Indoor environmental quality is considered an important indicator of the sustainable development of architecture. It not only reflects the comfort level of occupants in the building but also affects their productivity, particularly in research institutions. However, due to the inherent correlation among various environmental indexes, it is difficult to evaluate the influence of specific physical parameters on the occupant’s comfort and research performance. This paper is based on an experiment conducted in a controlled research office in a pharmaceutical research company in the Northeast of China. The controlled research office was equipped with a radiant floor heating system that supplied heating in winter. We recruited 32 researchers and divided them into four subgroups. Each subgroup of researchers was required to conduct daily research activities under 12 different environment combinations. Data were collected from physical environment measurements, questionnaire surveys and performance tests. The results reflected that under the condition of radian floor heating in winter, changes in thermal, visual and acoustic environments could have a significant influence on occupants’ satisfaction with the environment. However, the research performance was affected only by thermal and acoustic conditions. There was a weak correlation among thermal, visual, acoustic and indoor air quality comfort.
Beijing Investigation Team of National Bureau of Statistics. 2018 Beijing Residents’ Time Usage Survey Report, 2019. Available at: http://bj.bendibao.com/news/2019329/258593.shtm (accessed 13 January 2021).
2.
ASHRAE 2012. Performance Measurement Protocols: Best Practices Guide. Atlanta: The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 2012.
3.
FrontczakMSchiavonSGoinsJArensEZhangHWargockiP. Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air2012; 22(2): 119–131.
4.
ZomorodianZSTahsidoostMHafeziM. Thermal comfort in educational buildings: A review article. Renew Sust Energ Rev2016; 59: 895–906.
5.
WongLTMuiKWHuiPS. A multivariate-logistic model for acceptance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in offices. Build Environ2008; 43(1): 1–6.
6.
DongBPrakashVFengFO'NeillZ. A review of smart building sensing system for better indoor environment control. Energy Build2019; 199: 29–46.
FantozziFRoccaM. An extensive collection of evaluation indicators to assess occupants’ health and comfort in indoor environment. Atmosphere2020; 11(1): 90.
9.
FeigeAWallbaumHJanserMWindlingerL. Impact of sustainable office buildings on occupant's comfort and productivity. J Corp R Estate2013; 15: 7–34.
10.
BurdovaEKVilcekovaSMeciarovaL. Investigation of particulate matters of the university classroom in Slovakia. Energ Proced2016; 96: 620–627.
11.
BuenoAMDe Paula XavierAABrodayEE. Evaluating the connection between thermal comfort and productivity in buildings: A systematic literature review. Buildings2021; 11(6): 244.
12.
RoskamsMHaynesB. Predictive analytics in facilities management: A pilot study for exploring environmental comfort using wireless sensors. J Facil Manag2019; 17: 356–370.
13.
LambSKwokKCS. A longitudinal investigation of work environment stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office workers. Appl Ergon2016; 52: 104–111.
14.
KangSXOuDYCheukMM. The impact of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in university open-plan research offices. Build Environ2017; 124: 78–89.
15.
GengYJiWJLinBRZhuYX. The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ perception and productivity. Build Environ2017; 121: 158–167.
16.
LipczynskaASchiavonSGrahamLT. Thermal comfort and self-reported productivity in an office with ceiling fans in the tropics. Build Environ2018; 135: 202–212.
17.
MaulaHHongistoVÖstmanLHaapakangasAKoskelaHHyönäJ. The effect of slightly warm temperature on work performance and comfort in open-plan offices–a laboratory study. Indoor Air2016; 26: 674–684.
18.
ZhangRCampanellaCAristizabalSJamrozikAZhaoJPorterPLySBauerBA. Impacts of dynamic LED lighting on the well-being and experience of office occupants. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17(19): 7217.
19.
HwangTTaiJ. Effects of indoor lighting on occupants’ visual comfort and eye health in a green building. Indoor Built Environ2011; 20(1): 75–90.
20.
JuslénHTennerA. Mechanisms involved in enhancing human performance by changing the lighting in the industrial workplace. Int J Ind Ergonom2005; 35(9): 843–855.
21.
JenningsJDRubinsteinFMDiBartolomeoDBlancSL. Comparison of control options in private offices in an advanced lighting controls testbed. J Illum Eng Soc2013; 29(2): 39–60.
22.
VillaCLabayradeR. A suitable and energy-efficient luminous environment for a shared office. Light Res Technol2015; 48: 755–770.
23.
SunCJLianZWLanL. Work performance in relation to lighting environment in office buildings. Indoor Built Environ2019; 28(8): 1064–1082.
24.
MakCMLuiYP. The effect of sound on office productivity. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2012; 33: 339–345.
25.
LeePJLeeBKJeonJYZhangMKangJ. Impact of noise on self-rated job satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: a structural equation modelling approach. Ergonomics2015; 59: 222–234.
26.
SailerUHassenzahlM. Assessing noise annoyance: an improvement-oriented approach. Ergonomics2000; 43(11): 1920–1938.
27.
HaapakangasAHeleniusRKeskinenEHongistoV. Perceived acoustic environment, work performance and well-being–survey results from Finnish offices. In: 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Foxwoods, CT, July 2008, pp. 21434–25441.
28.
LenneLChevretPMarchandJ. Long-term effects of the use of a sound masking system in open-plan offices: A field study. Appl Acoust2020; 158: 107049.
29.
BudaiovaZVilcekovaS. Assessing the effect of indoor environmental quality on productivity at office work. J Civil Eng2015; 10: 37–46.
30.
IshiiJ. A study of the thermal comfort of college students for a year. In: 15th Conference on Biometeorology/Aerobiology and 16th International Congress of Biometeorology, Kansas City, USA, 28 October–1 November 2002.
31.
CatalinaTIordacheV. IEQ assessment on schools in the design stage. Build Environ2012; 49: 129–140.
32.
BajcTSBanjacMJTodorovicMNStevanovicZZ. Experimental and statistical survey on local thermal comfort impact on working productivity loss in university classrooms. Therm Sci2019; 23: 379–392.
33.
JowkarMRijalHBMontazamiABruseyJTemeljotov-SalajA. The influence of acclimatization, age and gender-related differences on thermal perception in university buildings: Case studies in Scotland and England. Build Environ2020; 179: 106933.
34.
HalawaEVan HoofJ. The adaptive approach to thermal comfort: A critical overview. Energy Build2012; 51: 101–110.
35.
MagnussonK. Understanding statistical power and significance testing. Available at: https://rpsychologist.com/d3/nhst/ (accessed 08 June 2020).
36.
TanabeSNishiharaNHanedaM. Indoor temperature, productivity, and fatigue in office tasks. HVAC&R RES2007; 13(4): 623–633.
37.
TartariniFSchiavonSCheungTHoytT. CBE thermal comfort tool: Online tool for thermal comfort calculations and visualizations. SoftwareX2020; 12: 100563.
38.
HoytTSchiavonSTartariniFCheungTSteinfeldKPiccioliAMoonD. CBE Thermal Comfort Tool. Berkeley: Center for the Built Environment, University of California, 2020.
39.
LanLLianZPanL. The effects of air temperature on office workers’ wellbeing, workload and productivity- evaluated with subject ratings. Appl Ergon2010; 42(1): 29–36.
40.
LanLWargockiPLianZ. Thermal effects on human performance in office environment measured by integrating task speed and accuracy. Appl Ergon2014; 45(3): 490–495.
