Carbon dioxide (CO2) demand-controlled ventilation in university computer classrooms and possible effects on headache, fatigue and perceived indoor environment: an intervention study

Original Article



To study the effects of a CO2 demand-controlled ventilation system (variable flow) in computer classrooms on perceived air quality and sick building syndrome.


University students (27 % women) participated in a blinded study. Two classrooms had variable flow (mean 5.56 ac/h); two others had constant ventilation flow (mean 5.07 ac/h). After one week, ventilation conditions were shifted. The students reported symptoms/perceptions during the last hour on rating scales. Temperature, air humidity, CO2, PM10 and number concentration of particles were measured simultaneously. Cat (Fel d 1), dog (Can f 1), horse (Equ cx) and house dust mites (Der f 1 and Der p 1) allergens were measured in dust. Those participating twice in the same classroom (N = 61) were analysed longitudinally.


Mean CO2 was 784 ppm (9 % of time >1,000 ppm) with variable flow and 809 ppm with constant flow conditions (25 % of time >1,000 ppm). Mean temperature (22.6 °C), PM10 (18 μg/m3) and number concentration (1,860 pt/cm3) were unchanged. The median levels of cat, dog, horse and Der f 1 allergens were 10,400 ng/g, 4,900 ng/g, 13,700 U/ng and 260 ng/g dust, respectively. There were slightly less headache (p = 0.003), tiredness (p = 0.007) and improved perceived air quality (p = 0.02) with variable flow.


Use of a CO2-controlled ventilation system, reducing elevated levels of CO2, may slightly reduce headache and tiredness and improve perceived air quality. The high levels of pet allergens, due to track in of allergens from the home and possible accumulation due to electrostatic forces, illustrate a need for improved cleaning.


Furry pet allergens Indoor air quality Ventilation Room temperature Sick building syndrome (SBS) University students 


