Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.38.0138 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 38:138–144, 2022 © 2022 The Author(s). Licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 licence Published by the Czech Technical University in Prague REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING METHODS TO ASSESS THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ) FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS Cláudia de Castro Jacinto, Adilson Campos de Paula Junior, Sandra Maria Gomes Monteiro Silva, Ricardo Filipe Mesquita Silva Mateus∗ University of Minho, Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), Department of Civil Engineering, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal ∗ corresponding author: ricardomateus@civil.uminho.pt Abstract. Population in developed countries spend most of their time indoors, whether in their homes, workplaces, stores or leisure areas. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this situation worsened and now, more than ever, the importance of a high Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is highlighted. The IEQ is very important in building performance since it is directly related to its occupants’ comfort, health, wellbeing, and productivity and the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) concept. Therefore, it is essential to develop tools to support designers’ decision-making in the materialization of indoor environments with higher quality. From the state-of-art analysis, it is possible to conclude that the methods to assess the overall building performance already consider the IEQ. Still, most use an approach that does not cover all relevant indicators. In this context, this paper presents the first milestone of a research work that aims to develop a new method to rate the overall IEQ of office buildings in Portugal. The main objective of the present study is to propose a list of IEQ indicators for office buildings, adapted to the Portuguese context, based on the analysis of existing rating methods for buildings and the recommendations of national and international standards. Keywords: Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) indicators, decision-support tools, office buildings. 1. Introduction Since the first civilizations, humanity has been con- cerned with building shelters and creating a safe inte- rior space to develop their activities, whether produc- tive or leisure, under protection from the weather [1, 2]. As knowledge about building environments, both indoors and outdoors, improved over time, other conditions were added to the basic building require- ments [2, 3]. Technological advances allowed the cre- ation of new materials and construction techniques. Until a few decades ago, both the design and construc- tion of buildings paid attention only to characteristics related to engineering, economy and aesthetics [3, 4]. The Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) only started to be considered after the appearance of pathological symptoms presented by occupants, associated with the construction [4]. Currently, one of the main objectives of buildings is to provide healthy and comfortable environments for human activities, providing shelter, light, space, and sufficient amenities to work, live, learn, heal, among others [5]. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, a study by Klepeis et al. [6] showed that people spend about 90 % of their time indoors, whether in their homes, workplaces, shopping, or leisure areas. Thus, it is clear the importance of a high IEQ since it is directly related to its occupants’ comfort, health, and productivity [7]. In the path of raising awareness about the ratio- nal use of energy, reducing consumption and avoiding waste, both the architectural pattern and the building materials were modified to improve thermal insula- tion [8]. This resulted in buildings with more efficient thermal insulation, without external openings that would allow natural ventilation, creating the so-called “airtight buildings” [8, 9]. The limitation of air exchange through ventilation had negative consequences, such as increased relative humidity and condensation phenomena [2]. Thus, in the eighties, the first cases of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) were reported, characterized by situations of work discomfort and/or acute health problems pre- sented by workers, which were possibly related to the permanence inside some buildings [7]. This syndrome is classified by the World Health Or- ganization (WHO) as a public health problem. In the USA alone, the annual cost attributed to it in commer- cial companies is estimated at between US$10 billion to US$70 billion [10]. In other words, in addition to the health problem, an economic problem is generated, as expenses on health and disability pensions increase and there is a loss in workers’ productivity and in the repairs needed to overcome the problems of the sick building [11]. Several studies [12–16] demonstrate that improving 138 https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.38.0138 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.cvut.cz/en vol. 38/2022 Review and analysis of existing methods to assess the IEQ . . . Methods Country Methods Country Methods Country Active House Belgium Fitwel USA LIDER A Portugal BEAM Plus Interiors China Green Globes SI USA NABERS IE Australia BREEAM United Kingdom Green Star - Interiors Australia SBTool PT Portugal CASBEE Japan HQE France WELL USA DGNB Germany LEED USA Table 1. Methods analysed and their origin. the IEQ results in increased team productivity and concentration, based on greater comfort, health, and wellbeing of workers. The Australian Property Council estimated that a 1 % improvement in productivity would be equivalent to the total energy cost of the entire building [15]. Moreover, the influence of a poor IEQ can generate employee health expenses twice as high as energy costs [16]. Recent data reveal that Portugal is the seventh country in the European Union with the lowest pro- ductivity per hour of work [17] and that the tertiary sector in the country is expanding, being responsible for employing 69.8 % of the active population in 2020 (in 2010, it was 61.5 % and in 2000, 52.6 %) [18]. Given this scenario, it is essential to invest in practices aimed at the IEQ in this sector to provide a good IEQ for employees to create competitive businesses. Several building evaluation methods adopt the qual- ity of the interior environment as one of their indica- tors. However, their analysis is often superficial and generic. Therefore, the main objective of this work involves raising and categorising the main factors that affect the IEQ in office buildings, based on existing classification methods that consider it in their analysis and on national and international reference standards. Thus, the indicators and categories that best suit the Portuguese building stock will be listed, which will serve as a basis for creating a method to assess the overall quality of the interior environment for office buildings. 2. Materials and Methods The study was developed based on the analysis of 14 building assessment methods (Table 1), six European and eight non-European, which include IEQ indicators as part of their criteria. Each of them differs from the other since the design guidelines of each location are unique, which is the main reason each country sought to develop a system based on its specific context [19]. Thus, the IEQ indicators and categories were iden- tified within each tool, using information contained in documents available on the official websites. In some of them, such as LEED and the DGNB, there are specific indicators for different buildings (commercial, retail, hotels, among others). However, for this study, only those applicable to offices were considered. To approach the IEQ in a general way, the designa- tions of the indicators that evaluate the same criterion were standardised, as well as the categories. Then, 9 categories were stipulated, with 38 indicators in total. Based on this, it was possible to perceive the scope of each method regarding the IEQ criteria and to select those that presented a more significant num- ber of categories evaluated as the primary references of the study. For these, the weights of each category were evaluated within a global score, presenting the re- sult using pie charts. In addition, the most mentioned indicators among the tools were identified, with the support of the VOSviewer software. A comparative analysis was carried out be- tween the proposed list of indicators and the stan- dard for Sustainability of Construction Works, EN 16309:2014+A1 [20], was carried out, highlighting the relevant differences. Based on the results obtained, a list of categories and indicators best suited for the Portuguese office buildings context was developed. 3. Results and Discussion The standardized categories stipulated in this study were: Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Comfort, Acous- tic Comfort, Visual Comfort, Layout, Water Quality, Materials and Emissions, Nourishment, Occupant and Community. And its indicators were divided as fol- lows: • Indoor Air Quality: Ventilation, Air Pollution, Ven- tilation User Control. • Thermal Comfort: Air Temperature, Humidity, Air Speed, HVAC Automation Systems, Occupant Tem- perature Control. • Acoustic Comfort: Sound Insulation, Reverberation, Internal Noise, Noise Emissions. • Visual Comfort: Light Comfort, Glare Management, Colour Rendering, Views, Occupant Lighting Con- trol. • Layout: Interior Design, Flexibility and Adaptabil- ity, External Areas, Biophilic Design. • Water Quality: Water Quality Parameters, Water Quality Management. • Materials and Emissions: Material Restrictions, Waste Management, Biological Control, Mainte- nance. • Nourishment: Responsible Food Sourcing, Food Production, Nutrition Education. • Occupant and Community: Active Life, Hygiene Support, Accessibility, Mobility Infrastructure, 139 C. C. Jacinto, A. C. de Paula Junior et al. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings Methods Indoor Air Quality Thermal Comfort Acoustic Comfort Visual Comfort Layout Water Quality Materials and Emis- sions Nourish- ment Occupant and Com- munity Active House x x x x x x BEAM Plus Interiors x x x x x x x x BREEAM x x x x x x x CASBEE x x x x x x x DGNB x x x x x x x Fitwel x x x x x x x Green Globes SI x x x x x x Green Star - Interiors x x x x x x x HQE x x x x x x x LEED x x x x x x x LiderA x x x x x NABERS IE x x x x x x SBTool PT x x x x x x WELL x x x x x x x x x Table 2. Categories presented by the studied methods. Amenities, Security, Occupant Well-being, Neigh- bourhood Development. It is important to note that not all tools cover the nine categories defined here. Table 2 shows a com- parison between the certifications, indicating which criteria they address. It is noticeable that most methods consider the main themes that contribute to the IEQ: Indoor Air Qual- ity, Thermal Comfort, Acoustic Comfort and Visual Comfort [21, 22]. However, it should be highlighted that all certifications studied consider Materials and Emissions, reflecting the global concern with the abu- sive consumption of raw materials and with pollutants from the construction industry. Although many of the certifications address the consumption and, mainly, the efficient use of water, encouraging the economy of this good, this study con- sidered the indicators directly related to the occupant of the building. Thus, only four tools, BEAM Plus Interiors, Fitwel, HQE and WELL, have criteria that consider this aspect. It is also noted that only three methods, Fitwel, LiderA and WELL, comprise parameters that refer to occupant nutrition. In addition, of the indicators that make up the Occupant and Community, the Mobility Infrastructure is the one that is present in most of the tools that involve this category. This exposes the fact that social sustainability criteria, which are the ones aimed at the occupant’s wellbeing and health, are undervalued compared to traditional classifications of building-related aspects such as energy, water, or use of materials [23, 24]. To illustrate the different weightings attached by the tools to the categories, Figures 1 (a, b and c) show, respectively, the weight by category of the BEAM Plus Interiors, HQE and WELL certifications. These evaluation methods were selected because they pre- sented the largest number of categories evaluated, all for WELL and one less (Nourishment) for BEAM Plus Interiors and HQE. When observing the graphs, WELL has a more balanced distribution of weights than the other two assessment methods. Since this assessment is focused on the quality of life of the occu- pant, the highest percentage of weight is dedicated to this category (Occupant and Community). In BEAM Plus Interiors, most of the weights are associated with other categories, not included in this study, such as Energy and Management, with only 34 % of the total evaluated destined for the rating of the IEQ. The HQE, in turn, has 51 % of the weight attributed to the assessment of the IEQ, with 16 % associated with the evaluation of Materials and Emissions. However, it is worth mentioning that for the HQE, the third and fourth largest portions of the score (Ther- mal Comfort and Layout) are related to the physical comfort of the occupant, evaluating the temperature and ergonomics of the workplace, among others. For BEAM Plus Interiors, Indoor Air Quality and Visual Comfort represent the second and third largest share of the total score. Looking at globally, the VOSviewer software was used to build a semantic diagram based on the stan- dardized indicators of this study, in order to identify the most mentioned among the certifications. Thus, Figure 2 shows the indicators considered by all meth- ods network, where the circles diameter expresses the frequency of the indicators are covered by the consid- ered methods. Analysing the diagram, the indicators that had the highest occurrence were Air Pollution and Light Comfort, with thirteen occurrences each, followed by Material Restrictions, Sound Insulation and Ventila- tion, with twelve. Once again, this demonstrates that most of the evaluation methods analysed are more focused on constructive than social aspects. The different colours of the diagram represent groups of indicators that present simultaneous occur- rences more frequently. Most indicators that evaluate constructive characteristics appear in the red group, while those that evaluate social characteristics appear in the green one. This demonstrates that, in gen- eral, there are some methods that majority evaluate constructive characteristics and others that mostly 140 vol. 38/2022 Review and analysis of existing methods to assess the IEQ . . . Figure 1. Weight by category of certifications: a) BEAM Plus Interiors, b) HQE and c) WELL. Figure 2. Semantic diagram of certification documents keywords. 141 C. C. Jacinto, A. C. de Paula Junior et al. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings Categories Indicators Indoor Air Quality Air Pollution Ventilation Ventilation User Control Thermal Comfort Air Temperature Air Speed Humidity HVAC Automation Systems Occupant Temperature Control Acoustic Comfort Internal Noise Noise Emissions Reverberation Sound Insulation Visual Comfort Colour Rendering Glare Management Light Comfort Occupant Lighting Control Views Layout Biophilic Design External Areas Flexibility and Adaptability Interior Design Water Quality Water Quality Management Water Quality Parameters Materials and Emissions Biological Control Maintenance Material Restrictions Waste Management Nourishment Food Production Nutrition Education Responsible Food Sourcing Occupant and Community Accessibility Active Life Amenities Hygiene Support Mobility Infrastructure Neighbourhood Development Occupant Well-being Security Table 3. Categories and indicators selected for the method to be developed. evaluate social characteristics. The European Standard for