Sick Building Syndrome: Who Suffers More Male or Female - Coursework Example

Sick Building Syndrome: Who Suffers More - Male or Female 1 Research Background Review of Related Literature In a typical day, an average human adult spends around 90 percent of his or her time indoors, and a considerable amount of time is spent in the workplace (Jones, 1995). In a office setting, an average employee in the UK spends 1,735 hours in the workplace in one year (Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2010), which roughly translates to 48.3 hours a week or 6.9 hours a day in 2011 (Working Days in the UK and Ireland, 2011). During these times in the office, an employee may be exposed to inadequate ventilation, aerosol chemicals, moulds, and other pollutants. Such factors cause discomfort and acute health symptoms. When twenty percent or more of a building’s occupants complain of these conditions, it is said that these individuals may be suffering from sick building syndrome (Akovali, 2007). Sick building syndrome is described as a condition wherein a group of people in the same building or similar structure experiences acute health symptoms which improves or disappears once they go out of the building. These symptoms include headache; irritated eyes, nose, and throat; cough; dry and itchy skin; dizziness and nausea; inability to concentrate; sensitivity to odours; and fatigue. Its underlying cause remains unclear. However most attribute the phenomenon to inadequate building ventilation, contaminants and stress (Fraser, 2008). According to the study by Bischof and Bullinger (1998), symptoms of sick building syndrome were reported on both air-conditioned and naturally-ventilated buildings. However, incidents of SBS were more evident in poorly maintained air-conditioned buildings. Inadequate building ventilation. At the start of the 20th century, building ventilation standards set the ventilation rate to 15 cubic feet per minute per occupant. However, the oil crisis in the 1970s caused a reduction of ventilation rates to 5 cfm. The reduced flow of outdoor air was discovered to cause discomfort and acute health symptoms among the building’s occupants. In order to minimize energy use and attain an acceptable Indoor Air Quality level, the American National Standards Institute / American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers had updated its ventilation standard to 20 cfm for office spaces (Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Airborne contaminants. Ventilation systems for office buildings usually acquire air from the outside. As outdoor air gets inside the building, it also brings airborne contaminants. Sources of contaminants include motor vehicle fumes, plumbing and building exhausts; and burning materials (Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Major contaminants include: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, radon, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds or VOCs. Most common health effects from these contaminants include: difficulty breathing; eye, nose, and throat irritation; exacerbation of asthma; brain and nervous system damage; digestive problems; stuffy nose and reduced resistance to colds; lung damage; and certain types of cancers (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2010). Indoor air contaminants. Aside from contaminants from outside air, pollutants may also be found inside the building. Sources on indoor contaminants include adhesives, carpeting, upholstery, copy machines, pesticides, cleaning substances, and wood products (Akovali, 2007). In addition, tobacco smoke may also contribute to the degradation of indoor air quality. Tobacco smoke contains VOCs, particulate matter, and other toxic chemicals. Volatile organic compounds may cause acute reactions if exposed for short periods. However, VOCs can cause chronic ill effects in high concentrations while some may also be carcinogenic (Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Common effects of VOC exposure include: dizziness, headaches, vomiting, drowsiness, and unconsciousness. More serious complications include: visual impairment; cataracts; central nervous system disorders; anaemia; bone marrow damage which may lead to leukaemia; liver, kidney, nervous system, lung, and heart damage; infertility; foetal development disorders; and certain forms of cancer (Akovali, 2007).    Biological contaminants. Office buildings are potential breeding grounds for biological contaminants such as moulds, bacteria, pollen, and viruses. Air ducts, humidifiers, drain pans, ceiling tiles, carpeting, and wall insulation may contain stagnant water where biological contaminants may breed and accumulate. Moreover, insect excrement and bird droppings may contain harmful bacteria. Adverse health effects caused by biological contaminants include respiratory- related illnesses, allergies, and exacerbation of asthma (Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Implications of sick building syndrome. To an external observer, the symptoms associated with sick building syndrome may be a minor issue since the symptoms usually disappear once an affected employee leaves the building. However, given enough time, more serious health complications may arise due to repeated exposure (Rostron, 2008). In a business perspective, financial losses may be brought about by reduced employee productivity, reduced overtime, and increased staff attrition rates. Employees become sick more often resulting to absenteeism. In turn, increased absenteeism drives down productivity rates and reduces staff time. When employees experience the same symptoms in a longer span of time, it becomes a reason for employees to leave. Employees who become ill may press charges, resulting to court litigation and significant financial settlements in the part of employers (Rostron, 2008). Gender-related sick building syndrome prevalence rates. The study of Bullinger, Morfeld, von Mackensen, and Brasche (1999) on sick building syndrome symptoms reveals that women reported higher incidents of sensory irritation and somatic ailments. Moreover, more women gave a negative assessment