Safety News

Study: Energy Efficiency Practices Good For Building Occupants’ Health

02.25.09, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)

By Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)

Research conducted at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
suggests that operating buildings more energy efficiently could have benefits for the health of
occupants and, surprisingly, also for their comfort.

The researchers, Mark Mendell and Anna Mirer of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy
Technologies Division, analyzed data collected from 95 air-conditioned office buildings across the
U.S. The data had been gathered by EPA in a study called BASE (Building Assessment Survey
and Evaluation). The study produced data about indoor environmental conditions and the health
of occupants in a representative set of U.S. office buildings.

The study collected standard measurements in each building on factors such as temperature and
humidity, during one week in either summer or winter. Building occupants filled out a survey at
that time with questions about “building-related symptoms,” defined as symptoms that were
experienced in the building but improved away from the building. Symptoms assessed were
related to the upper and lower respiratory tract, eyes, skin, headache, fatigue, and difficulty
concentrating.

Using the data from this study, the Berkeley Labs scientists conducted what is called a crosssectional
statistical analysis of two questions:

1. How did the temperatures in the 95 buildings from the BASE study compare to the temperature
    comfort ranges recommended for summer and winter by ASHRAE (the Association of Heating,
    Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers). ASHRAE is the technical organization that creates
    widely used recommendations about the proper operation of building heating, ventilation and air
    conditioning systems.

2. Were there associations between the occurrence of building-related symptoms and indoor
    temperature or humidity?

Buildings substantially overcooled in summer

In winter, the researchers found, the buildings were kept mostly within the recommended
temperature comfort range for winter, but in summer building temperatures were, on average,
below the comfort range for summer. Buildings were, on average, kept even cooler in the summer
than in the winter, by almost 1°F (0.5°C), even though people are more comfortable with warmer
temperatures in summer.

These low temperatures in summer suggest that many occupants would be too cold in their
offices, and this overcooling by the air conditioning systems also indicates wasted energy.

Some building temperatures associated with increased symptoms in office workers

Furthermore, in summer, a variety of building-related symptoms such as headache, fatigue, and
difficulty concentrating were increased by over 50 percent in the buildings kept below 73.4°F
(23°C). These buildings, kept too cold for comfort in summer, included almost half the buildings
measured in summer. These symptoms thus might be expected to decrease if buildings were
airconditioned less and kept warmer in the summer.

In winter, buildings with higher indoor temperatures (above 73.4°F, even though that is near the
middle of the recommended temperature range) were associated with approximately 30 to 80
percent increases in building-related nose, eye, and skin symptoms and also headache. This
included more than half the buildings measured in winter. These symptoms thus might decrease
if buildings were kept cooler in the winter.

The researchers stated that avoiding overcooled buildings in the summer, and keeping buildings
at the cooler end of the recommended temperature range in the winter, may result in a substantial
decrease in building-related symptoms. This should still maintain thermal comfort in the buildings
in winter, and should actually improve comfort in the summer.

Benefits seen for both energy efficiency and occupant health

Keeping air-conditioned buildings warmer in summer will save energy. Keeping buildings cooler in
the winter will in many cases save energy through reduced heating. However, many of the
buildings studied in winter, especially those with moderate outdoor temperatures at the time, may
have been in “cooling” mode to handle internally generated heat from occupants, lights, and
equipment. For these buildings, lowering indoor temperatures in the winter to decrease occupant
symptoms would not be expected to provide energy savings, and in some cases might increase
energy use.