Sustainability of Con- struction Works, EN 16309:2014+A1 [20], in its first version, considers the aspects and impacts of the use phase of a building, providing methods and require- ments for evaluating its social performance. For this, its indicators are divided into six categories: • Accessibility: Accessibility for people with addi- tional needs, Access to building services. • Adaptability: Ease of potential for adapting to other use. • Health and comfort: Thermal characteristics, Ther- mal comfort, Characteristics of indoor air quality, Indoor air quality, Acoustic characteristics, Charac- teristics of visual comfort, Visual comfort, Spatial characteristics. • Impacts on the neighbourhood: Noise, Emissions, Glare/overshadowing, Shocks/vibrations. • Maintenance and maintainability: Maintenance op- erations. • Safety and security: Resistance to climate change, Accidental actions (earthquake, explosions, fire, and traffic impacts), Personal safety and security against intruders and vandalism, Security against interrup- tions of utility supply, Security against intruders and vandalism In an overall analysis, all categories of the Standard are addressed in the standardized categories of this study. Comparing the indicators, those presented in the “Health and Comfort” criteria were all considered in the categories “Thermal Comfort”, “Indoor Air Quality”, “Acoustic Comfort”, “Visual Comfort” and “Layout”. The Adaptability category of the EN is compati- ble with the standardized indicator “Flexibility and Adaptability”, while the “Accessibility for people with additional needs” and “Access to building services” indicators refer to “Accessibility” and “Amenities”, respectively. The criteria evaluated in “Impacts on the neighbourhood” can be related to the parameters defined in the “Air Pollution”, “Noise Emissions” and “Glare Management”. The “Maintenance and maintainability” category is consistent with the “Maintenance” indicator of the “Materials and Emissions” category. Finally, the cate- gory “Safety and security” is almost entirely encom- passed in the standardized indicator “Security”, except for the “Resistance to climate change”. This will not be addressed in the method to be developed, because, even if it is related to the safety of the occupants, its assessment is made exclusively considering the structure of the building. However, EN does not present any analysis on im- portant issues such as Water Quality, Nourishment or Occupant and Community Well-being. This ends up corroborating the fact that most evaluation method- ologies analysed in this study also do not include these topics in their requirements. Based on these results, the method of valuation of office buildings in the Portuguese context to be devel- oped should adopt the set of requirements presented in Table 3. 142 vol. 38/2022 Review and analysis of existing methods to assess the IEQ . . . 4. Conclusion This study proposed a list of indicators and categories for the assessment of office buildings in Portugal. For this, fourteen certification tools of sustainability or IEQ of buildings were analysed. In addition, the legislation and standards in force in the country and in the European Union were considered in order to guarantee that the chosen requirements were relevant in the current context. The results presented and discussed reinforce that the IEQ is already considered in several building eval- uation methods. However, most of them do not cover all relevant indicators, especially those related to so- cial aspects and occupant and community well-being. This reflects the absence of regulation that encour- ages the adoption of these characteristics. Even the norms that are related to the social performance of the building often fail to address important criteria such as water quality, nourishment, among others. The analysis of the selected methods showed that there is still no international agreement on the list of IEQ aspects to be considered in the sustainability assessments, since it differs from method to method. This can be explained from the regional, sociocul- tural, environmental and economic differences of the countries of origin of each certification. Despite these differences, it was also noticed that several tools eval- uate some similar parameters, although they have different nomenclatures. In view of what has been identified, this study will serve as a basis for the creation of a new method of evaluating the IEQ for office buildings in the Por- tuguese context. To this end, a list was prepared with 9 categories and 38 evaluation indicators that will be used in the method to be developed. In creating this list, care was taken to ensure that the number of indi- cators was sufficiently extensive to include the aspects that most influence the IEQ, health and well-being of the occupant, but also as small as possible to facilitate their use in practice. References [1] J. F. S. Afonso. Estudo do Comportamento Térmico de Edifícios Antigos. Master’s thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2009. https://hdl.handle.net/10362/2528 [2] S. M. Silva. A Sustentabilidade e o Conforto das Construções. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade do Minho, 2009. http: //repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/10245 [3] A. T. Carmo, R. T. A. Prado. Qualidade do ar interno, Escola Politécnica da USP, 1999. [4] S. C. M. Soares. Avaliação da Qualidade do Ambiente Interior no Edifício da Portaria Principal do Porto de Leixões. Master’s thesis, Universidade Do Porto, 2017. https://repositorio- aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/105843 [5] J. Sateri, Finnish Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Performance criteria of buildings for health and comfort, 2004. CIB REPORT, Issue 292. ISBN 90-6363-038-7. [6] N. E. Klepeis, W. C. Nelson, W. R. Ott, et al. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 11(3):231–252, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165 [7] A. E. S. Silva. Síndrome do Edifício Doente. Master’s thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10451/30896 [8] M. Sanguessuga. Síndroma dos Edifícios Doentes. Master’s thesis, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, 2012. [9] L. Brickus, F. Neto. A qualidade do ar de interiores e a química. Quimica Nova 22(1):65–74, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-40421999000100013 [10] M. Awada, B. Becerik-Gerber, S. Hoque, et al. Ten questions concerning occupant health in buildings during normal operations and extreme events including the COVID-19 pandemic. Building and Environment 188:107480, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107480 [11] J. A. Fuente. O edificio doente: Relação entre construção, saúde e bem-estar. Master’s thesis, Universidade do Minho, 2013. https://hdl.handle.net/1822/27606 [12] J. G. Allen, P. MacNaughton, U. Satish, et al. Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: A controlled exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environmental Health Perspectives 124(6):805–812, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037 [13] S. Lamb, K. C. S. Kwok. A longitudinal investigation of work environment stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office workers. Applied Ergonomics 52:104–111, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.010 [14] A. Leaman, B. Bordass. Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Building Research & Information 35(6):662–673, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701529518 [15] C. Residovic. The new NABERS indoor environment tool – the next frontier for Australian buildings. Procedia Engineering 180:303–310, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.189 [16] P. Wargocki, D. P. Wyon. Ten questions concerning thermal and indoor air quality effects on the performance of office work and schoolwork. Building and Environment 112:359–366, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.020 [17] PORDATA. Produtividade do trabalho, por hora de trabalho (UE27=100), 2021. [18] PORDATA. População empregada: total e por grandes sectores de actividade económica, 2021. [19] I. O. Consoli, C. A. R. Andrade, N. L. Tabalipa, et al. Análise dos indicadores de qualidade do ambiente interno nas ferramentas de certificação ambiental de edifícios. In 5th Ibero-American Congress on Entrepreneurship, Energy, Environment and Technology, vol. 5, pp. 431–436. 2019. ISBN 978-84-17934-30-9. 143 https://hdl.handle.net/10362/2528 http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/10245 http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/10245 https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/105843 https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/105843 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165 http://hdl.handle.net/10451/30896 https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-40421999000100013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107480 https://hdl.handle.net/1822/27606 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.010 https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701529518 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.020 C. C. Jacinto, A. C. de Paula Junior et al. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings [20] EN 16309:2014+A1 – Standards publication sustainability of construction works – Assessment of social performance of buildings – Calculation methodology. European standards, 2014. [21] L. Danza, B. Barozzi, A. Bellazzi, et al. A weighting procedure to analyse the Indoor Environmental Quality of a Zero-Energy Building. Building and Environment 183:107155, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107155 [22] V. D. d. S. Ferreira. Reabilitação de Edifícios visando a Eficiência Energética e a Qualidade do Ambiente Interior. Master’s thesis, Universidade do Minho, 2016. [23] T. S. Larsen, L. Rohde, K. TrangbækJønssonn, et al. IEQ-Compass – A tool for holistic evaluation of potential indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment 172:106707, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106707 [24] W. Wei, P. Wargocki, J. Zirngibl, et al. Review of parameters used to assess the quality of the indoor environment in Green Building certification schemes for offices and hotels. Energy and Buildings 209:109683, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109683 144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107155 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106707 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109683 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 38:138–144, 2022 1 Introduction 2 Materials and Methods 3 Results and Discussion 4 Conclusion References