
Predominant taxon
4%
Residual
0.093582291
Predominant taxon
36%
280
NCEMBT-080201
0.062929393
0.258763129
1%
28%
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O3. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR AIRBORNE FUNGI
(Bldg ID = building designation; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Table O5. Results of culturable fungi.
Corr
Bldg ID
Type
p value
1
Pearson
0.122503
0.628206
1
Spearman
0.305197
0.218125
2
Pearson
0.827356
0.000000
2
Spearman
0.688279
0.000201
3
Pearson
-0.17249
0.480107
3
Spearman
-0.15464
0.527316
4
Pearson
0.171851
0.495328
4
Spearman
-0.06850
0.787105
5
Pearson
0.355399
0.135377
5
Spearman
0.312926
0.192076
6
Pearson
0.704818
0.000520
6
Spearman
0.409376
0.073069
7
Pearson
0.076269
0.763575
7
Spearman
-0.09681
0.702358
8
Pearson
0.488563
0.028832
8
Spearman
0.320378
0.168469
9
Pearson
0.643377
0.003969
9
Spearman
0.608159
0.007411
10
Pearson
0.402696
0.097548
10
Spearman
0.241382
0.334571
NCEMBT-080201
281
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
Table O6. Results of non-culturable fungi
Corr
Bldg ID
Type
1
Pears
0.569137
0.013697
1
Spear
0.266749
0.284613
2
Pears
0.293065
0.197299
2
Spear
0.02286
0.921651
3
Pears
-0.0764
0.755905
3
Spear
-0.01835
0.940572
4
Pears
0.576993
0.012175
4
Spear
0.660876
0.002827
5
Pears
0.084165
0.709606
5
Spear
-0.01177
0.958557
6
Pears
0.697992
0.000890
6
Spear
0.531647
0.019145
7
Pears
-0.04353
0.851395
7
Spear
0.090701
0.695797
8
Pears
0.547723
0.008322
8
Spear
0.569541
0.005661
9
Pears
0.292747
0.238436
9
Spear
0.212076
0.398201
10
Pears
-0.04197
0.864536
10
Spear
0.22295
0.358900
282
NCEMBT-080201
p value
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O4. RATIOS AMONG THE SIX INDOOR LOCATIONS (ZONES)
Table O7. Across sampling days for airborne culturable fungi.
Std Dev
Minimum
Bldg ID
Mean
Maximum
1
1
0
1
1
2
1.1080
0.4583
1
2.944
3
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
5
1
0
1
1
6
1
0
1
1
7
1
0
1
1
8
1
0
1
1
9
1
0
1
1
10
1
0
1
1
Bldg ID
Table O8. Across sampling days for airborne non-culturable fungi.
Mean
Std
Minimum
Maximum
1
1
0
1
1
2
1.0588
0.2425
1
2
3
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
5
1.0625
0.2500
1
2
6
1
0
1
1
7
1.0625
0.2500
1
2
8
1.088
0.2642
1
2
9
1
0
1
1
10
1
0
1
1
NCEMBT-080201
283
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
Bldg ID
Table O9. Within the same sampling day for airborne culturable fungi.
Mean
Std Dev
Minimum
Maximum
1
1
0
1
1
2
1.11
0.4583
1
2.9
3
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
5
1
0
1
1
6
1
0
1
1
7
1
0
1
1
8
1
0
1
1
9
1
0
1
1
10
1
0
1
1
Bldg ID
Table O10. Within the same sampling day for airborne non-culturable fungi.
Mean
Std Dev
Minimum
Maximum
1
1
0
1
1
2
1.06
0.2425
1
2
3
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
5
1.06
0.2500
1
2
6
1
0
1
1
7
1.06
0.2500
1
2
8
1.09
0.2643
1
2
9
1
0
1
1
10
1
0
1
1
284
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O5. STATISTICAL RESULTS INDOOR VS. OUTDOOR
Table O11. Statistical results in comparison of culturable fungi in indoor and outdoor air samples (Type = statistical analysis
performed; Corr = correlation, yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
0.369848
1.29E-07
Spearman
0.492866
3.81E-13
1
Pearson
0.122503
0.628206
1
Spearman
0.305197
0.218125
2
Pearson
0.827356
0.000001
2
Spearman
0.688279
0.000201
3
Pearson
-0.17249
0.480107
3
Spearman
-0.15464
0.527316
4
Pearson
0.171851
0.495328
4
Spearman
-0.0685
0.787105
5
Pearson
0.355399
0.135377
5
Spearman
0.312926
0.192076
6
Pearson
0.704818
0.000520
6
Spearman
0.409376
0.073069
7
Pearson
0.076269
0.763575
7
Spearman
-0.09681
0.702358
8
Pearson
0.488563
0.028832
8
Spearman
0.320378
0.168469
9
Pearson
0.643377
0.003969
9
Spearman
0.608159
0.007411
10
Pearson
0.402696
0.097548
10
Spearman
0.241382
0.334571
NCEMBT-080201
285
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
Table O12. Statistical results in comparison of non-culturable fungi in indoor and outdoor air samples (Type = statistical analysis
performed; Corr = correlation, yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
P value
Pearson
0.290946
3.36E-05
Spearman
0.452085
2.58E-11
1
Pearson
0.569137
0.013697
1
Spearman
0.266749
0.284613
2
Pearson
0.293065
0.197299
2
Spearman
0.022860
0.921651
3
Pearson
-0.07640
0.755905
3
Spearman
-0.01835
0.940572
4
Pearson
0.576993
0.012175
4
Spearman
0.660876
0.002827
5
Pearson
0.084165
0.709606
5
Spearman
-0.01177
0.958557
6
Pearson
0.697992
0.000890
6
Spearman
0.531647
0.019145
7
Pearson
-0.04353
0.851395
7
Spearman
0.090701
0.695797
8
Pearson
0.547723
0.008322
8
Spearman
0.569541
0.005661
9
Pearson
0.292747
0.238436
9
Spearman
0.212076
0.398201
10
Pearson
-0.04197
0.864536
10
Spearman
0.222950
0.358900
286
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O6. WATER INDICATING FUNGI
Table O13. Frequency of water indicator fungi isolated from indoor culturable air samples (Variable = the taxon and target
percentage; n = the number of samples analyzed; % of samples = percentage of samples within the variable criteria).
Variable
n
% of samples
Stachybotrys <1%
192
100
Trichoderma <1%
192
100
Chaetomium <1%
192
100
Aureobasidium <1%
192
100
Aspergillus versicolor <15%
188
98
Aspergilus flavus <15%
191
99
Aspergillus niger <15%
185
96
Penicillium <30%
170
89
NCEMBT-080201
287
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
O7. ERROR PLOTS DEMONSTRATING VARIABILITY AMONG DAYS AND LOCATIONS
2.5
2.0
95% CI logconc
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bldg ID
Figure O1. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne culturable data (Andersen samples). For each of the 10 buildings
(Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between the days (day 1 [blue], 2[green], and 3 [red]).
288
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
6
95% CI logconc
4
2
0
-2
-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bldg ID
Figure O2. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne culturable data (Andersen samples). For each of the 10 buildings
9Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between locations (location 1 [blue], 2 [green], 3 [orange], 4
[purple], 5 [black], 6 [red]).
NCEMBT-080201
289
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
3
95% CI logconc
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bldg ID
Figure O3. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne non-culturable data (Burkard samples). For each of the 10 buildings
(Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between the days (day 1 [blue], 2[green], and 3 [red])
290
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
95% CI logconc
4
2
0
-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bldg ID
Figure O4. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for airborne non-culturable data (Burkard samples). For each of the 10 buildings
9Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between locations (location 1 [blue], 2 [green], 3 [orange], 4
[purple], 5 [black], 6 [red]).
NCEMBT-080201
291
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
8
95% CI logconc
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bldg ID
Figure O5. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for surface-associated culturable fungi (vacuum dust samples). For each of the
10 buildings (Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between the days (day 1 [blue], 2[green], and 3 [red]).
292
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX O: STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MOLD
12
9
95% CI logconc
6
3
0
-3
-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bldg ID
Figure O6. Error bar plot at the 95% confidence for surface-associated culturable fungi (vacuum dust samples). For each of the
10 buildings 9Bldg ID), overlapping lines indicate no significant difference between locations (location 1 [blue], 2 [green], 3
[orange], 4 [purple], 5 [black], 6 [red]).
NCEMBT-080201
293
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Acceptable
Unacceptable
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P1. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
concerning the acceptability of the sound/noise in their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P2. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire
when asked how often the sound/noise in their work area was acceptable.
294
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Building ID
8
Don't fluctuate
Do fluctuate
9
10
Responses (%)
Figure P3. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
concerning sound/noise fluctuation in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
8
9
10
Figure P4. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire
when asked how often sound fluctuates in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
295
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Neither quiet nor loud
Very quiet or very loud
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P5. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
when asked how they liked the sound in their workplace.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Very quiet
Somewhat quiet
Neither quiet nor loud
Somewhat loud
Very loud
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P6. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire
when asked what volume of sound/noise in their work area was most comfortable.
296
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Don't hear sounds
Hear sounds
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P7. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
concerning the hearing of sound/noise from outside of their building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P8. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire
when asked how often they could hear sound/noise from outside of their building.
NCEMBT-080201
297
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P9. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
concerning annoyance or distraction by noise from outside of their building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P10. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire
when asked how often they were annoyed or distracted by noise from outside their building.
298
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Building ID
Affects productivity
Doesn't affect productivity
8
9
10
Figure P11. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaireconcerning the noise from outside the building
affecting their productivity.
90%
80%
Frequency (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P12. Specific responses on the perception questionnaire
when asked how often noise from outside the building affected their productivity.
NCEMBT-080201
299
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Brief
Long
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P13. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
concerning the time period (brief or long period) between when they hear the sound/noise
from outside of the building and they are distracted.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
9
10
Figure P14. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly the distraction starts after
hearing sound/noise from outside of the building.
300
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Brief
Long
9
10
Figure P15. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire
concerning the length (brief or long period) of distraction
from sound/noise outside of the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
9
10
Figure P16. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire
when asked how long the distraction lasts after hearing sound/noise
from outside of the building.
NCEMBT-080201
301
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Too loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Increases/decreases loud
One tone dominates
Understandable
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P17. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the noise from outside
their building is distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Don't hear sounds
Hear sounds
9
10
Figure P18. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning sounds from the telephone or
speakerphone carrying into their work area.
302
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P19. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often sounds from the telephone or
speakerphone carry into their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
9
10
Figure P20. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance or distraction by sounds
from the telephone or speakerphone that carry into their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
303
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P21. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often sounds from the telephone or
speakerphone were annoying or distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Doesn't affect productivity
Affects productivity
9
10
Figure P22. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning sounds from the telephone or
speakerphone that carry into their work area affecting their productivity.
304
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P23. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often sounds from the telephone or
speakerphone that carried into their work area affected their productivity.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Brief
Long
9
10
Figure P24. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long period) they
are distracted when sounds from the telephone or speakerphone are carried into their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
305
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P25. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly they are distracted when
sounds from the telephone or speakerphone are carried into their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Brief
Long
9
10
Figure P26. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the length (brief or long period)
sounds from the telephone or speakerphone were annoying or distracting.
306
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P27. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long sounds from the telephone or
speakerphone remained annoying or distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Understandable
One tone dominates
Increases/decreases loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Too loud
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P28. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the sound/noise from the
telephone or speakerphone is distracting.
NCEMBT-080201
307
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Building ID
Don't hear conversation
Hear conversation
8
9
10
Responses (%)
Figure P29. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning overhearing person-to-person
conversations in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
9
10
Figure P30. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they overheard person-toperson conversations in their work area.
308
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Building ID
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
8
9
10
Figure P31. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance when overhearing personto-person conversations in their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P32. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they are annoyed from
overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
309
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Building ID
8
Affects productivity
Doesn't affect productivity
9
10
Figure P33. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning overhearing person-to-person
conversations in their work area affecting productivity.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P34. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often overhearing person-to-person
conversations in their work area affected their productivity.
310
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Brief
Long
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P35. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how soon (brief or long period)
overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area affected their productivity.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P36. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly overhearing person-to-person
conversations in their work area affected their productivity.
NCEMBT-080201
311
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Brief
Long
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P37. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the length of the disruption (brief or
long) from overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
9
10
Figure P38. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the disruption due to
overhearing person-to-person conversations in their work area lasted.
312
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
Understandable
One tone dominates
Increases/decreases loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Too loud
8
9 10
Building ID
Responses (%)
Figure P39. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the noise from overhearing
person-to-person conversations is distracting.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
Don't hear sounds
Hear sounds
8
9
10
Figure P40. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing sounds of music or masking
while in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
313
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
8
9
Building ID
10
Responses (%)
Figure P41. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear sounds of music
or masking while in their work area.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
9
10
Figure P42. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance or distraction due to the
hearing sounds of music while in their work area. No responses on this question at 2 buildings.
314
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
9
10
Figure P43. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked if hearing sounds of music while in their
work area was annoying or distracting.
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
9
10
Figure P44. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often hearing sounds of music while
in their work area adversely affected their productivity.
NCEMBT-080201
315
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Long
Brief
9
10
Figure P45. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long period)
after hearing the sound of music it is distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Up to 30+ min
Up to 15 min
Up to 2 min
Up to 30 sec
A few seconds
9
10
Figure P46. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly the sound of music is
distracting.
316
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Long
Brief
9
10
Figure P47. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how long a duration (brief or long
period) the sound of music is distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Up to 30+ min
Up to 15 min
Up to 2 min
Up to 30 sec
A few seconds
9
10
Figure P48. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long a duration the sound of music is
distracting.
NCEMBT-080201
317
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
Too loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Increases/decreases loud
One tone dominates
Understandable
8
9 10
Building ID
Responses (%)
Figure P49. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the reason that the music is distracting.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
Don't hear sounds
Hear sounds
8
9
10
Figure P50. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing of sounds from the
equipment in the building.
318
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
8
9
Building ID
10
Responses (%)
Figure P51. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked about the hearing of sounds from the
equipment in the building.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
9
10
Figure P52. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance/distraction caused by the
hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
319
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
9
10
Responses (%)
Figure P53. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often there was
annoyance/distraction caused by the hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Affects productivity
Doesn't affect productivity
9
10
Figure P54. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the hearing of sounds from the
equipment in the building affecting productivity.
320
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
9
10
Figure P55. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked if the hearing of sounds from the
equipment in the building affected productivity.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Long
Brief
9
10
Figure P56. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long period) the
hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building is distracting.
NCEMBT-080201
321
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P57. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly the hearing of sounds from
the equipment in the building is distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Brief
Long
9
10
Figure P58. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how long (brief or long period) the
hearing of sounds from the equipment in the building is distracting.
322
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
9
10
Responses (%)
Figure P59. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the hearing of sounds from the
equipment in the building is distracting.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
Too loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Increases/decreases loud
One tone dominates
Understandable
8
9 10
Figure P60. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the cause of the distraction from hearing
of sounds from office equipment in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
323
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Don't hear sounds
Hear sounds
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P61. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing sound of mechanical
equipment in the building.
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
9
10
Figure P62. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear sounds of
mechanical equipment in the building.
324
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P63. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance/distraction due to
hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P64. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they were annoyed/distracted
due to hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
325
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Doesn't affect
Affects productivity
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P65. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing of mechanical sounds in the
building affecting their productivity.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P66. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often hearing of mechanical sounds
in the building affects their productivity.
326
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Brief
Long
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P67. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief of long period)
annoyance/distraction occurs after hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P68. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly annoyance/distraction occurs
after hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
327
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Brief
Long
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P69. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how long (brief of long period)
annoyance/distraction lasts after hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P70. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long annoyance/distraction lasts
after hearing of mechanical sounds in the building.
328
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Nearby walls
Ceiling
Floor
Next room
Can't tell
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P71. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the location of hearing sounds from
mechanical equipment in the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Rumbling
Roaring
Hum/whistle
Hiss
Rattling
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P72. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked what the sounds were from the
mechanical equipment in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
329
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Too loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Increases/decreases loud
One tone dominates
Understandable
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Responses (%)
Figure P73. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the cause of the distraction from hearing
of sounds from mechanical equipment in the building.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
Don't hear sounds
Hear sounds
8
9
10
Figure P74. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the hearing of sounds from the air
conditioning system the building.
330
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P75. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they could hear sounds from the
air conditioning system the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Not annoyed/distracted
Annoyed/distracted
9
10
Figure P76. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning annoyance/distraction from hearing
sounds from the air conditioning system in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
331
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P77. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often the hearing of sounds from the
air conditioning system in the building is annoying/distracting.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Doesn't affect
Affects productivity
9
10
Figure P78. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning hearing sounds from the air
conditioning system in the building affecting productivity.
