Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality in Training Workshops

Transcription

1 Columbia International Publishing International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Solutions (2013) 1: 9-16 doi: /ijeps Research Article Evaluation of the Indoor Environmental Quality in Training Workshops Basharia A. A. Yousef 1*, Adam N. M 2, and Mohd Saleh M. A 2 Received 21 November 2012; Published online 15 December 2012 The author(s) Published with open access at Abstract This study is to evaluate the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of vocational training workshops, particularly welding, fabrication, foundry and machine shops. The study was conducted in 28 workshops at Institute Kemahiran Mara (IKM) Kuala Lumpur, Lumut Perak and Tan Sri Yahya Ahmed (TSYA) Pekan Pahang. The measurements collected include temperature, relative humidity, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, dust, air velocity, sound pressure and lighting level. Results showed the temperatures measured were between 30.3 C and 31 C. The relative humidity for 24 workshops was between 63.7% and 64.3%, while the carbon dioxide levels of two workshops were ppm and ppm. 26 workshops had air velocities below 0.25 m/s the recommended level of the World Health Organization (WHO). Finally, the lighting levels of twelve workshops were below 160 Lux the Australian Standard (AS) recommended level. From this study, it was concluded that the IEQ in IKM Vocational training workshops is unhealthy and comfortable for occupancy. Keywords: Thermal comfort; IEQ; Workshop environment; Occupational environment 1. Introduction A common problem of indoor and outdoor environments is exposure to mixtures of air pollutants. Researchers and practitioners tend to focus on single pollutants (e.g., CO2, PM2.5), ignoring the mixtures combined effect. Exposure to raised levels of air pollutants can damage health; for example, carbon monoxide can cause death and significant lasting disability. Controlling levels of indoor air pollutants is therefore important, as good indoor air quality is essential to health (John et al., 2010). Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) has become a hot topic of late. Many investigators have found that environmental quality may be influenced by factors such as comfort, noise, lighting, and ergonomic stressors (poorly designed workstations and tasks). Environmental Protection *Corresponding bashria@yahoo.com 1* Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Architecture, University of Bahri, Khartoum, Sudan 9 2 Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering University Putra Malaysia (UPM), UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

2 Agency (EPA) studies have found that indoor pollutant levels can be two to five times higher than outdoors. After some activities, indoor air pollution levels can be 100 times higher than outdoors. According to David (2002), the diagnosis of indoor air quality problems is complicated by the fact that air pollutants affect people in different ways. A certain contaminant at a certain concentration might cause headache in one person, dizziness in another, skin irritation in another and have no effect on still another person. Changing the concentration of the same contaminant could result in altered effects on the same individuals. Alexander (1991) reported that lighting could also affect occupants perceptions of buildings. Strauss (1984) and Steadman (1975) reported that there is a significant relationship between poor lighting and reported building illness. Office workers having poor building lighting were found to be more likely to think of their buildings as contributing to poor health. Noise has also been identified as a potential cause of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms. Tim and Bruce (2011) noted that the creation of healthy indoor homes and offices requires that during the design, construction, furnishing and maintenance stages, approaches to ensure low-level exposure be integrated. Good Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is a fundamental principle of sustainable buildings, and requires a balance between maximizing energy conservation and protecting health. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1995) found that the primary sources of indoor air quality problems are inadequate ventilation (52%), contamination from inside the building (16%), contamination from outside the building (10%), microbial contamination (5%), building fabrics (45%), with 13% due to unknown sources. In Malaysia, there are guidelines such as the Uniform Building by Law (UBBL) 1984, Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, and the Factory and Machinery Act 1967 for building owners to ensure that air quality in workshops is within acceptable conditions. Institute Kemahiran Mara (IKM) provides vocational training on 40 skills such as mechanical, electrical, electronic, civil, building, etc., mainly at 13 training centers. Due to a lack of attention given by the management and IKM Building Standard Committee, most of the IKM vocational training workshops are not designed to provide adequate natural ventilation. As a result, workshop occupants can be exposed to hazards and risks to their health. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the indoor environmental quality of IKM vocational training workshop by measuring indoor pollutants and stressors so that the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of IKM Vocational Training Workshops can be known as baseline information. 2. Methodology There were four methods used in the process of gathering information, i.e., preliminary study, questionnaires, field measurement, and observations. 2.1 Preliminary study Preliminary study was conducted in dining halls at IKM Kuala Lumpur on August 7, 2002 and IKM Johor Bahru on Agust 9, The test conducted was to determine the temperatures, relative humidities, carbon dioxide and sound pressure levels at 12 predetermined locations. A total of 3960 measurements were recorded in each of the dining halls for an average of 15 to 30 minutes. The results of the study are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2. 10

3 Table 1 Indoor Measurements Records No Center Indoor (Mean) Temp. ( o C) RH (%) CO (PPM) CO 2 (PPM) Sound (dba) 1 IKL Johor Bahru IKM Kuala Lumpur Standard (ASHRAE) (ASHRAE) (WHO) (ASHRAE) (FMA) Table 2 Outdoor Measurements Records No Center Outdoor (Mean) Temp. ( o C) RH (%) CO (PPM) CO 2 (PPM) Sound (dba) 1 IKL Johor Bahru IKM Kuala Lumpur Standard (ASHRAE) (ASHRAE) (WHO) (ASHRAE) (FMA) 2.2 Questionnaires The questionnaires were designed to focus on personal background, pollution exposure, safety background, health background and recommendation. Two sets of questions had been distributed to lectures and students. 2.3 Field Measurements Measurements were taken in three chosen centers; IKM Kuala Lumpur, Lumut and Tan Sri Yahya Ahmed (TSYA) Pekan. Measurements were taken from 28 workshops to determine the temperature, relative humidity, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, dust, air velocity, sound and light level at the 10 selected workshops. 2.4 Observations During field measurement, observations were focused on the building design together with its orientation to determine whether the building had a good ventilation system. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Results of the Preliminary Study Table 3 shows the overall measurements made in each of the dining halls evaluated. The mean score indoor temperatures were 30.3 C in IKM Johor Bahru and 31.0 C in IKM Kuala Lumpur, with outside temperatures of 31 C in both places. Indoor temperatures were lower than the outdoor temperatures. These temperatures exceed the ASHRAE recommendations of C. The mean scores of indoor Relative Humidity (RH) were 64.3% in IKM Johor Bahru and 63.7% in IKM Kuala Lumpur, outdoor was 65.8% and 65.5%, respectively. These relative humidities exceeded the ASHRAE recommendation of 30-60%. 11

4 Mean carbon monoxide measurements were 3.9 ppm in IKM Johor Bahru and 3.8 ppm in IKM Kuala Lumpur, while outdoor measurements were 4.4 ppm and 4.0 ppm respectively. These values are below the recommended level of 9 ppm (WHO). Mean carbon dioxide measurements were ppm in IKM Johor Bahru and ppm in IKM Kuala Lumpur; outdoor measurements were ppm and ppm respectively; these results are also below the recommended level of 650 ppm (WHO). The mean score sound pressure level measurements were 67.0 dba in IKM Johor Bahru and 66.8 dba in IKM Kuala Lumpur outdoor measurements were 66.3 dba and 66.8 dba respectively; these values were below the recommended level of 90 dba (FMA, 1967) Table 3 Overall results of indoor and outdoor measurements No Center Outdoor (Mean) Indoor (Mean) Temp. RH CO CO 2 Sound Temp. RH CO ( o C) (%) (PPM) (PPM) (dba) ( o C) (%) (PPM) 1 IKL Johor Bahru 2 IKM Kuala Lumpur CO 2 (PPM) Sound (dba) Results on the Questionnaires 93.6% of the distributed questionnaires were returned and analyzed by descriptive tests using SPSS and Microsoft Excel Respondent Personal Background The respondents could be classified into groups on the basis of their working experience for the lecturer and on the basis of studying period for the students as shown in Table 4 below. The majority of the lecturers were in the second group (Group 2) with 6 to 10 years working experience and working 5 to 6 hours per day continuously in the workshop. The student results found that more respondents were in the first group (Group A) with 1 to 6 months studying period and spending 5 to 6 hours continuously in the workshop. Table 4 Classification of the respondents Respondents (Lecturer) Respondents (Students) Group ID Working Percentage Percentage Group ID Studying Period Experience % % Group 1 1 to 5 years 25% Group A 1 to 6 months 42.1% Group 2 6 to 10 years 34.6% Group B 7 to 12 months 3% Group 3 11 to 15 years 14.9% Group C 13 to 18 months 37.1% Group 4 16 years 25.5 % Group D 19 to 24 months 16.8 % Group E 31 to 36 months 1% Total 100% Total 100% 12

5 3.2.2 Pollution Exposure From the study conducted, 72.3% of the lecturers felt uncomfortable and the majority felt that the workshop s temperature was too high. Only 19.1% of the respondents felt suited to the temperature, and it took time for the respondents to become used to the environment. While 52.0% of the students felt uncomfortable, 46.9% claimed that the workshop s temperature was too high. The majority of the lecturers and 88.5% of the students felt that the workshop environment was not too humid. 77.8% of the lecturers and 80.1% of the students admitted that they do not feel breezy during their working in the workshop. 83.0% respondent of the lecturer found that the workshop environment was too dusty and 57.1% of the students agreed with them, while only 17.0% and 42.9% of the lecturers and students, respectively, claimed that the workshop environment was free from dust Safety Background Analysis of this study s data revealed that 70.2% of the lecturers claimed that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was supplied by the workshop and 44.7% always wear it. 92.6% of the students said that the PPE was supplied by the workshop and nearly 94.6% always wore the PPE. 60.0% of the lecturers stated that dustcoats were the appropriate clothes to wear in the workshop. On the other hand, 22.2% respondents felt that jackets were the right clothes to wear and another 17.8% said that overalls were the best clothes to wear in the workshop. The majority felt that safety boots were the appropriate shoes to be used in the workshop. 72.9% of the students stated that jackets were the appropriate clothes to wear in the workshop and 27.1% felt that overalls were the right clothes to wear. 100% felt that safety boots were the appropriate shoes to be used Health Background As a consequence of the indoor environmental quality, 30% to 60% of the lecturer group respondents suffered from colds, sore throats and headaches. Meanwhile, greater than 2.1% up to 4.3% suffered from vomiting, asthma and dizziness. For medical leave 34.1% of the lecturer had their latest medical leave above one year ago. Another 54.5% respondents had their medical leave 7-11 months ago. Only 11.4% got their medical leave 2-6 months ago. For the student group, 20% to 50% of the respondents suffered from sore throats, headaches and colds. The other 1.0% of the respondents had asthma and 2.0% suffered from dizziness. On the other hand, 40.6% of the students had their latest medical leave one year ago. Another 46.2% had their medical leave 7-11 months ago. The other 11.3% got their medical leave 2-6 months ago. Only 1.9% respondents have their medical leave in this month. Both lecturers and students stated that the management didn t provide routine medical check-up Recommendations More than 34.0% of the lecturers stated that in order to improve the comfort level, all of the workshops must have enough space, good lighting and ventilation. 8.5% of the respondents felt that the workshop layout itself will also help improve the comfort level. The other 2.1% respondents also suggested that greater cleanliness of the workshop would help the situation. In order to improve comfort, 31.2% of the students stated that all of the workshop must have good ventilation. Another 16.3% of the respondents felt that the workshop lighting system should be upgraded to improve the comfort level. More than 4.0% of the respondents also suggested that cleanliness, 13

6 enough PPE and workshop space of the workshop would help the situation. 2.5% of the respondents agreed that the workshop layout was comfortable. 3.3 Results on field measurements The standard measurements used for the purpose of the analysis are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Guidelines for standard parameter No Parameter Limit/Range Reference 1 Temperature level 22 o C - 27 o C ASHRAE 2 Relative humidity level 30% - 60% ASHRAE 3 Carbon monoxide level < 9 ppm WHO / ASHRAE 4 Carbon Dioxide level < 650 ppm ASHRAE 5 Dust level < 10 mg/m 3 FMA 6 Air velocity level > 0.25 m/s WHO 7 Sound pressure level < 90 dba FMA 8 Lighting level > 160 Lux AS Note: ASHRAE WHO FMA AS American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers World Health Organization Factory and Machinery Act, Malaysia Australian Standard The results in Table 6 show that the temperature levels of all workshops exceed the ASHRAE recommendations of 22 C-27 C, except for the air-conditioned workshop in Kuala Lumpur. Results on relative humidity of 24 workshops also exceed the ASHRAE recommendations. The air velocity levels of 26 workshops were below the ASHRAE recommendation of 0.25 m/s. Although the mean score of overall workshops was above the 160 Lux of the AS recommendation, there were 12 workshops below the AS recommendations. From the analysis, the CO 2, CO and dust levels were compliant with ASHRAE and FMA standards. Table 6 Mean score overall results Parameter IKM KL IKM LMT IKM TSYA Results Temperature level ( C) [ASHRAE; 22 C -27 C] Minimum Maximum Mean Not Comply Standard Deviation Relative humidity level [ASHRAE; 30-60%] (%) Minimum Maximum Mean Not Comply Standard Deviation

7 Carbon Dioxide level [ASHRAE; <650 ppm] (ppm) Minimum Maximum Mean Comply Standard Deviation Carbon Monoxide level [ASHRAE; <9 ppm] (ppm) Minimum Maximum Mean Comply Standard Deviation Dust level (mg/m 3 ) [FMA; < 10 mg/m 3 ] Minimum Maximum Mean Comply Standard Deviation Air velocity level (m/s) Minimum Maximum Mean Not Comply Standard Deviation Sound Pressure level (dba) [WHO; >0.25 m/s] [FMA; <90dBA] Minimum Maximum Mean Comply Standard Deviation Lighting level (lux) [AS; > 160 lux] Minimum Maximum Mean IKM KL Not Comply Standard Deviation Note: ASHRAE WHO FMA AS American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers World Health Organization Factory and Machinery Act, Malaysia Australian Standard 4. Conclusion 28 workshops were evaluated for indoor environmental quality (IEQ). Parameters measured were temperature level, relative humidity level, carbon monoxide contents, carbon dioxide contents, dust level, air velocity level, sound pressure level and lighting level. From this research, it was 15

8 established that the IEQs in MARA vocational training workshops were unhealthy and uncomfortable for occupancy. The temperatures measured exceeded the recommended level of the ASHRAE. The relative humidity of 24 workshops exceeded the recommended 30% - 60% level of ASHRAE while carbon dioxide of two workshops also exceeded the required level at 650 ppm (ASHRAE). The air velocities at 26 workshops were below the recommended value of the WHO. The lighting levels of 22 workshops were also below the recommended range of the AS. The majority of the respondents claimed that the workshop environment was uncomfortable for the training activities. The study found that the workshop environment affected 74.5% of the lecturers and 57.2% of the student s hearing. On the other hand, due to the unsuitability of location, the design cannot be fully utilized for ventilation. References Alexander, K., Architecture to improve building health: strategies to improve occupant's environment: delivering and sustaining a healthy workplace. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. David L.G., Occupational Safety and Health for Technologists Engineers and Managers. Fourth Edition. USA: Prentice Hall. John, G., Clements-Croome, D. and Howe, J., A conceptual approach to determine optimal indoor air quality: A mixture experiment method. Clima Rehva World Congress, PMid: PMCid: Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, Malaysia Regulation under Factory and Machinery Act 1967, (Act 139). Malaysia. Steadman. P., Energy, Environment and Building. New York: Cambridge University Press. PMCid: Strauss, W., Air Pollution. Baltimore: Edward Arlond. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), USA. Tim Yeomans, Bruce Mitchell, MD., Sustainable Buildings and Indoor Air Quality. Trinity Technology and Enterprise Centre, Dublin, Ireland. Uniform Building By-Law 1984 and Regulations, Malaysia. 16