Cooper, E; Wang, Y; Stamp, S; Nijsen, T; de Graaf, P; Hofman, J; Inki, T; Driessen, R; Liebmann, J; Geven, I T M; Vervoort, K; La Manna, V P; Valster, S; de Wolf, P; Peltonen, S; Burman, E; Salminen, A; van Galen, R and Mumovic, D (2022) Why do people use portable air purifiers? Evidence from occupant surveys and air quality monitoring in homes in three European cities. Building Research & Information, 50(1-2), pp. 213-229. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
One of the most widely available technologies to clean the air in homes of particulate matter of less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5), known to have negative health impacts, are portable home air purifiers (HAPs). This paper presents research which (1) explored the effectiveness of HAPs in real-world conditions in 57 homes in three European cities; (2) examined if HAPs affect users' perceptions of the indoor air quality (IAQ) at home; and (3) considered the motivations for occupants' operation of HAPs. Results from this study found that PM2.5 concentrations in bedrooms were reduced by 45% to 69%; perceptions of IAQ were not correlated with measured high PM2.5 levels; occupants reported the HAPs to have a 'cooling' effect, which may explain why the predominant driver of HAP use was thermal comfort, rather than IAQ, in all three cities. The latter finding was supported by a statistically significant increase in the probability of HAP use with increasing indoor temperatures. If the operation of HAPs can be managed, or fully automated, to reflect indoor air pollution levels rather than thermal conditions, better pollutant reduction would be feasible and their use to reduce PM2.5 may help mitigate the negative health effects of exposure whilst at home.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | air purifier; air quality monitoring; human perception; multi-domain research; occupant behaviour; pm<sub>2.5</sub> |
| Index terms: | occupant survey, indoor temperature, particulate, motivation, indoor air quality, evidence, bedroom, pollutant, exposure, air quality, monitoring, effectiveness, thermal comfort, occupant behaviour, indoor air pollution |
| Subjects: | climate science, health behaviours and lifestyles, control systems, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental science, psychology, public and environmental health, performance management, architectural elements, environmental health, environmental engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Site Management, Design Practice, Quality Management, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here