  1. Almqvist C, Wickman M, Perfetti L, Berglind N, Renström A, Hedren M, Larsson K, Hedlin G, Malmberg P (2001) Worsening of asthma in children allergic to cats, after indirect exposure to cat at school. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 163:694–698Google Scholar
  2. Bakke JV, Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Hollund BE, Florvaag E, Haugen EN, Moen BE (2008) Symptoms, complaints, ocular and nasal physiological signs in university staff in relation to indoor environment-temperature and gender interactions. Indoor Air 18:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bako-Biro Z, Wargocki P, Weschler CJ, Fanger PO (2004) Effects of pollution from personal computers on perceived air quality, SBS symptoms and productivity in offices. Indoor Air 14:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branis M, Rezacova P, Domasova M (2005) The effect of outdoor air and indoor human activity on mass concentrations of PM(10), PM(2.5) and PM(1) in a classroom. Environ Res 99:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daisey JM, Angell WJ, Apte MG (2003) Indoor air quality, ventilation and health symptoms in schools: an analysis of existing information. Indoor Air 13:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engvall K, Wickman P, Norbäck D (2005) Sick building syndrome and perceived indoor environment in relation to energy saving by reduced ventilation flow during heating season: a 1 year intervention study in dwellings. Indoor Air 15:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang L, Clausen G, Fanger PO (1999) Impact of temperature and humidity on chemical and sensory emissions from building materials. Indoor Air 9:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fang L, Wyon DP, Clausen G, Fanger PO (2004) Impact of indoor air temperature and humidity in an office on perceived air quality, SBS symptoms and performance. Indoor Air 14(Suppl 7):74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisk WJ, De Almeida AT (1998) Sensor-based demand-controlled ventilation: a review. Energy Build 29:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godish T, Spengler JD (1996) Relationships between ventilation and indoor air quality: a review. Indoor Air 6:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haghighat F, Donnini G (1992) IAQ and energy-management by demand controlled ventilation. Environ Technol 13:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim JL, Elfman L, Mi Y, Johansson M, Smedje G, Norbäck D (2005) Current asthma and respiratory symptoms among pupils in relation to dietary factors and allergens in the school environment. Indoor Air 15:170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levin J-O, Lindahl R, Andersson K (1988) High performance liquid chromatographic determination of formaldehyde in indoor air in the ppb to ppm range using diffusive sampling and hydrazone formation. Environ Technol Lett 9:1423–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindgren T, Norbäck D, Andersson K (2006) Perception of the cockpit environment among pilots on commercial aircraft. Aviat Space Environ Med 77:832–837Google Scholar
  15. Mendell MJ, Heath GA (2005) Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in school influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 15:27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mysen M, Rydock JP, Tjelflaat PO (2003) Demand controlled ventilation for office cubicles-can it be profitable? Energy Build 35:657–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mysen M, Berntsen S, Nafstad P, Schild PG (2005) Occupancy density and benefits of demand-controlled ventilation in Norwegian primary schools. Energy Build 37:1234–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and Health (2000) The design of the workplace AFS 2000; 42 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  19. Nielsen TR, Drivsholm C (2010) Energy efficient demand controlled ventilation in single family houses. Energy Build 42:1995–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norbäck D, Nordström K (2008a) Sick building syndrome in relation to air exchange rate, CO2, room temperature and relative air humidity in university computer classrooms-an experimental study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norbäck D, Nordström K (2008b) An experimental study on effects of increased ventilation flow on student’s perception of indoor environment in computer classrooms. Indoor Air 18:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norbäck D, Lindgren T, Wieslander G (2006) Changes of ocular and nasal signs and symptoms in air crew, related to air humidification on intercontinental flights. Scand J Work Environ Health 32:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordström K, Norbäck D, Akselsson R (1994) Effect of air humidification on the sick building syndrome and perceived indoor air quality in hospitals: a four months longitudinal study. Occup Environ Med 51:683–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmgren U, Ström G, Blomqvist G, Malmberg P (1986) Collection of airborne micro-organisms on Nucleopore filters, estimation and analysis-CAMNEA method. J Appl Bacteriol 61:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavlovas V (2004) Demand controlled ventilation. A case study for existing Swedish multifamily buildings. Energy Build 36:1029–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roth KW, Dieckmann J, Brodrick J (2003) Demand control ventilation. ASHRAE Journal, July 2003: 91–92Google Scholar
  27. Schell M, Inthout D (2001) Demand control ventilation using CO2. ASHRAE Journal, February 2001:1–6Google Scholar
  28. Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ (1999) Associations of ventilation rates and CO2 concentrations with health and other responses in commercial and institutional buildings. Indoor Air 9:226–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simoni M, Annesi-Maseano I, Sigsgaard T, Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Nystad W, Canciani M, Sestini P, Viegi G (2010) School air quality related to dry cough, rhinitis and nasal patency in children. Eur Respir J 35:742–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smedje G, Norbäck D (2000) New ventilation systems at selected schools in Sweden—effects on asthma and exposure. Arch Environ Health 55:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smedje G, Norbäck D (2001) Incidence of asthma diagnosis and self-reported allergy in relation to the school environment-a four-year follow-up study in schoolchildren. Int J Tubercl Lung Dis 5:1059–1066Google Scholar
  32. Stenberg B, Wall S (1995) Why do women report “sick building symptoms” more often than men? Soc Sci Med 40:491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sundell J, Levin H, Nazaroff WW, Cain WS, Fisk WJ, Grimsrud DT, Gyntelberg F, Li Y, Persily AK, Pickering AC, Samet JM, Spengler JD, Taylor ST, Weschler CJ (2011) Ventilation rates and health: multidisciplinary review of the scientific literature. Indoor Air 21:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wachenfeldt BJ, Mysen M, Schild PG (2007) Air flow rates and energy saving potential in schools with demand-controlled displacement ventilation. Energy Build 39:1073–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wargocki P, Sundell J, Bischof W, Brundrett G, Fanger PO, Gyntelberg F, Hanssen SO, Harrison P, Pickering A, Seppänen O, Wouters P (2002) Ventilation and health in non-industrial indoor environments: report from a European multidisciplinary scientific consensus meeting (EUROVENT). Indoor Air 12:113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World Health Organization (WHO) (2005) WHO air quality guidelines global update. WHO, Geneva (
  37. Zhao ZH, Elfman L, Wang ZH, Zhang Z, Norbäck D (2006) A comparative study of asthma, pollen cat and dog allergy among pupils and allergen levels in schools in Taiyuan city, China and Uppsala, Sweden. Indoor Air 16:404–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Science, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University HospitalUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Health, School of Public HealthFudan UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations