Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6: 200–209

ISSN: 1545-9624 print / 1545-9632 online

Copyright
c 2009 JOEH, LLC
DOI: 10.1080/15459620802707835

Airborne Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds,

Formaldehyde and Ammonia in Finnish Office Buildings
with Suspected Indoor Air Problems
Heidi J. Salonen,1 Anna-Liisa Pasanen,2 Sanna K. Lappalainen,1
Henri M. Riuttala,1 Tapani M. Tuomi,1 Pertti O. Pasanen,3 Beatrice C. Bäck,1
and Kari E. Reijula1
1
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland
2
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland
3
Department of Environmental Science, University of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland

A database of indoor air concentrations of volatile or-

ganic compounds (VOCs) (n = 528), formaldehyde (n =
76), and ammonia (n = 47) in office environments was
analyzed to suggest interpretation guidelines for chemical
measurements in office buildings with suspected indoor air
problems. Indoor air samples were collected for VOCs from
176 office buildings, 23 offices for formaldehyde, and 14
office buildings for ammonia in 2001–2006. Although the
buildings had reported indoor air complaints, a walk-through
inspection by indoor air specialists showed no exceptional
sources of indoor air pollutants. The measurements of chemical
pollutants did not indicate any clear reason for the complaints.
The geometric mean concentration of total volatile organic
compounds (TVOC) was 88 µg m−3 in office rooms and 75
µg m−3 in the open plan offices. The mechanical supply
and exhaust ventilation significantly (p < 0.004) decreased
the indoor air concentration of TVOC. The highest mean
concentration and frequency distributions were determined for
the individual VOCs. The most common VOCs found in ≥
84% of the indoor samples include toluene, xylene (p,m), 1-
butanol, nonanal, and benzene. According to concentrations,
the most abundant VOCs were 2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethanol,
acetic acid, 1,2-propanediol, and toluene. The geometric mean
concentration of formaldehyde and ammonia in the office
buildings was 11 µg m−3 (3–44 µg m−3 ) and 14 µg m−3 (1–
49 µg m−3 ), respectively. On the basis of statistical analyses,
the guideline value indicating a usual concentration of the
pollutant in office buildings is 70 µg m−3 for TVOC, 7 µg m−3
for most individual VOCs, 10 µg m−3 for formaldehyde, and
12 µg m−3 for ammonia.. The guidance value suggested for
TVOC is 250 µg m−3 , for formaldehyde 15 µg m−3 , and for
ammonia 25 µg m−3 . If the guidance value is exceeded, this
may indicate the existence of an exceptional source and the
need for additional environmental investigations. The levels
should not be used for the evaluation of health risks. The
guideline values are applicable in a subarctic climate for
modern, urban office buildings.
Keywords guidance value, guideline value, indoor environment,
VOC
Address correspondence to: Heidi J. Salonen, Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health, Arinatie 3 A, 00370 Helsinki, Finland; e-mail:
heidi.salonen@ttl.fi.
INTRODUCTION
D ue to dominant sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) indoors, the concentrations of VOCs mea-
sured in indoor air are often significantly higher than those
outdoors.(1−7) VOCs detected in indoor air are emitted mainly
from the following sources: (i) building materials, furniture,
or other equipment; (ii) humans themselves or human activity
(e.g., cleaning, using copying machines, using correction
liquids, sampling activity, renovation or construction activi-
ties); or (iii) outdoor sources (e.g., heavy traffic).(8−15) The
VOC concentration in indoor air depends on factors such
as source strength, air exchange rate, ventilation type in
a room,(10,16,17) building age,(13,18,19) season,(7,10,20) relative
humidity indoors,(21) existing moisture or mold damage,(22,23)
source emission rate(s), and sorption properties of the room
and potential chemical reactions.(24)
It is generally believed that the VOC concentration has an
impact on indoor air quality and that elevated concentrations
of VOCs can cause health effects.(23,25,26) The concentration of
the total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) in nonindustrial
indoor environments is usually below 1 mg m−3 . However, a
Nordic working group(27) and some other research groups(28,29)
have not recommended the use of TVOC as a predictor of
health risks or impacts on comfort. The TVOC level is usually
associated with the general quality of indoor air. In addition,
measurements of TVOC or VOCs can be applied in the testing
of materials, as an indication of insufficient or poorly designed

200 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene March 2009

ventilation in a building, and in the identification of high
polluting activities.(30)
TVOC levels in the office environment typically range from
a few micrograms to a few milligrams per cubic meter.(31,32)
More than 900 VOCs have been identified at detectable levels
in indoor air.(31) The number of VOCs identified in one indoor
air sample may be as high as 250, but normally the number
varies from 20 to 150.(18) According to Etkin’s review,(23) the
VOCs most commonly detected in indoor air are o-xylene,
benzene, tetrachloroethylene, m- and p-xylene, ethylbenzene,
trichloroethylene, and toluene.
Formaldehyde and ammonia concentrations are lower in
office buildings compared with residencies.(33−35) It is reported
that formaldehyde concentrations measured in schools, day-
care centers, offices, and other public places vary from about 3
µg m−3 to around 60 µg m−3 .(36) The World Health Organiza-
tion (WHO) Working Group on Assessment and Monitoring
of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollutants concluded that, on the
basis of health effects, indoor formaldehyde concentrations >
100 µg m−3 were of sufficient concern to call for corrective
actions.(37) Indoor levels of ammonia have usually been below
20 µg m−3 .(35) High levels of ammonia (up to 210 mg m−3 )
were reported to cause irritation effects in humans.(38,39)
Because guideline values for indoor air exist only for some
VOCs and formaldehyde in national or international regula-
tions, information on indoor VOC concentrations typically
present in office buildings is needed for the interpretation
of indoor air measurements. The aim of our study was to
suggest, on the basis of statistical analyses of the database,
interpretation guidelines for indoor air chemical measurements
in office buildings with suspected indoor air problems. The
database included concentrations of TVOC, formaldehyde, and
ammonia, as well as the profile of the individual VOCs in
176 office buildings with indoor air problems. In addition,
regression analyses were performed to detect associations
between the VOC concentrations (528 samples) and the set
of explanatory variables.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Buildings
A total of 176 office buildings (338 office rooms and 190
open plan offices) located in southern Finland were selected
from the database of the Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health (FIOH), Helsinki. The criteria for the selection of
the buildings were the following: (i) There were no unusual
pollutant sources (e.g., nearby manufacturing site, laboratory,
or vehicle repair) or ongoing renovations in the studied office
environments; (ii) a walk-through inspection by indoor air
experts did not reveal any detectable sources of indoor air
pollutants; (iii) chemical measurements did not indicate any
clear reason for complaints about indoor air quality. With
these criteria, the database, even though not randomized, was
considered to represent closely enough normal office buildings
as regards the occurrence of chemical pollutants in the indoor
air. However, other factors such as insufficient ventilation;
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
thermal comfort; low humidity; and physical stressors such
as noise and lighting, biological pollutants, and dust may
contribute to complaints.
The buildings were classified into three categories accord-
ing to the construction or renovation year (before 1950, 1950–
1979, and after 1980). The construction or renovation year was
not known for all the buildings, and for this reason only 343
samples could be included in the classification. If both con-
struction year and renovation year were known, the renovation
year was used in the statistical analyses. Classification was
based on the main trends in Finnish construction culture. From
1950 through 1970, mechanical exhaust ventilation systems
were common, and high-emission chipboard and casein-based
screed were used in office buildings. In the 1980s, mechanical
supply and exhaust ventilation systems, low-emission materi-
als, and plastic or polyvinyl chloride carpets began to be more
common in buildings.
About 23% of the study buildings had been renovated. In
most of these buildings, indoor air measurements were con-
ducted to check the success of renovation. The time between
the renovation and the current indoor air measurements was at
least 1 year. The office buildings were conventional in design,
with a concrete framework, flat roof, and several floors. The
ventilation system was documented for 88% of the investigated
buildings, 95% of which were equipped with a mechanical
supply and exhaust ventilation system. Most of the buildings
had surface materials typical of office spaces. The floors were
covered with plastic carpet or linoleum, the walls and ceilings
were made of concrete, and the ceilings were usually covered
with acoustic material.
All of the buildings had a history of some indoor air prob-
lems, verified by industrial safety (industrial safety delegate or
industrial safety officer) or occupational health care (company
physician or nurse) personnel. Indoor air symptoms had been
reported in 60% of the buildings. Moisture and mold problems
(old or concealed moisture or mold damage) had been reported
in 41% and unpleasant odors for in 7% of the buildings.
Sampling and Analysis of VOCs
All of the samples were collected between 2001 and 2006
by the FIOH indoor air specialists. The VOC concentration
measurements were taken from 1–12 sites per building. The
measurements were classified according to whether they were
made in open plan offices or in office rooms and also according
to the season, summer (April–August) or winter (September–
March).
The VOC sampling and analyses were carried out according
to ISO (ISO 16017–2 and ISO 16000–6) standards. Air samples
were taken from the middle of a closed room at the central
area of the room or in the main working zone at a height of
1.5 m. The samples (n = 1–12 per building) were collected
during office working hours (9:00–16:00) during normal work
activity and normal occupancy. Air samples were collected
in PerkinElmer stainless steel tubes (product no. L4270123)
packed with 150–275 mg of Tenax TA 60/80 mesh with SKC
Model 222 sampling pumps (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, Pa.) (or
March 2009 201
Gilian LFS–113DC [Sensidyne, Clearwater, Fla.]) at a flow
rate of 100 mL min−1 for 1–2 hr.
In 2001–2003, the samples were desorbed in a PerkinElmer
ATD 400 (Perkin-Elmer Ltd., Beaconsfield, UK) and analyzed
by a gas chromatograph (Hewlett Packard 5890 series II),
equipped with an HP 5971A mass selective detector and
an accompanying HP G1034B MS ChemStation. In 2004–
2006, the samples were desorbed in a Markes Unity Ultra
TD (Markes International Ltd., Pontyclun, UK) and analyzed
by a gas chromatograph (Hewlett-Packard or Agilent 6890N)
equipped with an Agilent 5973N mass selective detector and
an accompanying Agilent MS ChemStation. The VOCs were
quantified by the scan method. TVOC was determined as the
sum response factors found in the part of the chromatogram
from n-hexane to n-hexadecane and calculated as toluene
equivalents.
The compounds were identified using either pure reference
compounds or the Hewlett-Packard Wiley or NIST mass
spectrometry databases. In all, 120 reference compounds were
used to draw up 3- to 8-point calibration curves. Concentrations
of individual compounds were determined according to these
calibration curves or as toluene equivalents. Concentrations
of single compounds were also determined from the chro-
matogram before and after the TVOC area. In the case of such
compounds, the quantitative result was indicative.
Sampling and Analysis of Formaldehyde
Indoor air samples of formaldehyde (n = 76) were collected
from 23 buildings. In 2001, the sampling and analyses were
carried out according to the SFS 3862 (1978) standard or
the EPA-TO-11A standard. Since 2002, the sampling and
analysis have been carried out according to the EPA-TO-11A
standard. When the SFS 3862 standard was used, formaldehyde
was absorbed in a hydrogen sulfite solution and analyzed
spectrophotometrically. In concordance with the EPA-TO-11A
standard, a known volume of ambient air was drawn through a
prepacked cartridge coated with acidified DNPH at a sampling
rate of 100–200 mL min−1 for an appropriate period of time.
The sampling rate and time were dependent on the carbonyl
concentration in the test atmosphere.
Formaldehyde and 14 other carbonyls were analyzed with
high-performance liquid chromatography operated in the lin-
ear gradient program mode, and the derivatives were quantified
with an ultraviolet (UV) absorption detector operated at 360
nm. For the quantitative evaluation of formaldehyde and the
other carbonyl compounds, a cartridge blank was likewise
desorbed and analyzed. Formaldehyde and other carbonyl
compounds in the sample were identified and quantified in
a comparison of their retention times and peak heights or
peak areas with those of standard solutions. Typically, C1 −C7
carbonyl compounds, including benzaldehyde, are measured
effectively to less than 0.5 ppbv.
Sampling and Analysis of Ammonia
Indoor air samples of ammonia (n = 47) were collected
from 14 buildings. Sampling and analysis of ammonia were
202 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
carried out using two different methods. In 2001–2003, air
samples were collected in diluted sulfuric acid (10 mL 0.005
M) with a pump (flow rate 1 L min−1 ). The sample volume
varied between 0.060 and 0.100 m3 . Concentrations were
measured with an ion-specific electrode (Orion model 920 A).
The determination limit of the method was 10 µg m−3 for an
air sample of 0.100 m3 .
After 2003, the samples were collected according to the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ID-
188 standard. A known volume of air was drawn with a
pump through a glass tube (Anasorb 747 226-29) containing
carbon beads impregnated with sulfuric acid. The sample was
desorbed with deionized water and analyzed as ammonium
ions using an ion chromatograph.
Statistical Methods
Statistical tests were carried out using the SAS program
package (version 9.1). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was ap-
plied to check the normality of the concentration distributions.
Differences in geometric means were tested with the t-test
(summer vs. winter concentrations and open office vs. office
room concentrations).
On the basis of the 50 percentiles and 90 percentiles of
the concentrations in the database, we suggest the guideline
(P50) and guidance (P90) values for chemical pollutants
(volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and ammonia) in
the indoor air of office buildings to interpret the results of
indoor air chemical measurements in buildings with suspected
indoor air problems.
Using the 176 office building dataset, regression analyses
were performed to detect the associations between the VOC
concentrations (528 samples) and the set of explanatory
variables. The purpose was to identify associations between
the TVOC concentrations and the following eight explanatory
variables: V1 the time from the construction or renovation year,
ventilation type (V2 mechanical supply, exhaust and cooling,
V3 mechanical supply and exhaust, V4 mechanical exhaust and
V5 natural ventilation), V6 symptoms, V7 odor complaints, and
V8 moisture or mold damage.
RESULTS
TVOC
The geometric mean concentration of TVOC calculated
for the open plan offices was 75 µg m−3 , and for the office
rooms it was 88 µg m−3 . There was a significant difference
in the geometric mean concentration of TVOC between
the open plan offices and the office rooms (p = 0.036). In
the studied buildings, 90% of the TVOC concentrations were
below 250 µg m−3 , and the median concentration was 70 µg
m−3 . The distribution of TVOC concentrations is presented
in Figure 1. Most of the TVOC values were between 50 and
100 µg m−3 . Values over 150 µg m−3 were rare. The geometric
mean TVOC concentration calculated for the buildings with a
mechanical ventilation system (mechanical supply and exhaust
March 2009
 FIGURE 1. Distribution of TVOC concentrations in the office buildings.

or mechanical exhaust) was 82 µg m−3 and 90% of the TVOC
concentrations were below 240 µg m−3 .
The geometric mean TVOC concentration in winter was
80 µg m−3 , and in summer it was 91 µg m−3 . The difference
was not statistically significant (p = 0.113).
According to the regression analyses, the ventilation system
had a clear influence on TVOC concentrations (Table I)
in the office buildings. A mechanical supply and exhaust
ventilation system lowered the TVOC concentration (p =
0.0040). Compared with the buildings with a mechanical
supply and exhaust ventilation system, TVOC values were
two times higher in buildings with natural ventilation. The
other factors studied (other ventilation systems and cooling,
building age or time from the renovation year, symptoms, odor
complaints, and moisture or mold damages) had no statistical
association with indoor air TVOC concentrations.
The TVOC concentrations are presented in Table II accord-
ing to year of construction or renovation. The lowest TVOC
concentrations were detected in the buildings built or renovated
in 1950–1979. The TVOC concentrations were highest in the
buildings built or renovated before 1950.
Individual VOCs
Altogether, 169 individual VOCs were detected in the
indoor air of the 176 Finnish office buildings studied. The
frequency with the 50 most common VOCs detected and the
range of concentrations quantified in the air samples (n = 520)
are shown in Table III.
Toluene was detected in almost all of the air samples
(occurrence 99.6%). The prevalence of some other aromatic
hydrocarbons was also high (over 81% of the samples).
The concentrations of benzene were very low, whereas the
concentrations of xylene were occasionally high, indicating
indoor air sources. Organic acids were somewhat less common.
Aliphatic hydrocarbons were found in low concentrations.
Aldehydes, especially benzaldehyde and decanal, as well as

TABLE I. Ventilation Type and the Concentrations of TVOCs

Geometric Standard
Ventilation Mean Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum
Type n (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 )
Mechanical supply and exhaust + 79 82 63 70 77 15 500
cooling
Mechanical supply and exhaust 360 124 85 75 143 4 1300
Mechanical exhaust 13 181 140 160 148 40 320
Natural 10 267 218 245 169 70 590
No information 66 135 83 75 162 4 1010

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene March 2009 203

TABLE II. TVOC Concentrations and Construction or Renovation year
Geometric
Construction or Mean Mean
Renovation Year n (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 )
Before 1950 39 189 137
1950–1979 55 83 65
After 1980 249 128 89
terpenes such as α-pinene and limonene, were among the most
prevalent VOCs. The concentration range of these common
aldehydes were low (0.20–13 µg m−3 ), whereas the range of
the common terpenes was rather wide (0.20–240 µg m−3 ).
The statistical parameters of the 15 VOCs with the highest
indoor mean concentrations are shown in Table IV. The highest
mean concentrations were 2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol, acetic
acid, 1,2-propanediol and toluene.
Formaldehyde
The geometric mean concentration of formaldehyde in the
office buildings was 11 µg m−3 (range 3–44 µg m−3 ). In 90%
of the samples, the formaldehyde concentration was below 16
µg m−3 and the median concentration was 10 µg m−3 .
Ammonia
The geometric mean concentration of ammonia in the office
buildings was 14 µg m−3 (range 1–49 µg m−3 ). In 90% of the
samples, the ammonia concentration was below 25 µg m−3 ,
and the median concentration was 12 µg m−3 .
DISCUSSION
TVOC Levels and Affecting Factors
In a Swedish study of 86 office rooms in 29 office buildings,
the mean TVOC concentration was 71 µg m−3 .(40) The mean
TVOC concentrations (88 µg m−3 in office rooms, 75 µg m−3
for open plan offices) in the present study were at about the
same level.
In our study, the type of ventilation system contributed
to the TVOC concentrations (p = 0.0040) indicating that
the lowest concentrations occurred in the buildings with a
mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation system. If indoor
sources of a certain pollutant predominate, the concentration
of that pollutant is highly affected by ventilation that dilutes
the concentration. The significant difference in the geometric
mean concentration of TVOC between the open plan offices
and the office rooms (p = 0.03) in our study can partly be
explained by the differences in the ventilation systems in these
two types of office spaces. Open-plan office environments with
efficient ventilation systems are common in modern office
buildings, whereas old office buildings with single office rooms
are usually equipped with less efficient ventilation systems.
According to the Finnish building code, the minimum outdoor
flow for open plan offices was higher (1.5 L s−1 m−2 ) than for
204 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Standard
Median Deviation Minimum Maximum
(µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 ) (µg m−3 )
170 164 40 680
50 68 20 330
80 134 4 1110
single office rooms (1 L s−1 m−2 ) for buildings built before
1987, whereas since 2003 it has been equal (1.5 L s−1 m−2 )
for both types of rooms.(41,42)
Baldwin and Farant(8) showed that building material emis-
sions decreased to a stable state within approximately 1 year.
In our study, the building age or time from the renovation year
did not significantly affect the TVOC levels. However, TVOC
levels were the highest in old buildings in which the ventilation
systems often are insufficient.
Although many compounds show a substantial seasonal
variance, concentrations are generally higher in the spring
and summer.(20,43) In studies on the seasonal cycle of VOCs,
results have been reversed.(7) In our study, the TVOC values
were slightly higher in summer than in winter, but still the
differences were not statistically significant.
Individual VOCs
Mølhave(18) reported that the number of individual VOCs in
one indoor air sample may be as high as 250, but normally, 20–
30 compounds account for 50–75% of the total concentration
of volatile organic air pollutants in indoor air samples. In
our study, a total of 169 individual VOCs were detected
in the air samples. Eight VOCs (toluene, xylene (p,m), 1-
butanol, nonanal, benzene, benzaldehyde, xylene (o), 1,2-
propanediol) were detected in 75% or more of the samples.
The VOC profile (toluene, xylenes (p,m), nonanal, xylene (o)
and benzene) agreed with those reported in previous studies
on office buildings.(6,44)
Mean outdoor air concentrations of benzene in rural
and urban areas are about 1 µg m−3 and 5–20 µg m−3 ,
respectively.(45) Mean ambient air concentrations of toluene
in rural areas are generally less than 5 µg m−3 , whereas urban
air concentrations are in the range of 5–150 µg m−3 .(45)
Reported indoor concentrations of individual VOCs are
generally below 50 µg m−3 , with most below 5 µg m−3 .(46)
Both European and North American studies have shown that
the mean concentration of most single VOCs is generally below
10 µg m−3 .(47−50) In our study, mean levels of the individual
VOCs were below 8 µg m−3 .
Sources of aliphatic hydrocarbons (octane, decane, un-
decane hexane, isodecane, mixtures, etc.) include paint,
adhesives, gasoline, combustion sources, liquid process photo-
copiers, carpet, linoleum, and caulking compounds.(23,31) Aro-
matic compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes)
are ubiquitous and originate from sources such as combustion
March 2009
TABLE III. Frequency of VOCs at Quantifiable Concentrations in Indoor Air of Office Buildings
RangeA of RangeA of
Quantifiable Quantifiable
Concentrations Concentrations
VOCs (µg m−3 ), n = 520 VOCs (µg m−3 ), n = 520
81–100 % Frequency Continued 21–40 %
Toluene1 0.9–190 Dodecane3 0.1–8
Xylene (p,m)1 0.4–190 Octanal4 0.2–15
1-Butanol2 0.3–31 Heptane3 0.2–69
Nonanal4 0.2–30 2-Phenoxyethanol5 0.2–80
Benzene1 0.2–4 Phenol2 0.2–30
Benzaldehyde4 0.3–12 Pentanal4 0.3–39
Xylene (o)1 0.2–29 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol5 0.2–56
61–80% Frequency 2-Furfural4 0.1–39
1,2-Propanediol5 0.2–280 Nonane3 0.2–4
Ethylbenzene1 0.2–61 Tridecane3 0.1–6
Decanal4 0.2–13 1-Methoxy-2-propanol5 0.2–67
a-Pinene6 0.2–84 Acetic acid8B 1–610
Decamethylcyclo- 0.4–150 Pentanoic acid8 0.2–100
pentasiloxane7B
41–60% Frequency 3-Carene6 0.2–45
Hexanoic acid8 0.2–440 Octane3 0.2–5
Limonene6 0.2–240 n-Butyl acetate9 0.4–41
2-Ethyl-1-hexanol2 0.2–12 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene1 0.1–6
Hexanal4 0.3–160 Hydrocarbon mixture1,3 10–600
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1 0.2–24 2-(2 Butoxyethoxy)ethyl acetate9 0.1–31
2-(2- 0.3–600 2-Butanone10 0.4–25
Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol5
Tetradecane3 0.2–7 Ethylacetate9 0.4–334
Pentadecane3 0.2–9 2-Methyl-1-propanol2 0.2–25
Hexadecane3 0.1–5 Hexane3 0.2–30
21–40 % Frequency 2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyrate9 0.1–63
Decane3 0.2–14 Propanoic acid8 0.6–49
Undecane3 0.2–10 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2 one10 0.1–4
Note: The frequency is the ratio of indoor samples with quantifiable concentrations to the total number of indoor samples for the given analysis. Individual
VOCs are also cited for each specific group: 1 aromatic hydrocarbons, 2 alcohols, 3 aliphatic hydrocarbons, 4 aldehydes, 5 glycol/glycolether, 6 terpenes, 7 silicon
compounds, 8 organic acids, 9 esters, 10 ketones.
A Range of quantifiable concentrations in those samples where VOCs under consideration were detected.
B Organo silicon materials and acetic acid may be an artificant of Tenax or column.

sources, paint, varnish, adhesives, gasoline, linoleum, and
wall coating.(31,51) In indoor environments, smoking is the
most significant source of aromatics, but in Finland, where
smoking is forbidden in offices, the major sources are various
building materials (e.g., paints and varnishes). In our study,
aromatics, especially toluene and xylenes, were the most
abundant compounds in the indoor air. In the buildings with
mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation, the concentration
of many individual VOCs (e.g., toluene, xylenes, 1-butanol)
emitted from building materials and building products were
low.
However, in some cases, the concentration of organic acids,
especially hexanoic acid, acetic acid, and acrylic acid, was
elevated. Possible sources of these compounds are wood ex-
tract materials, resins, and non-latex caulking compounds.(23)
Decamethylcyclo-pentasiloxane was the common silicon com-
pound in indoor air. The possible source of decamethylcy-
clopentasiloxane in indoor air was personal care products.(52)
In addition, it has been recognized in our laboratory that organo
silicon materials and acetic acid may be an artifact of Tenax or
column, and therefore, the concentrations of these compounds
may be overestimated.
Copiers, printers, and computers are typical sources of
TVOC and toluene in the office environment. Personal com-
puters and printers can be considered as intermittent sources,
since their use is related to activity of the office occupants and

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene March 2009 205

TABLE IV. Distributions of the 15 VOCs with the Highest Indoor Mean Concentrations
Concentration, µg m−3
Pollutant
VOC 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Mean Max
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy) ethanol 0.0 12.1 7.7 600.0
Acetic acid 0.0 18.0 7.1 610.0
1,2-Propanediol 3.0 15.0 7.0 280.0
Toluene 3.0 10.0 6.5 190.0
Hexanoic acid 2.0 9.0 5.5 440.0
Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane 2.0 11.1 4.9 150.0
Xylene (p,m) 2.0 6.0 4.2 190.0
Limonene 0.6 5.0 4.0 240.0
Nonanal 2.0 5.0 2.5 30.0
1-Butanol 1.0 4.0 2.2 31.0
Hexanal 0.9 4.1 2.2 160.0
Ethylacetate 0.0 2.0 2.1 334.0
a-Pinene 0.6 4.0 2.0 84.0
2-Fenoxyethanol 0.0 3.0 1.6 80.0
Benzaldehyde 2.0 3.0 1.5 12.0

they also emit heat. Their effects on the micro-environment are
much more complicated than those of continuous or “passive”
sources such as building materials and furnishings.(53) In our
study, the VOC measurements were conducted during normal
work hours, and thus, the office machinery likely had an impact
on TVOC concentrations.
Terpenes, especially pinene and limonene, are typically
emitted from wood and wood-based materials, and they are
also used as fragrances in, for example, cleaning agents and
pharmaceutical products.(54,55) In our study, three terpenes (a-
pinene, limonene, 3-carene) occurred in more than 21% of the
samples.
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde may originate from combustion sources,
cigarette smoke, gas ranges, open fireplaces, and urea-
formaldehyde resins in furniture, parquet, insulators,(56) and
personal computers.(57) Formaldehyde concentrations in out-
door air usually vary from 0.001 mg m−3 to 0.02 mg m−3 .(45)
In the EXPOLIS-Helsinki study,(58) formaldehyde was the
compound with the highest geometric mean residential outdoor
concentration, 1.6 ppb (= 0.002 mg m−3 ). Indoor concentra-
tions are dependent on the age of the source, ventilation rate,
indoor and outdoor temperatures, and humidity. Formaldehyde
concentrations can vary by as much as 50% from day to day and
from season to season. In our study, the mean formaldehyde
concentration (11 µg m−3 ) was slightly higher than the mean
residential indoor concentration of formaldehyde (28 ppb (=
0.004 mg/ m3 )) in the EXPOLIS study. However, only 10%
of the formaldehyde concentrations measured in our study
exceeded 16 µg m−3 . The mean concentration of formaldehyde
in both Finnish studies was lower than the concentration in the
Swedish study where the mean concentration of formaldehyde
in room air was 31 µg m−3 .(40)
Ammonia
Ammonia has different sources, such as the inhabitants
and their activities, human and animal excretion, tobacco
smoke, and detergents containing ammonia, building mate-
rials, and paints.(37−39) Ammonia concentrations are higher
over continents than over oceans and also higher in urban
than in rural areas. Reported levels vary from 1 to 16 µg
m−3 .(59) Concentrations of ammonia are usually lower in office
buildings than in homes.(37) In the previous study on 13 office
buildings, the concentrations of ammonia varied from < 10 to
130 µg m−3(35) . In the present study, the concentration range
(1–49 µg m−3 , mean 14 µg m−3 ) was narrower. Only 10% of
the ammonia concentrations measured exceeded 25 µg m−3 .
This result indicated that there are fewer indoor ammonia
sources nowadays.
Exposure Standards and Guidelines for Indoor
Environments
A Nordic consensus conference(60) has recommended the
use of WHO guidelines(61) when possible or the guides for
critical effects developed by a Nordic working group,(62) in
addition to VOCBASE developed for use by the International
Indoor Climate Labeling scheme as practiced in Denmark and
Norway.(63) WHO (2000) proposed guidelines for benzene,
toluene, and formaldehyde. U.S. OSHA has set guidelines for
toluene, xylene, 1-butanol, benzene, ethylbenzene, formalde-
hyde, and ammonia. The threshold limit values for individual


R
chemical substances adopted by ACGIH are not appropriate
for office environments. Traditionally, the reference values

206 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene March 2009

adopted for indoor air is one-tenth of the occupational exposure
limit.
It has been proposed that no individual compound should
exceed 10% of the measured TVOC value.(64) In Australia, the
National Health and Medical Research Council act (NHMRC)
(1992) recommended that the 1-hr average concentration of
TVOC should not exceed 500 µg m−3 (1-hr average) and that
of any VOC should not be higher than 250 µg m−3 . If these
values are exceeded, the ventilation rate should be increased or
the source of the pollutants should be identified and reduced. It
has been concluded that the occurrence of especially irritating
or reactive compounds should be evaluated separately.(65)
In Finland, according to the indoor air guidelines of the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, TVOC cannot be used
as a predictor of health effects, but elevated TVOC concen-
trations (over 600 µg m−3 ) do indicate abnormal chemical
concentrations and the need for additional investigations. The
guideline value is 100 µg m−3 for formaldehyde and 40 µg
m−3 for ammonia.(66)
According to the Finnish classification for indoor climate
adapted mainly for newly finished office buildings, the TVOC
level should be below 200 µg m−3 in the best category (S1),
300 µg m−3 in the next category (S2), and 600 µg m−3 in the
third category (S3). For formaldehyde the respective values are
30 µg m−3 (S1), 50 µg m−3 (S2), and 100 µg m−3 (S3), and for
ammonia they are 20 µg m−3 (S1), 30 µg m−3 (S2), and 40 µg
m−3 (S3), respectively.(67) In the present study, mean TVOC,
formaldehyde and ammonia levels were in the best category
(S1). However, the classification should be cautiously applied
to old building stock.
In the present study, guideline and guidance values for
TVOC, formaldehyde, and ammonia in office buildings were
determined based on the 50 percentiles and 90 percentiles of
the concentrations, respectively. The guideline value (P50)
can be regarded as a usual level in an office building with
suspected indoor air problems. If the guidance value (P90) is
exceeded, it may indicate the existence of an exceptional source
and the need for additional environmental investigations. The
suggested guideline (P50) values are 70 µg m−3 for TVOC,
10 µg m−3 for formaldehyde, and 12 µg m−3 for ammonia.
Concentrations of 250 µg m−3 can be considered the guidance
(P90) value for TVOC, 15 µg m−3 for formaldehyde, and
25 µg m−3 for ammonia. In agreement with Seifert,(64) we
propose that no individual compound should exceed 10%
of the measured TVOC value. According to our data, the
concentration of most individual VOCs usually should be
below 7 µg m−3 .
The interpretation guidelines for indoor air chemical mea-
surements are applicable in a subarctic climate (both in
summer and in winter) for urban office buildings with a
mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation system (measured
at the time when the ventilation system is normally running)
when the measurements are made using the same method as
in this study. In addition, the time between the renovation or
construction and the indoor air measurements should be at
least 1 year. It is recommended that the measurement strategy
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
include several VOC samples taken from work space studied
to assure the representativeness of the measurements. The
values should not be used in the evaluation of health risks, but
concentrations exceeding the guidance values may indicate
the presence of abnormal sources of chemical pollutants in
indoor environments and a need for additional environmental
investigations.
CONCLUSIONS
A broad database of indoor air concentrations of VOCs,
formaldehyde, and ammonia in office environments was
analyzed to determine the guideline (P50) and guidance
(P90) values of total volatile organic compounds and the
most common individual VOCs as well as formaldehyde and
ammonia levels, in office buildings. TVOC, formaldehyde, and
ammonia levels are low in office buildings without abnormal
indoor air sources. Elevated TVOC levels may indicate the
existence of abnormal indoor air sources or/and insufficient
ventilation in office environments with complaints of indoor
air quality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T he authors warmly thank the indoor air researchers of
FIOH Uusimaa for their excellent field investigations and
laboratory work. We especially wish to thank Juha Svinhufvud
and Mari Rothberg for their valuable comments and advice
concerning the chemical analysis.
REFERENCES
1. Morey, P., and B.A. Jenkins: What are typical concentrations of fungi,
total volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen dioxide in an office
environment. In The Human Equation: Health and Comfort. Atlanta:
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning En-
gineers, 1989. pp. 67–71.
2. Wallace, L., E.D. Pellizzari, and C. Wendel: Total volatile organic
concentrations in 2700 personal, indoor, and outdoor samples collected
in the USEPA TEAM studies. Indoor Air 1:465–467 (1991).
3. Brown, S.K., M.R. Sim, M.J. Abramson, and C.N. Gray: Concentra-
tions of volatile organic compounds in indoor air-a review. Indoor Air
4:123–134 (1994).
4. Begerow, J., E. Jermann, T. Keles, U. Ranft, and L. Dunemann: Passive
sampling for volatile organic compounds (VOC) in air at environmentally
relevant concentration levels. Fresenius’ J. Anal. Chem. 351:549–554
(1995).
5. Shields, H.C., D.M. Fleischer, and C.J. Weschler: Comparisons among
VOCs measured in three types of U.S. commercial buildings with different
occupant densities. Indoor Air 6:2–17 (1996).
6. Girman, J.R., G.E. Hadwen, L.E. Burton, S.E. Womble, and J.F.
McCarthy: Individual volatile organic compound prevalence and concen-
trations in 56 buildings of the building assessment survey and evaluation
(BASE) study. In Indoor Air 99, G. Raw, C. Aizlewood, and P. Warren
(eds.), 2:460–465. London: Construction Research Communications Ltd.,
1999.
7. Rehwagen, M., U. Schlink, and O. Herbart: Seosonal cycle of VOCs
in apartments. Indoor Air 13:283–291 (2003).
8. Baldwin, M.E., and J.-P. Farant: Study of selected volatile organic
compounds in office buildings at different stages of occupancy. In
March 2009 207
 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality
and Climate, D. Walkinshaw (ed.), 2:665–70. Toronto, Canada, 1990.
9. Wolkoff, P., P.A. Clausen, P.A. Nielsen, and L. Mølhave: The Danish
twin apartment study: Part I: Formaldehyde and long-term VOC measure-
ments. Indoor Air 1:478–490 (1991).
10. European Commission (EC): Sampling Strategies for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) in Indoor Air (14 EUR 16051 EN). Brussels:
European Commission, 1994.
11. Wolkoff, P.: Volatile organic compounds-sources, measurements, emis-
sions, and the impact on indoor air quality. Indoor Air 3:1–73 (1995).
12. Wolkoff, P., T. Schneider, J. Kildeso, R. Degerth, M. Jaroszewski, and
H. Schunk: Risk in cleaning: Chemical and physical exposure. Sci. Total
Environ. 215:135–156 (1998).
13. Hodgson, A.T., A.F. Rudd, D. Beal, and S. Chandra: Volatile organic
compound concentrations and emission rates in new manufactured and
site-built houses. Indoor Air 10:178–192 (2000).
14. Ekberg, L.E.: Volatile organic compounds in office buildings. Atmos.
Environ. 28:3571–3575 (2003).
15. Nazaroff, W.W., and C.J. Weschler: Cleaning products and air fresh-
eners; exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants. Atmos. Environ.
38:2841–2865 (2004).
16. Otson, R., P. Fellin, and C.S. Davis: Effects of ventilation, temperature,
sources, and sinks on VOC levels in a residence. In Proceedings of the
1995 Second International Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation
and Energy Conservation in Buildings. Montreal, Quebec: Concordia
University, 1995. p. 85.
17. Wargocki, P., Z. Bakó-Biró, G. Clausen, and P. Ole Fanger: Air quality
in a simulated office environment as a result of reducing pollution sources
and increasing ventilation. Energy and Buildings 34:775–783 (2002).
18. Mølhave, L.: “The Sick Building Syndrome Caused by Exposure to
Volatile Organic Compounds.” In The Practitioner’s Approach to Indoor
Air Quality Investigations: Proceedings of the Indoor Air Quality Interna-
tional Symposium, D.M. Weekes and R.B. Gammage (eds.). Akron, Ohio:
AIHA, 1990.
19. Saijo, Y., R. Kishi, F. Sata, et al.: Symptoms in relation to chemicals and
dampness in newly built dwellings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health.
77:461–470 (2004).
20. Schlink, U., M. Rehwagen, M. Damm, M. Richter, M. Borte, and O.
Herbarth: Seasonal cycle of indoor-VOCs: Comparison of apartments
and cities. Atmos. Environ. 38:1181–1190 (2004).
21. Zuraimi, M.S., C.-A. Roulet, K.W. Tham, et al.: A comparative study
of VOCs in Singapore and European office buildings. Building and
Environment 41:316–329 (2005).
22. Ström, G., J. West, B. Wessen, and U. Palmgren: Quantitative analysis
of microbial volatiles in damp Swedish houses. In Health Implications
of Fungi in Indoor Environments, R.A. Samson, B. Flannigan, M.E.
Flannigan, A.P. Verhoeff, O.C.G. Adan, E.S. Hoekstra (eds.) North-
Holland Biomedical, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994.
23. Etkin, D.S.: Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Environments.
Arlington, Mass.: Cutter Information Corp., 1996.
24. Wolkoff, P., C.K. Wilkins, P.A. Clausen, and G.D. Nielsen: Organic
compounds in office environments-sensory irritation, odor, measurements
and the role of reactive chemistry. Indoor Air 16:7–19 (2006).
25. Nielsen, G.D., L.F. Hansen, and P. Wolkoff: Chemical and biological
evaluation of building material emissions. II. Approaches for setting
indoor air standards or guidelines for chemicals. Indoor Air 7:17–32
(1997).
26. Nielsen, G.D., L.F. Hansen, B.A. Nexø and O.M. Poulsen: Indoor air
guideline values for organic acids, phenols, and glycol ethers. Indoor Air
5(Suppl.):8–54 (1998).
27. Andersson, K., J.V. Bakke, O. Bjørseth, et al.: TVOC and health in
non-industrial indoor environments. Indoor Air 7:78–91 (1997).
28. Berglund, B., and I. Johansson: Health effects of volatile organic
compounds in indoor air. Arc. Center Sens. Res. 3:1–92 (1996).
29. Wolkoff, P., and G.D. Nielsen: Organic compounds in indoor air- their
relevance for perceived indoor air quality. Atmos. Environ. 35:4407–4417
(2001).
208 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
30. European Collaborative Action ECA-IAQ: Total Volatile Organic
Compounds TVOC in Indoor Air Quality Investigations. (Report 19)
Brussels: European Commission; 1997.
31. “Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings: A Technical Guide.” [Online]
Available at http://www.hc.sc.gc.ca/ewh semt/pubs/air/office building
immeubles bureaux/organic-organiques e.html. (Accessed September 23,
2008).
32. Hui, P.S., L.T. Wong, and K.W. Mui: Feasibility Study of an Express
Assessment Protocol for the Indoor Air Quality of Air-Conditioned
Offices. Ind. Built Environ. 15:373 (2006).
33. Mandin, C., N. Bonvallot, S. Kirchner, et al.: Development of French
indoor air quality guidelines: Method and example for formaldehyde.
InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality
and Climate. Indoor Air 2008. Paper ID:190. Copenhagen, Denmark,
2008.
34. Bluyssen, P.M., E. de Oliveira Fernandes, L. Groes, et al.: European
indoor air quality audit project in 56 office buildings. Indoor Air 6:221–
238 (1996).
35. Bäck, B., K. Reijula, and E. Puhakka: Measurement of ammonia in
indoor air samples. In Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 1997, J. Woods,
D. Grimsrud, N. Boschi (eds.), Vol. 3. Washington, D.C., 1997. pp. 321–
323.
36. Observatoire de la Qualitè de l’ Air Intèrieur (OQAI): National
Dwelling Survey. Report on Indoor Air Quality in French Dwellings.
French Indoor Air Quality Observatory, 2006. [In French]
37. World Health Organization (WHO): Air Quality Guidelines for Europe.
Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999.
38. Hoffmann, J., A. Ihrig, and G. Triebig: Exposition study on the
work medicine—Sgnificance of ammonia-associated health effects. Ar-
beitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin, Umweltmedizin 39:390–401 (2004). [In
German]
39. Sundblad, B.M., B.M. Larsson, F. Acevedo, et al.: Acute respiratory
effects of exposure to ammonia on healthy persons. Scand. J. Work.
Environ. Health. 30:313–321 (2004).
40. Sundell, J., B. Anderson, K. Anderson, and T. Lindvall: Volatile
organic compounds in ventilating air in buildings at different sampling
points in the buildings and their relationship with the prevalence of
occupant symptoms. Indoor Air 3:82 (1993).
41. Finnish Ministry of the Environment: National Building Code of
Finland, D2. Indoor Climate and Ventilation in Buildings, Regulations
and Guidelines. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 1987. [In
Finnish]
42. Finnish Ministry of the Environment: National Building Code of
Finland, D2. Indoor Climate and Ventilation in Buildings, Regulations
and Guidelines. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 2003. [In
Finnish]
43. Wolkoff, P., P.A. Clausen, P.A. Nielsen, and L. Mølhave: The Danish
twin apartment study; part I: Formaldehyde and long-term VOC measure-
ments. Indoor Air 1:478–490 (1991).
44. Chao, C.Y., and G.Y. Chan: Quantification of indoor VOCs in twenty
mechanically ventilated buildings in Hong Kong. Atmos. Environ.
35:5895–5913 (2001).
45. World Health Organization (WHO): Air Quality Guidelines for Europe,
2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000.
46. Brown, S.K.: Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in indoor air. In
Organic Indoor Air Pollutants, T. Salthammer (ed.). Weinheim: Wiley-
VCH, 1999. pp. 171–184.
47. Shendell, D.G., A.M. Winter, T.H. Stock, J. Zhang, S. Maberti, and
S.D. Colome: Air concentrations of VOCs in portable and traditional
classrooms: Results of a pilot study in Los Angeles County. J. Expo.
Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 14:44–59 (2004).
48. Sexton, K., J.L. Adgate, G. Ramachandran, et al.: Comparison of
personal, indoor, and outdoor exposures to hazardous air pollutants
in three urban communities. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:423–430
(2004).
49. Schleibinger, H., U. Hott, P. Braun, P. Plieninger, and H. Ruden: VOC
concentrations in internal roomspaces within the Berlin Conurbation,
March 2009
 Germany during the time period from 1988 to 1999. Gefahrstoffe
Reinhaltung Luft. 61:26–34 (2001). [In German]
50. Hippelein, M.: Background concentrations of individual and total volatile
organic compounds in residential indoor air of Schleswig-Holstein,
Germany. J. Environ. Monit. 6:745–752 (2004).
51. Saarela, K., T. Tirkkonen, J. Laine-Ylijoki, J. Jurvelin, M.J. Nieuwen-
huijsen, and M. Jantunen: Exposure of population and microenviron-
mental distributions of volatile organic compound concentrations in the
EXPOLIS study. Atmos. Environ. 37:5563–5575 (2003).
52. Hodgson, A.-T., and H. Levin: “Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor
Air: A Review of Concentrations Measured in North America Since
1990.” [Online] Available at http://eetd.lbl.gov/ied/pdf/LBNL-51715.pdf
(Accessed April 2008).
53. Berrios, I.T.: “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from
Sources in a Partitioned Office Environment and Their Impact on Indoor
Air Quality (IAQ).” Dissertation, Syracuse University, 2005.
54. Tirkkonen, T., K. Saarela, K. Villberg, J. Jurvelin, and M. Jantunen:
Building related factors and inhabitant exposure to indoor air volatile
compounds in the EXPOLIS Helsinki study. In Proceedings of the
Ninth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
H. Levin (ed.). Empire Grade, Santa Cruz, CA, 2002. , pp. 233–
238.
55. Edwards, R.D., J. Jurvelin, K. Koistinen, K. Saarela, and M. Jan-
tunen: VOC source identification from personal and residential indoor,
outdoor and workplace microenvironment samples in EXPOLIS-Helsinki
Finland. Atmos. Environ. 35:4829–4841 (2001).
56. Maroni, M., P. Carrer, D. Cavallo, M. della Torre, and N. Boschi:
Performance criteria for healthy buildings: target values for some indoor
air quality parameters. In Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Healthy Buildings 2003, T.K. Wai, C. Sekhar, D. Cheong
(eds.), Vol. 3. Singapore, 2003. pp. 562–566.
57. 57. Funaki, R., H. Tanaka, T. Nakagava, and S. Tanabe: Measurements
of aldehydes and VOCs from electronic appliances by using a small
chamber. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Healthy Buildings 2003, T.K. Wai, C. Sekhar, D. Cheong (eds.), Vol.
1. Singapore, 2003. pp. 319–324.
58. Jurvelin, J.A., R.D. Edwards, M. Vartiainen, P. Pasanen, M. Jantunen:
Residential indoor, outdoor, and workplace concentrations of carbonyl
compounds: Relationship with personal exposure concentrations and
correlation with sources. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 53:560–573 (2003).
59. Atkins, D.H.F., and D.S. Lee: Indoor concentrations of ammonia and the
potential contribution of humans to atmospheric budgets. Atmos. Environ.
27A:1–7 (1993).
60. Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment:
Workshop on Gases and Vapours by G. Stridh, G.D. Nielsen, J.
Bakke, I. Johansson, L. Mølhave, and P. Wolkoff. København: Arbe-
jdsmiljøinstitutet, 2001. [In Danish]
61. World Health Organization (WHO): Air Quality Guidelines. Geneva:
WHO, 2000.
62. Nordic Committee on Building Regulations: Toxicologically Based
Determination of Indoor Climate Substance Norms by G.D. Nielsen, G.D.,
L.F. Hansen, B.A. Nexø, and O.M. Poulsen. Helsingfors: Monila Oy, 1997.
[In Danish]
63. National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH): VOC-BASE Odour
and Mucous Membrane Irritation Thresholds and Other Physico-
Chemical Properties, Version 2.1. by B. Jensen and P. Wolkoff. Copen-
hagen: NIOH, 1996.
64. Seifert, B.: Regulating indoor air. In Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, D.S. Walkinshaw (ed.),
Vol. 5. Toronto, Canada, 1990. pp. 35–49.
65. Becher, J., J.K. Hongslo, and E. Dybing: Guidelines for indoor air in
Norway. Pollution Atmosphérique 166:245–246 (2000).
66. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (STM): Living Instructions
Regarding Physical, Chemical and Biological Factors in Housing and
Other Living Premises. Helsinki: STM, 2003. [In Finnish]
67. Finnish Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (FiSIAQ): Clas-
sification of Indoor Climate. Publication 5 E. Espoo, Finland: FiSIAQ,
2000.
March 2009 209