Open Access

Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project)

  • Arja Asikainen1Email author,
  • Paolo Carrer2,
  • Stylianos Kephalopoulos3,
  • Eduardo de Oliveira Fernandes4,
  • Pawel Wargocki5 and
  • Otto Hänninen1
Environmental Health201615(Suppl 1):S35

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0101-8

Published: 8 March 2016

Abstract

Background

The annual burden of disease caused indoor air pollution, including polluted outdoor air used to ventilate indoor spaces, is estimated to correspond to a loss of over 2 million healthy life years in the European Union (EU). Based on measurements of the European Environment Agency (EEA), approximately 90 % of EU citizens live in areas where the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for air quality of particulate matter sized < 2.5 mm (PM2.5) are not met. Since sources of pollution reside in both indoor and outdoor air, selecting the most appropriate ventilation strategy is not a simple and straightforward task.

Methods

A framework for developing European health-based ventilation guidelines was created in 2010–2013 in the EU-funded HEALTHVENT project. As a part of the project, the potential efficiency of control policies to health effects caused by residential indoor exposures of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), outdoor bioaerosols, volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon oxide (CO) radon and dampness was estimated. The analysis was based on scenario comparison, using an outdoor-indoor mass-balance model and varying the ventilation rates. Health effects were estimated with burden of diseases (BoD) calculations taking into account asthma, cardiovascular (CV) diseases, acute toxication, respiratory infections, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Results

The quantitative comparison of three main policy approaches, (i) optimising ventilation rates only; (ii) filtration of outdoor air; and (iii) indoor source control, showed that all three approaches are able to provide substantial reductions in the health risks, varying from approximately 20 % to 44 %, corresponding to 400 000 and 900 000 saved healthy life years in EU-26. PM2.5 caused majority of the health effects in all included countries, but the importance of the other pollutants varied by country.

Conclusions

The present modelling shows, that combination of controlling the indoor air sources and selecting appropriate ventilation rate was the most effective to reduce health risks. If indoor sources cannot be removed or their emissions cannot be limited to an accepted level, ventilation needs to be increased to remove remaining pollutants. In these cases filtration of outdoor air may be needed to prevent increase of health risks.

Background

In the period 2006–2010, focus on indoor air quality has been raised by WHO, who has issued specific guidelines addressing air exposure in indoor spaces [1], [2]. Over the last previous two decades WHO had coordinated systematic reviews of scientific evidence and set Air Quality Guidelines [3], [4], although not specific for indoor air.

Requirements for indoor air quality (IAQ) in buildings is prescribed by existing standards for ventilation, but are often poorly related on health. At present, many ventilation standards (e.g. EN15251 [5]) define ventilation requirements in non-industrial buildings to meet comfort requirements of occupants, specified by the percentage of dissatisfied persons with indoor air quality and/or by the intensity of odour. While comfort is an important parameter, it does not fully reflect more serious health impacts like asthma, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer and acute toxication that are caused by exposures to pollutants present in indoor air. There are no European guidelines to recommend how the buildings should be ventilated to reduce the health risks of the occupants’ exposed to indoor air pollutants.

Direct scientific evidence on the relationship between ventilation and health is quite limited. In reviews by Wargocki et al. (2002) [6] and by Seppänen et al. (2004) [7], concentrating on office-type working environment and residential buildings, ventilation was considered to significant impact or association with comfort (perceived air quality, PAQ) and health (including sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms, inflammation, infections, asthma, allergy, and short-term sick leaves), and productivity (performance of office work).

Li et al. (2007) [8] performed a systematic review of the role of the built environment in the transmission of airborne infectious agents. They concluded that there is strong evidence that suggests the association between ventilation, air movements in buildings and the transmission/spread of infectious diseases such as measles, tuberculosis, chickenpox, influenza, smallpox and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Sundell et al. (2011) [9] identified 27 papers published in peer reviewed journals providing sufficient information on both ventilation rates and health effects in non-industrial buildings. Multiple health endpoints showed similar relationships with ventilation rate and were biologically plausible, although the literature did not provide clear evidence on particular agents. Higher ventilation rates in offices, up to about 25 l/s per person, were shown in the reviewed literature to be associated with reduced prevalence of SBS symptoms. Limited data suggested that inflammation, respiratory infections, asthma symptoms and short-term sick leave increase with lower ventilation rates. Home ventilation rates above 0.5 air changes per hour (h−1) were shown in the reviewed papers to be associated with reduced risk of allergic manifestations among children in a Nordic climate.

The role of outdoor air quality on indoor exposures was not addressed in any of the studies included in the above mentioned reviews, even though 90 % of EU citizens live in areas where the WHO guidelines for air quality for PM2.5 is not met [10]. Furthermore, the existence of indoor air sources was not systematically analysed or exposure levels quantified or considered when associating ventilation and health. Therefore, there is limited support from these previous studies on determining the best combination of source control and ventilation levels.

This work aims to summarize the current understanding of the sources of health risks in indoor environments and their relationship to ventilation requirements. Specific objectives of the study are: i) summarize the sources and magnitudes of health risks indoors, ii) provide a quantitative framework for estimation of long-term health effects caused by poor indoor air quality in residential buildings, and iii) quantify the burden of disease for each indoor exposure agent and evaluate efficiency of exposure reduction measures for EU-26 countries. In addition, the results are intended for development of national and international guidelines and standards, and can also be used as background information when analysing indoor air quality related issues in buildings.

Methods

Exposures

Ventilation plays a dual role in formation of indoor pollutant concentrations: on one hand it removes indoor generated pollutants from indoor spaces by ventilating the space with outdoor air, on the other hand, ventilation introduces outdoor air pollutants indoors [11], [12]. It has been shown that efficient filtering of intake air does not necessarily reduce penetration of outdoor air pollutants as much as could be expected based on the filtration efficiency as substantial fraction of the outdoor air enters indoors through windows, doors, ventilation ducts, and cracks and leaks in the building envelope [13].

When defining prevailing indoor air concentrations, a mass-balance model is needed to address the counter-acting roles of indoor and outdoor air sources. A commonly used approach based on Dockery and Spengler [14] and adopted in Hänninen et al. [11], [15] is as follows:
C i ¯ = Pa a + k C a ¯ + G V a + k Δ C i Δ t a + k
(1)

where C i is the total indoor concentration (μg m−3) of the pollutant in question, C a is the concentration in the intake air, P is the probability of the pollutant remaining suspended after penetrating through the building envelope, α is air exchange rate (h−1), k is the deposition rate of the pollutant indoors (h−1), G is the indoor generation level (μg h−1), V is the volume of the indoor space and Δt is change in temperature of the indoor space during sampling period (h). The third term covering the transient impacts of changing concentration can be considered zero when assuming steady-state for the sake of long-term average exposures.

Since the aim of this study is to estimate how changes in ventilation affect exposures in residential indoor environments, the probability distributions of national ventilation rates in residential building stock in year 2010 had to be estimated. Surprisingly limited data of measured ventilation rates are available for residences in European countries [16]. As a result, available measured data was reviewed and a regression model was developed combining the climatological and economical differences of European countries with ventilation rates. Further modelling with a Bayesian subjective probability approach was used for generation of lognormal probability distributions for ventilation rates in each EU-26 country (Table 1, list of countries and ventilation rate distributions, method described in detailed elsewhere [17]).
Table 1

Estimated ventilation rate distributions in European countries [17]

 

Air exchange rate

Ventilation rate per occupant

Country

Mean

Median

One-GSD

Mean

Median

One-GSD

rangea

rangea

 

h−1

h−1

h−1

lps pp

lps pp

lps pp

Austria

0.9

0.7

(0.4-1.3)

25

21

(11.1-39.1)

Belgium

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.1)

17

14

(7.6-26.7)

Bulgaria

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.1)

15

12

(6.4-22.3)

Cyprus

1.2

1.0

(0.5-1.9)

24

20

(10.6-37.2)

Czech Republic

0.6

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

14

11

(6.0-21.1)

Denmark

0.7

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

24

20

(10.4-36.6)

Estonia

0.7

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

13

10

(5.5-19.4)

Finland

0.7

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

17

14

(7.5-26.3)

France

0.6

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

18

14

(7.7-27.1)

Germany

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.0)

20

17

(8.8-31.0)

Greece

1.0

0.8

(0.4-1.5)

20

17

(8.8-30.9)

Hungary

0.8

0.6

(0.3-1.2)

16

13

(6.8-24.0)

Ireland

0.6

0.5

(0.3-0.9)

14

12

(6.2-21.9)

Italy

0.8

0.6

(0.3-1.2)

21

17

(9.2-32.4)

Latvia

0.7

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

11

9

(4.9-17.2)

Lithuania

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.0)

11

9

(4.9-17.3)

Luxembourg

0.9

0.7

(0.4-1.3)

32

26

(14.1-49.5)

Netherlands

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.0)

21

17

(9.1-32.1)

Poland

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.1)

11

9

(4.8-16.7)

Portugal

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.1)

15

12

(6.6-23.1)

Romania

0.8

0.6

(0.3-1.2)

7

6

(3.2-11.1)

Slovakia

0.8

0.6

(0.3-1.2)

12

10

(5.1-17.9)

Slovenia

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.1)

13

11

(5.9-20.7)

Spain

0.8

0.7

(0.3-1.2)

20

17

(8.9-31.3)

Sweden

0.6

0.5

(0.3-1.0)

20

17

(9.0-31.5)

UK

0.6

0.5

(0.3-0.9)

15

13

(6.8-23.8)

EU-26

0.7

0.6

(0.3-1.1)

17

14

(7.3-25.6)

a(median/GSD, median x GSD), GSD = Geometric Standard Deviation

Risk model

A large number of indoor air pollutants have been associated with health responses, but some of those either play a small role for public health, or pose challenges for the exposure assessment or quantification of the burden of disease. Health determinants of housing in general are discussed in WHO 2011 [18], safe levels of specific chemicals indoors in WHO 2010 [2] and guidelines for exposure to dampness and mould specifically in WHO 2009 [1].

Exposures to environmental pollutants are associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Some of the widely used risk assessment methods estimate these separately as numbers of cases. The results from such incidence-based models are not comparable over different types of health endpoints and to improve comparability of impacts on various types of diseases and including mortality, disability adjusted life years (DALY) has been proposed as a common metric [19]. The following model and data used in this study and more details of calculations are presented in a technical report published earlier [20].

The burden of disease methodology makes the years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality and years lived with a disability (YLD) comparable and is summing them up as disability adjusted life years (DALY)
DALY = Y L L + Y L D
(2)
The disabilities caused by various types of diseases are calculated accounting for the duration of the disease (L) and scaled using a disease specific disability weight (DW) and number of cases (N):
Y L D = D W × L × N
(3)

The current enhancement of the health impact assessment with the above described mass-balance approach, to account for varying ventilation, is built on the previous achievements of EnVIE [21] and IAIAQ projects [22] and the corresponding models for environmental burden of disease caused by indoor air quality. These models were based on pollutant specific attributable fraction (by expert judgements) of disease caused by indoor exposure and European level burden of disease (BoD) data. National estimates were produced by using national level BoD data and scaling the attributable fraction according to the ratio of national versus European indoor concentration estimates of each pollutant (i.e. PM2.5, outdoor bioaerosols, VOC, carbon oxide (CO) radon and dampness). Population weighted European average was used in cases where national level data was not available.

In the current work second hand smoke exposures at home were added to the list of pollutants using exposure data from a European survey [23]. In addition, the earlier PM2.5, radon and dampness models were updated to the relative risk-based population attributable fraction (PAF) as [24]:
P A F = f × R R 1 f × R R 1 + 1
(4)
where f is the fraction of population exposed to a given factor and RR is the relative risk of the exposed population. WHO estimates for national burden of disease in 2004 were used for the background BoD [25] (see supporting information, Additional file 1: Table S1) to calculate the environmental burden of disease (EBD) caused by the current exposures (Table 2)
E B D = P A F × BoD
(5)
Table 2

Outdoor and indoor exposure levels (PM2.5, radon and VOC) and prevalence of exposure (dampness in homes and second hand smoke of non-smoking population) in European countries used for burden of disease calculations

 

a)Out. PM2.5

b)Ind. PM2.5

c)Out. VOC

d)Ind. VOC

e)Ind. Radon

f)Dampness homes

g)SHS non-smokers

 

μg m−3

μg m−3

μg m−3

μg m−3

Bq m−3

%

%

Austria

17

5

103

298

97

8

14

Belgium

19

5

103

298

69

14

18

Bulgaria

22

5

103

298

30

n/a

23

Cyprus

23

4

103

298

7

30

31

Czech Republic

23

5

116

334 (8

140

16

16

Denmark

13

3

103

298

53

11

17

Estonia

11

3

103

298

120

23

16

Finland

9

3

64

226 (8

120

5

2

France

12

5

77

223 (9

89

14

9

Germany

16

5

103

297 (10

50

13

13

Greece

21

4

155

345 (9

55

19

28

Hungary

25

5

103

298

107

19

12

Ireland

8

3

103

298

89

15

14

Italy

20

4

181

489 (8

70

21

11

Latvia

12

3

103

298

n/a

26

12

Lithuania

14

3

103

298

55

25

28

Luxembourg

12

5

52

148 (9

115

15

8

Netherlands

19

5

46

134 (9

30

18

15

Poland

22

5

103

298

49

37

21

Portugal

18

4

38

213 (9

86

20

13

Romania

23

5

103

298

45

29

23

Slovakia

23

5

103

298

87

6

13

Slovenia

17

5

103

298

87

17

14

Spain

16

4

103

298

90

18

20

Sweden

10

3

77

223 (11

108

6

3

UK

13

3

85

245 (8

20

15

7

EU-26

17

4

104

298

64

18

14

a)De Leeuw and Horalek, 2009 [28], b)Hänninen, et al. 2004 [11] (in case of missing data, European average value used), c)Outdoor VOC concentrations were calculated based on indoor concentrations by using data on fraction estimations from literature (Finland 0,22, Greece 0.31, Italy 0.27, Portugal 0.15, other countries 0.26 (population weighted EU-26 mean value based on the four previous values), d)Data on indoor VOC concentrations collected from several source (indicated separately, in case of missing data, European average value used, indicated with italics), e)EU Radonmapping [29] (in case of missing data, European average value used), f)WHO/ENHIS Fact Sheet 3.5 [30], g)Survey on Tobacco, Eurobarometer 253, 2009 [23], h)EXPOLIS study Jantunen MJ. et al. 1998 [31], i)IAIAQ model, Jantunen et al. 2012 [22], j)GerEs study: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/health/assessing-environmentally-related-health-risks/german-environmental-survey-geres, k)Norback, D. et al. 1995 [32].

The relative risk at the current exposure level (E) was estimated from epidemiological relative risk (RR°) expressed per a standard exposure increment:
R R = e E ln R R ° = R R ° E
(6)
Pollutant specific diseases and methodology are presented in Table 3. PAFs for each country and pollutant can be found from supporting information Additional file 2: Table S2.
Table 3

Diseases and exposure-response relationships included in this assessment

Exposuresa

Health endpoints

WHO

RR

PAF

RR & PAF source(s)

BoD calculationb

PM2.5

Asthma

W113

1.009

f(RR, E)c

Pope et al. 2002 [33]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

 

Lung cancer

W067

1.014

f(RR, E)c

Pope et al. 2002 [33]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

 

CV-diseases

W104

1.009

f(RR, E)c

Pope et al. 2002 [33]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

 

COPD

W112

1.009

f(RR, E)c

Pope et al. 2002 [33]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

Outdoor bioaerosols

Asthma

W113

n/a

0.1d

Jantunen et al., 2010 [22]

PAF × BoD2004

VOC

Asthma

W113

n/a

0.05e

Jantunen et al., 2010 [22]

C/CEU × PAF × BoD2004

CO

Acute toxication caused by carbon monoxide

n/a

n/a

0.9e

Jantunen et al., 2010 [22]

Cases x 20 years lost/case

Radon

Lung cancer

W067

1.0014

f(RR, E)c

Darby et al., 2005 [34]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

Home dampness

Respiratory infections

W038

1.37

f(RR, E)c

Fisk et al., 2007 [35]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

 

Asthma

W113

1.5

f(RR, E)c

Fisk et al., 2007 [35]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

SHSf

Lung cancer

W067

1.21

f(RR, E)c

US S.G. 2006 [36]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

 

Ischaemic heart disease

W107

1.27

f(RR, E)c

US S.G. 2006 [36]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

 

Asthma

W113

1.97

f(RR, E)c

Jaakkola et al., 2003 [37]

PAF(E, RR) × BoD2004

a)Population weighted average in EU26, b)C = National population weighted concentration, CEU = European average concentration, E = National population weighted exposure, c)Calculated as PAF = (f × (RR-1))/((f × (RR-1)) + 1), where RR = RR°E (see equation 4) [24], d)Original value of 0.25 in Jantunen et al. (2010) [22] adjusted to 0.1 due to separation of indoor and outdoor sources and focusing on pollen from outdoor air, e)Expert judgment PAF from the EnVIE panel used directly [21], see column PAF,

f)Second hand smoke exposure of non-smoking adults at home.

Exposure control scenarios

The mass-balance enhanced burden of disease model was used to evaluate the ability of three alternative exposure control scenarios to reduce BoD. In the first scenario the ventilation level was optimised by finding the ventilation rate with lowest health effects (i.e. solving the health-based optimum level of ventilation). In the second scenario optimised ventilation was combined with adjusting the filtration level to control outdoor pollutants entering indoors. In the third scenario indoor sources were controlled with ventilation set to the level of minimum requirements.

Scenario 1: Dilution with health-based optimum level ventilation

In the first exposure reduction scenario, indoor and outdoor sources were kept unchanged and only ventilation rate was adjusted to find the health-based optimum level of ventilation. In this scenario, increased level of ventilation decreases the pollutant concentrations from indoor sources and increases contribution of outdoor sources indoors. The health-based optimum level of ventilation was solved for each country among EU-26 by calculating the burden of disease with ventilation rates from 0.1 to 50 lps pp.

Use of mass-balance dilution model is based on assumption that all indoor originating sources follow a constant rate of emissions even though this is not self-evident for several indoor originating pollutants, in this case especially for radon and dampness. In some ventilation systems higher ventilation rates may cause under pressure indoors and this may increase infiltration of radon from the soil below the buildings. In addition, in cases where dampness is created by condensation, higher ventilation rates may increase the problem. However, the benefits of higher ventilation rates were calculated assuming the mass-balance for a constant source term for these pollutants too.

Scenario 2: Filtration of intake air

Analyses of scenario 1 showed that in cases where outdoor air is polluted, it may become a significant source of exposures indoors. Therefore, in the second scenario the burden of disease was attempted to reduce by controlling the penetration of pollutants from outdoors to indoors with increased filtration. Filtration efficiency was specified for PM2.5 particles.

Three levels of filtration were compared. In the baseline scenario it was assumed that 90 % of the outdoor PM2.5 mass concentration penetrates indoors. In addition, realistic but increasingly challenging penetration levels of 70 % and 50 % were evaluated. These correspond to effective filtration of PM2.5 mass concentration by 27 % and 45 %, respectively, and these kind of filtration levels can be achieved in real buildings at least when using mechanical ventilation systems [13]. When discussing the filtration efficiencies of filters and the above mentioned penetration efficiencies, it has to be noted that the penetration efficiency is defined for the building, accounting for leaks and ventilation from windows, doors etc.

The ventilation rate in this scenario was set to a health-based optimum ventilation (i.e. ventilation level with the lowest health effects) defined separately for each filtration level. Burden of disease was then calculated with these ventilation levels and compared to the BoD in the baseline scenario to estimate the achievable health benefits.

Scenario 3: Source control and minimum ventilation (4 lps pp)

In the third scenario the exposures of the indoor sources were assumed to be reduced with the following emission control potentials for the considered pollutants:

-90 % for radon, carbon monoxide (CO) and second hand smoke (SHS)

-50 % for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and dampness

-25 % for particulate matter (PM2.5)

These control potentials were defined as hypothetical, technically feasible maximum reductions evaluated by the authors. The radon estimate assumes highly efficient application and control of radon safe construction in radon-prone areas combined with control of second hand smoke exposures known to act synergistically with radon. Efficient second hand smoke reductions have already been demonstrated in Finland in both workplaces and in homes resulting a decrease in proportion of adolescents exposed to SHS from 17 % in 1991 to 6 % in 2009 [26] and the SHS policies are moving forward also on at European level. The carbon monoxide exposures were assumed to be reduced by compulsory alarms that will notify residents when carbon monoxide levels are increasing because of malfunctioning devices or fires.

VOC levels are assumed to be controlled by new low emitting products and wider use of comprehensive labelling systems for low emission products. Dampness controls need to combine better constructions practises and structural improvements with active/online and passive warning sensors. However, the greatest challenge is to control particulate matter. The proposed 25 % reduction is assumed to be achieved with target exhausts in kitchens, avoiding use of candles and improved design of combustion devices.

To provide some sensitivity analysis to estimate the effectiveness of source control, two other scenarios with lower and higher source control capabilities were also analysed. In the lower source control scenario (scenario 3.1), it was assumed a reduction of 80 % for radon, CO and SHS and 25 % reduction of PM2.5, VOC and dampness exposures. In the higher source control scenario (scenario 3.2), a total control (100 %) of radon, CO and SHS and 75 % reduction of PM2.5, VOC and dampness exposures were assumed.

In all source control scenarios, the ventilation level was set to be 4 lps pp, which was proposed as base ventilation rate in cases when ventilation must handle only human bio-effluent emissions (carbon dioxide (CO2) and moisture) by work done in HealthVent (report will be published separately). In presence of any other indoor sources, level of ventilation needs to be adjusted to acceptable level.

Results

Burden of disease caused by indoor exposures in 2010

An annual loss of 2.1 million DALYs in EU-26 is associated to indoor and outdoor originating pollutants with more than half of it (1.28 million DALYs) caused by exposures to outdoor air pollution indoors and the remaining 0.74 million DALYs caused by indoor source pollutants.

This burden of disease is dominated by cardiovascular (CV) diseases as a result of exposure to outdoor and indoor particles and second hand smoke, corresponding 57 % of the total burden of disease (Fig. 1). The second largest contribution comes from lung cancer (23 %) and the third in the list is asthma (total of 12 %). The remaining 8 % is divided between various respiratory symptoms and conditions.
Fig. 1

Attributable burden of diseases due to indoor exposures in 2010 in EU-26. The lighter shade of blue and red represents the maximum fraction that can be reduced by actions (scenarios) presented in this paper (reproduced from Asikainen & Hänninen [20])

The total burden of disease for individual countries varies considerably with the highest burden of 10 000 DALY per one million population in Bulgaria to the lowest one of 2 000 DALY per million in Sweden. The EU-26 average burden of disease is slightly over 4 000 DALY in a year per one million population. The higher levels in East-European countries are dominated by high contribution of outdoor sources, which vary from 46 % (Ireland) to 75 % (Bulgaria) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Total burden of disease as DALY/million population from indoor exposures in EU-26 countries with division to indoor and outdoor sources in the 2010 building stock (reproduced from Asikainen & Hänninen [20])

Source contributions to burden of disease

Overall in EU-26, almost 80 % of the total annual burden of disease of indoor exposures (i.e. 4 000 DALYs/million) is estimated to be caused by PM2.5, dominated by particulates originating from outdoor air penetrating indoors (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Burden of disease attributable to indoor exposures in EU-26 (2.1 M DALY/a) and in Finland (13 k DALY/a) in 2010 divided into source contributions (reproduced from Asikainen & Hänninen [20])

Comparison of the sources of burden of disease in Finland (Fig. 3) and in other EU-26 countries (Table 4) shows clear differences between countries. As an example, in Finland the role of ambient particles is lower than on average in the EU-26 countries, but both bio-aerosols (pollen) and radon play much more significant roles, the latter contributing double to that than for the European average.
Table 4

Contribution (%) of different sources to the total DALYs in 2010

Country

Ind. PM2.5

Radon

Ind. VOC

CO

Damp.

SHS

Out. PM2.5

Bio-aerosols

Out. VOC

Austria

18

11

1

1

1

5

58

3

0

Belgium

18

9

1

0

4

4

60

3

0

Bulgaria

17

2

0

0

3

2

74

1

0

Cyprus

11

0

1

0

11

12

61

3

0

Czech Republic

14

12

1

4

3

3

61

2

0

Denmark

13

9

2

3

3

6

59

5

1

Estonia

14

13

1

5

8

4

52

3

0

Finland

16

16

2

4

3

2

50

7

1

France

20

18

2

0

5

2

46

6

1

Germany

20

6

1

1

3

4

60

3

0

Greece

14

6

1

1

4

5

68

2

0

Hungary

15

12

0

1

1

1

69

1

0

Ireland

13

12

4

2

11

12

34

11

1

Italy

14

9

2

1

4

3

64

3

1

Latvia

15

6

1

2

7

3

64

2

0

Lithuania

14

5

0

0

6

10

63

1

0

Luxembourg

21

15

1

1

6

3

47

5

0

Netherlands

18

4

1

1

6

5

61

5

0

Poland

15

5

1

1

6

3

66

2

0

Portugal

14

7

1

1

7

4

62

4

0

Romania

16

3

0

1

7

2

70

1

0

Slovakia

16

7

1

1

2

3

70

2

0

Slovenia

17

11

1

2

5

3

56

3

0

Spain

14

14

1

0

5

4

57

4

0

Sweden

16

15

2

2

3

3

54

6

1

United

13

3

2

1

8

5

59

8

1

EU-26

16

8

1

1

5

4

62

3

0

Even though dampness and mould problems continuously raise a lot of attention in Finland, only 3 % of the total BoD is estimated to be caused by dampness being at the lower end on the European scale (ranging from 1 % to 11 %),

Health benefits of exposure control scenarios

Each of the described three exposure control scenarios provides health benefits compared to the 2010 baseline scenario in EU-26 so, that 20 % reduction of burden of disease was achieved with the dilution scenario, 38 % reduction with the filtration scenario, and 44 % reduction with the indoor source control scenario (changing from 41 % to 54 % depending on assumed source reductions) (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

Burden of disease at the baseline (2010) in comparison with alternative potential control strategies in EU-26 (in millions of DALYs) (reproduced from Asikainen & Hänninen [20])

In the dilution-based scenario 1, reduction of indoor originating exposures with increased ventilation is compensated by increased penetration of outdoor pollution leading to a lower health benefits. In this scenario, the lowest burden of disease in EU-26 is found at mean ventilation level of 4.4 lps pp, which is clearly lower than the mean ventilation in the existing building stock (17 lps pp) defined by the regression modelled probability distributions (Table 1) [17], [20].

Approximately twice as high benefits are achievable by filtration of outdoor air in scenario 2. The results for maximum feasible filtration (with penetration fraction P = 50 %) show that 38 % reduction in burden of disease (800 000 DALYs) in EU-26 can be achieved. The European optimum mean ventilation level with lowest burden of disease is then 7.7 lps pp. This scenario would in practice imply substantial change towards mechanical ventilation systems in Europe. In the Nordic countries, this is already the practice due to the energy efficiency norms, but, in the majority of the European building stock, the filtration scenario would require a substantial step towards installing mechanical systems.

The largest health benefits can be achieved by the source control approach (scenario 3.0), which significantly reduces the need to control exposures by dilution. The benefits are approximately 44 % from the baseline (940 000 DALYs) in EU-26, and changing from reduction of 41 % (865 000 DALYs) with lower source control assumptions in scenario 3.1to 57 % (1.21 million DALY) with higher source control assumptions in scenario 3.2, demonstrating source control to be more effective than dilution or filtration even with smaller reductions of source exposures.

In addition to higher health benefits and compared to the filtration-based scenario 2, the advantage of the source control scenario 3 is that lower dilution need (i.e. enabling lower ventilation rate) allows also for lower infiltration of outdoor particles and therefore the feasibility of approach is better in the current building stock. Moreover, requiring lower ventilation rates the source control approach is likely to prove also more energy-efficient.

Further analysis of the contribution of indoor and outdoor sources shows, that with the dilution scenario 1 the health benefits are not only due to smaller proportion of the indoor contribution (i.e. the dilution of the pollutants from the indoor sources), but is mainly due to the lower ventilation rates that limit the penetration of the outdoor pollutants indoors.

In the filtration scenario 2 the health benefits are due to filtration of the outdoor pollutants and also effective dilution of the indoor pollutants, as the health-based optimal ventilation levels are higher.

Furthermore, in the source control scenarios, the health benefits are a result of both effects: lower indoor sources due to the source control and lower penetration of outdoor pollutants due to low level of ventilation.

Discussion

The results suggest that (i) there is a substantial burden of disease associated with exposures taking place indoors and that (ii) these risks can substantially be reduced by range of control actions affecting indoor pollution sources, infiltration of outdoor pollutants, and ventilation levels. Besides the estimated health benefits and policy implementation costs, the suggested prioritization of the policies depends also on the uncertainties of the estimates.

Substantial uncertainty is raised by model uncertainties, including the selection of pollutants to be considered as relevant for indoor exposures and the health end-points associated with them. It is not clear how much the burden of disease estimates are underestimated due to the dozens of ignored exposures or missing health endpoints for the included exposures. The model uncertainties could and should be qualitatively evaluated by experts before the implementation of results.

The other aspect of the model uncertainties is related on model parameters. Variable degree of uncertainty exists in the exposure-response response relationships based on epidemiological studies. For some of the included pollutants, such as PM2.5 originating from outdoor air, this data is based on a large number of studies, representing very large populations in different climatological regions. In this study, the exposure-response relationship of ambient particles has also been used for indoor generated particles. The indoor generated particles have partly similar composition, originating from combustion processes or being re-suspended particles originating from soil, thus it is reasonable to assume similar toxicity as for the ambient particles. However, some particle fractions, especially the particles generated from food cooking, from the skin and clothes of occupants, and from interior textiles, have a different chemical composition with limited direct evidence on their toxicity. This may lead on overestimation of the health effects caused by indoor PM2.5. Significance of this varies between the countries, since portion of health effects caused by indoor PM2.5 from the total burden of disease on baseline 2010 changes from 13 % to 21 % (Table 4). Average contribution of indoor PM2.5 in EU-26 is 16 % (Fig. 3), so this fraction could be removed from total BoD, if considered too uncertain due to the lack of toxicological evidence. In this case, the contribution of indoor sources would decrease in all scenarios and outdoor component would become the dominant one, also in the scenario 2 and in the scenario 3. However, the overall performance and order of scenarios would not change, so the conclusions would remain the same.

Scenarios including projections to future rely always on assumed changes in the investigated environments and factors, and we may not know all changes that need to be accounted for. Also the implementation timeframe of selected actions or policies need to be considered. In this case the most significant element in the scenario uncertainties is related to the development of future building stocks [27]. This includes also changes in the technical solutions of ventilation systems, which are not specifically defined in the current ventilation guidelines. An example of this is the filtration of outdoor air pollution, especially PM2.5, but also pollen, other biological particles, ozone, ultrafine traffic particles and so on. Infiltration of ambient particles depends on air exchange rates, size distribution of the outdoor particles, and filtration of the intake air. At lower air exchange rates the prolonged residence time of air indoors and corresponding deposition of the larger particles on indoor surfaces reduces indoor exposures even when the outdoor air is not filtrated. Using window frames and other sedimentation chambers allows for filtrating particles even in natural ventilation systems. Nevertheless, active filtration becomes efficient only in mechanical systems using high quality (above FP7) filters.

The used ventilation rate estimates per occupant (lps pp) are calculated using average residence sizes and average numbers of occupants in each country. Population weighted average outdoor concentrations have also been used to estimate the indoor exposures. It is clear that the air filtration needs for a specific building have to be defined taken into account the ambient air quality at the selected building location. In all countries considered, there are locations where the outdoor levels exceed the WHO guidelines much more than the national averages used here indicate. When the current methods are proposed to determine the potential filtration needs, they have to be applied with worst case estimates for the actual building site, accounting for the whole service life cycle.

Largest health benefits were projected for the source control policies. It is obvious that the benefits are achievable only if the source controls work as efficiently as proposed and that the efficiency of the source controls must be confirmed with follow-up (e.g. auditing) of exposure levels after the policy enforcement.

Conclusions

Over 2 million disability adjusted life years (DALY) are annually lost in the European Union due to compromised indoor air quality, but this burden of disease can be reduced by adjusting ventilation, filtration of intake air and by controlling indoor sources. All three approaches are able to provide substantial reductions in the health risks from approximately 20 % to almost 50 %, corresponding to 400 000 and 900 000 saved DALYs in EU-26. Thus selection of strategies has substantial impact on the expected benefits.

The projected health benefits can be achieved if the controls on ventilation and sources are fully implemented as defined in the scenario descriptions. In the case of selecting some of the proposed strategies for implementation, a careful follow-up plan has to be developed for ensuring that the controls are effective and match the requirements of the benefit calculations.

Additional files

Abbreviations

BoD: 

burden of disease

CO: 

carbon monoxide

CO2: 

carbon dioxide

CV: 

cardiovascular

DALY: 

disability adjusted life years

DW: 

disability weight

EBD: 

environmental burden of disease

EU: 

European Union

IAQ: 

indoor air quality

L: 

duration of the disease

lps pp: 

liters per second per person

PAF: 

population attributable fraction

PAQ: 

perceived air quality

RR: 

relative risk

SARS: 

severe acute respiratory syndrome

SBS: 

sick building syndrome

SHS: 

second hand smoke

VOC: 

volatile organic compounds

WHO: 

World Health Organization

YLD: 

years lived with a disability

YLL: 

years of life lost

Declarations

Declarations

Publication of this work has been supported by the EU Health Programme HEALTHVENT Grant Nr. 2009 12 08, EU FP7 (TRANSPHORM), Academy of Finland (PM Sizex) and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health project TEKAISU.

This article has been published as part of Environmental Health Volume 15 Suppl 1, 2016: Healthy-Polis: Challenges and Opportunities for Urban Environmental Health and Sustainability. The full contents of the supplement can be found at http://www.ehjournal.net/supplements/15/S1.

Peer review

Peer review reports for this article are attached as Additional file 3.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Health Protection, National Institute for Health and Welfare
(2)
Department of Occupational Health, University of Milan
(3)
European Commission, Joint Research Centre
(4)
University of Porto, INEGI, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias
(5)
Technical University of Denmark, International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy, DTU Civil Engineering

References

  1. WHO: Dampness and mould. WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality. WHO Regional office for Europe, Copenhagen 2009, ISBN 798 92 890 4168 3. [http://www.euro.who.int/document/E92645.pdf] (accessed 2014-08-22).
  2. WHO: Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected pollutants. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen 2010, Denmark. ISBN 978 92 890 0213 4. [http://www.euro.who.int/_2016_data/assets/pdf_file/0009/128169/e94535.pdf](accessed 2014-09-22).
  3. WHO: Air quality guidelines for Europe. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, European series, No 23, Copenhagen 1987, Denmark. [http://www.euro.who.int/_2016_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf] (accessed 2015-08-21).
  4. WHO: Air quality guidelines for Europe; Second edition. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, No 91, Copenhagen 2000, Denmark. [http://www.euro.who.int/document/e71922.pdf] (accessed 2014-08-22).
  5. EN15251: CEN Standard on Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings- addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics. European Committee For Standardization (CEN) 2007, Brussels. 52 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Wargocki P, Sundell J, Bischof W, Brundrett G, Fanger PO, Gyntelberg F, et al: Ventilation and health in non-industrial indoor environments: report from a European multidisciplinary scientific consensus meeting (EUROVEN). Indoor Air. 2002, 12: 113-128. 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2002.01145.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ: Summary of human responses to ventilation. Indoor Air. 2004, 14 (Suppl 7): 102-118. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00279.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Li Y, Leung GM, Tang JW, Yang X, Chao CYH, Lin JZ, et al: Role of ventilation in airborne transmission of infectious agents in the built environment – a multidisciplinary systematic review. Indoor Air. 2007, 17: 2-18. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00445.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sundell J, Levin H, Nazaroff WW, Cain WS, Fisk WJ, Grimsrud DT, et al: Ventilation rates and health: multidisciplinary review of the scientific literature. Indoor Air. 2011, 21: 191-204. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00703.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. EEA: Air quality in Europe. European Environment Agency Report 9/2013, 2013, 112 pp. ISSN 1725–9177. [http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2013/at_download/file] (accessed 2015-01-30).
  11. Hänninen O, Lebret E, Ilacqua V, Katsouyanni K, Künzli N: Infiltration of ambient PM2.5 and levels of indoor generated non-ETS PM2.5 in residences of four European cities. Atmos Environ. 2004, 38: 6411-6423. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.07.015.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Hänninen OO, Palonen J, Tuomisto JT, Yli-Tuomi T, Seppänen O, Jantunen MJ, et al: Reduction potential of urban PM2.5 mortality risk using modern ventilation systems in buildings. Indoor Air. 2005, 15: 246-256. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00365.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisk WJ, Faulkner D, Palonen J, Seppänen O: Performance and costs of particle air filtration technologies. Indoor Air. 2002, 12: 223-234. 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2002.01136.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Dockery DW, Spengler JD: Personal exposure to respirable particulates and sulfates. J Air Pollut Control Assoc. 1981, 31: 153-159. 10.1080/00022470.1981.10465205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Hänninen O, Sorjamaa R, Lipponen P, Cyrys J, Lanki T, Pekkanen J: Aerosol-based modelling of infiltration of ambient PM2.5 and evaluation against population-based measurements in homes in Helsinki, Finland. J Aerosol Sci. 2013, 66: 111-122. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2013.08.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Dimitroulopoulou C: Ventilation in European dwellings: A review. Build Environ. 2012, 47: 109-125. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.016.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Asikainen A, Hänninen O, Brelih N, Bischof W, Hartmann T, Carrer P, et al: Proportion of residences in European countries with ventilation rates below the regulation based limit value. Int J Vent. 2013, 12: 129-134.Google Scholar
  18. WHO: Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen 2011, Denmark. [http://www.euro.who.int/_2016_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/142077/e95004.pdf] (accessed 2014-08-22).
  19. Murray CJ, Lopez AD: Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 1997, 349: 1498-1504. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07492-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Hänninen O, Asikainen A (eds.): Efficient reduction of indoor exposures: Health benefits from optimizing ventilation, filtration and indoor source controls. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL). Report 2/2013. Helsinki 2013. ISBN 978-952-245-821-6 (printed) ISBN 978-952-245-822-3 (online publication). 2013, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-245-822-3, . ISBN 978-952-245-821-6 (printed) ISBN 978-952-245-822-3 (online publication).
  21. Oliveira Fernandes de E, Jantunen M, Carrer P, Seppänen O, Harrison P, Kephalopoulos S: Co-ordination Action on Indoor Air Quality and Health Effects (ENVIE). Final report, 2009. [http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~envie/documents/finalreports/Final%20Reports%20Publishable/Publishable%20final%20activity%20report.pdf] (accessed 2014-08-22)Google Scholar
  22. Jantunen M, de Oliveira FE, Carrer P, Kephalopoulos S: Promoting actions for healthy indoor air (IAIAQ). 2011, European Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers, Luxembourg, [http://ec.europa.eu/health/healthy_environments/docs/env_iaiaq.pdf](accessed 2014-08-22), 978-92-79-20419-7Google Scholar
  23. EC: Survey on Tobacco. Analytical report. European Commission Flash Eurobarometer 253, 2009. [http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/Tobacco/Documents/eb_253_en.pdf] (accessed 2014-08-22).
  24. Hänninen O, Knol A (eds.): European perspectives on Environmental Burden of Disease; Estimates for nine stressors in six countries. THL Reports 1/2011, Helsinki 2011, Finland. ISBN 978-952- 245-413-3. [http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201205085022] (accessed 2015-02-12).
  25. WHO: The global burden of disease 2004 update. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2008, Switzerland. [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf] (accessed 2015-08-21).
  26. Raisamo SU, Doku DT, Heloma A, Rimpelä AH: Persistence of socioeconomic differences in adolescents’ environmental tobacco smoke exposure in Finland: 1991–2009. Scand J Public Health. 2014, 42: 184-193. 10.1177/1403494813514301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Macmillan A, Davies M, Shrubsole C, Luxford N, May N, Chiu LF, et al. Integrated decision-making about housing, energy and wellbeing: a qualitative system dynamics model. Environ Health. 2016;15(Suppl 1):xx.Google Scholar
  28. De Leeuw, F.A.A.M. and J. Horalek: Assessment of the health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 at a European level. ETC./ACC Technical paper 2009/1. [http://air-climate.eionet.europa.eu/docs/ETCACC_TP_2009_1_European_PM2.5_HIA.pdf] (accessed 2015-08-21).
  29. An overwiev of radon surveys in europe. Joint research center, EUR. 21892, https://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/remweb/publications/EUR_RADON.pdf, EN, Luxembourg, ISBN 92-79-01066-2, European Communities, 2005.
  30. WHO Enhis fact sheet. Children living in homes with problems of damp. Fact sheet no 3.5, 2007. [http://www.euro.who.int/_2016_data/assets/pdf_file/0009/97425/3.5.pdf?ua=1] (accessed 2015-08-18).
  31. Jantunen MJ, et al: Air pollution exposure in European cities: the EXPOLIS-study. J Exposure Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1998, 8: 495-518.Google Scholar
  32. Norback D, et al: Asthmatic symptoms and volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide in dwellings. Occup Environ Med. 1995, 52: 388-389. 10.1136/oem.52.6.388.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, et al: Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA. 2002, 287: 1132-1141. 10.1001/jama.287.9.1132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, BarrosDios JM, Baysson H, Bochicchio F, et al: Radon in homes and lung cancer risk: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case control studies. British Medical J. 2005, 330: 223-226. 10.1136/bmj.38308.477650.63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Fisk WJ, Lei-Gomez Q, Mendell MJ: Meta-analyses of the associations of respiratory health effects with dampness and mold in homes. Indoor Air. 2007, 17: 284-296. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00475.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. US Surgeon General: The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. A Report of the Surgeon General Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta 2006, US. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/] (accessed 2015-02-12).Google Scholar
  37. Jaakkola MS, Piipari R, et al: Environmental tobacco smoke and adult-onset asthma: a population-based incident case–control study. Am J Public Health. 2003, 93: 2055-2060. 10.2105/AJPH.93.12.2055.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Asikainen et al. 2016

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement