Search

The world’s leading indoor air quality guidelines provide for the identification of certain parameters with a specific limit value based on the latest empirical measurements, however, most of them do not have legal coverage and are voluntary. This leads to unequal assessment of indoor air quality, because there is an identifiable difference between the limit values set out in the various guidelines. And these values would be related to the results obtained during the experimental activities of the application of the specific parameters and the interpretation of their effects on human health. The aim of this IAQ guideline and IAQ certification review was to develop IAQ label for Nordic countries and to find gaps the legislation established by the Latvian government. The development of indoor air quality labels provides an opportunity to maintain and promote the optimal functionality of human physiological processes and the sustainability of the building.

In the context of an escalating energy crisis, the burgeoning prevalence of remote work, and challenging climatic conditions, ensuring optimal indoor air quality (IAQ) has emerged as a pressing concern. This pilot study rigorously investigates the complex interplay between biological, chemical, and physical parameters that characterize IAQ, focusing specifically on university classrooms during active teaching sessions. Employing a comprehensive array of instrumentation – such as SAS SUPER ISO 100 for microbiological sampling, Aranet4 for monitoring relative humidity, temperature, and CO2 concentration, and PCE-PCO 1 and PCE-RSCM 16 for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) quantification—the study spanned a duration of three days in November 2022 and covered classrooms of varying dimensions, both reliant on natural ventilation. An extensive collection of 52 microbiological samples were obtained and cultured on specialized growth media to differentiate between various classes of airborne microorganisms. Concurrently, the pilot study meticulously recorded students’ activity patterns, along with the temporal dynamics of window openings and closures. The colony-forming units per cubic meter (CFU/m3) fluctuated between 174 and 934 CFU/m3, with fungi constituting the majority. Furthermore, the CFU/m3 for fungi cultivated on Sabouraud Dextrose Agar ranged from 24 to 610 CFU/m3, whereas bacteria cultured on Trypticase Soy Agar and Mannitol Salt Agar exhibited ranges of 42–476 CFU/m3 and 42–254 CFU/m3, respectively. Contrasting these findings with extant guidelines that recommend microbiological contamination not exceeding 500 CFU/m3 highlights significant IAQ concerns. Thermal assessments revealed that the smaller classroom surpassed the acceptable indoor temperature threshold of 25 °C within an average duration of 50 minutes, while the larger classroom remained compliant. Notably, the highest CO2 concentrations recorded over the three-day period were alarmingly high: 2689 ppm, 1970 ppm, and 2131 ppm on the first, second, and third days, respectively. A 25-minute ventilation intervention was sufficient to reduce CO2 levels to 499 ppm, although existing literature stipulates that CO2 concentrations should not surpass 1000 ppm. Importantly, the pilot study highlighted the rapid increasing of PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations in crowded instructional settings, averaging 400 μg/m3 and 35 μg/m3, respectively. This underscores the necessity for a continuous air ventilation and purification mechanism during classroom activities. Despite these pivotal findings, the study identifies a glaring absence of standardized regulations or guidelines pertaining to maximum acceptable concentrations of particulate matter and microbial CFU in public indoor environments, indicating a critical area requiring immediate policy intervention.

The office workplace is considered a significant risk setting for long-term sedentary behaviour, which can lead to various adverse health consequences. Therefore, this article examines the obstacles and external factors that motivate office workers, who spend a significant part of their workday sitting, to engage in physical activity. This cross-sectional study analysed data from an anonymous survey of 232 Latvian office workers. Our results indicated that most respondents would be motivated to engage in physical activity during working hours, if employer provided motivational system (mean score 4.04 out of maximal 5 points), a specialist-led physical activity classes (4.01) or exercising together with colleagues (3.91) would be implemented at their workplace. Respondents in the following subgroups agreed more that employer provided motivational system would encourage them to be more physical activity at work: all age groups (between 3.93 and 4.18), both ‘time of sitting’ subgroups (between 4.00 and 4.07), men (3.93) and in-office workers (4.07). However, women (4.06) and remote workers (4.08) agreed more, that physical activity classes led by a specialist would be the most motivational. In contrast, highly intense work tasks were the main barrier for office workers not to be involved in physical activities at work, as it was the obstacle for 59% of the respondents. These findings can be helpful in implementing and organising health promotion interventions for office workers.