of the existing indoor climate. In a similar study by Brasche, Bullinger, Morfeld, Gebhardt, and Wischof (2001), 44.3 percent of women were suffering from SBS symptoms, compared to 26.2 percent for men. Moreover, the prevalence of SBS in women reflected in all age categories. Wargocki, Wyon, Sundell, Clausen, and Fanger (2000), studied the effects of varying outdoor air supply rate on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome symptoms, and productivity of thirty female subjects in an office setting. The participants were grouped into five groups with 6 members each. Each group were made to work in a specially designed room where the outdoor air supply rate can be adjusted to 3, 10, and 30 litres per second per person. Results of the study show that increased ventilation rates translated to a lower dissatisfaction rate in terms of air quality, less SBS symptoms, and improved productivity. Research Problem / Question This study will be an inquiry as to which gender suffers more from the effects of sick building syndrome and what are the factors which contribute to the prevalence of SBS for each gender. 1. What is the profile of the respondents in the building of interest? 2. What is the condition of the personal well-being of the respondents in the study in terms of possible symptoms of sick building syndrome? 3. What is the level of environmental comfort experienced by the respondents in the workplace? 4. How do the respondents perceive other aspects in their work environment? 5. Is there a relationship between gender and self-reported symptoms of sick building syndrome? 1.2 Research Aim, Objectives and Hypothesis The study aims to determine which gender suffers more from the effects of sick building syndrome based on symptoms reported, environmental variables, and other factors found in the office. Following are the objectives of the study: (1) describe the in terms of the following variables: length of occupancy in the building; length of occupancy in a particular office; type of work; age; gender; amount of time spent in the building each week; time spent operating a visual display unit per week; number of people sharing the workspace; and smoking practice in the office; (2) evaluate the condition of the personal well-being of the respondents in the study in terms of possible symptoms of sick building syndrome; (3) report the level of environmental comfort experienced by the respondents in the workplace; (4) identify other aspects pertinent of the respondents’  work environment; (5) examine the relationship between gender and self-reported symptoms of sick building syndrome (SBS) and identify which gender is more prone to SBS. 1.3 Research Methodology The study will be following a descriptive-quantitative research design. The descriptive method of research is used to describe current objectives, conditions, or groups. This method addresses that “what” aspect of variables being evaluated in a study (Adanza and Martinez, 2002). The utilization of a descriptive research design is justified since the overall objective is to investigate under prevailing conditions which gender suffer more from the effects of sick building syndrome and to identify the factors responsible on the prevalence of SBS for each gender. In addition, descriptive research is well-suited in data collection for hypothesis testing and evaluation of relationships between variables (Monsen and Van Horn 2008). On the other hand, a quantitative research design is utilized to explain observable facts by collecting numerical data which will then undergo analysis via scientific method of inquiry and statistical methods (Mujis 2011). The study will be carried out under this framework. Survey methodology was integrated with the descriptive-quantitative research design. Groves et al. (2009) described survey methodology as a collection of procedures involving the design, collection, processing, and analysis of surveys with specific focus on cost-effective and quality survey estimates. Random sampling technique will be used and the following parameters will be considered in the computation of the minimum required sample size: (1) margin of error – 5%; (2) confidence level – 95%; (3) population size – currently being researched; and (4) response distribution – 50%. Survey questionnaire. The sick building syndrome questionnaire was developed by the Building Research Establishment as a standard questionnaire to be used in investigating sick building syndrome in specific cases and in research projects. The questionnaire is divided into four sections and consists of 66 items. The copy of the questionnaire may be found in the appendix. Section 1 inquires on the respondent’s general well-being for the past 12 months. It consists of items on the incidence and frequency of experiencing SBS symptoms such as dryness of the eyes, itchy or watery eyes, blocked or stuffy nose, runny nose, dry throat, lethargy or tiredness, headaches, and dry, itching or irritated skin. Section 2 is comprised of questions regarding the respondent’s personal and work background. Inquiry items include length of occupancy in the building, length of occupancy in a particular office; type of work; age; gender; amount of time spent in the building each week; time spent operating a visual display unit per week; number of people sharing the workspace; and smoking practice in the office. Section 3 requests the respondents to evaluate working conditions in the office during summer and winter. It is composed of questions designed to gauge the perceived comfort level in the office in terms of temperature (comfort, hot vs. cold, stable vs. variable); air movement (still vs. draughty); air quality (dry vs. humid, fresh vs. stuffy, odourless vs. smelly, overall satisfaction); light; noise level; vibration in the building; and overall comfort level. Two sets of items will be provided for the winter and summer season. Section 4 consists of questions on other aspects of the work environment. The respondents are asked to evaluate several factors such as level of control for temperature, ventilation, and lighting; satisfaction level on the amount of privacy at work; level of appreciation on the current office layout and décor; overall cleanliness of the office; frequency of incidents wherein the respondent or his colleagues requested for improvements to the heating, ventilation or air-conditioning and the level of satisfaction on the speed and effectiveness of the response given; frequency of incidents whereon the respondents or his colleagues requested for improvements to other aspects of the office environment and level of satisfaction on the speed and effectiveness of the response given. Data Collection Procedure. The list of respondents is currently being researched on and the information will eventually be encoded in the computer. The survey questionnaire and letter of request to conduct the assessment will be sent to the respondents via electronic mail. The researcher’s contact number will be provided for any question or clarification and the respondents will be asked to send their responses to the researcher’s email address. The retrieved questionnaires will be processed and encoded using numerical coding for the preparation of data matrix prior to data analysis. Data Analysis. All data analysis will be performed using SPSS Statistics (2008) version 17. The data collected will be statistically treated using descriptive and inferential methods. The mean, median, and frequency distribution will be calculated to generate the respondents’ profile information. Frequency distribution will be used to determine statistical information on the condition of the personal well-being of respondents in terms of possible symptoms of sick building syndrome. Mean and standard deviation will be derived to determine the level of environmental comfort experienced by the respondents in the workplace, as well as for other work environment factors. Significant associations between gender and self-reported symptoms of sick building syndrome will be investigated using independent samples t-test. 1.4 Relevance of Research This study will be beneficial to specific entities, namely: company management, employees, facilities and maintenance practitioners, and sick building syndrome researchers. Company management may use the results of the study as a basis on plans to improve various elements of the work environment. Employees may benefit from the study by the creation of more awareness regarding work environment conditions which may affect their health and productivity. Moreover, facilities and maintenance may utilize the statistical data to improve its daily operations. Lastly, other researchers may use the study as a reference and a basis for further SBS studies. 1.5             Research Programme The following principal activities will be undertaken on the course of the study: October – a preliminary discussion will be held between the researcher, management, unions, or other representatives of the building occupants, safety officer, maintenance staff, etc. It will be made clear to everyone that the survey is for research purposes and is independent of management and unions. November – an announcement will be made regarding the study. The respondents will be informed that the survey is approved by management and unions. Rules on confidentiality and lines of communication will be drawn out between all parties. An agreement will be made for the researcher to inform the management about any potential health risks which may be discovered based on the results of the study. December – the survey questionnaire will be distributed to the respondents through electronic mail. January – Respondent responses will be collected and encoded in the computer. February – Data analysis will commence after the results have been collected and encoded. March – Statistical data will be finalized and the results of the study will be disseminated to stakeholders. References Adanza, EG & Martinez, FN (2002), Methods of research for the health professions, Rex Book Store, Quezon City, Philippines. Akovali, G (2007), Plastics, rubber, and health, Smithers Rapta Technology Limited, Shropshire. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (2010), Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. Bischof, W and Bullinger, M (1998), ‘Indoor conditions and well-being: interim results from the ProKlimA study’, Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 232-233. Brasche, Bullinger, Morfeld, Gebhardt, and Wischof (2001), ‘Why do women suffer from sick building syndrome more often than men? – subjective higher sensitivity versus objective cases’, Indoor Air, vol. 11, pp. 217-222. Bullinger, M, Morfeld, M, von Mackensen, S and Brasche, S (1999), ‘The sick building syndrome – do women suffer more?’, Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, vol. 202, no. 2-4, pp. 235-241. Bureau of Labour Statistics (2010), Charting international labour comparisons, US Department of Labour, Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency (1991), Indoor air facts no. 4 (revised) sick building syndrome, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. Fraser, VJ (2008), Diseases and disorders, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, Tarrttown, NY. Groves, RM, Fowler, FJJ, Couper, MP, Lepkowski, JM, Singer, E & Tourangeau, R 2009, Survey methodology, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Jones, P (1995), ‘Health and comfort in offices’, The Architect’s Journal, vol. 201, no. 23, pp. 33-36. Monsen, ER & Van Horn, L 2008, Research: Successful approaches, third edn, American Dietetic Association, Chicago, IL. Mujis, D 2011, Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS, 2nd (revised) edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Rostron, J (2008), ‘Sick building syndrome: a review of causes, consequences, and remedies’, Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, vol. 7, pp. 291-303. Wargocki, P, Wyon, DP, Sundell, J, Clausen, G and Fanger, PO (2000), ‘The effects of outdoor air supply rate in an office on perceived air quality, sick building syndrome symptoms, and productivity’, Indoor Air, vol. 10, pp. 222-236. Working Days in the UK and Ireland (2011), Work-Day.co.uk, viewed 29 March 2011, Read More