332
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P79. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often hearing sounds from the air
conditioning system in the building affects productivity.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Long
Brief
9
10
Figure P80. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning how quickly (brief or long period)
hearing sounds from the air conditioning system is disturbing.
NCEMBT-080201
333
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P81. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how quickly hearing sounds from the air
conditioning system in the building is disturbing.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Brief
Long
9
10
Figure P82. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning the length (brief or long period) that
the disturbance lasted following hearing sounds from the air conditioning system in the building.
334
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A few seconds
Up to 30 sec
Up to 2 min
Up to 15 min
Up to 30+ min
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P83. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how long the disturbance lasted following
hearing sounds from the air conditioning system in the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Too loud
Intermittent/unpredictable
Increases/decreases loud
One tone dominates
Understandable
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P84. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the cause of the disturbance from hearing
sounds from the air conditioning system in the building.
NCEMBT-080201
335
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
Responses (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Nearby walls
Ceiling
Floor
Next room
Can't tell
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P85. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked the location of hearing sounds from the air
conditioning system in the building.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Rumbling
Roaring
Hum/whistle
Hiss
Rattling
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P86. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked what the sounds were from the air
conditioning system in the building.
336
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sufficient privacy
Insufficient privacy
8
9
Building ID
10
Figure P87. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning privacy to have a conversation in their
work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P88. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked about how often there was privacy to have
a conversation in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
337
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Unacceptable
Acceptable
9
10
Figure P89. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning privacy to have a telephone
conversation in their work area.
Responses (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Never
Occasionally
Some of the time
Most of the time
All of the time
9
10
Figure P90. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often there was acceptable privacy to
have a telephone conversation in their work area.
338
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Move
Don't move
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P91. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning moving to another location have
privacy for a conversation.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P92. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they moved to another location
to have privacy for a conversation.
NCEMBT-080201
339
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Move
Don't move
8
Building ID
9
10
Figure P93. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning moving to another location have a
telephone conversation.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P94. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they moved to another location
for telephone privacy.
340
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Postpone
Don't postpone
9
10
Figure P95. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning postponing a conversation until later
due to lack of privacy in their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P96. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they postponed a conversation
until later due to lack of privacy in their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
341
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building ID
Postpone
Don't postpone
9
10
Figure P97. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning postponing a telephone conversation
until later due to lack of privacy in their work area.
100%
90%
Responses (%)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Occasionally
Never
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Buidling ID
6
7
8
9
10
Figure P98. Specific responses on the occupant perception questionnaire when asked how often they postponed a telephone
conversation until later due to lack of privacy in their work area.
342
NCEMBT-080201
Responses (%)
APPENDIX P – SOUND RESULTS
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
Building ID
6
7
8
Close door
Don't close door
9
10
Figure P99. Summary of occupants’ responses on the perception questionnaire concerning closing of a door to gain privacy in
their work area.
NCEMBT-080201
343
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Summary of Calculated Values.
Q1. DBA BUMPS
These data are used to describe sound level measurements for various frequencies that exceed the levels
of their immediate neighbors by the variances shown below. Items that equal or exceed the variance are
identified with the value of 1 otherwise they contain the value of zero.
Description
Field Name
Columns
1/1 octave band, 4dB variance
DBA11_63_6 through DB11_4000_4
7
1/1 octave band, 6dB variance
DBA11_63_6 through DB11_4000_6
7
1/1 octave band, 8dB variance
DBA11_63_6 through DB11_4000_8
7
1/3 octave band, 4dB variance
DBA13_63_6 through DB13_8000_4
22
1/3 octave band, 6dB variance
DBA13_63_6 through DB13_8000_6
22
1/3 octave band, 8dB variance
DBA13_63_6 through DB13_8000_8
22
Q2. DBC
See SPL_C in raw data (Float)
Q3. DBC - DBA
Use SPL_C - SPL_A in raw data (Float)
Q4. NC – NOISE CRITERIA
NC selects the highest measured sound level that fits within a standardized sound level.
NCMax stores the maximum sound level found. (Float)
NCFreq stores the frequency where this sound level was found. (Integer)
Q5. NCB – BALANCED NOISE CRITERIA
NCB is one method to determine if rumble and hiss exist in a sound sample.
SIL stores the Sound Interface Level used to select the NCB reference level for rumble (Float)
NCBRumble stores a 1 if rumble is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
NCBRefHiss stores the NCB reference level for hiss (Integer)
NCBHiss stores a 1 if hiss is detected otherwise 0 (Integer)
344
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q6. RC – ROOM CRITERIA
RC stores the RC table level that is used for analyzing hiss and rumble (Float)
RCRumble stores a 1 if rumble is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
RCHiss stores a 1 if hiss is detected otherwise a 0 (Integer)
Q7. RC MARK II (RCII) ALTERNATE ROOM CRITERIA
RCII is another derivative that analyzes rumble, hiss and an intermediate quality descriptor named roar.
RCII stores the RC table level that is used for analyzing hiss, rumble and roar (Integer)
DeltaLF stores a cumulative difference between the table and the measured low freq values (Float)
DeltaMF stores a cumulative difference between the table and the measured med freq values (Float)
DeltaHF stores a cumulative difference between the table and the measured high freq values (Float)
RCIIQual stores the indicator for the highest Delta, 0=none, 1=LF, 2=MF, 3=HF, whenever DeltaMax is
greater than 5 (Integer)
DeltaMax (QAI) stores the largest difference between any pair of Deltas above (Float)
Q8. CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY LEVELS (CPL)
CPL defines a level for a measurement where a specified percentage of the samples fall at or below the
indicated percentage. The following table shows how to construct the 8 field names for the each of the
four measurements, dBA, dBC, dBC_dBA, NCMax, RC and SIL:
Prefix
L_99_
L_95_
L_90_
L_80_
L_50_
L_33_
L_10_
L_05_
Suffixes
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBA
dBC
dBC
dBC
dBC
dBC
dBC
dBC
dBC
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
dBC_dBA
NCMax
NCMax
NCMax
NCMax
NCMax
NCMax
NCMax
NCMax
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
SIL
SIL
SIL
SIL
SIL
SIL
SIL
SIL
dBA is raw SPL_A data taken form the samples (Float)
dBA is raw SPL_C data taken form the samples (Float)
dBA_dBA is raw SPL_C minus the raw SLP_A data taken form the samples (Float)
NCMax is the calculated sound level from the NC sections above (Float)
RC is the value stored in the RC sections above (Float)
SIL is the value stored in the NCB sections above (Float)
NCEMBT-080201
345
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q9. COVARIANCE IN SOUND MEASUREMENTS USING ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE (ANCOVA)
Factor
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
346
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q1. Variance in sound interference level (SIL) measurements.
Sound Measure
Percentage
L_95_SIL
10%
L_95_SIL
79%
L_95_SIL
10%
L_95_SIL
0%
L_90_SIL
15%
L_90_SIL
71%
L_90_SIL
15%
L_90_SIL
0%
L_80_SIL
16%
L_80_SIL
67%
L_80_SIL
16%
L_80_SIL
0%
L_50_SIL
19%
L_50_SIL
62%
L_50_SIL
19%
L_50_SIL
0%
L_10_SIL
27%
L_10_SIL
46%
L_10_SIL
27%
L_10_SIL
0%
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Factor
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Building
Zone
Sampling Date
Residual
Table Q2. Variance in sound dBA measurements.
Sound Measure
L_99_dBA
L_99_dBA
L_99_dBA
L_99_dBA
L_95_dBA
L_95_dBA
L_95_dBA
L_95_dBA
L_90_dBA
L_90_dBA
L_90_dBA
L_90_dBA
L_80_dBA
L_80_dBA
L_80_dBA
L_80_dBA
L_50_dBA
L_50_dBA
L_50_dBA
L_50_dBA
L_10_dBA
L_10_dBA
L_10_dBA
L_10_dBA
Percentage
11%
78%
11%
0%
11%
79%
11%
0%
14%
72%
14%
0%
17%
66%
17%
0%
22%
56%
22%
0%
31%
37%
31%
0%
NCEMBT-080201
347
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q3. Variance in sound NC max and RC measurements.
Sound Measure
Percentage
Factor
Building
L_90_NCMax
11%
Zone
L_90_NCMax
77%
Sampling Date
L_90_NCMax
11%
Residual
L_90_NCMax
0%
Building
L_80_NCMax
14%
Zone
L_80_NCMax
72%
Sampling Date
L_80_NCMax
14%
Residual
L_80_NCMax
0%
Building
L_50_NCMax
17%
Zone
L_50_NCMax
66%
Sampling Date
L_50_NCMax
17%
Residual
L_50_NCMax
0%
Building
L_10_NCMax
29%
Zone
L_10_NCMax
42%
Sampling Date
L_10_NCMax
29%
Residual
L_10_NCMax
0%
Building
L_90_RC
14%
Zone
L_90_RC
73%
Sampling Date
L_90_RC
13%
Residual
L_90_RC
0%
Building
L_80_RC
15%
Zone
L_80_RC
69%
Sampling Date
L_80_RC
15%
Residual
L_80_RC
0%
Building
L_50_RC
19%
Zone
L_50_RC
62%
Sampling Date
L_50_RC
19%
Residual
L_50_RC
0%
Building
L_10_RC
28%
Zone
L_10_RC
44%
Sampling Date
L_10_RC
28%
Residual
L_10_RC
0%
348
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q10. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS WITH ANSWERS TO
THE OCCUPANT PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE QUESTION “OVER THE LAST FOUR
WEEKS I WOULD RATE THE SOUND OR NOISE IN MY WORK AREA AS ACCEPTABLE”
(Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green
highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Table Q4. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
0.639205
0.087935
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.619471
0.101431
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.128336
0.761998
L_5_dBC
Spearman
0.114708
0.786802
L_50_dBA
Pearson
0.746249
0.033468
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.210132
0.418226
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.105442
0.803756
L_50_dBC
Spearman
-0.25811
0.537104
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0.062286
0.883515
L_95_dBA
Spearman
0.361358
0.379126
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.109636
0.796075
L_95_dBC
Spearman
-0.25811
0.537104
Table Q5. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
-0.39671
0.378247
L_5_dBA
Spearman
-0.5631
0.188095
L_5_dBC
Pearson
-0.10623
0.820675
L_5_dBC
Spearman
-0.31739
0.487912
L_50_dBA
Pearson
-0.34165
0.453239
L_50_dBA
Spearman
-0.5631
0.188095
L_50_dBC
Pearson
-0.04385
0.925625
L_50_dBC
Spearman
0.133097
0.776043
L_95_dBA
Pearson
-0.41458
0.355073
L_95_dBA
Spearman
-0.15357
0.742349
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.120842
0.796347
L_95_dBC
Spearman
0.133097
0.776043
NCEMBT-080201
349
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q6 Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for the
question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
-0.69816
0.005488
L_5_dBA
Spearman
-0.74245
0.002356
L_5_dBC
Pearson
-0.41509
0.13997
L_5_dBC
Spearman
-0.22321
0.443039
L_50_dBA
Pearson
-0.73015
0.003026
L_50_dBA
Spearman
-0.75287
0.001885
L_50_dBC
Pearson
-0.39065
0.167271
L_50_dBC
Spearman
-0.22321
0.443039
L_95_dBA
Pearson
-0.73632
0.002673
L_95_dBA
Spearman
-0.73017
0.003025
L_95_dBC
Pearson
-0.34187
0.231548
L_95_dBC
Spearman
-0.21213
0.466578
Table Q7. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
0
1
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.067598
0.796577
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.18531
0.476429
L_5_dBC
Spearman
0.043972
0.866921
L_50_dBA
Pearson
0.210132
0.418226
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.243486
0.346332
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.247365
0.338458
L_50_dBC
Spearman
0.049222
0.851188
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0.079523
0.761593
L_95_dBA
Spearman
-0.04397
0.866921
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.204531
0.431019
L_95_dBC
Spearman
0.040034
0.878752
Table Q8. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
-0.14587
0.528104
L_5_dBA
Spearman
-0.00837
0.971274
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.016599
0.943068
L_5_dBC
Spearman
-0.00328
0.988757
L_50_dBA
Pearson
-0.10733
0.643321
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.038214
0.869374
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.023185
0.920538
L_50_dBC
Spearman
-0.01492
0.948815
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0
1
L_95_dBA
Spearman
0.059322
0.798394
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.023769
0.918543
L_95_dBC
Spearman
-0.02366
0.91893
350
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q9. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
0.219742
0.142282
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.133436
0.376663
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.238694
0.110147
L_5_dBC
Spearman
0.279094
0.060337
L_50_dBA
Pearson
0.163888
0.276449
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.097841
0.517709
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.23607
0.114231
L_50_dBC
Spearman
0.279094
0.060337
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0.097429
0.519480
L_95_dBA
Spearman
0.146653
0.330777
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.226883
0.129444
L_95_dBC
Spearman
0.213297
0.154656
Table Q10 Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
0.046887
0.644906
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.071886
0.479512
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.010774
0.915707
L_5_dBC
Spearman
-0.10362
0.307436
L_50_dBA
Pearson
0.17181
0.089047
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.153721
0.128731
L_50_dBC
Pearson
-0.0343
0.736088
L_50_dBC
Spearman
-0.13694
0.176491
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0.124047
0.221213
L_95_dBA
Spearman
0.204069
0.04276
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.025119
0.805063
L_95_dBC
Spearman
0.054596
0.591458
Table Q11. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
-0.06888
0.668707
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.010233
0.949371
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.222894
0.161281
L_5_dBC
Spearman
0.23667
0.136272
L_50_dBA
Pearson
-0.00492
0.975651
L_50_dBA
Spearman
-0.01993
0.901584
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.221158
0.164655
L_50_dBC
Spearman
0.23667
0.136272
L_95_dBA
Pearson
-0.11601
0.470092
L_95_dBA
Spearman
-0.09162
0.56889
L_95_dBC
Pearson
-0.05285
0.742799
L_95_dBC
Spearman
-0.02029
0.899819
NCEMBT-080201
351
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q12. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
-0.0447
0.736734
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.07874
0.553344
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.15512
0.240743
L_5_dBC
Spearman
0.16788
0.203739
L_50_dBA
Pearson
0.06712
0.613506
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.16788
0.203739
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.09462
0.475939
L_50_dBC
Spearman
0.07874
0.553344
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0.23425
0.074134
L_95_dBA
Spearman
0.24865
0.057561
L_95_dBC
Pearson
0.17201
0.192679
L_95_dBC
Spearman
-0.103
0.437593
Table Q13. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “over the last four weeks i would rate the sound or noise in my work area as acceptable” for building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
L_5_dBA
Pearson
0.147992
0.205115
L_5_dBA
Spearman
0.145156
0.214029
L_5_dBC
Pearson
0.125206
0.284475
L_5_dBC
Spearman
0.145156
0.214029
L_50_dBA
Pearson
0.131565
0.260526
L_50_dBA
Spearman
0.157931
0.175973
L_50_dBC
Pearson
0.121706
0.298259
L_50_dBC
Spearman
0.145156
0.214029
L_95_dBA
Pearson
0.004386
0.970206
L_95_dBA
Spearman
0.00162
0.988996
L_95 _dBC
Pearson
0.122608
0.294665
L_95 _dBC
Spearman
0.139107
0.233942
352
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q11. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS IN WITH ANSWERS
TO THE OCCUPANT PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE QUESTION “THROUGHOUT THE
COURSE OF THE ENTIRE WORKDAY, THE SOUNDS OR NOISE IN MY WORK AREA FLUCTUATES”
(Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green
highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q14. Pearson and Spearman Tests Results for Individual Buildings
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
0.285779
0.492624
Spearman
0.258113
0.537104
Pearson
0.292009
0.525133
Spearman
0.048086
0.918461
Pearson
-0.16162
0.580941
Spearman
0.039647
0.892955
Pearson
0.553256
0.021237
Spearman
0.525468
0.030296
Pearson
-0.14598
0.52779
Spearman
-0.16042
0.487267
Pearson
0.111175
0.462
Spearman
0.105222
0.486463
Pearson
0.013732
0.89269
Spearman
0.069466
0.494466
Pearson
-0.07197
0.65478
Spearman
0.016214
0.919855
Pearson
0.039309
0.767543
Spearman
0.045759
0.73074
Pearson
0.130723
0.263615
Spearman
0.13318
0.254668
NCEMBT-080201
353
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q12. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS WITH ANSWERS TO
THE OCCUPANT PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE QUESTION “I HEAR SOUNDS FROM
OUTSIDE THE BUILDING (AIRPLANES, TRAFFIC, TRAINS, CONSTRUCTION, MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT, SIRENS, ETC.) IN MY WORK AREA”
(SndOSHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity (SndOSProdAffect),
if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndOSAnnoy), and how soon the annoyance/distraction occurred
(SndOSDistrWithin) and for how long (SndOSDistrFor) the annoyance/distraction continued
(Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green
highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Table Q15. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
-0.35642
0.386147
SndOSHear
Spearman
-0.45004
0.263195
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.24961
0.551056
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
-0.2905
0.485186
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
-0.22601
0.590436
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.063786
0.880724
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
0.118435
0.823178
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
0.131165
0.804381
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
0.16912
0.748738
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
0.290323
0.576751
Table Q16. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
0.246018
0.594871
SndOSHear
Spearman
0.285727
0.53449
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
0.928593
0.007466
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
0.783349
0.065322
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
0.894459
0.016120
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.783349
0.065322
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
-1
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
-1
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
-1
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
-1
354
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q17. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
-0.18333
0.530418
SndOSHear
Spearman
-0.75000
0.002006
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
0.148109
0.683025
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
-0.04444
0.90297
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
0.239423
0.505266
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
0.026836
0.941339
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.30877
0.551565
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.65727
0.156069
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
-0.21093
0.688298
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
-0.42426
0.401788
Table Q18. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building g 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
0.056954
0.828117
SndOSHear
Spearman
0.124274
0.634634
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
0.151389
0.605417
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.266391
0.357257
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
0.111374
0.704649
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
0.198380
0.496586
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
0.204424
0.571046
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
0.153624
0.671766
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
0.252947
0.480742
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
0.310517
0.382536
Table Q19. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
0.18592
0.419738
SndOSHear
Spearman
0.21749
0.343618
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
0.19768
0.431709
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.24749
0.322104
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.3944
0.105319
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
-0.3962
0.103589
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
0.20705
0.441644
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
0.09805
0.717914
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
0.15573
0.564671
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
0.09415
0.728711
NCEMBT-080201
355
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q20. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
-0.11632
0.441416
SndOSHear
Spearman
-0.19947
0.183840
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
-0.21812
0.264821
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
-0.25174
0.196268
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.11479
0.560804
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
0.039172
0.843120
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.39221
0.119449
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.28968
0.259398
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
-0.43312
0.082443
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
-0.39974
0.111895
Table Q21 Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
0.235489
0.018954
SndOSHear
Spearman
0.144126
0.154660
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
0.057356
0.613314
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.044391
0.695805
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.06697
0.555058
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
-0.06507
0.566329
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.15470
0.246263
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.08227
0.539262
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
-0.08671
0.517497
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
-0.07440
0.578881
Table Q22. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
-0.32372
0.038954
SndOSHear
Spearman
-0.42313
0.005845
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
-0.22930
0.317387
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
-0.18998
0.409465
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.05114
0.825764
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
-0.07136
0.758568
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.11809
0.700799
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.02937
0.924111
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
0.081203
0.792000
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
0.134923
0.660319
356
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q23. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
-0.43795
0.000523
SndOSHear
Spearman
-0.29396
0.023833
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
0.090919
0.557239
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.216704
0.157678
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.15491
0.315369
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
-0.05635
0.716351
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.03095
0.862068
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
0.090978
0.608854
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
-0.05348
0.763874
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
0.052284
0.769017
Table Q24. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “i hear sounds from outside the building (airplanes, traffic, trains, construction, mechanical equipment, sirens, etc.)
in my work area” for building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndOSHear
Pearson
-0.11841
0.311622
SndOSHear
Spearman
-0.11690
0.317899
SndOSAnnoy
Pearson
-0.00589
0.974896
SndOSAnnoy
Spearman
0.075250
0.687442
SndOSProdAffect
Pearson
-0.25493
0.166344
SndOSProdAffect
Spearman
-0.22206
0.229896
SndOSDistrWithin
Pearson
0.326046
0.119978
SndOSDistrWithin
Spearman
0.287187
0.173613
SndOSDistrFor
Pearson
0.197818
0.354147
SndOSDistrFor
Spearman
0.241364
0.255868
NCEMBT-080201
357
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q13. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE
OF THE SOUND DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
358
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q25. Results for “too loud” and L_99 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
Pearson
0.161394
Spearman
0.454699
Pearson
0.567634
Spearman
0.524554
Pearson
n/a
Spearman
n/a
Pearson
0.513297
Spearman
0.507651
Pearson
0.104163
Spearman
0.099449
Pearson
-0.18179
Spearman
-0.19589
Pearson
-0.16368
Spearman
-0.18448
Pearson
0.142476
Spearman
0.165128
Pearson
-0.13568
Spearman
-0.04655
Pearson
-0.05682
Spearman
-0.05186
p value
0.702600
0.257663
0.183780
0.226767
n/a
n/a
0.035091
0.037502
0.653192
0.668001
0.226610
0.192001
0.105484
0.067561
0.374204
0.302195
0.305546
0.726243
0.628261
0.658582
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q26. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_95 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
0.093056
0.826524
Spearman
0.255146
0.541958
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
0.094299
0.748473
Spearman
-0.01972
0.946651
Pearson
-0.23703
0.359665
Spearman
-0.17186
0.509531
Pearson
-0.19470
0.397699
Spearman
-0.13229
0.567580
Pearson
0.050315
0.739833
Spearman
-0.05076
0.737611
Pearson
0.185226
0.066434
Spearman
0.188806
0.061261
Pearson
0.087062
0.588328
Spearman
0.071611
0.656374
Pearson
-0.12925
0.329233
Spearman
-0.16443
0.213334
Pearson
0.003346
0.977269
Spearman
-0.00577
0.960797
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q27. Results for “increases /decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
-0.51396
0.192587
Spearman
-0.59534
0.119450
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.09045
0.758460
Spearman
0.11007
0.707967
Pearson
-0.18729
0.471648
Spearman
-0.17186
0.509531
Pearson
-0.20949
0.362086
Spearman
-0.28347
0.213047
Pearson
-0.04449
0.769054
Spearman
-0.06967
0.645469
Pearson
0.054143
0.594543
Spearman
0.061433
0.545803
Pearson
0.128014
0.425084
Spearman
0.021257
0.895049
Pearson
0.246875
0.059430
Spearman
0.184888
0.160950
Pearson
0.022717
0.846604
Spearman
0
1
NCEMBT-080201
359
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
360
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q28. Results for “understandable” and L_90 minus L_50.
Type
Corr
Pearson
0.159698
Spearman
0.255146
Pearson
-0.12982
Spearman
0.104911
Pearson
n/a
Spearman
n/a
Pearson
0.438376
Spearman
0.366072
Pearson
-0.20167
Spearman
-0.28347
Pearson
n/a
Spearman
n/a
Pearson
-0.04382
Spearman
0
Pearson
0.020789
Spearman
0.103575
Pearson
-0.13517
Spearman
0.048476
Pearson
0.182197
Spearman
0.173174
p value
0.705618
0.541958
0.781459
0.822876
n/a
n/a
0.078382
0.148425
0.380692
0.213047
n/a
n/a
0.666739
1
0.897347
0.519297
0.307393
0.715412
0.117702
0.137334
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q14. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS WITH ANSWERS TO
THE OCCUPANT PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE QUESTION “I HEAR SOUNDS FROM
TELEPHONE/SPEAKER PHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT CARRY INTO MY WORK AREA”
(SndTelHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity (SndTelProdAffect),
if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndTelAnnoy), and how soon the annoyance/distraction occurred
(SndTelDistrWithin) and for how long (SndTelDistrFor) the annoyance/distraction continued
(Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green
highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]).
Table Q29. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 1
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
0.504866
0.201933
SndTelHear
Spearman
0.28026
0.501380
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.04618
0.913532
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
0.269321
0.518911
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.269851
0.518056
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.594937
0.119766
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.13751
0.768763
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
0.038837
0.934118
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
0.117797
0.801406
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
0.283069
0.538466
Table Q30. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
-0.11263
0.810012
SndTelHear
Spearman
0.130847
0.779764
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
0.354265
0.490833
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
0.223906
0.669754
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.518566
0.291875
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.318182
0.538834
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.42187
0.578133
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.38889
0.611111
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
-0.90999
0.090014
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
-0.83333
0.166667
NCEMBT-080201
361
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q31. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
-0.33665
0.239214
SndTelHear
Spearman
-0.47739
0.084299
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.07000
0.837950
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
0.292877
0.382102
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
-0.32913
0.322999
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.142899
0.675106
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
0.171002
0.615160
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
0.287914
0.390590
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
-0.06536
0.848573
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
0.393422
0.231280
Table Q32. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
-0.14054
0.590564
SndTelHear
Spearman
-0.13493
0.605637
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.05024
0.858869
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
-0.03924
0.889585
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.105124
0.709255
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.155894
0.579028
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
0.144614
0.671395
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
0.080294
0.814458
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
0.059849
0.861241
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
0.090763
0.790702
Table Q33. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
0.125565
0.587590
SndTelHear
Spearman
0.147542
0.523324
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.24431
0.328557
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
-0.31176
0.207890
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
-0.00968
0.969579
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
-0.05803
0.819100
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.16302
0.561574
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.24189
0.385090
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
-0.43168
0.108112
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
-0.53409
0.040283
362
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q34. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
0.142766
0.343893
SndTelHear
Spearman
-0.05154
0.733709
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.27303
0.072946
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
-0.30689
0.042741
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
-0.18042
0.241200
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
-0.29614
0.050960
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.00987
0.951810
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.04139
0.799820
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
-0.17377
0.283573
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
-0.27432
0.086719
Table Q35. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
0.009336
0.926928
SndTelHear
Spearman
-0.06584
0.517317
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
0.110619
0.288508
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
0.106004
0.309218
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.032546
0.755490
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.012143
0.907529
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.16363
0.141868
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.21844
0.048659
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
0.07414
0.507989
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
-0.04161
0.710504
Table Q36. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
-0.12239
0.445859
SndTelHear
Spearman
-0.17783
0.265995
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
0.065884
0.686278
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
0.092829
0.568871
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.092426
0.570557
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.035771
0.826545
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
0.290261
0.095861
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
0.244447
0.163534
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
0.214489
0.223173
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
0.195136
0.268752
NCEMBT-080201
363
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q37. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
0.23115
0.078163
SndTelHear
Spearman
0.274131
0.035639
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.02712
0.841276
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
0.040738
0.763511
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.092431
0.494072
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
0.182455
0.174331
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.14944
0.295253
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.02192
0.878663
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
0.053858
0.707395
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
0.079816
0.577690
Table Q38 Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements with answers to the occupant perception questionnaire for
the question “I hear sounds from telephone/speaker phone conversations that carry into my work area” for building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndTelHear
Pearson
-0.00929
0.936947
SndTelHear
Spearman
0.019067
0.871020
SndTelProdAffect
Pearson
-0.04518
0.712423
SndTelProdAffect
Spearman
-0.06842
0.576444
SndTelAnnoy
Pearson
0.007169
0.953377
SndTelAnnoy
Spearman
-0.03102
0.800245
SndTelDistrFor
Pearson
0.159326
0.212297
SndTelDistrFor
Spearman
0.102253
0.425192
SndTelDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.02426
0.850299
SndTelDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.02077
0.871645
364
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q15. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE
OF THE TELEPHONE/SPEAKERPHONE DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q39. Results for “too loud” and L_99 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
Pearson
-0.16589
Spearman
-0.12991
Pearson
0.392977
Spearman
0.487582
Pearson
-0.03834
Spearman
0.11007
Pearson
0.000425
Spearman
0
Pearson
0.274622
Spearman
0.314922
Pearson
0.175178
Spearman
0.212295
Pearson
-0.0387
Spearman
-0.02009
Pearson
0.143053
Spearman
0.034335
Pearson
-0.02796
Spearman
0
Pearson
-0.09472
Spearman
-0.08672
p value
0.694610
0.759138
0.383159
0.267032
0.896478
0.707967
0.998708
1
0.228300
0.164388
0.244242
0.156649
0.703720
0.843498
0.372252
0.831239
0.833491
1
0.418889
0.459436
NCEMBT-080201
365
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
366
Table Q40. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_95 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.07218
0.806283
Spearman
0.207255
0.477113
Pearson
0.022541
0.931571
Spearman
0.104592
0.689528
Pearson
0.167554
0.467858
Spearman
0.150812
0.514054
Pearson
0.013898
0.926959
Spearman
-0.04061
0.788736
Pearson
-0.04331
0.670348
Spearman
0.013872
0.891601
Pearson
-0.01043
0.948375
Spearman
0.016361
0.919133
Pearson
0.003222
0.980679
Spearman
-0.0168
0.899501
Pearson
-0.0388
0.741042
10
Spearman
-0.04149
0.723780
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q41. Results for “increases /decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.1499
0.609013
Spearman
-0.47697
0.084614
Pearson
-0.11536
0.659303
Spearman
-0.10459
0.689528
Pearson
0.213112
0.353657
Spearman
0.188982
0.411972
Pearson
0.041985
0.781747
Spearman
-0.08594
0.570093
Pearson
0.094176
0.353822
Spearman
0.082213
0.418523
Pearson
-0.04749
0.768108
Spearman
-0.04467
0.781537
Pearson
0.07708
0.561741
Spearman
0.11408
0.389608
Pearson
0.075713
0.518532
Spearman
0.058219
0.619795
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q42. Results for “understandable” and L_90 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
0.386271
0.344560
Spearman
0.232397
0.579690
Pearson
-0.60434
0.150628
Spearman
-0.81264
0.026310
Pearson
0.060453
0.837344
Spearman
-0.15776
0.590129
Pearson
0.21728
0.402196
Spearman
0.324067
0.204452
Pearson
-0.27345
0.230367
Spearman
-0.42021
0.057880
Pearson
-0.1564
0.299298
Spearman
-0.10272
0.496928
Pearson
-0.0298
0.769672
Spearman
-0.05484
0.589771
Pearson
-0.12862
0.422862
Spearman
-0.07862
0.625137
Pearson
0.103821
0.433908
Spearman
0.110256
0.405799
Pearson
0.116112
0.321183
Spearman
0.121339
0.299728
NCEMBT-080201
367
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q16. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE
QUESTION “I HEAR SOUNDS FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT CARRY INTO MY WORK AREA”
… (SndConvHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity
(SndConvProdAffect), if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndConvAnnoy), and how soon the
annoyance/distraction occurred (SndConvDistrWithin) and for how long (SndConvDistrFor) the
annoyance/distraction continued
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q43. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.528707
0.177920
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.797468
0.017742
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.511067
0.241103
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.695522
0.082711
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
-0.05403
0.908411
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.258075
0.576321
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.30852
0.551906
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.43771
0.385361
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
-0.20959
0.690214
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
-0.18759
0.721913
Table Q44. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.065534
0.888985
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.112621
0.810019
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.212581
0.647210
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
-0.00943
0.983985
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
0.067524
0.885629
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0
1
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
0.105384
0.866069
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
0.25
0.685038
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
-0.14612
0.814621
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
-0.15811
0.799525
368
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q45. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
-0.73872
0.002545
SndConvHear
Spearman
-0.42297
0.131851
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
-0.17281
0.572357
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.321052
0.284810
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
-0.13454
0.661241
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.228927
0.451861
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.21381
0.483041
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
0.103679
0.736069
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
-0.37508
0.206643
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
0.278549
0.356761
Table Q46. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
-0.07881
0.763681
SndConvHear
Spearman
-0.06263
0.811270
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.078312
0.781462
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.094747
0.736965
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
0.150273
0.592950
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.06055
0.830266
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
0.20166
0.508822
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
0.125251
0.683487
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
0.574285
0.040108
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
0.609904
0.026873
Table Q47. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.360662
0.108240
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.362826
0.105985
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.162805
0.480744
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.084865
0.714552
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
-0.01204
0.958700
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
-0.15954
0.489694
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
0.039099
0.881566
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.03659
0.889116
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
-0.40555
0.106298
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
-0.3759
0.137011
NCEMBT-080201
369
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q48. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.186093
0.215620
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.005305
0.972087
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
-0.11379
0.451478
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
-0.24872
0.095559
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
-0.1554
0.302416
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
-0.24088
0.106824
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.03794
0.818635
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.0524
0.751399
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
-0.30492
0.059091
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
-0.34426
0.031870
Table Q49. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.044515
0.661743
SndConvHear
Spearman
-0.03553
0.726973
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.090461
0.378209
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.052212
0.611514
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
0.140882
0.168695
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.149952
0.142644
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.11809
0.303142
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
0.011238
0.922208
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
0.106259
0.354485
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
0.055050
0.632150
Table Q50. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.015406
0.923839
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.032749
0.838929
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.03781
0.814440
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.091192
0.570688
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
-0.0034
0.983186
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.067967
0.672858
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
0.187482
0.304181
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
0.198669
0.275695
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
0.132086
0.471139
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
0.09315
0.612001
370
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q51. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.391823
0.002148
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.451778
0.000328
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.124438
0.352014
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.172839
0.194481
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
0.027626
0.836909
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.028961
0.829139
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.19011
0.190741
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.09836
0.501335
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
0.089918
0.538936
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
0.147478
0.311902
Table Q52. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the question “i hear sounds from conversations that
carry into my work area” for building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndConvHear
Pearson
0.037604
0.748738
SndConvHear
Spearman
0.005957
0.959546
SndConvAnnoy
Pearson
0.051526
0.660640
SndConvAnnoy
Spearman
0.031714
0.787076
SndConvProdAffect
Pearson
-0.01275
0.913572
SndConvProdAffect
Spearman
0.009255
0.937184
SndConvDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.05864
0.637360
SndConvDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.06170
0.619906
SndConvDistrFor
Pearson
0.019782
0.873754
SndConvDistrFor
Spearman
0.033577
0.787356
NCEMBT-080201
371
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q17. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE
OF CONVERSATION DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
372
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q53. Results for “too loud” and L_99 minus L_50 for SIL.
Type
Corr
Pearson
-0.03677
Spearman
0.389742
Pearson
0.392977
Spearman
0.487582
Pearson
-0.10853
Spearman
0.092113
Pearson
0.338169
Spearman
0.270056
Pearson
0.228588
Spearman
0.386795
Pearson
0.000354
Spearman
-0.00342
Pearson
-0.04809
Spearman
-0.07968
Pearson
-0.04887
Spearman
-0.02573
Pearson
-0.08312
Spearman
-0.07501
Pearson
-0.09829
Spearman
-0.07247
P value
0.931127
0.339863
0.383159
0.267032
0.711905
0.754137
0.184304
0.294503
0.318931
0.083249
0.998138
0.981982
0.636416
0.433054
0.761557
0.873114
0.531378
0.572308
0.401472
0.536635
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q54. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_95 minus L_50 for SIL
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.03834
0.896478
Spearman
0.11007
0.707967
Pearson
-0.22163
0.392611
Spearman
-0.17753
0.495454
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.07397
0.625182
Spearman
-0.12292
0.415750
Pearson
0.076736
0.450293
Spearman
0.110845
0.274719
Pearson
-0.02395
0.881852
Spearman
0.028718
0.858539
Pearson
0.062121
0.640209
Spearman
0.048476
0.715412
Pearson
-0.04325
0.712555
Spearman
-0.05469
0.641183
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q55. Results for “increases /decreases” and L_95 minus L_50 for SIL.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
0.566149
0.185189
Spearman
0.524554
0.226767
Pearson
-0.08660
0.768474
Spearman
0.146760
0.616615
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.07466
0.747729
Spearman
0.056695
0.807158
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.02512
0.805044
Spearman
0.095572
0.346699
Pearson
-0.06291
0.695959
Spearman
-0.10674
0.506532
Pearson
-0.07319
0.581701
Spearman
-0.03005
0.821268
Pearson
0.013945
0.905481
Spearman
-0.00479
0.967491
NCEMBT-080201
373
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
374
NCEMBT-080201
Table Q56. Results for “understandable” and L_95 minus L_50 for SIL.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
0.379225
0.354183
Spearman
0.168763
0.689526
Pearson
-0.60434
0.150628
Spearman
-0.81264
0.026310
Pearson
0
1
Spearman
0.037796
0.897927
Pearson
-0.41578
0.096936
Spearman
-0.40508
0.106741
Pearson
-0.04717
0.839102
Spearman
-0.21733
0.343984
Pearson
-0.14229
0.345511
Spearman
-0.24097
0.106694
Pearson
-0.00327
0.974399
Spearman
-0.00417
0.967321
Pearson
-0.02082
0.897194
Spearman
-0.04492
0.780323
Pearson
0.085347
0.520410
Spearman
0.134542
0.309653
Pearson
0.121672
0.298396
Spearman
0.110687
0.344460
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q18. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE
QUESTION “I HEAR SOUNDS FROM PIPED IN MUSIC OR MASKING SOUNDS IN MY WORK
AREA”
… (SndTelHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity
(SndMusProdAffect), if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndMusAnnoy), and how soon the
annoyance/distraction occurred (SndMusDistrWithin) and for how long (SndMusDistrFor) the
annoyance/distraction continued
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question; nd = not done).
Table Q57. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area” For Building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pearson
0
1
SndMusHear
Spearman
0
1
SndMusAnnoy
Pearson
1
SndMusAnnoy
Spearman
1
SndMusDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
Nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
Nd
nd
Table Q58. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area” for Building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusHear
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusAnnoy
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusAnnoy
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
Nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
Nd
nd
NCEMBT-080201
375
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q59. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pearson
-0.0456
0.876975
SndMusHear
Spearman
0.329412
0.250104
SndMusAnnoy
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusAnnoy
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
Table Q60. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pearson
0.002593
0.992120
SndMusHear
Spearman
0.056814
0.828534
SndMusAnnoy
Pearson
-0.12249
0.817184
SndMusAnnoy
Spearman
-0.18759
0.721913
SndMusDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.88081
0.313994
SndMusDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.86603
0.333333
SndMusDistrFor
Pearson
-0.88081
0.313994
SndMusDistrFor
Spearman
-0.86603
0.333333
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
Nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
Nd
nd
Table Q61. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusHear
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusAnnoy
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusAnnoy
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMusDistrFor
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
376
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q62. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pears
-0.20152
0.179281
SndMusHear
Spear
-0.12022
0.426121
SndMusAnnoy
Pears
0.330349
0.123672
SndMusAnnoy
Spear
0.347612
0.104105
SndMusDistrWithin
Pears
-0.12770
0.663522
SndMusDistrWithin
Spear
-0.28369
0.325650
SndMusDistrFor
Pears
0.304638
0.289592
SndMusDistrFor
Spear
0.221578
0.446470
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
Table Q63. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pears
-0.00895
0.929968
SndMusHear
Spear
0.036246
0.721708
SndMusAnnoy
Pears
-0.04915
0.807666
SndMusAnnoy
Spear
-0.07916
0.694700
SndMusDistrWithin
Pears
-0.35433
0.178136
SndMusDistrWithin
Spear
-0.33488
0.204843
SndMusDistrFor
Pears
-0.07315
0.787744
SndMusDistrFor
Spear
-0.02356
0.930974
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
Table Q64. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pears
-0.26169
0.098385
SndMusHear
Spear
0.046734
0.771702
SndMusAnnoy
Pears
-0.50385
0.248942
SndMusAnnoy
Spear
-0.38464
0.394229
SndMusDistrWithin
Pears
-0.23533
0.653525
SndMusDistrWithin
Spear
0.098374
0.852915
SndMusDistrFor
Pears
-0.67438
0.141783
SndMusDistrFor
Spear
-0.76667
0.075315
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
NCEMBT-080201
377
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q65. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”for Building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pears
0.011108
0.933453
SndMusHear
Spear
-0.08568
0.518756
SndMusAnnoy
Pears
0.365502
0.015945
SndMusAnnoy
Spear
0.274030
0.075372
SndMusDistrWithin
Pears
0.048341
0.826622
SndMusDistrWithin
Spear
0.150775
0.492267
SndMusDistrFor
Pears
0.186063
0.395312
SndMusDistrFor
Spear
-0.00295
0.989358
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
Table Q66. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Piped In Music Or
Masking Sounds In My Work Area”of Building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMusHear
Pears
-0.04476
0.702948
SndMusHear
Spear
-0.10085
0.389269
SndMusAnnoy
Pears
-0.09413
0.771059
SndMusAnnoy
Spear
-0.2514
0.430578
SndMusDistrWithin
Pears
-0.07266
0.852634
SndMusDistrWithin
Spear
0.123349
0.751879
SndMusDistrFor
Pears
0.266205
0.488704
SndMusDistrFor
Spear
0.203548
0.599387
SndMusProdAffect
Pearson
nd
nd
SndMusProdAffect
Spearman
nd
nd
378
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q19. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE
OF THE PIPED IN MUSIC OR MASKING SOUND DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q67. Results for “too loud” and L_80 minus L_10 for dBA.
Type
Corr
Pearson
0.20589
Spearman
0.425243
Pearson
n/a
Spearman
n/a
Pearson
-0.14297
Spearman
-0.21138
Pearson
n/a
Spearman
n/a
Pearson
n/a
Spearman
n/a
Pearson
-0.11451
Spearman
-0.07248
Pearson
0.059203
Spearman
0.055082
Pearson
-0.25326
Spearman
-0.27691
Pearson
-0.18299
Spearman
-0.16802
Pearson
-0.26330
Spearman
-0.29637
p value
0.624727
0.293576
n/a
n/a
0.625850
0.468190
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.448592
0.632161
0.560506
0.588154
0.110113
0.079655
0.165362
0.203363
0.022468
0.009828
NCEMBT-080201
379
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
380
Table Q68. Results for “intermittent/unpredictable” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.18729
0.471648
Spearman
-0.17186
0.509531
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
0.241657
0.105669
Spearman
0.257399
0.084176
Pearson
0.035503
0.727185
Spearman
-0.02795
0.783591
Pearson
0.250788
0.113750
Spearman
0.191316
0.230823
Pearson
-0.08242
0.534854
Spearman
0.060096
0.651171
Pearson
0.212712
0.066917
Spearman
0.186671
0.108804
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Bldg ID
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Table Q69. Results for “increases /decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.14321
0.625257
Spearman
-0.29352
0.308431
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.06363
0.674382
Spearman
-0.09964
0.510008
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.13003
0.326322
Spearman
-0.12907
0.329914
Pearson
0.084206
0.472588
Spearman
0.09813
0.402264
Table Q70. Results for “understandable” and L_80 minus L_50 for dBA.
Type
Corr
p value
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
-0.08346
0.411485
Spearman
-0.11337
0.263846
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Pearson
0.042014
0.752041
Spearman
0.11408
0.389608
Pearson
n/a
n/a
Spearman
n/a
n/a
NCEMBT-080201
381
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q20. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE
QUESTION “I HEAR SOUNDS FROM OFFICE EQUIPMENT IN MY WORK AREA”
… (SndEquipHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity
(SndEquipProdAffect), if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndEquipAnnoy), and how soon the
annoyance/distraction occurred (SndEquipDistrWithin) and for how long (SndEquipDistrFor) the
annoyance/distraction continued
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q71. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.697724
0.054341
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.718185
0.044794
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
0.564618
0.243072
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
0.338823
0.511215
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
0.660195
0.153583
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.562775
0.244957
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
0.504524
0.386021
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
0.516185
0.373253
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
0.303130
0.620038
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
0.176777
0.776099
Table Q72. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.063329
0.892705
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.047170
0.920011
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
0.808056
0.097989
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
0.789474
0.112222
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
0.640070
0.244736
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.459627
0.436097
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
-0.20217
0.797828
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
0.055556
0.944444
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
-0.52476
0.475244
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
-0.50000
0.500000
382
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q73. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.204327
0.483496
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.390439
0.167521
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
0.224054
0.629109
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
0.328165
0.472397
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
0.224054
0.629109
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.328165
0.472397
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
1
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
1
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
1
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
1
Table Q74. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
-0.31413
0.219482
SndEquipHear
Spearman
-0.41625
0.096523
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
0.253617
0.451749
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
0.435692
0.180413
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
0.233583
0.489398
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.381025
0.247625
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
0.019229
0.967361
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
-0.19627
0.673182
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
0.387455
0.390476
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
0.257248
0.577588
Table Q75. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
-0.2985
0.188643
SndEquipHear
Spearman
-0.2718
0.233271
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
-0.1179
0.701156
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
-0.2191
0.471972
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
-0.0385
0.900439
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
-0.2263
0.457167
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
-0.0743
0.874064
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
-0.2504
0.58797
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
-0.3408
0.454397
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
-0.5114
0.240726
NCEMBT-080201
383
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q76. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.223015
0.136286
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.191777
0.201677
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
0.08895
0.672425
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
0.033772
0.872674
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
0.056824
0.787321
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.036457
0.862644
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
-0.20984
0.491399
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
-0.03451
0.910874
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
-0.09544
0.756444
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
-0.09737
0.751654
Table Q77. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
-0.04650
0.647624
SndEquipHear
Spearman
-0.10667
0.293318
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
0.063454
0.576040
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
-0.00840
0.941081
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
0.163912
0.146265
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.103795
0.359542
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
0.002998
0.985748
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
0.154672
0.353819
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
0.210824
0.203897
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
0.137020
0.412039
Table Q78. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.063316
0.694115
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.064022
0.690874
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
-0.10959
0.518485
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
-0.16401
0.332070
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
-0.15766
0.351367
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
-0.15302
0.365895
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
0.050126
0.883637
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
0.147844
0.664423
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
0.277662
0.408421
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
0.288675
0.389283
384
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q79. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.158144
0.231587
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.07119
0.592094
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
-0.25183
0.224601
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
-0.21133
0.310546
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
-0.08625
0.681843
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
0.033996
0.87184
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
0.236395
0.378066
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
0.137079
0.61269
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
0.1048
0.699303
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
0.136522
0.614148
Table Q80. Statistical Results In Comparison Of Sound Measurements And The Question “I Hear Sounds From Office Equipment
In My Work Area” for Building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndEquipHear
Pearson
0.382131
0.000717
SndEquipHear
Spearman
0.417021
0.000198
SndEquipAnnoy
Pearson
-0.04031
0.802425
SndEquipAnnoy
Spearman
-0.18475
0.247535
SndEquipProdAffect
Pearson
-0.01994
0.901508
SndEquipProdAffect
Spearman
-0.07838
0.626183
SndEquipDistrWithi
Pearson
-0.13195
0.601729
SndEquipDistrWithi
Spearman
-0.11602
0.646637
SndEquipDistrFor
Pearson
0.085692
0.735302
SndEquipDistrFor
Spearman
0.096381
0.703619
NCEMBT-080201
385
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q21. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE
OF THE OFFICE EQUIPMENT SOUND DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q81. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound distraction for
“too loud” and L_90 minus L_10 for NC.
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
P value
1
Pearson
0.711935
0.047593
1
Spearman
0.755291
0.030204
2
Pearson
0.107818
0.818024
2
Spearman
0.104911
0.822876
3
Pearson
0.146143
0.618112
3
Spearman
0.18345
0.530152
4
Pearson
0.166617
0.522729
4
Spearman
0.080695
0.758180
5
Pearson
0.119589
0.605625
5
Spearman
0.092009
0.691617
6
Pearson
-0.27592
0.063444
6
Spearman
-0.33963
0.020933
7
Pearson
0.048776
0.631630
7
Spearman
-0.03688
0.717077
8
Pearson
0.154862
0.333651
8
Spearman
0.153693
0.337359
9
Pearson
-0.17748
0.178687
9
Spearman
-0.12091
0.361656
10
Pearson
0.074811
0.523540
10
Spearman
0.148885
0.202363
386
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q82. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound distraction for
“intermittent/unpredictable” and L_90 minus L_50 for NC.
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
0.413375
0.308691
1
Spearman
0.433555
0.283209
2
Pearson
0.946149
0.001255
2
Spearman
0.812636
0.026310
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
-0.03507
0.893700
4
Spearman
0.152767
0.558313
5
Pearson
0.101180
0.662548
5
Spearman
0.013710
0.952965
6
Pearson
0.329355
0.025412
6
Spearman
0.327780
0.026164
7
Pearson
0.068126
0.502849
7
Spearman
0.091684
0.366758
8
Pearson
-0.15912
0.320358
8
Spearman
-0.16872
0.291658
9
Pearson
-0.04420
0.739605
9
Spearman
-0.10392
0.433449
10
Pearson
0.046692
0.690788
10
Spearman
0.054693
0.641183
Table Q83. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound distraction for
“increases /decreases” and L_80 minus L_50 for NC.
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
n/a
n/a
1
Spearman
n/a
n/a
2
Pearson
n/a
n/a
2
Spearman
n/a
n/a
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
n/a
n/a
4
Spearman
n/a
n/a
5
Pearson
n/a
n/a
5
Spearman
n/a
n/a
6
Pearson
0.218444
0.144713
6
Spearman
0.229186
0.125496
7
Pearson
0.027566
0.786509
7
Spearman
0.095572
0.346699
8
Pearson
-0.16055
0.315981
8
Spearman
-0.15191
0.343061
9
Pearson
0.059652
0.653583
9
Spearman
0.068674
0.605283
10
Pearson
n/a
n/a
10
Spearman
n/a
n/a
NCEMBT-080201
387
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q84. Statistical results in comparison of sound measurements and the cause of the office equipment sound distraction for
“understandable” and L_80 minus L_50 for NC.
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
n/a
n/a
1
Spearman
n/a
n/a
2
Pearson
-0.58278
0.169709
2
Spearman
-0.52455
0.226767
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
-0.33020
0.195516
4
Spearman
-0.33992
0.181891
5
Pearson
-0.12972
0.575181
5
Spearman
-0.09449
0.683706
6
Pearson
-0.08733
0.563866
6
Spearman
-0.06876
0.649809
7
Pearson
0.108630
0.284486
7
Spearman
0.106225
0.295347
8
Pearson
n/a
n/a
8
Spearman
n/a
n/a
9
Pearson
n/a
n/a
9
Spearman
n/a
n/a
10
Pearson
n/a
n/a
10
Spearman
n/a
n/a
388
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q22. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE
QUESTION “I HEAR SOUNDS FROM BUILDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN MY WORK AREA”
… (SndMechHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity
(SndMechProdAffect), if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndMEchAnnoy), and how soon the
annoyance/distraction occurred (SndMechDistrWithin) and for how long (SndMechDistrFor) the
annoyance/distraction continued
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q85. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
-0.39044
0.338918
SndMechHear
Spearman
-0.23703
0.571940
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.403542
0.427545
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0.750366
0.085697
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.109134
0.836948
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
0.417786
0.409782
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.27735
0.821088
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
0
1
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
-0.69338
0.512246
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
-0.86603
0.333333
Table Q86. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
0.645764
0.117185
SndMechHear
Spearman
0.63796
0.123159
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.755929
0.454371
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0.866025
0.333333
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.755929
0.454371
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
0.866025
0.333333
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
n/a
n/a
NCEMBT-080201
389
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q87. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
-0.07125
0.808756
SndMechHear
Spearman
-0.05882
0.841677
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
-0.08692
0.824045
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
-0.05507
0.888102
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.263547
0.493219
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
0.188982
0.626283
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.03432
0.956306
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
0.186339
0.764126
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
-0.03432
0.956306
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
0.186339
0.764126
Table Q88. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
0.420737
0.092623
SndMechHear
Spearman
0.408156
0.103857
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.214155
0.552437
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0.37195
0.289887
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
-0.25028
0.485540
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
-0.17484
0.629012
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.45579
0.256372
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.51952
0.186977
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
-0.13694
0.746427
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
-0.06373
0.880836
Table Q89. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
0.08242
0.722461
SndMechHear
Spearman
0.141895
0.539516
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.5
0.666667
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0.5
0.666667
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
-0.5
0.666667
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
-0.5
0.666667
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
1
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
1
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
-1
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
-1
390
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q90. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
-0.07441
0.623112
SndMechHear
Spearman
-0.2853
0.054622
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
-0.08453
0.694534
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
-0.24456
0.249424
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.062249
0.772615
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
0.031035
0.885536
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.47319
0.087462
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.29736
0.301849
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
-0.17292
0.554405
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
-0.08886
0.762584
Table Q91. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
0.26055
0.009196
SndMechHear
Spearman
0.232596
0.020516
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.124122
0.411159
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0.034143
0.821774
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.199669
0.178432
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
0.111256
0.456566
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.11714
0.603666
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.18956
0.398169
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
0.2476
0.266582
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
0.165579
0.461484
Table Q92. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
-0.19222
0.228590
SndMechHear
Spearman
-0.20602
0.196266
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.057599
0.892241
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0
1
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
-0.15785
0.708913
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
-0.42524
0.293576
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
0.927019
0.244724
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
1
0
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
0.890361
0.300904
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
0.5
0.666667
NCEMBT-080201
391
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q93. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
-0.33454
0.009604
SndMechHear
Spearman
-0.40015
0.001688
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.298698
0.176918
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
0.410143
0.057983
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.244244
0.273328
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
0.269326
0.225487
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.24768
0.393243
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.42429
0.130525
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
-0.16746
0.567163
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
-0.24445
0.399639
Table Q94. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Building
Mechanical Equipment In My Work Area” for Building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndMechHear
Pearson
0.16175
0.165621
SndMechHear
Spearman
0.178565
0.125326
SndMechAnnoy
Pearson
0.029202
0.859922
SndMechAnnoy
Spearman
-0.07268
0.660156
SndMechProdAffect
Pearson
0.082061
0.619447
SndMechProdAffect
Spearman
-0.06468
0.695669
SndMechDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.04984
0.808927
SndMechDistrWithin
Spearman
0.025555
0.901380
SndMechDistrFor
Pearson
0.385494
0.051788
SndMechDistrFor
Spearman
0.282503
0.162017
392
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q23. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE OF
THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SOUND DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q95. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment Sound
Distraction for “too loud.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
0.160814
0.703632
1
Spearman
0.389742
0.339863
2
Pearson
n/a
n/a
2
Spearman
n/a
n/a
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
0.638476
0.005808
4
Spearman
0.553614
0.021136
5
Pearson
0.046898
0.840023
5
Spearman
-0.01890
0.935198
6
Pearson
0.335497
0.022647
6
Spearman
0.334936
0.022889
7
Pearson
0.018193
0.858150
7
Spearman
0.010156
0.920524
8
Pearson
-0.00199
0.990144
8
Spearman
-0.07362
0.647341
9
Pearson
-0.06383
0.630998
9
Spearman
0.011557
0.930772
10
Pearson
-0.07748
0.508764
10
Spearman
-0.02345
0.841725
NCEMBT-080201
393
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q96. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment Sound
Distraction for “intermittent/unpredictable.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
n/a
n/a
1
Spearman
n/a
n/a
2
Pearson
0.654872
0.110406
2
Spearman
0.812636
0.026310
3
Pearson
0.06472
0.826017
3
Spearman
0.083666
0.776134
4
Pearson
-0.28567
0.266348
4
Spearman
-0.36282
0.152338
5
Pearson
0.154991
0.502323
5
Spearman
0.188982
0.411972
6
Pearson
-0.18281
0.223976
6
Spearman
-0.19289
0.199019
7
Pearson
-0.04522
0.656734
7
Spearman
-0.01408
0.890017
8
Pearson
n/a
n/a
8
Spearman
n/a
n/a
9
Pearson
0.042951
0.746695
9
Spearman
0.050496
0.704088
10
Pearson
-0.03477
0.767108
10
Spearman
-0.03384
0.773167
394
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q97. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment Sound
Distraction for “increases /decreases.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
0.186645
0.658083
1
Spearman
0.085049
0.841301
2
Pearson
n/a
n/a
2
Spearman
n/a
n/a
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
0.252997
0.382829
4
Spearman
0.25683
0.375414
5
Pearson
n/a
n/a
5
Spearman
n/a
n/a
6
Pearson
-0.24742
0.097359
6
Spearman
-0.37225
0.010850
7
Pearson
0.219895
0.028744
7
Spearman
0.190666
0.058706
8
Pearson
n/a
n/a
8
Spearman
n/a
n/a
9
Pearson
-0.08534
0.520441
9
Spearman
-0.08261
0.533927
10
Pearson
n/a
n/a
10
Spearman
n/a
n/a
Table Q98. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Mechanical Equipment Sound
Distraction for “understandable.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
n/a
n/a
1
Spearman
n/a
n/a
2
Pearson
n/a
n/a
2
Spearman
n/a
n/a
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
n/a
n/a
4
Spearman
n/a
n/a
5
Pearson
n/a
n/a
5
Spearman
n/a
n/a
6
Pearson
n/a
n/a
6
Spearman
n/a
n/a
7
Pearson
-0.02286
0.822302
7
Spearman
-0.03327
0.743726
8
Pearson
n/a
n/a
8
Spearman
n/a
n/a
9
Pearson
n/a
n/a
9
Spearman
n/a
n/a
10
Pearson
0.089607
0.444556
10
Spearman
0.098130
0.402264
NCEMBT-080201
395
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q24. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE QUESTION
“I HEAR SOUNDS FROM AIR DIFFUSER/AIR SUPPLY IN MY WORK AREA”
… (SndAirHear) with follow on questions concerning the sound affecting productivity
(SndAirProdAffect), if the sound was annoying/distracting (SndAirAnnoy), and how soon the
annoyance/distraction occurred (SndAirDistrWithin) and for how long (SndAirDistrFor) the
annoyance/distraction continued
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q99. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
-0.48089
0.227695
SndAirHear
Spearman
-0.39491
0.332923
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
0.507754
0.303822
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
0.750366
0.085697
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
0.225675
0.667234
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
0.417786
0.409782
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.27735
0.821088
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
0
1
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
-0.18898
0.878962
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
0
1
Table Q100. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
0.807769
0.027974
SndAirHear
Spearman
0.563104
0.188095
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
0.755929
0.454371
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
0.866025
0.333333
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
0.5
0.666667
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
0.5
0.666667
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
n/a
n/a
396
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q101. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
-0.30211
0.293823
SndAirHear
Spearman
0.007293
0.980259
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
-0.26265
0.409510
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
-0.1824
0.570446
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
-0.13443
0.677014
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
0.137335
0.670384
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
0.210042
0.734546
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
0
1
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
0.722222
0.168229
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
0.740436
0.152413
Table Q102. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
0.227246
0.380406
SndAirHear
Spearman
0.17218
0.508737
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
0.374578
0.186990
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
0.286203
0.321203
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
0.227141
0.434839
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
0.256022
0.376971
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.62514
0.133299
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.68885
0.086971
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
-0.06026
0.897891
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
-0.10784
0.817983
Table Q103. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
-0.15536
0.501286
SndAirHear
Spearman
0.001192
0.995908
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
-0.58265
0.169827
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
-0.72457
0.065494
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
-0.1913
0.681152
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
-0.3118
0.496016
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
-1
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
-1
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
-1
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
-1
NCEMBT-080201
397
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q104. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
-0.03939
0.794960
SndAirHear
Spearman
-0.05968
0.693595
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
-0.43789
0.022347
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
-0.34233
0.080485
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
-0.21964
0.270994
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
-0.06634
0.742335
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.19375
0.506881
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.07603
0.796156
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
0.050203
0.864667
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
-0.02115
0.942790
Table Q105. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
0.060341
0.552980
SndAirHear
Spearman
0.126698
0.211424
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
-0.01155
0.919527
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
0.010965
0.923593
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
-0.05457
0.635135
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
-0.12944
0.258702
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
0.244803
0.162902
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
0.290637
0.095411
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
0.306384
0.078010
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
0.361194
0.035837
Table Q106. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
0.095069
0.554349
SndAirHear
Spearman
0.146682
0.360117
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
-0.36332
0.272087
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
-0.42204
0.196022
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
n/a
n/a
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
n/a
n/a
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
-1
0
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
-1
0
398
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q107. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
-0.13724
0.299945
SndAirHear
Spearman
-0.25039
0.055787
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
-0.36490
0.094962
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
-0.10430
0.644148
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
-0.15603
0.488064
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
0
1
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
-0.40080
0.221864
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
-0.43781
0.178062
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
0.113938
0.753971
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
0.167162
0.644381
Table Q108. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question “I Hear Sounds From Air Diffuser/Air
Supply In My Work Area” for Building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndAirHear
Pearson
-0.11287
0.334990
SndAirHear
Spearman
-0.13795
0.237907
SndAirAnnoy
Pearson
0.011175
0.926847
SndAirAnnoy
Spearman
-0.03200
0.792589
SndAirProdAffect
Pearson
0.017889
0.883140
SndAirProdAffect
Spearman
0.017696
0.884396
SndAirDistrWithin
Pearson
0.077735
0.615985
SndAirDistrWithin
Spearman
0.142590
0.355832
SndAirDistrFor
Pearson
0.494135
0.000652
SndAirDistrFor
Spearman
0.491961
0.000694
NCEMBT-080201
399
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q25. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE CAUSE OF
THE AIR DIFFUSER/AIR SUPPLY SOUND DISTRACTION
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q109. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply Sound
Distraction for “too loud.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
0.136366
0.747465
1
Spearman
0.425243
0.293576
2
Pearson
0.633148
0.126919
2
Spearman
0.524554
0.226767
3
Pearson
-0.03768
0.898243
3
Spearman
0.216025
0.458234
4
Pearson
0.531153
0.028237
4
Spearman
0.500306
0.040826
5
Pearson
-0.03223
0.889685
5
Spearman
-0.0189
0.935198
6
Pearson
-0.32213
0.029019
6
Spearman
-0.29261
0.048455
7
Pearson
0.097102
0.339002
7
Spearman
0.091024
0.370235
8
Pearson
n/a
n/a
8
Spearman
n/a
n/a
9
Pearson
-0.18237
0.166824
9
Spearman
-0.20571
0.118037
16
Pearson
-0.18387
0.114317
10
Spearman
-0.14627
0.210503
400
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q110. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply Sound
Distraction for “intermittent/unpredictable.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
-0.04522
0.915322
1
Spearman
0.129914
0.759138
2
Pearson
n/a
n/a
2
Spearman
n/a
n/a
3
Pearson
-0.09533
0.745798
3
Spearman
0.11007
0.707967
4
Pearson
-0.37334
0.139925
4
Spearman
-0.33892
0.183273
5
Pearson
-0.26114
0.252867
5
Spearman
-0.32127
0.155588
6
Pearson
-0.03687
0.807790
6
Spearman
-0.00338
0.982193
7
Pearson
-0.11075
0.275131
7
Spearman
-0.10112
0.319288
8
Pearson
-0.00248
0.987715
8
Spearman
0.103575
0.519297
9
Pearson
-0.16941
0.199605
9
Spearman
-0.25253
0.053653
10
Pearson
-0.01249
0.915297
10
Spearman
-0.00322
0.978097
Table Q111. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply Sound
Distraction of “increases/decreases.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
n/a
n/a
1
Spearman
n/a
n/a
2
Pearson
n/a
n/a
2
Spearman
n/a
n/a
3
Pearson
-0.06357
0.829062
3
Spearman
0.14676
0.616615
4
Pearson
n/a
n/a
4
Spearman
n/a
n/a
5
Pearson
n/a
n/a
5
Spearman
n/a
n/a
6
Pearson
n/a
n/a
6
Spearman
n/a
n/a
7
Pearson
0.234835
0.019298
7
Spearman
0.190666
0.058706
8
Pearson
-0.0371
0.817857
8
Spearman
0
1
9
Pearson
-0.14631
0.268831
9
Spearman
-0.11785
0.374035
10
Pearson
-0.18941
0.103622
10
Spearman
-0.20582
0.076477
NCEMBT-080201
401
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q112. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Cause of the Air Diffuser/Air Supply Sound
Distraction for “understandable.”
Bldg ID
Type
Corr
p value
1
Pearson
n/a
n/a
1
Spearman
n/a
n/a
2
Pearson
0.613131
0.143175
2
Spearman
0.524554
0.226767
3
Pearson
n/a
n/a
3
Spearman
n/a
n/a
4
Pearson
n/a
n/a
4
Spearman
n/a
n/a
5
Pearson
n/a
n/a
5
Spearman
n/a
n/a
6
Pearson
n/a
n/a
6
Spearman
n/a
n/a
7
Pearson
n/a
n/a
7
Spearman
n/a
n/a
8
Pearson
n/a
n/a
8
Spearman
n/a
n/a
9
Pearson
n/a
n/a
9
Spearman
n/a
n/a
10
Pearson
n/a
n/a
10
Spearman
n/a
n/a
402
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Q26. STATISTICAL RESULTS IN COMPARISON OF SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND THE QUESTION
OF PRIVACY
… (SndPrivLevel) with follow on questions concerning privacy to have a conversation (SndPrivConv)
with follow on questions concerning postponing a conversation until later (SndPrivConvLater), leaving
the are to gain privacy (SndPrivConvLeave) and having privacy to have a telephone conversation
(SndPrivTel), postponing a telephone conversation until later (SndPrivTelLater),and leaving the are to
gain privacy for a telephone conversation (SndPrivTelLeave)
(Bldg ID = building identification; Type = statistical analysis performed; Corr = correlation, yellow
highlight = significant [p<0.05]; green highlight = moderately significant [0.05<p<0.075]; n/a = not
applicable as there were no responses to this question).
Table Q113. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 1.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
0.328148
0.427464
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
0.175014
0.678489
SndPrivConv
Pearson
-0.16535
0.723120
SndPrivConv
Spearman
-0.37507
0.407088
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
0.212542
0.647272
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
0.233021
0.615064
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
-0.41828
0.350358
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
-0.12502
0.789409
SndPrivTel
Pearson
-0.16535
0.723120
SndPrivTel
Spearman
-0.37507
0.407088
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
-0.13976
0.765054
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
0.098039
0.834362
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.30626
0.504119
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
0
1
NCEMBT-080201
403
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q114. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 2.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
-0.00176
0.997011
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
0.115406
0.805383
SndPrivConv
Pearson
-0.01399
0.979019
SndPrivConv
Spearman
0
1
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
-0.38507
0.450944
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
-0.39728
0.435437
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
0.24328
0.642279
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
0.318182
0.538834
SndPrivTel
Pearson
-0.01399
0.979019
SndPrivTel
Spearman
0
1
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
-0.31907
0.537636
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
-0.25426
0.626833
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.13082
0.804885
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
-0.12713
0.810335
Q115. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 3.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
0.409317
0.146135
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
0.159729
0.585443
SndPrivConv
Pearson
0.428574
0.143969
SndPrivConv
Spearman
0.230685
0.448298
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
0.235605
0.438401
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
0.200928
0.510395
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
0.092103
0.764743
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
-0.03349
0.913514
SndPrivTel
Pearson
0.460148
0.113604
SndPrivTel
Spearman
0.306028
0.309206
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
0.311579
0.300058
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
0.341489
0.253477
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.10342
0.736718
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
-0.25988
0.391190
404
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q116. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 4.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
0.064150
0.806764
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
0.047624
0.855973
SndPrivConv
Pearson
0.011410
0.969120
SndPrivConv
Spearman
-0.0529
0.857464
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
0.102503
0.727320
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
0.054717
0.852617
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
-0.37012
0.192714
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
-0.36545
0.198821
SndPrivTel
Pearson
0.011410
0.969120
SndPrivTel
Spearman
-0.0529
0.857464
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
0.067788
0.817895
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
0.059033
0.841119
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.33593
0.240293
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
-0.32522
0.256542
Table Q117. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 5.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
-0.13251
0.566920
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
0.00035
0.998799
SndPrivConv
Pearson
0.09362
0.694625
SndPrivConv
Spearman
0.138858
0.559322
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
0.044899
0.864138
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
0.01292
0.960747
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
-0.10646
0.684242
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
-0.19057
0.463764
SndPrivTel
Pearson
0.109857
0.644756
SndPrivTel
Spearman
0.197884
0.402986
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
0.041974
0.868653
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
-0.00782
0.975424
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.10523
0.677727
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
-0.24973
0.317596
NCEMBT-080201
405
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q118. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 6.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
-0.26109
0.079664
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
-0.21363
0.154004
SndPrivConv
Pearson
0.205181
0.237041
SndPrivConv
Spearman
0.233396
0.177220
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
0.077587
0.667803
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
-0.01689
0.925659
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
-0.11394
0.527807
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
-0.1346
0.455162
SndPrivTel
Pearson
0.097924
0.581660
SndPrivTel
Spearman
0.092123
0.604336
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
0.027167
0.876889
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
-0.06612
0.705908
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.05786
0.741305
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
-0.06435
0.713440
Table Q119. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 7.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
-0.10217
0.314274
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
-0.11596
0.253028
SndPrivConv
Pearson
-0.10261
0.347149
SndPrivConv
Spearman
-0.10782
0.323106
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
0.033731
0.764984
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
0.014141
0.900291
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
0.036713
0.744883
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
0.046369
0.681032
SndPrivTel
Pearson
-0.0674
0.537496
SndPrivTel
Spearman
-0.07348
0.501335
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
0.164269
0.140287
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
0.116561
0.297011
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
0.066244
0.554317
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
0.020497
0.854970
406
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q120. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 8.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
-0.11745
0.464571
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
-0.26127
0.098947
SndPrivConv
Pearson
0.206942
0.225897
SndPrivConv
Spearman
-0.06867
0.690684
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
-0.35037
0.039069
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
-0.33175
0.051546
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
0.399833
0.017324
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
0.18203
0.295299
SndPrivTel
Pearson
0.301929
0.073507
SndPrivTel
Spearman
0.05288
0.759379
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
-0.57305
0.000321
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
-0.48441
0.003190
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
0.386272
0.021906
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
0.275742
0.108863
Table Q121. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 9.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
-0.04775
0.719489
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
-0.08409
0.526618
SndPrivConv
Pearson
-0.14869
0.274081
SndPrivConv
Spearman
-0.16085
0.236310
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
-0.08473
0.542418
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
-0.09749
0.483100
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
0.152198
0.271914
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
0.143429
0.300819
SndPrivTel
Pearson
-0.0843
0.536783
SndPrivTel
Spearman
-0.07689
0.573262
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
-0.02002
0.885739
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
-0.03527
0.800142
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
0.1016
0.464760
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
0.091456
0.510721
NCEMBT-080201
407
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
Table Q122. Statistical Results in Comparison of Sound Measurements and the Question Of Privacy for Building 10.
Variable
Type
Corr
p value
SndPrivLevel
Pearson
0.180573
0.121066
SndPrivLevel
Spearman
0.199116
0.086781
SndPrivConv
Pearson
0.007445
0.951587
SndPrivConv
Spearman
0.012370
0.919645
SndPrivConvLater
Pearson
-0.07441
0.555798
SndPrivConvLater
Spearman
-0.06323
0.616780
SndPrivConvLeave
Pearson
-0.20732
0.097499
SndPrivConvLeave
Spearman
-0.18939
0.130790
SndPrivTel
Pearson
0.085310
0.485823
SndPrivTel
Spearman
0.089258
0.465793
SndPrivTelLater
Pearson
0.020859
0.869001
SndPrivTelLater
Spearman
0.015418
0.902976
SndPrivTelLeave
Pearson
-0.21229
0.089558
SndPrivTelLeave
Spearman
-0.22089
0.077020
Q27. CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY DATA
Sound level data were compiled in the commonly used metrics listed in Section 3. Cumulative
probability levels of that data, without the descriptors, were created so that manageable data tables were
available for the correlation analysis.
Metric
L_99_dBA
L_95_dBA
L_90_dBA
L_80_dBA
L_50_dBA
L_33_dBA
L_10_dBA
L_5_dBA
L_99_dBC
L_95_dBC
L_90_dBC
L_80_dBC
L_50_dBC
L_33_dBC
L_10_dBC
L_5_dBC
L_99_dBC_dBA
L_95_dBC_dBA
L_90_dBC_dBA
L_80_dBC_dBA
408
NCEMBT-080201
1
62.4
57.7
54.0
49.8
47.7
46.5
45.0
44.3
69.2
68.0
67.5
66.5
64.7
64.2
62.8
62.0
20.7
19.8
19.2
18.6
Table Q123. Cumulative probability sound level by building
Building ID
2
3
4
5
6
7
60.1
54.0
62.1
57.0
61.0
62.5
56.0
49.3
55.7
52.0
53.5
54.8
54.0
48.1
53.0
48.9
50.3
52.7
51.0
47.1
49.9
45.7
47.6
51.2
48.5
44.8
45.7
40.4
45.1
47.5
45.6
42.9
44.2
38.2
44.1
46.3
43.9
40.9
40.8
35.5
42.6
44.2
43.4
40.5
39.7
34.5
42.2
43.2
70.3
69.2
68.5
67.9
67.4
72.1
69.2
68.8
66.7
64.5
65.3
69.9
68.4
68.5
66.0
63.7
64.7
68.4
67.0
68.2
65.0
62.9
62.3
67.0
65.6
65.3
62.8
61.2
58.8
63.8
64.9
61.4
61.9
60.1
57.6
63.3
63.1
59.0
60.3
57.1
56.0
62.3
62.6
58.6
59.6
55.8
55.4
62.0
22.8
24.5
23.6
29.5
22.5
22.3
21.7
23.9
22.0
27.7
20.4
21.3
21.0
23.4
21.3
26.1
18.7
20.6
20.1
22.7
20.1
24.4
16.7
19.6
8
58.7
53.7
51.3
48.4
42.9
40.1
36.9
34.3
69.9
67.7
66.8
64.9
57.7
55.9
51.3
40.4
29.7
27.4
25.7
22.7
9
61.0
57.1
54.9
53.1
50.8
49.7
48.3
47.8
68.3
66.0
65.2
64.1
61.8
60.9
59.0
58.3
16.0
14.1
13.4
12.5
10
58.2
54.2
52.6
51.3
48.8
47.3
44.9
43.7
68.4
67.5
66.9
66.1
61.3
59.3
56.5
55.5
20.5
18.4
17.3
16.1
APPENDIX Q- SOUND LEVEL DATA
L_50_dBC_dBA
L_33_dBC_dBA
L_10_dBC_dBA
L_5_dBC_dBA
L_99_NCMax
L_95_NCMax
L_90_NCMax
L_80_NCMax
L_50_NCMax
L_33_NCMax
L_10_NCMax
L_5_NCMax
L_99_RC
L_95_RC
L_90_RC
L_80_RC
L_50_RC
L_33_RC
L_10_RC
L_5_RC
L_99_SIL
L_95_SIL
L_90_SIL
L_80_SIL
L_50_SIL
L_33_SIL
L_10_SIL
L_5_SIL
16.9
16.3
12.5
9.6
59.0
53.6
49.6
46.3
44.6
41.8
39.8
39.4
57.4
52.6
48.2
42.4
39.1
38.0
34.2
33.1
55.2
50.3
46.1
40.2
36.7
35.5
31.5
30.3
17.6
16.3
12.7
10.3
56.9
51.8
49.7
46.5
43.3
40.8
38.9
38.3
54.4
50.4
48.3
45.0
42.1
37.7
34.5
33.8
52.5
48.4
46.1
42.8
39.7
35.3
32.2
31.5
19.5
18.3
15.4
13.6
50.2
45.5
44.6
43.6
39.8
36.9
34.7
33.8
47.8
42.6
40.8
39.1
36.6
35.3
31.6
29.3
45.7
40.1
38.3
36.6
34.0
32.8
29.3
27.1
17.1
15.3
10.6
8.5
59.1
52.0
49.0
46.0
40.0
38.4
34.3
33.0
56.7
50.0
47.3
44.3
39.6
37.8
33.1
31.7
54.3
47.7
45.0
42.1
37.3
35.3
30.6
29.0
20.1
16.8
12.1
10.0
53.3
48.2
44.4
40.5
34.6
31.5
27.8
26.5
51.4
46.4
43.2
39.8
34.4
31.7
27.4
25.8
49.8
44.5
41.4
38.1
32.5
29.9
25.9
24.2
13.3
12.2
9.0
7.0
58.2
49.5
45.9
44.3
40.3
38.9
36.0
35.6
54.8
47.6
44.3
41.1
37.3
36.2
34.8
33.9
52.8
45.2
41.9
38.8
34.9
33.9
32.1
31.2
16.8
15.2
11.8
10.4
58.4
50.7
48.4
46.8
42.0
40.4
37.7
36.4
56.9
49.3
47.2
45.7
40.5
39.2
36.3
35.4
55.6
46.7
44.8
43.4
38.5
37.1
34.3
33.3
13.7
10.0
3.7
3.5
55.0
49.5
46.8
43.3
37.0
33.4
29.9
27.2
53.3
48.4
45.9
42.9
36.9
33.6
29.5
27.2
51.3
46.5
44.1
41.3
35.5
32.1
28.0
25.7
11.0
10.1
7.4
6.0
57.7
52.9
50.6
48.6
46.6
44.7
43.7
43.3
55.6
51.7
49.4
47.2
44.3
43.0
41.1
40.4
53.3
49.3
47.1
44.9
41.6
40.2
38.0
37.2
NCEMBT-080201
12.9
11.2
8.1
6.6
54.2
49.8
48.2
46.8
43.4
41.6
39.0
37.6
52.8
49.0
47.5
46.1
43.5
42.0
39.4
38.0
50.7
47.0
45.6
44.2
41.7
40.2
37.6
36.3
409
APPENDIX R- DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTING SYSTEMS
APPENDIX R- DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTING SYSTEMS
Building
ID.
Office
Setup
Table R1. Descriptions of Ten Office Buildings and Lighting Systems
Ambient Lighting
Task Lighting
System
Type
Mounting
Height (m)
Light Source
System Type
Light Source
LEED
Certified
1
Cubicles
Direct
2.63 and
3.04
T8, 4ft, 32w,
3375K, CRI75
Furniture
integrated
T8, 17~32w,
3184K, CRI81
No
2
Cubicles
Direct
3.06
T8, 4ft, 32w,
3210K, CRI75
Furniture
integrated
T8 and T12,
17~32w,
3148K, CRI85
No
3
Cubicles
Direct
2.55
T8, 4ft, 32w,
3207K, CRI76
Furniture
integrated
T8, 17~25w,
3288K, CRI82
No
4
Cubicles
Direct
2.73
T8, 4ft, 32w,
3195K, CRI83
Furniture
integrated
No
5
Cubicles
Direct
3.00
T8, 4ft, 32w,
3639K, CRI83
Furniture
integrated
T8 and CFL,
32w, 3166K,
CRI83
T8, 25w,
2718K, CRI84
6
Cubicles
Direct/
indirect
2.70
T8, 4ft, 32w,
3751K, CRI86
Furniture
integrated
T12, 16w,
4153K, CRI67
Gold
7
Cubicles
Direct
2.64
T8, 4ft 32w,
3840K, CRI85
Furniture
integrated
T8, 32w,
3655K, CRI82
No
8
Cubicles
and open
office
Direct/
indirect
2.44
T8, 4ft, 32 w,
3175K, CRI85
No task units for
open office setup
and furniture
integrated units for
cubicles
T8, 32w,
3913K, CRI63
Silver
9
Open
office
Direct/
indirect
2.54
T8, 4f, 32w,
3834K, CRI85
Furniture mounted,
height and position
adjustable units
CFL, 13w,
4113K, CRI79
Platinum
10
Open
office
Direct/
indirect
2.88
T8, 4f, 32w,
3303K, CRI82
No task lighting
No task lighting
Certified
410
NCEMBT-080201
No
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
(a)
Uniformity of illuminance at work surface
(percentage decimal)
1200
1000
Illuminance at worksurface
(Lux)
(b)
800
600
400
200
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Buildings NO.
(c)
(d)
900
800
500
Illuminance at VDT source
documents (Lux)
Illuminance at the center of VDT screens
(Lux)
600
400
300
200
100
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Buildings NO.
Buildings NO.
(e)
(f)
900
700
800
600
700
Illuminance at floor
(Lux)
Illuminance at VDT keyboard
(Lux)
10
Buildings NO.
600
500
400
300
200
500
400
300
200
100
100
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Buildings NO.
7
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Buildings NO.
Figure S1. Illuminance-related measurements. a). Illuminance at work surface. b). Uniformity of illuminance at work surface. c)
Illuminance at the center of VDTs. d) Illuminance at VDT source documents. e) Illuminance at VDT keyboard. f) Illuminance at
floor.
NCEMBT-080201
411
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
700
Luminance at brightest ceilings
in field of view (cd/m 2 )
800
140
Luminance at ceilings between luminaires
(cd/m 2 )
160
120
100
80
60
40
20
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
Buildings NO.
5
6
7
8
9 10
7
8
9
7
8
9 10
25
6000
20
5000
Lu mina nce at floor
2
(cd/m )
Luminance at brightest light sources
in field of view (cd/m 2 )
7000
4000
3000
2000
15
10
5
1000
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
0
1
2
3
Buildings NO.
4
5
6
10
Buildings NO.
140
Luminance at dark est partitions or
walls in field of view (cd/m 2 )
50
120
Lu mina nce at partitio n s
2
or wa lls (cd/m )
4
Buildings NO.
100
80
60
40
20
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Buildings NO.
7
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Buildings NO.
Figure S2. Luminance-related measurements. a) Luminance at ceiling between luminaires; b) Luminance at brightest ceilings in
field of view; c) Luminance at brightest light sources in field of view;
d) Luminance at floor; e) Luminance at partitions or walls; and
f) Luminance at darkest partitions or walls in field of view.
412
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
(a)
(b)
9000
8000
2000
Luminance at brightest sky
from windows (cd/m2)
Luminance at nearby buildings
from windows (cd/m2)
2500
1500
1000
500
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
9 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
Buildings NO.
Buildings NO.
Figure S3. Luminance from windows. a) Luminance at nearby buildings from widows; and
b). Luminance at brightest sky from windows.
(a)
(b)
4300
90
CCT of the lighting measured
at work surface (K)
CRI of the lighting measured
at work surface (K)
4100
85
80
75
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Buildings NO.
7
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Buildings NO.
Figure S4. Color properties. a) CRI of the lighting measured at work surface; and
b) CCT of the lighting measured at work surface.
NCEMBT-080201
413
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
60
50
45
(a)
(b)
50
35
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
40
30
25
20
15
10
40
30
20
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
1
5
2
3
4
5
Brightness of the lighting
Validon computer screens
Brightness of the lighting
Valid on work surfaces
Figure S5. The perception questionnaire results regarding two brightness questions: (a) “The lighting on the desk or surface of my
work station where I do most of my work is”; and (b) “The lighting on my computer screen is.” The answers 1 to 5 represent very
bright, somewhat or slightly bright, neither bright nor dim, somewhat bright or slightly dim and very dim or dark.
50
45
Percentage (%)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Lighting distribution
Validon work surfaces
Figure S6. The perception questionnaire results regarding lighting distribution question, “The distribution of lighting across the
surface of the area(s) where I read at my desk or workstation is,” The answers 1 to 5 represent very uniform, somewhat uniform,
neither uniform nor uneven, somewhat uneven, very uneven.
