FACTORS AFFECTING VENTILATION, INDOOR-AIR QUALITY AND ACOUSTICAL QUALITY IN ‘GREEN’ AND NON-‘GREEN’ BUILDINGS: A PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses a pilot project involving the direct monitoring of ventilation, indoor-air quality and the acoustical conditions in selected nominally ‘green’ and non-‘green’ buildings located on a university campus. The objectives were to measure parameters quantifying these three aspects of indoor environmental quality, determine the relationships between them and the building-design concepts, and evaluate the implications of the results for ventilation-system design, especially in ‘green’ buildings. Measurements were made in rooms, with and without acoustical treatment, in buildings with natural ventilation or mechanical (displacement and/or mixed-flow) ventilation systems. Measurements were made of ventilation rates (air changes per hour), indoor air quality (respirable-fibre, total-VOC and ultrafine-particulate concentrations), and the acoustical conditions (noise levels and reverberation times). Correlations between the environmental results, the building concept, the ventilation concept and the building window status were explored. In rooms with natural ventilation, low-frequency noise and total sound-pressure levels were lower; however, the rooms had higher ultrafine-particulate counts and lower ventilation rates. Rooms with mechanical ventilation had higher low-frequency and total sound-pressure levels, higher ventilation rates and fibre concentrations, but lower concentrations of ultrafine particulates. It was concluded that, in general, mechanical ventilation can provide better indoor air-quality, but that HVAC noise is an issue if the system is not properly designed. In ‘green’ buildings, noise levels were acceptable when the windows were closed, but increasing the ventilation rate by opening the windows resulted in higher noise levels. The results suggest that the acceptability of environmental factors in buildings depends on the degree of compliance of the design and its implementation with standards and design guidelines (i.e. for ventilation, air quality, thermal comfort, etc.), whether the original design concept is ‘green’ or non-‘green’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".