Indoor Air Quality and Health Outcomes in Employees Working from Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Indoor air quality (IAQ) has a substantial impact on public health. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, more employees have worked remotely from home to minimize in-person contacts. This pilot study aims to measure the difference in workplace IAQ before and during the pandemic and its impact on employees’ health. The levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and total volatile organic chemicals (tVOC) were measured in the employees’ offices before the COVID-19 pandemic and at homes while working from home during the pandemic using Foobot air monitors. The frequencies of six sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms were evaluated at each period of monitoring. The result showed PM2.5 levels in households while working from home were significantly higher than in offices while working at the office for all participants (p < 0.05). The PM2.5 levels in all households exceeded the health-based annual mean standard (12 µg/m3), whereas 90% of offices were in compliance. The tVOC levels were all below the standard (500 µg/m3). We also found a higher frequency of SBS symptoms were observed while working from home as the IAQ was worse at home. This study suggested that working from home might have a detrimental health impact due to poor IAQ and providing interventions to remote employees should be considered.

Insights on Air Pollution During COVID-19: A Review

“…Further, this study suggests that highly touched areas have a quite high number of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the least touched area. The indoor air quality severely degraded during the lockdown period resulting in negative health effects in South Texas during (May–July 2019) (Roh et al 2021 ). Further, this study suggests the office is more safer compared to home in South Texas, USA during the lockdown period on account of lower PM 2.5 and total volatile organic compounds (tVOCs).…”

Assessing the indoor air quality and their predictor variable in 21 home offices during the Covid-19 pandemic in Norway

“…Roth et al [ 17 ] showed that working from home may cause health effects due to poor home IAQ and a higher prevalence of reported Sick building syndrome (SBS). Yang et al studied 169 energy-efficient dwellings, reporting that 90% and 50% of dwellings exceeded the chronic exposure limits for formaldehyde and total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) [ 18 ].…”

Challenges and Actions of IAQ under COVID-19: A Survey of Taiwanese People’s Perception of Epidemic Prevention and Indoor Places Certification

“…Compared with other empirical studies on IAQ and COVID-19, the similarities between them are that they all explore ways of improving IAQ to reduce the spread of COVID-19 [ 13 , 14 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 ], however, the biggest difference is the design and choice of research methods. For example, most of the studies have used instrumental monitoring [ 13 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 ], and a few have used literature reviews [ 20 ] or participant observation [ 26 ].…”

“…Compared with other empirical studies on IAQ and COVID-19, the similarities between them are that they all explore ways of improving IAQ to reduce the spread of COVID-19 [ 13 , 14 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 ], however, the biggest difference is the design and choice of research methods. For example, most of the studies have used instrumental monitoring [ 13 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 ], and a few have used literature reviews [ 20 ] or participant observation [ 26 ]. Accordingly, this research has the following characteristics: first, this is a first-hand survey of Taiwanese people’s perceptions of epidemic prevention and IAQ, and it also explores the public’s acceptance of the “Clean and Safe” mark; second, the questionnaire design included the background information of the respondents, their opinions on epidemic prevention strategies and IAQ, and at the same time, it inquired about the possibility of establishing “Clean and Safe” marks, and through seven indoor places frequently visited by the public, the research compared their differences; finally, the survey also conducted an in-depth analysis based on the geographic location of the respondents to explore the impact of different actual living environments.…”