414
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
45
40
35
40
(a)
Percentage (%)
30
Percentage (%)
(b)
35
25
20
15
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
1
5
2
3
4
5
255
Noticeable source
of glare at desks
Valid
GlareValid
at desks
Figure S7. The perception questionnaire results regarding two direct glare questions: (a)“There is glare at my desk or workstation
= Never (1), Occasionally (2), Some of the time (3), Most of the time (4), All of the time (5)”; (b)“The most noticeable source of
glare at my desk or workstation comes from: Sunlight or daylight from windows(1), Task light(s) on my desk or from adjacent
areas (2), Ceiling lights (3), Ceilings (4), Some other source(5), Don’t have much glare(255).
45
45
40
(a)
35
35
30
30
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
40
25
20
15
(b)
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
Reflected glareValid
at comuter screens
5
1
2
3
4
5
255
Noticeable source
of reflected glare
Valid
Figure S8. The perception questionnaire results regarding two reflected glare questions: (a).“There is reflected glare on my
computer screen: Never (1), Occasionally (2), Some of the time (3), Most of the time (4), All of the time (5)”; (b)“The most
noticeable source of reflected glare on my computer screen comes from: Sunlight or daylight from windows (1), Task light(s) on
my desk or from adjacent areas (2), Ceiling lights (3), Ceilings (4), Some other source (5), Don’t have much glare(255).”
NCEMBT-080201
415
APPENDIX S- LIGHTING RESULTS
45
40
35
40
(a)
Percentage(%)
Percentage(%)
(b)
35
30
25
20
15
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
1
5
2
3
4
5
Satisfaction toward
lighting (repetition)
Valid
SatisfactionValid
toward lighting
Figure S9. The perception questionnaire results regarding two satisfaction questions: (a)“in the past 4 weeks, I would rate my
satisfaction with the lighting in my work area,” and (b)“over the past 4 weeks, I have been satisfied with the lighting in my office.”
The answers 1 to 5 represent very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied and
strongly dissatisfied.
45
60
(b)
35
40
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
40
(a)
50
30
20
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
Importance of lighting
Valid to productivity
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
255
Lighting factors adversely
Valid affect productivity
Figure S10. Four perception questionnaire results related to productivity. (a) ”The quality of lighting in my work area is important
to my ability to be productive. Strongly agree (1), Somewhat agree (2), Neither agree nor disagree (3), Somewhat disagree (4),
Strongly disagree (5).” ; (b) ”The lighting factor in my work area that most adversely affects my productivity is: The lighting is too
bright or too dim (1), There is too much glare (2), The lights flicker (3), Irregular lighting patterns on walls (4), ceiling, and/or
furniture or partitions (5), Colors are distorted (6). Did not answer the question (255)”; (c). “When there is too much glare on my
desk surface or workstation, and/or on my computer screen, my productivity is adversely affected. Never (1), Occasionally (2),
Some of the time (3), Most of the time (4), All of the time (5)”; (d) “When the lighting in my work area, on my desk surface or
workstation, and/or on my computer screen is deficient or unacceptable during my work day, my productivity is adversely
affected: Never (1), Occasionally (2), Some of the time (3), Most of the time (4), All of the time (5).”
416
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Table T1. Characteristics of Buildings 1-5.
2
3
Building ID
1
4
5
DOE Climate Zone
5a
5a
5a
3c
3c
Total count of occupants
65
Number of floors
1
400
600
50
300
1
2
1
2
Constructed after 1990
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Construction Year
1988
1988
1987
2001
unknown
Oriented on a north/south axis
No
No
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: North
No
Yes
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: Northeast
No
No
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: East
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Major glass areas face: Southeast
No
No
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: South
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Major glass areas face: Southwest
No
No
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: West
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Major glass areas face: Northwest
No
No
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: Equally
Distributed
No
No
No
No
No
Window area ft2: North
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Window area ft2: South
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Window area ft2: East
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Window area ft2: West
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Construction Type
Insulated
masonry-type
panels
Insulated
masonry-type
panels
Insulated
masonry-type
panels
NIA
Heavy masonry
material
Flat roof
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA/Unk
Yes
Light colored roof coating
Yes
NIA
Yes
No
Yes
Total roof area
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Roof R-value vs. bldg code
Met
Met
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Roof R-value
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
E type insul glass
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Window solar penetration
reduction
Tinting
Tinting
Tinting
None
Tinting
Perimeter walls R-value vs. bldg
code
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Unknown
Unknown
Perimeter walls R-value
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Control system type
DDC
DDC
DDC
Unnown
Pneumatic
HVAC uses advanced EMCS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NCEMBT-080201
417
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
EMCS set-back type
Unknown
Turn off
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
EMCS ctl on/off equip on 24/7
schedule
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
EMCS used for electrical demand
limiting
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Has programmable ES thermostats
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
Type of thermostats
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Thermostats are tamperproof
No
No
No
Unknown
Unknown
[Typical] Type of work spaces
Other
Other
Other
Unknown
Multipurpose
Majority size of offices
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
[Typical] Individual cube/office
space/person
> 100 ft2
> 100 ft2
> 100 ft2
Unknown
50-100 ft2
Typical workspace shape
Rectangular
Rectangular
Rectangular
Unknown
Square
Type of walls
Permanent
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Partition/
Partial
Typical floor material
Carpet/Perm
Carpet/Perm
Carpet/Perm
Unknown
Carpet/Perm
[Typical] Ceiling heights
Less than 10 ft
Less than 10 ft
Less than 10 ft
Less than 10 ft
Less than 10 ft
Types of ceiling surfaces:
Cement/structural
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Types of ceiling surfaces: Acoustic
tile/hung
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Types of ceiling surfaces:
Drywall/sheetrock
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Types of ceiling surfaces: Hard
surface/cathedral
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources: Air
handlers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources:
Motor/engines
No
No
No
Unknown
Yes
Fixed outdoor sound sources: Wind
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources:
Construction
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources:
Other
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Transportation sound sources:
Highways
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Transportation sound sources:
Railways
No
No
No
No
No
Transportation sound sources:
Airplanes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Transportation sound sources:
Other
No
No
No
No
No
418
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Pumps/motors on floor
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Activity above
No
No
No
Unknown
Yes
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Conversation in adjacent
rooms
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Plumbing/air handlers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Other
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Copiers/fax
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Computers
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Conversations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Air conditioners
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Inside sound sources not in work
area: Speech masking systems
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Work areas have background
music
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Self cont roof top/mechanical
equipment room units exist
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Air handling system
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
N/A
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Air distribution system
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Supply register type
Other
Other
Other
Unknown
Ceiling Diff
Return air type
Plenum
Plenum
Plenum
Ducted
Plenum
HVAC system type
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Energy perf of chiller in kW/Ton
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Has thermal storage system
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Has self cont water src pumps in
rooms
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Uses economizer cycle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Filter replaced per maint schedule
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Heating source
Furnace with
std efficiency
Furnace with hi
efficiency
Furnace with
std efficiency
Unknown
Boiler with std
efficiency
Light fixture type
Diffusers
Diffusers
Diffusers
Unknown
Parabolic
Lighting type [delivery]
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Task lighting used
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gen purpose lighting type
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
NCEMBT-080201
419
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Lighting installed load w/ft2
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Lighting system voltage: 277 volts
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lighting system voltage: 208 volts
No
No
No
No
No
Lighting system voltage: 120 volts
No
No
No
No
No
Lighting control methods: Manual
switching
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lighting control methods: Timing
Device
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lighting control methods:
Occupancy sensors
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Lighting control methods:
Photosensors
No
No
No
No
No
Lamp replacement
On Burnout
On Burnout
On Burnout
On Burnout
On Burnout
Group replacement interval (yrs
between replacement)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
420
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Table T2. Characteristics of Buildings 6-10.
7
8
Building ID
6
9
10
DOE Climate Zone
6a
6a
4b
4a
6b
Total count of occupants
240
400
75
170
150
Number of floors
4
5
2
2
3
Constructed after 1990
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Construction Year
2004
1997
2003
2004
2002
Oriented on a north/south axis
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Major glass areas face: North
No
No
No
No
Yes
Major glass areas face: Northeast
No
No
No
Yes
No
Major glass areas face: East
No
Yes
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: Southeast
No
No
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: South
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Major glass areas face: Southwest
No
No
Yes
No
No
Major glass areas face: West
No
Yes
No
No
No
Major glass areas face: Northwest
No
No
Yes
No
No
Major glass areas face: Equally
Yes
No
No
No
No
Window area ft2: North
1122
3463
2518
Unknown
4243
Window area ft2: South
1090
3463
2342
Unknown
2724
Window area ft2: East
398
6080
1420
Unknown
1260
Window area ft2: West
1500
7601
1694
Unknown
1204
Construction Type
Heavy masonry
material
Heavy masonry
material
Heavy masonry
material
Framed walls
with exterior
sheathing
Insulated
masonry-type
panels
Flat roof
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Light colored roof coating
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Total roof area
20398
30800
25620
124180
17334
Roof R-value vs. bldg code
Exceeded
Met
Exceeded
Exceeded
Met
Roof R-value
42
20
30
30
25
E type insulated glass
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Window solar penetration
reduction
Tinting
Shading
Tinting
Tinting
Tinting
Perimeter walls R-value vs. bldg
code
Exceeded
Met
Exceeded
Exceeded
Met
Perimeter walls R-value
32
10
19
20
21
HVAC uses advanced EMCS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Control system type
Unknown
DDC
DDC
DDC
DDC
EMCS set-back type
Setback
Setback
Turn off
Setback
N/A
EMCS control on/off equip on
24/7 schedule
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
NCEMBT-080201
421
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
EMCS used for electric demand
limiting
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Has programmable ES thermostats
N/A
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
Type of thermostats
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Thermostats are tamperproof
No
Unknown
Yes
No
N/A
[Typical] Type of work space
Open
Other
Open
Open
Open
Majority size of work space
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
[Typical] Individual cube/office
space/person
50-100 ft2
> 100 ft2
50-100 ft2
Unknown
50-100 ft2
Typical shape
Square
Square
Rectangular
Square
Rectangular
Type of walls
Partition
/Partial
Partition
/Partial
Partition
/Partial
Partition
/Partial
Partition
/Partial
[Typical floor material]
Carpet /Raised
Carpet/Perm
Carpet /Perm
Carpet /Raised
Carpet/Perm
[Typical] Ceiling heights
Less than 10 ft
Less than 10 ft
Less than 10 ft
10 ft or more
10 ft or more
Types of ceiling surfaces:
Cement/structural
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Types of ceiling surfaces: Acoustic
tile/hung
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Types of ceiling surfaces:
Drywall/sheetrock
No
No
No
No
No
Types of ceiling surfaces: Hard
surface/cathedral
No
No
No
No
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources: Air
handlers
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources:
Motor/engines
No
No
No
No
Yes
Fixed outdoor sound sources: Wind
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Fixed outdoor sound sources:
Construction
No
No
No
No
No
Fixed outdoor sound sources:
Other
Yes
No
No
No
No
Transportation sound sources:
Highways
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Transportation sound sources:
Railways
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Transportation sound sources:
Airplanes
No
No
No
No
No
Transportation sound sources:
Other
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Pumps/motors on floor
No
No
No
No
Yes
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Activity above
No
No
No
No
Yes
422
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Conversation in adjacent
rooms
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Plumbing/air handlers
No
No
No
No
No
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Other
No
No
No
No
No
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Copiers/fax
No
No
No
No
Yes
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Computers
No
No
No
No
No
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Conversations
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Air conditioners
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Inside sound sources not in wk
area: Speech masking systems
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Work areas have background
music
No
No
No
No
No
Self cont roof top/mechanical
equipment room units exist
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Air handling system
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Constant Air
Volume (CAV)
Variable Air
Volume (VAV)
Air distribution system
Under Floor Air
Dist (UFAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Under Floor Air
Dist (UFAD)
Ceiling Air Dist
(CAD)
Supply register type
Other
Ceiling Diff
Ceiling Diff
Other
Other
Return air type
Plenum
Plenum
Plenum
Unknown
Unknown
HVAC system type
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Chilled-water
Chilled-water
Chilled-water
Packaged rooftype unit(s)
Energy perf of chiller in kW/Ton
Unknown
0.7-0.6
Unknown
0.8-0.7
Unknown
Has thermal storage system
No
No
No
No
No
Has self cont water src pumps in
rooms
No
No
No
No
No
Uses economizer cycle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Filter replacement per maint
schedule
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Heating source
Unknown
Unknown
Furnace with hi
efficiency
Boiler with hi
efficiency
Boiler with hi
efficiency
Light fixture type
Diffusers
Unknown
Unknown
Diffusers
Unknown
Lighting type [delivery]
Direct/Indirect
Direct
Direct/Indirect
Indirect
Direct/Indirect
Task lighting used
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Gen purpose lighting type
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Lighting installed load w/ft2
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Lighting system voltage: 277 volts
Yes
Yes
Unknown
No
Yes
NCEMBT-080201
423
APPENDIX T: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Lighting system voltage: 208 volts
No
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Lighting system voltage: 120 volts
No
No
Unknown
No
No
Lighting control methods: Manual
switching
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Lighting control methods: Timing
Device
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Lighting control methods:
Occupancy sensors
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lighting control methods:
Photosensors
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Lamp replacement
On Burnout
On Burnout
On Burnout
On Group
Replace
On Group
Replace
Group replacement interval (yrs
between replacement)
0
0
0
0
3
424
NCEMBT-080201
APPENDIX U: OCCUPANT PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE.
This table list all the questions which were included in the computerized version. A number of questions
are interdependent, i.e., a particular answer will trigger one or more additional questions. These
interdependencies are not presented in this table.
Question
Response Choices
Work Environment
Over the past 4 weeks, the
environment in my work area has
been acceptable
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Over the past 4 weeks, I have noticed
significant differences in the
environment in my work area
between mornings and afternoons
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
I perceive that my co-workers find the
environment in their work area to be
acceptable to them
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Compared with 6 months ago, the
overall environment in my work area
is
Much better
Somewhat better
No different
Somewhat
worse
Much worse
On average, over the past 4 weeks, I
would rate the temperature in my
work area as acceptable
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
In general, I'm most comfortable
when the temperature in my work
area is
Very cool
Somewhat or
slightly cool
Neither too cool
nor too warm
Somewhat or
slightly warm
Very warm
Throughout the course of an entire
work day, the temperature in my work
area fluctuates (I.e., goes from warm
to cool, and/or cool to warm)
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Throughout the mornings, the
temperature in my work area is
usually
Very cool
Somewhat cool
Neither too cool
nor too warm
Somewhat
warm
Very warm
Throughout the afternoons the
temperature in my work area is
usually
Very cool
Somewhat cool
Neither too cool
nor too warm
Somewhat
warm
Very warm
The temperature in my work area is
too cool for at least some part of the
work day
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I adjust the
thermostat
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I use a personal
space heater
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
Temperature
NCEMBT-080201
425
Question
Response Choices
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I wear warmer
clothing and/or put on a
sweater/jacket
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I report it to
management or facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I temporarily leave
my work area to go to a warmer area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I open or close a
door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too cool I block or unblock air
supply registers close to my work
area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area feels too cool, I feel it most in
my
Head/face
Feet
Hands
Chest/back
All over my
body
When the temperature in my work
area feels too cool, my productivity is
adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The temperature in my work area is
too warm during my work day for at
least some part of the work day
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too warm I adjust the
thermostat
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too warm I use a personal fan
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too warm, I wear lighter
clothing or remove clothing
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too warm, I open or close a
door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too warm, I report it to
management or facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area is too warm, I leave my work
area to go to a more comfortable
area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the temperature in my work
area feels too warm, I feel it most in
my
Head/face
Feet
Hands
Chest/back
All over my
body
When the temperature in my work
area feels too warm, my productivity
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
426
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
is adversely affected
Humidity
On average, over the past 4 weeks, I
would rate the humidity/dryness of
the air in my work area as acceptable
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
In general, I'm most comfortable
when the air in my work area is
Very humid
Somewhat or
slightly humid
Neither too
humid nor too
dry
Somewhat or
slightly dry
Very dry
Throughout the course of an entire
work day, the air in my work area
fluctuates between humid and dry
(i.e., goes from humid to dry, and/or
from dry to humid)
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Throughout the mornings, the air in
my work area is usually
Very humid
Somewhat or
slightly humid
Neither too
humid nor too
dry
Somewhat or
slightly dry
Very dry
Throughout the afternoons the air in
my work area is usually
Very humid
Somewhat or
slightly humid
Neither too
humid nor too
dry
Somewhat or
slightly dry
Very dry
The air in my work area is too dry
during my work day for at least some
part of the work day
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry during my work day, I use a
personal humidifier
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry I adjust the thermostat
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry, I use a moisturizer cream or
lotion on my skin
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry, I put lubricant drops in my eyes
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry, I report it to management or
facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry, I open or close a door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
dry, I temporarily leave my work area
to go to a more comfortable area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area feels
too dry my productivity is adversely
affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The air in my work area is too humid
during my work day for at least some
part of the work day
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
Occasionally
Never
NCEMBT-080201
427
Question
Response Choices
humid, I adjust the thermostat
time
When the air in my work area is too
humid, I use a personal fan
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
humid, I put on lighter clothing or
remove clothing
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
humid, I open or close a door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
humid, I report it to management or
facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
humid, I temporarily leave my work
area to go to a more comfortable
area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the air in my work area is too
humid I report it to management or
facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When my work area feels too humid,
my productivity is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
On average, over the past 4 weeks, I
would rate the air in my work area as
acceptable in terms of feeling a draft
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
In general, I'm most comfortable
when the air in my work area is
Very drafty
Somewhat or
slightly drafty
Neither too
drafty nor too
stagnant
Somewhat or
slightly
stagnant
Very stagnant
Throughout the course of an entire
work day, the air in my work area
fluctuates from drafty to not drafty
and vice versa
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Throughout the mornings, the air in
my work area is usually
Very drafty
Somewhat or
slightly drafty
Neither too
drafty nor too
stagnant
Somewhat or
slightly
stagnant
Very stagnant
Throughout the afternoons the air in
my work area is usually
Very drafty
Somewhat or
slightly drafty
Neither too
drafty nor too
stagnant
Somewhat
stagnant
Very stagnant
The air in my work area is too drafty
during my work day for at least some
part of the work day
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When I feel a draft in my work area
during my work day, I block the
diffuser
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When I feel a draft in my work area
during my work day, I open/close a
door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
Draft
428
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
When I feel a draft in my work area
during my work day, I report it to
management or facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I feel a draft in my work area
during my work day, I temporarily
leave my work area to go to a more
comfortable area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I feel a draft in my work area
during my work day, my productivity
is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
On average, over the past 4 weeks,
the air in my work area as acceptable
in terms of being stuffy or stagnant
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
In general, I'm most comfortable
when the air in my work area is
Very fresh
Somewhat or
slightly fresh
Neither too
fresh nor too
stuffy
Somewhat or
slightly stuffy
Very stuffy
Throughout the course of an entire
work day, the air in my work area
fluctuates between being fresh and
being stuffy
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
The air in my work area is too stuffy
during my work day for at least some
part of the work day
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When I feel the air in my work area is
stuffy during my work day, I adjust
the thermostat
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When I feel the air in my work area is
stuffy during my work day, I use a
personal fan
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I feel the air in my work area is
stuffy during my work day, I
open/close a door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I feel the air in my work area is
stuffy during my work day, I report it
to management or facilities
personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I feel the air in my work area is
stuffy during my work day, I
temporarily leave my work area to go
to a more comfortable area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I feel the air in my work area is
stuffy during my work day, my
productivity is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
Stagnant / Stuffy
Odor
NCEMBT-080201
429
Question
Response Choices
On average, over the past 4 weeks,
the air in my work area as acceptable
in terms of unpleasant odors
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The odor that is most noticeable to
me in my work area smells like
Cleaning
chemicals
Musty/moldy
Perfume or
cologne
Body odor
(human)
Sewage or
garbage
I smell this most noticeable odor in
my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
or
intermittently
Never
This most noticeable odor in my work
area is present
Only in my
work area
In my work area
and in some
nearby work areas
or offices
In my work area
and in
scattered other
locations
elsewhere in
the building
In my work
area and
throughout
my entire
floor or office,
but not
elsewhere in
the building
In my work area
and throughout
the entire
building
This most noticeable odor tends to
occur during
Mornings
Afternoons
Mornings and
Afternoons
Unpredictably
during the
work day
Not applicable
When I smell this most noticeable
odor during my work day, I spray the
air in my work area with an air
freshener or similar odor-masking
product
Every work
day
Most work days
Some work
days
Occasionally
Never
When I smell this most noticeable
odor during my work day, I use a
personal fan
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I smell this most noticeable
odor during my work day, I
open/close a door
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I smell this most noticeable
odor during my work day, I report it to
management or facilities personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I smell this most noticeable
odor during my work day, I
temporarily leave my work area to go
to a more comfortable area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When I smell this most noticeable
odor during my work day, my
productivity is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
430
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
Lighting
On average, over the past 4 weeks, I
would rate my satisfaction with the
lighting in my work as
Very satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
The quality of lighting in my work area
is important to my ability to be
productive
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
If I had the ability the adjust the
lighting in my work area, I would do
so
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
In general, I'm most comfortable
when the lighting in my work area is
Very bright
Somewhat or
slightly bright
Neither too
bright nor too
dim
Somewhat or
slightly dim
Very dim or
dark
Throughout the course of an entire
work day, the brightness of the
lighting in my work area fluctuates
(I.e., goes from bright to dim, and/or
dim to bright)
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Throughout the mornings, the lighting
in my work area is usually
Very bright
Somewhat or
slightly bright
Neither too
bright nor too
dim
Somewhat or
slightly dim
Very dim or
dark
Throughout the afternoons the
lighting in my work area is usually
Very bright
Somewhat or
slightly bright
Neither too
bright nor too
dim
Somewhat or
slightly dim
Very dim or
dark
In general, the lighting on my desk
surface or work station where I do
most of my work is
Very bright
Somewhat or
slightly bright
Neither too
bright nor too
dim
Somewhat or
slightly dim
Very dim or
dark
In general, the lighting on my
computer screen is
Very bright
Somewhat or
slightly bright
Neither too
bright nor too
dim
Somewhat or
slightly dim
Very dim or
dark
The distribution of lighting across the
surface of the area(s) where I read at
my desk or work station is
Very uniform
(even)
Somewhat
uniform (even)
Neither uniform
nor uneven
Somewhat
uneven
Very uneven
The distribution of lighting across the
surface of my computer screen is
Very uniform
(even)
Somewhat
uniform (even)
Neither uniform
nor uneven
Somewhat
uneven
Very uneven
I prefer to have natural light from
outdoors come into my office or work
area
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
There is glare (harsh uncomfortably
bright light) at my desk or work
station
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The most noticeable source of glare
at my desk or work station comes
from
Sunlight or
daylight from
windows
Task light(s) on
my desk or from
adjacent areas
Ceiling lights
Ceilings
NA
NCEMBT-080201
431
Question
Response Choices
There is reflected glare
(uncomfortably bright reflection from
one or more light sources) on my
computer screen
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The most noticeable source of
reflected glare on my computer
screen comes from
Sunlight from
windows
Task light(s) on
my desk or from
adjacent areas
Ceiling lights
Ceilings
NA
When there is too much glare on my
desk surface or work station, and/or
on my computer screen, my
productivity is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The amount of daylight or sunlight
that enters my work area is
Excessive
More than
sufficient
Neither
excessive nor
insufficient
Somewhat or
slightly
insufficient
Very
insufficient
When the amount of natural sunlight
or daylight that enters my office or
work area is excessive, I close the
drapes or close the blinds to those
windows
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the amount of natural sunlight
or daylight that enters my office or
work area is insufficient, I open the
drapes or open the blinds to those
windows
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
There is flickering of the lights in my
work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The lights in my work area make a
humming or buzzing sound
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
There are distracting, irregular
lighting patterns on the walls, ceiling,
and/or furniture in my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The color of people’s faces and
objects in my work area appears
natural
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
The color of the lighting in my office
or work area is
Too cool (has
a blue hue)
Somewhat cool
Neither too cool
nor too warm
Somewhat
warm (has a
yellow hue)
Too warm
Shadows are created in my work area
because the light source is blocked
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
The lighting factor in my work area
that most adversely affects my
productivity is
The lighting is
too bright or
too dim
There is too much
glare
The lights
flicker
Irregular
lighting
patterns on
walls, ceiling,
and/or
furniture or
partitions
Colors are
distorted
432
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
When the lighting in my work area is
deficient or unacceptable, I adjust
the lighting for the entire work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the lighting in my work area is
deficient or unacceptable, I adjust
the window blinds or shades
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the lighting in my work area is
deficient or unacceptable, I use a
desk lamp to augment or improve the
lighting on my desk or work station
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the lighting in my work area is
deficient or unacceptable, I report it
to management or facilities
personnel
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the lighting in my work area is
deficient or unacceptable, I
temporarily leave my work area to go
to a more comfortable area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the lighting in my work area is
deficient or unacceptable, I complain
about it to co-workers but don't do
anything
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
When the lighting in my work area, on
my desk surface or work station,
and/or on my computer screen is
deficient or unacceptable during my
work day, my productivity is adversely
affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
On average, over the past 4 weeks, I
would rate the sound or noise
environment in my work area as
acceptable
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Occasionally
Never
In general, I'm most comfortable
when the sound or noise in my work
area is
Very quiet
Somewhat or
slightly quiet
Neither too
quiet nor too
noisy loud
Somewhat or
slightly noisy
loud
Very noisy loud
Throughout the course of an entire
work day, the sound or noise in my
work area fluctuates (I.e., goes from
loud to quiet, and/or quiet to loud)
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
I hear sound(s) from outside the
building (airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment,
sirens, etc..) in my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from outside
the building (airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment,
sirens, etc..)in my work area, I am
annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
Sound
NCEMBT-080201
433
Question
Response Choices
When I hear sound(s) from outside
the building (airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment,
sirens, etc..) in my work area, my
productivity is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from outside
the building (airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment,
sirens, etc..) in my work area, it
typically distracts me or adversely
affects my productivity within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from outside
the building (airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment,
sirens, etc..), it typically distracts me
or affects my productivity for as long
as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from outside
the building (airplanes, traffic, trains,
construction, mechanical equipment,
sirens, etc..), it annoy(s)/distract(s)
me and/or adversely affect(s) my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
I hear sound(s) from
telephone/speakerphone
conversations that carry into my work
area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from
telephone/speakerphone
conversations that carry into my work
area, I am annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from
telephone/speakerphone
conversations that carry into my work
area, my productivity is adversely
affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from
telephone/speakerphone
conversations that carry into my work
area, it typically distracts me or
adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from
telephone/speakerphone
conversations that carry into my work
area, it typically distracts me or
affects my productivity for as long as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
434
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
When I hear sound(s) from
telephone/speakerphone
conversations that carry into my work
area, it annoys/distracts me and/or
adversely affects my productivity
because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
When I hear sound(s) from telephone
or speakerphone conversations that
carry into my work area, I do not have
enough privacy to have a
conversation with another person or
a private telephone conversation
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from telephone
or speakerphone conversations that
annoys/distracts me and/or affects
my work productivity, I ask the
person(s) who is/are making the
sound/noise to be quiet or move
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area, I am annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area, my productivity is
adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area, it typically distracts me or
adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area, it typically distracts me or
affects my productivity for as long as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area, it annoys/distracts me
and/or adversely affects my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
NCEMBT-080201
435
Question
Response Choices
When I hear sound(s) from person-toperson conversations in or near my
work area, I do not have enough
privacy to have a conversation with
another person or a private
telephone conversation
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) or noise
created by person-to-person
conversations that annoys/distracts
me and/or affects my work
productivity, I ask the person(s) who
is/are making the sound/noise to be
quiet or move
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
I hear sound(s) from piped-in music
or masking sound in or near my work
area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from piped-in
music or masking sound in or near
my work area, I am
annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from piped-in
music or masking sound in or near
my work area, my productivity is
adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from piped-in
music or masking sound in or near
my work area, it typically distracts me
or adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from piped-in
music or masking sound in or near
my work area, it typically distracts me
or affects my productivity for as long
as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from piped-in
music or masking sound in or near
my work area, it annoys/distracts me
and/or adversely affects my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
I hear sound(s) from paging or
announcement system in or near my
work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from paging or
announcement system in or near my
work area, I am annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from paging or
announcement system in or near my
work area, my productivity is
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
436
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
adversely affected
When I hear sound(s) from paging or
announcement system in or near my
work area, it typically distracts me or
adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from paging or
announcement system in or near my
work area, it typically distracts me or
affects my productivity for as long as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from paging or
announcement system in or near my
work area, it annoys/distracts me
and/or adversely affects my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
I hear sound(s) from nearby office
equipment (copy machine, printer,
fax) in my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from nearby
office equipment (copy machine,
printer, fax) in my work area, I am
annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from nearby
office equipment (copy machine,
printer, fax) in my work area, my
productivity is adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from nearby
office equipment (copy machine,
printer, fax) in my work area, it
typically distracts me or adversely
affects my productivity within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from nearby
office equipment (copy machine,
printer, fax) in my work area, it
typically distracts me or affects my
productivity for as long as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from nearby
office equipment (copy machine,
printer, fax) in my work area, it
annoys/distracts me and/or
adversely affects my productivity
because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
NCEMBT-080201
437
Question
Response Choices
I hear sound(s) from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps) in
my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps) in
my work area, I am
annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps) in
my work area, my productivity is
adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps) in
my work area, it typically distracts me
or adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps) in
my work area, it typically distracts me
or affects my productivity for as long
as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps) in
my work area, it annoys/distracts me
and/or adversely affects my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
When I hear sounds from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps), it
seems to come mainly from
Nearby wall(s)
The ceiling
The floor
Through the
window
Through a
doorway
When I hear sounds from building
mechanical equipment (airconditioning compressors, pumps),
the predominant distinguishing
characteristic that I notice is a
Rumbling
sound
Roaring sound
Hum or whistle
Hiss
Noticeable
rattles
I hear sound(s) from Air-supply or
return-air diffusers (located on
ceiling, wall, and/or floor ) in my
work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from Air-supply
or return-air diffusers (located on
ceiling, wall, and/or floor ) in my
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
438
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
work area, I am annoyed/distracted
When I hear sound(s) from air-supply
or return-air diffusers (located on
ceiling, wall, and/or floor )in my
work area, my productivity is
adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from air-supply
or return-air diffusers (located on
ceiling, wall, and/or floor ) in my
work area, it typically distracts me or
adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from air-supply
or return-air diffusers (located on
ceiling, wall, and/or floor ) in my
work area, it typically distracts me or
affects my productivity for as long as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) from air-supply
or return-air diffusers (located on
ceiling, wall, and/or floor )) in my
work area, it annoys/distracts me
and/or adversely affects my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
When I hear sound coming from airsupply and/or return air diffusers, it
seems to come mainly from
Nearby wall(s)
Ceiling
Floor
Can't tell
Not applicable
When I hear sound coming from airsupply and/or return air diffusers,
the predominant distinguishing
characteristic that I notice is a
Rumbling
sound
Roaring sound
Hum or whistle
Hiss
Noticeable
rattles
When I hear sound coming from airsupply and/or return air diffusers,
some or all of it sounds like
mechanical equipment
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound coming from airsupply and/or return air diffusers,
some or all of it sounds like voices
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
I hear sound(s) from sounds or noises
created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds) in
my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from sounds or
noises created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds) in
my work area, I am
annoyed/distracted
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
NCEMBT-080201
439
Question
Response Choices
When I hear sound(s) from sounds or
noises created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds) in
my work area, my productivity is
adversely affected
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear sound(s) from sounds or
noises created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds) in
my work area, it typically distracts me
or adversely affects my productivity
within
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or
more
When I hear sound(s) sounds or
noises created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds) in
my work area, it typically distracts me
or affects my productivity for as long
as
A few seconds
About 30 seconds
About 2
minutes
About 15
minutes
About 30
minutes or mor
When I hear sound(s) from sounds or
noises created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds)in
my work area, it annoys/distracts me
and/or adversely affects my
productivity because
Sound is too
loud
Sound is
intermittent
and/or
unpredictable
Sound
continuously
fluctuates
(increases
and/or
decreases) in
loudness over
time
One tone
dominates
the sound
The sound or
conversation is
understandable
When I hear sound(s) or noise
created by building occupants
(music, cell phones, body sounds)
that annoys/distracts me and/or
affects my work productivity, I ask the
person(s) who is/are making the
sound/noise to be quiet or move
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
On average, over the past 4 weeks, I
would rate the privacy in my work
area as acceptable
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear any sound(s) in my work
area that annoy/distract me and/or
affect my work productivity, I do not
have enough privacy to have a
conversation with another person(s)
in my work area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I hear any sound(s) in my work
area that annoy/distract me and/or
affect my work productivity, I do not
have enough privacy to have a
telephone conversation in my work
area
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I do not have acceptable
privacy in my work area, I move to a
more private area to have private
conversations with others
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
440
NCEMBT-080201
Question
Response Choices
When I do not have acceptable
privacy in my work area, I move to a
more private area to have telephone
conversations
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I do not have acceptable
privacy in my work area, I postpone
private conversations with others to
times when people in or near my work
area are not present
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
When I do not have acceptable
privacy in my work area, I postpone
telephone conversations to times
when people in or near my work area
are not present
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the
time
Rarely
Never
NCEMBT-080201
441
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES
601 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET, SUITE 240
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
WWW.NCEMBT.ORG
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement