New building materials, air-tight designs and developers cutting corners pass off health woes to HR
The air in many offices is a harmful “stew” of mold, germs, bacteria, gases and chemicals that make employees sick and drags down productivity. It doesn’t have to be that way, say occupational health experts.
Sick building syndrome has been officially recognized as a medical condition for more than 20 years. But still millions of North American office workers suffer from it, costing by some counts billions of dollars a year in lost productivity.
Between 60 and 70 per cent of all workers now spend their day in offices, and many suffer from headaches, fatigue, eye, nose and throat irritation because modern air-tight buildings allow little or no fresh air to circulate. Worse, air condition and ventilation systems spread air loaded with germs and other irritants.
John Oudyk, an occupational hygienist with the Hamilton office of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc, estimates between 10 and 25 per cent of buildings have the symptoms of sick building syndrome. As much as 20 per cent more have — but have yet to identify — the problem.
The hazard is likely to get worse if nothing is done, he says. Energy conservation is becoming a priority in building management, which means buildings have to be air tight. “The more you cut back on outdoor air, the worse your air quality gets.”
An air-tight building doesn’t necessarily mean poor quality air, but it requires good ventilation systems and in many cases there is a reluctance to spend the necessary money to upgrade or improve the systems. “Very few ventilation systems are up to snuff,” he says.
“A lot of building took place about 30 years ago and a lot of those building now have HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) units that are about 20 or 30 years old and there is no capital to replace them,” says Oudyk. He adds that the typical life expectancy for an HVAC unit is about 15 to 20 years. “When you look into an old ventilation system, you see 15 to 20 years of accumulated dirt.”
Aside from poor ventilation, it’s believed employees developed building-related illnesses because of the introduction of new, sometimes harmful substances into the workplace.
“At about the same time we were tightening up our buildings, an amazing array of new building materials came unto the market,” says Karen Bartlett, a professor of occupational hygiene at the University of British Columbia.
Some of the new plastics and synthetic materials give off gaseous omissions and fumes that can be irritating for people in enclosed spaces. Everything from photocopiers to furniture, to paper, and even people themselves create these omissions.
“Chemicals that are going into the air aren’t being diluted so you are just sitting in this stew of things.”
It’s an important cause for the ambiguous flu-like symptoms which, she adds, are often worse for women. It is the body reacting to low, but chronic, exposure to “stuff” in the environment.
Over time the problem will only get worse. When people are first exposed to low-level irritants typical of a sick building, they can recover fairly quickly. A weekend is often enough time to cleanse the body of whatever was causing the symptoms, she says. “But the longer the exposure, the longer it takes for the body to recover from it.”
Like Oudyk, she suspects many sick building problems arise from a desire to cut costs. Developers aren’t interested in putting in high-quality ventilation systems or using low-omission materials if they are more expensive because as quickly as possible the building is handed over the building manager who then leases out to tenants.
“The economic reality is that buildings are being built without the best material or best equipment because they are being built cheaply,” she says.
“Even though we understand the concept of ventilation, many buildings are being put up with inadequate ventilation or with undersized or under-engineered ventilation systems.”
Recourse for employers
While good ventilation is vital, there are other opportunities for office managers to mitigate some of the causes of sick building syndrome, says Bartlett. Whenever possible, furniture made with particle board, excessive resins or formaldehyde should be avoided because they have a higher omission rate. New carpets are also a common problem and latex paints are better than oil-base, she says.
A regular inspection of ventilation system filters can help. It is easy for the filters to become biologically contaminated, she said. Simply allowing pigeons to roost near the air intake can cause big problems, she says.
There are, however, more sophisticated solutions to sick building syndrome available for those willing to make the investment. Canadian research released last fall shows ultraviolet light can be used to kill germs spread through ventilation systems, thereby reducing sick building syndrome.
The study of 771 Montreal office workers, led by Richard Menzies, a doctor with the Montreal Chest Institute, found work-related symptoms typical of sick building syndrome were reduced through ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) of drip pans and cooling coils which reduced microbial contamination.
“Installation of UVGI in most North American offices could resolve work-related symptoms in about four million employees caused by microbial contamination of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems,” states the article published in the medical journal The Lancet, last November.
The use of ultraviolet light reduced airborne bacteria by 25 to 30 per cent, which resulted in a 20-per-cent overall reduction in workplace-related symptoms, including a 40-per-cent reduction in respiratory symptoms.
Installation of a UVGI system for an 11,000 square-metre office with 1,000 workers would cost about $52,000 U.S. to install and about $14,000 per year for energy, maintenance and bulb replacement. It may seem like a significant investment, but Menzies has little doubt it would be worthwhile in any office suffering from sick building syndrome.
“For every worker, the estimated $52 for initial and $14 for yearly operating costs, compare favourably with the estimated yearly losses from absence caused by building-related sickness.”
Sick building syndrome has been officially recognized as a medical condition for more than 20 years. But still millions of North American office workers suffer from it, costing by some counts billions of dollars a year in lost productivity.
Between 60 and 70 per cent of all workers now spend their day in offices, and many suffer from headaches, fatigue, eye, nose and throat irritation because modern air-tight buildings allow little or no fresh air to circulate. Worse, air condition and ventilation systems spread air loaded with germs and other irritants.
John Oudyk, an occupational hygienist with the Hamilton office of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Inc, estimates between 10 and 25 per cent of buildings have the symptoms of sick building syndrome. As much as 20 per cent more have — but have yet to identify — the problem.
The hazard is likely to get worse if nothing is done, he says. Energy conservation is becoming a priority in building management, which means buildings have to be air tight. “The more you cut back on outdoor air, the worse your air quality gets.”
An air-tight building doesn’t necessarily mean poor quality air, but it requires good ventilation systems and in many cases there is a reluctance to spend the necessary money to upgrade or improve the systems. “Very few ventilation systems are up to snuff,” he says.
“A lot of building took place about 30 years ago and a lot of those building now have HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) units that are about 20 or 30 years old and there is no capital to replace them,” says Oudyk. He adds that the typical life expectancy for an HVAC unit is about 15 to 20 years. “When you look into an old ventilation system, you see 15 to 20 years of accumulated dirt.”
Aside from poor ventilation, it’s believed employees developed building-related illnesses because of the introduction of new, sometimes harmful substances into the workplace.
“At about the same time we were tightening up our buildings, an amazing array of new building materials came unto the market,” says Karen Bartlett, a professor of occupational hygiene at the University of British Columbia.
Some of the new plastics and synthetic materials give off gaseous omissions and fumes that can be irritating for people in enclosed spaces. Everything from photocopiers to furniture, to paper, and even people themselves create these omissions.
“Chemicals that are going into the air aren’t being diluted so you are just sitting in this stew of things.”
It’s an important cause for the ambiguous flu-like symptoms which, she adds, are often worse for women. It is the body reacting to low, but chronic, exposure to “stuff” in the environment.
Over time the problem will only get worse. When people are first exposed to low-level irritants typical of a sick building, they can recover fairly quickly. A weekend is often enough time to cleanse the body of whatever was causing the symptoms, she says. “But the longer the exposure, the longer it takes for the body to recover from it.”
Like Oudyk, she suspects many sick building problems arise from a desire to cut costs. Developers aren’t interested in putting in high-quality ventilation systems or using low-omission materials if they are more expensive because as quickly as possible the building is handed over the building manager who then leases out to tenants.
“The economic reality is that buildings are being built without the best material or best equipment because they are being built cheaply,” she says.
“Even though we understand the concept of ventilation, many buildings are being put up with inadequate ventilation or with undersized or under-engineered ventilation systems.”
Recourse for employers
While good ventilation is vital, there are other opportunities for office managers to mitigate some of the causes of sick building syndrome, says Bartlett. Whenever possible, furniture made with particle board, excessive resins or formaldehyde should be avoided because they have a higher omission rate. New carpets are also a common problem and latex paints are better than oil-base, she says.
A regular inspection of ventilation system filters can help. It is easy for the filters to become biologically contaminated, she said. Simply allowing pigeons to roost near the air intake can cause big problems, she says.
There are, however, more sophisticated solutions to sick building syndrome available for those willing to make the investment. Canadian research released last fall shows ultraviolet light can be used to kill germs spread through ventilation systems, thereby reducing sick building syndrome.
The study of 771 Montreal office workers, led by Richard Menzies, a doctor with the Montreal Chest Institute, found work-related symptoms typical of sick building syndrome were reduced through ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) of drip pans and cooling coils which reduced microbial contamination.
“Installation of UVGI in most North American offices could resolve work-related symptoms in about four million employees caused by microbial contamination of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems,” states the article published in the medical journal The Lancet, last November.
The use of ultraviolet light reduced airborne bacteria by 25 to 30 per cent, which resulted in a 20-per-cent overall reduction in workplace-related symptoms, including a 40-per-cent reduction in respiratory symptoms.
Installation of a UVGI system for an 11,000 square-metre office with 1,000 workers would cost about $52,000 U.S. to install and about $14,000 per year for energy, maintenance and bulb replacement. It may seem like a significant investment, but Menzies has little doubt it would be worthwhile in any office suffering from sick building syndrome.
“For every worker, the estimated $52 for initial and $14 for yearly operating costs, compare favourably with the estimated yearly losses from absence caused by building-related sickness.”
