Search

Additional file 4. Knowledge test items version A and B – Ad hoc translation (not used or validated). Shows the parallel test items of both final knowledge test version A and B ad hoc translated into English. The English version is not validated nor was it used for study. The correct answers are highlighted in italics with an additional *.

Background: In previous studies, negative associations were found between increased environmental sensitivity and general well-being as well as positive perception of air quality. However, only a few studies with partly inconsistent results examined this relation under exposure. They tried to determine whether people with increased environmental sensitivity react to real environmental conditions with changes in current well-being and perception of air quality. Methods: Pooled data from two single-blinded randomized controlled trials with different exposure levels were analyzed. Participants were exposed to different levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the front part of a former in-service wide-body airplane inserted in a low-pressure chamber. Three exposure groups were created depending on the VOC/CO2 levels: low, medium and high. Subjects repeatedly answered questions about their current mental well-being and about perception of air quality and odor intensity. Based on self-reported data the participants were classified into groups with low and higher environmental sensitivity. Data were evaluated using a 2 (environmental sensitivity) x 3 (exposure) ANCOVA with repeated measures. Results: 503 individuals (221 females) participated (mean age: 42.8 ± 14.5 years). Thereof, 166 individuals were assigned to the group with higher environmental sensitivity; they reported poorer psychological well-being regarding vitality (F (1,466) = 16.42, p < .001***, partial η2 = 0.034) and vigilance (F (1,467) = 7.82, p = .005**, partial η2 = 0.016) and rated the pleasantness of air quality (F (1,476) = 7.55, p = .006**, partial η2 = 0.016) and air movement (F (1,474) = 5.11, p = .024*, partial η2 = 0.011) worse than people in the low sensitivity group. Exposure levels showed no effects. No systematic differences between men and women were found. Increased environmental sensitivity shared common variance with negative affectivity, another personrelated variable. Its explanatory power was higher for evaluations of the environment whereas no differences between the concepts in explaining current psychological well-being were found. Conclusions: Even a slightly elevated level of environmental sensitivity led to worse ratings of the environment with no clear relation to the real environment. Consequently, environmental sensitivity should be considered as a confounding factor in environmental exposure studies. The independency from real exposure levels is in line with the results from previous studies showing that the differences in environmental ratings are probably also driven by psychological factors.

Additional file 5. Categories of free responses. Shows all categories for free responses of the knowledge test with explanation and examples for correct and incorrect answers.

Additional file 2. Wissenstest-Version A. Shows final knowledge test version A in its original German version.

Additional file 3. Wissenstest-Version B. Shows final knowledge test version B in its original German version.

In the CleanSky 2 ComAir study, subject tests were conducted in the Fraunhofer Flight Test Facility cabin mock-up. This mock-up consists of the front section of a former in-service A310 hosting up to 80 passengers. In 12 sessions the outdoor/recirculation airflow ratio was altered from today’s typically applied fractions to up to 88% recirculation fraction. This leads to increased relative humidity, carbon dioxide (CO2) and Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOC) levels in the cabin air, as the emissions by passengers become less diluted by outdoor, dry air. This paper describes the measured increase of relative humidity, CO2 and TVOC level in the cabin air for the different test conditions.

Indoor air quality can affect occupants in numerous ways. Especially carbon dioxide (CO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been debated in their effects on health, well-being, and cognition of people. Aircraft cabins present indoor environments with distinctive features, where passengers are exposed to a mixture of outside and recirculated air. They include conditions such as high occupant density, inability to leave the environment, low relative humidity and need for pressurization. The ComAir study, funded by the Clean Sky 2 Initiative of the European Union, aims to investigate the impact of reducing outdoor air intake in the total volume of air supplied on cabin air quality and passengers’ wellbeing. The main experiment of the study uses a 2(‘occupancy’) X 4 (‘air ventilation regime’) factorial design with stratified randomization of participants. Occupancy denotes the number of people in the aircraft (half vs. full) and varies the psychological important wellbeing factor of proxemics. The four air ventilation regime levels are: Baseline with typical aircraft airflows regimes per person, ASHRAE 161 requirement (standard recommendation), ASHRAE 161 half (half of the recommended flow), and a recirculation regime with a target CO2 concentration close to regulatory limit. This paper presents the background and experimental procedure of ComAir and gives some preliminary results on environmental conditions and subjects’ wellbeing and health under the baseline air ventilation regime.

Supplemental Figures. (PPTX 279 kb)

Supplement Description. (DOCX 16 kb)