Comparing the effectiveness of interventions to improve ventilation behavior in primary schools.
Poor air quality in schools has been associated with adverse health effects. Indoor air quality can be improved by increasing ventilation. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different interventions to improve ventilation behavior in primary schools. We used indoor CO(2) concentrations as an indicator. In 81 classes of 20 Dutch primary schools, we applied three different interventions: (i) a class-specific ventilation advice; (ii) the advice combined with a CO(2) warning device and (iii) the advice combined with a teaching package. The effectiveness of the interventions was tested directly after intervention and 6 weeks after intervention by measuring the CO(2) concentrations and comparison with a control group (iv). Before intervention, the CO(2) concentration exceeded 1000 ppm for 64% of the school day. The class-specific ventilation advice without further support appeared an ineffective tool to improve ventilation behavior. The advice in combination with a CO(2) warning device or the teaching package proved effective tools and resulted in lower indoor CO(2) concentrations when compared with the control group. Ventilation was significantly improved, but CO(2) concentrations still exceeded 1000 ppm for more than 40% of the school day. Hence, until ventilation facilities are upgraded, the CO(2) warning device and the teaching package are useful low-cost tools.


CONCLUSIONS
To improve ventilation behavior and indoor air quality in schools, CO(2) warning device and teaching package combined with a class-specific ventilation advice, are effective tools, while giving the ventilation advice solely, is not effective. Although ventilation is significantly improved through behavioral change, the ventilation rate is still insufficient to maintain good air quality during the full school day. Therefore, the improvement of the ventilation facilities is recommended. Hence, until ventilation facilities in schools are upgraded, the CO(2) warning device and the teaching package are useful low-cost tools to improve current indoor air quality.
Geelen
L M J
LM
Office of Environmental Health & Safety, Public Health Services Brabant/Zeeland, Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. l.geelen@science.ru.nl
Huijbregts
M A J
MA
Ragas
A M J
AM
Bretveld
R W
RW
Jans
H W A
HW
van Doorn
W J
WJ
Evertz
S J C J
SJ
van der Zijden
A
A
D000293:Adolescent; D000393:Air Pollutants / Q000032:analysis; D016902:Air Pollution, Indoor / Q000032:analysis* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D002245:Carbon Dioxide / Q000032:analysis; D002648:Child; D004784:Environmental Monitoring; D005160:Facility Design and Construction; D006801:Humans; D013058:Mass Spectrometry; D011786:Quality Control; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012574:Schools; D014691:Ventilation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*
D000393:Air Pollutants; D002245:Carbon Dioxide