Indoor air quality at school and students’ performance: Recommendations of the UNESCO Chair on Health Education and Sustainable Development & the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine (SIMA)

Indoor air quality at school

What kind of air do young people breathe at school and how it affects their academic performance? The question of indoor air quality (IAQ) concerns 64 million students (and 4.5 million teachers) across Europe, but it is still a neglected topic, although it significantly impacts both their global wellbeing and learning achievements.¹ Basic factors determining a healthy or unhealthy microclimate at school are: ventilation, temperature and humidity rate.^2-6 Classrooms are usually crowded, overheated and poorly ventilated, or even contaminated by pollutants originating both from inside the school and outside (road traffic, domestic heating, intensive agriculture or industrial activities etc).^1,2,7

Concerning overcrowding, available evidence shows that the number of students is directly and significantly associated with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the classroom (up to +25%).⁶ Normal breathing of a child aged 7-9 years old generates 14 L of CO₂ per hour, which is 50% lower than the amount produced by a teenager (in conditions of moderate physical activity, a 15 years old student can release up to 85 L of CO₂ per hour).⁶ CO₂ makes classrooms uncomfortable. International standards (such as the DIN 1946 UNI EN standard) tolerate a maximum value of 0.15 percentage volume of CO₂ (1500 parts per million, ppm), but – depending on the age – the individual tolerable limit values can be reached earlier (from 1000 ppm of CO2).⁶ When this limit is overcome, air becomes stagnant and could cause headaches, tachycardia, nausea, memory disturbances, lack of concentration, blurred vision, sweating, restlessness, vomiting, flushed skin, and even panic attacks.⁷ CO₂ can arise also from outside the school, being widely produced by combustion of fossils or road traffic and other anthropogenic activities, which are responsible for the emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH; i.e. benzopyrene).^8-11 Indeed, NO2 represents another possible contaminant originating from external sources that can impair school IAQ and cause respiratory problems in schoolchildren (i.e. asthma exacerbations, increased susceptibility to viral infections etc).^12,13

In addition to the residual asbestos manufactures (that should be removed with priority by authorized companies), a further potential source of dangerous exposures for students’ health is the natural emission of gas Radon coming from underground cavities, which typically accumulates in poorly ventilated classrooms and can affect lung function in case of chronic exposures.¹⁴ Moreover, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - such as formaldehyde, toluene, benzene – can be released by building materials, paints, furnishings, and detergents.^15-17 Like Radon, many VOCs are not perceptible by smell but can negatively affect health even at concentrations lower than 3 μg/m³. Exposures to these kind of compounds at school may cause dizziness, headache, allergies, eye/nose/throat irritation, dyspnoea, fatigue and deficit of attention.¹⁸

Particulate matters (PM2.5 and PM10) represent additional pollutants that can impair IAQ at school.¹⁹ Actually, in a study published by Branis and colleagues, it was found that IAQ in the classrooms is influenced not only by internal factors such as crowding and microclimate (poor ventilation and overheating), as already mentioned, but also by particulate matter attributable to road traffic emissions.²⁰ This research demonstrated that indoor concentrations of PM10 can reach average levels of 40 μg/m³, with peaks even higher than 75 μg/m³ (daily average limit 50 μg/m³).²⁰ The European Commission has carried out in 2015 a specific survey (SInPHONiE - Schools Indoor Pollution and Health Observatory Network in Europe ) to assess air quality in 114 primary schools (5575 students) across 23 EU countries. According to this study, about 85% of students are exposed to PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations higher than those considered safe by the World Health Organization in 2005 for the prevention of cardio-pulmonary diseases.²¹

School indoor air quality and students’ performance

A number of researches have documented the association between IAQ and students’ school performance.^22-26 Haverinen‐Shaughnessy and colleagues – in a study involving 100 schools in the United States – demonstrated that classroom ventilation rates are directly associated with students’ academic achievements, and that measurable progresses in maths and reading (assessed through standardized tests) may be observed when improving IAQ in the classrooms.²⁷ These conclusions are confirmed by specific systematic reviews and by a big cohort study performed on more than 8000 children in UK.^28-30 Hutter et al examined a total of 436 schoolchildren in Austrian urban areas and observed reduced cognitive performance in those classrooms where higher concentrations of particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and CO₂ were measured.³¹

In a cohort study involving 60 Scottish schools, CO₂ levels were associated to lower average annual attendance and worse individual test scores for reading, writing and arithmetic – even when adjusted for socio-economic status and number of students per class.³² Increased CO₂ levels were found to reduce short‐term students’ attention performance in experimental studies with 20 cluster-randomized classrooms in Germany and in 51 primary schools in Portugal.^33,34

The relationship between air pollution generated from road traffic and impaired IAQ, as well as the related consequences on school performance were assessed in a Spanish cohort study published by Sunyer and colleagues on students attending 19 schools in Barcelona. The authors of the research showed a better trend (up to + 13%) in cognitive development indicators – such as attention and memorization capacity – in those schools with the lowest levels of traffic-related ultrafine particulate, carbon particles and NO2.³⁵ The correlation between IAQ linked to road traffic and the cognitive performance of school-aged children was then confirmed by an annual extension of the same study in 39 schools.³⁶ However, according to other authors, classroom internal factors negatively affecting IAQ seem to have a higher impact than pollutants coming from outside.^3,37,38

Some remedies have been proposed to improve IAQ in the classroom, and reduce the impact of air pollutants on students’ health and on their academic achievements. Polidori and colleagues have demonstrated – in a study carried out in 2013 on 9 classes of Californian schools – that it is possible to significantly improve IAQ in the classrooms thanks to high performance filter systems for air conditioners integrated with air purifiers, which can generate a reduction of 90%-96% in the concentrations of ultrafine particulate matter (PM<1), fine particulate (PM 2.5/PM10), and carbon particles (the dangerous “black carbon”).³⁹ Other studies published on the same topic seem to confirm these positive results.^40-45 Concerning expected health benefits, Martenies and Batterman have showed the possibility of reducing the incidence of asthma from 16% to 13% among children by simply applying filters for PM 2.5 in the classrooms.⁴⁶

A study performed by Gilraine – about the ability of air filters to remove indoor pollutants and consequently improve students’ academic achievements – has been recently published by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University of Providence in Rhode Island (USA).⁴⁷ This work confirms the increased students’ school performance just one year after the installation of air filters in the schools of Porter Ranch in San Fernando Valley (Southern California), where these filters have been placed by the local authorities in 2016 due to an alarm concerning methane leaks from a large Californian gas pipeline. These long-term data confirm what emerged from similar assessments previously performed on daily basis by Sefi Roth at the London School of Economics.⁴⁸

Recommendations proposed by the UNESCO Chair on Health Education and Sustainable Development & SIMA

As we have enough evidence that IAQ in the classroom impacts both students’ health and their learning achievements, it is very important to adopt all the necessary measures to ensure an optimal IAQ at school. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already established since many years specific standards and a stable working team on IAQ topics, setting up a Reference Guide for Indoor Air Quality in Schools designed for the IAQ coordinators (usually appointed in US schools or at least at district level) about the most common issues related to IAQ management.⁴⁹ In 2020, the issue of IAQ in school setting has becomes particularly relevant due to the COVID-19 emergency.

Based on the available evidence and consistently with the WHO¹ and European Commission Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality (developed in Italy by the Governmental Agency ISPRA and the National Institute of Health ISS), the UNESCO Chair on Health Education and Sustainable Development and the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine (SIMA) propose the following recommendations that include useful suggestions to cope with issues related to COVID-19 pandemic:

• Classroom overcrowding should be avoided;
• Teachers and school staff should be informed that poor IAQ impacts both pupils’ health and their academic performance;
• Personal hygiene of the students should be encouraged, in order to prevent they bring at school potential sources of contaminants (animal hair on pupils’ clothes, mould or other dirty stuffs under the shoes etc);
• Classrooms must be adequately ventilated before the beginning of the lessons and during each break (possibly overcoming organizational or logistic problems). To compute the maximum time interval that can elapse between each change of air (opening windows), several factors must be taken into account such as the volume of the room, the age and the number of the children in the classroom, the number of hours spent and the kind of activities that take place in the room. It must be noticed that folding windows do not supply all areas of the room with fresh air, so that windows and doors must be simultaneously opened in order to generate a complete air exchange;
• Surfaces of worktables and chairs, as well as teaching materials, should be cleaned with damp cloths every morning. It must be taken into account that there is evidence that more children develop allergic symptoms if classrooms are cleaned only in the evening, and especially if vacuum cleaners are not used. ²¹ Particular attention must be paid to removing mould or dampness. Moreover, when cleaning the classrooms, windows should be kept open or ventilation systems should be turned on, in order to effectively reduce dust, particulate and radon concentrations.
• Equipment such as photocopiers and printers that produce particulates and VOCs must be placed outside the classroom;
• School materials containing chemicals or toxic substances (i.e. cyanoacrylate, lead, cadmium, nickel etc) should be avoided;
• The adoption of protocols and measures for monitoring IAQ should be fostered in every school;
• School buildings should be surrounded by green spaces and trees wherever possible, ⁵⁰ in order to create a “green barrier” towards external sources of pollutants. Moreover, specific plants, that can adsorb different indoor contaminants (i.e. formaldehyde, toluene, benzopyrene etc.) by acting as natural filters, can be placed inside the school in order to improve air quality. ^51-53
• Thermostats should be installed in each classroom in order to monitor the temperature (and possibly also the humidity rate that should ideally be 45%-55%) and avoid overheating or dry air. The installation of dehumidifiers (with adequate maintenance of the filters) should also be considered, if necessary.
• Cigarette smoking must be avoided inside the schools (in classrooms, bathrooms, halls) and surrounding spaces, even where national laws do not forbid it expressly;
• School buildings renovation should be fostered whenever possible, giving priority to asbestos removal (only by authorized companies), ⁵⁴ and paying attention to the use of water resistant paints or furniture that can release dangerous molecules (i.e. toluene, benzene, xylenes, ethylbenzene), as well as to potential sources of life-threatening compounds such as carbon monoxide (i.e. heating systems, that must undergo annual maintenance and be always placed in boiler rooms separate from the main school building) ^6,55;
• Annual monitoring campaign to assess average indoor concentration of Radon and PM 2.5/PM10, should be performed under the supervision of experts or in cooperation with the Regional/Local Health Authorities;
• The installation of high performance filter systems for air conditioners together with air purifiers (paying attention to the adequate maintenance of the filters on monthly basis) that neutralize fine dust should be considered if the outside air has potential pollution problems, at least in those schools situated nearby traffic-intensive roads or traffic lights, ports, railroads, airports or industrial areas and farms ⁵⁶;
• The installation of air decontamination filters, able to eradicate micro-organisms and viruses (up to 0.1 micron size), already used in different public and private settings, could be considered in the perspective of school re-opening after the COVID-19 emergency. ⁵⁷

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare no competing interests.

Funding

No external funding.

Authors’ contributions

MP, PP, SC, AC, and AM conceived, wrote, prepared and revised the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The UNESCO Chair on Health Education and Sustainable Development and the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine are grateful to the UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education Dr. Stefania Giannini and her staff. For any other detail on UNESCO Chair objectives, programs and staff organization, please visit https://www.unescochairnapoli.it.

References

1. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/policy/who-guidelines-for-indoor-air-quality. Accessed February 6, 2020.
2. Lee SC, Chang M. Indoor air quality investigations at five classrooms. Indoor Air 1999;9(2):134-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1999.t01-2-00008.x. [Crossref]
3. Dorizas PV, Assimakopoulos MN, Helmis C, Santamouris M. An integrated evaluation study of the ventilation rate, the exposure and the indoor air quality in naturally ventilated classrooms in the Mediterranean region during spring. Sci Total Environ 2015;502:557-70. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.060. [Crossref]
4. Krawczyk DA, Gładyszewska-Fiedoruk K, Rodero A. The analysis of microclimate parameters in the classrooms located in different climate zones. Appl Therm Eng 2017;113:108896. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.11.089. [Crossref]
5. Cai W, Yoshino H, Zhu S, Yanagi U, Kagi N, Hasegawa K. Investigation of microclimate and air pollution in the classrooms of a primary school in Wuhan. Procedia Eng 2015;121:415-22. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.1087. [Crossref]
6. Coley DA, Beisteiner A. Carbon dioxide levels and ventilation rates in schools. International Journal of Ventilation 2002;1(1):45-52. doi: 10.1080/14733315.2002.11683621. [Crossref]
7. Poscia A, Burali A, Calzoni J, Colaiacomo E, Csobod E, De Maio F, et al. “How good is my classroom?” Italian results from the International SEARCH II Project on energy, indoor air quality and comfort at school: Andrea Poscia. Eur J Public Health 2014;24(Suppl 2):cku162–073. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku162.073. [Crossref]
8. Amato F, Rivas I, Viana M, Moreno T, Bouso L, Reche C, et al. Sources of indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations in primary schools. Sci Total Environ 2014;490:757-65. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.051. [Crossref]
9. Rivas I, Viana M, Moreno T, Bouso L, Pandolfi M, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, et al. Outdoor infiltration and indoor contribution of UFP and BC, OC, secondary inorganic ions and metals in PM2.5 in schools. Atmos Environ 2015;106:129-38. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.055. [Crossref]
10. Rivas I, Viana M, Moreno T, Pandolfi M, Amato F, Reche C, et al. Child exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollutants in schools in Barcelona, Spain. Environ Int 2014;69:200-12. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.009. [Crossref]
11. Oliveira M, Slezakova K, Delerue-Matos C, Pereira MC, Morais S. Children environmental exposure to particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biomonitoring in school environments: a review on indoor and outdoor exposure levels, major sources and health impacts. Environ Int 2019;124:180-204. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.052. [Crossref]
12. Chauhan AJ, Inskip HM, Linaker CH, Smith S, Schreiber J, Johnston SL, et al. Personal exposure to nitrogen dioxide NO2 and the severity of virus-induced asthma in children. Lancet 2003;361(9373):1939-44. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13582-9. [Crossref]
13. Wichmann J, Lind T, Nilsson MAM, Bellander T. PM2.5, soot and NO2 indoor–outdoor relationships at homes, pre-schools and schools in Stockholm, Sweden. Atmos Environ 2010;44(36):4536-44. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.08.023. [Crossref]
14. Giovani C, Cappelletto C, Garavaglia M, Scruzzi E, Peressini G, Villalta R. Radon survey in schools in north-east Italy. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;97(4):341-4. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006685. [Crossref]
15. Neamtiu IA, Lin S, Chen M, Roba C, Csobod E, Gurzau ES. Assessment of formaldehyde levels in relation to respiratory and allergic symptoms in children from Alba County schools, Romania. Environ Monit Assess 2019;191(9):591. doi: 10.1007/s10661-019-7768-6. [Crossref]
16. Pegas PN, Evtyugina MG, Alves CA, Nunes T, Cerqueira M, Franchi M, et al. Outdoor/indoor air quality in primary schools in Lisbon: a preliminary study. Quim Nova 2010;33(5):1145-9. doi: 10.1590/S0100-40422010000500027. [Crossref]
17. Lim SK, Shin HS, Yoon KS, Kwack SJ, Um YM, Hyeon JH, et al. Risk assessment of volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) in consumer products. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2014;77(22-24):1502-21. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2014.955905. [Crossref]
18. Sofuoglu SC, Aslan G, Inal F, Sofuoglu A. An assessment of indoor air concentrations and health risks of volatile organic compounds in three primary schools. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2011;214(1):36-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.08.008. [Crossref]
19. Mohammadyan M, Shabankhani B. Indoor PM1, PM2.5, PM10 and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations in primary schools in Sari, Iran. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 2013;64(3):371-7. doi: 10.2478/10004-1254-64-2013-2346. [Crossref]
20. Braniš M, Řezáčová P, Domasová M. The effect of outdoor air and indoor human activity on mass concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 in a classroom. Environ Res 2005;99(2):143-9. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2004.12.001. [Crossref]
21. Schools Indoor Pollution and HealthObservatory Network in Europe. Guidelines for Healthy Environments within Schools. Available from: https://www.ediliziascolastica.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/II_Italian-Guidelines.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2020.
22. Porta D, Narduzzi S, Badaloni C, Bucci S, Cesaroni G, Colelli V, et al. Air pollution and cognitive development at age 7 in a prospective Italian birth cohort. Epidemiology 2016;27(2):228-36. doi: 10.1097/ede.0000000000000405. [Crossref]
23. Brabhukumr A, Malhi P, Ravindra K, Lakshmi PVM. Exposure to household air pollution during first 3 years of life and IQ level among 6-8-year-old children in India - a cross-sectional study. Sci Total Environ 2020;709:135110. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135110. [Crossref]
24. Harris MH, Gold DR, Rifas-Shiman SL, Melly SJ, Zanobetti A, Coull BA, et al. Prenatal and childhood traffic-related pollution exposure and childhood cognition in the project viva cohort (Massachusetts, USA). Environ Health Perspect 2015;123(10):1072-8. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408803. [Crossref]
25. Pujol J, Martínez-Vilavella G, Macià D, Fenoll R, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, Rivas I, et al. Traffic pollution exposure is associated with altered brain connectivity in school children. Neuroimage 2016;129:175-84. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.036. [Crossref]
26. Chiu YH, Bellinger DC, Coull BA, Anderson S, Barber R, Wright RO, et al. Associations between traffic-related black carbon exposure and attention in a prospective birth cohort of urban children. Environ Health Perspect 2013;121(7):859-64. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1205940. [Crossref]
27. Haverinen-Shaughnessy U, Moschandreas DJ, Shaughnessy RJ. Association between substandard classroom ventilation rates and students’ academic achievement. Indoor Air 2011;21(2):121-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00686.x. [Crossref]
28. Fisk WJ. The ventilation problem in schools: literature review. Indoor Air 2017;27(6):1039-51. doi: 10.1111/ina.12403. [Crossref]
29. Mendell MJ, Heath GA. Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? a critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 2005;15(1):27-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00320.x. [Crossref]
30. Midouhas E, Kokosi T, Flouri E. Outdoor and indoor air quality and cognitive ability in young children. Environ Res 2018;161:321-8. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.026. [Crossref]
31. Hutter HP, Haluza D, Piegler K, Hohenblum P, Frohlich M, Scharf S, et al. Semivolatile compounds in schools and their influence on cognitive performance of children. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2013;26(4):628-35. doi: 10.2478/s13382-013-0125-z. [Crossref]
32. Gaihre S, Semple S, Miller J, Fielding S, Turner S. Classroom carbon dioxide concentration, school attendance, and educational attainment. J Sch Health 2014;84(9):569-74. doi: 10.1111/josh.12183. [Crossref]
33. Twardella D, Matzen W, Lahrz T, Burghardt R, Spegel H, Hendrowarsito L, et al. Effect of classroom air quality on students’ concentration: results of a cluster-randomized cross-over experimental study. Indoor Air 2012;22(5):378-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2012.00774.x. [Crossref]
34. Ferreira AM, Cardoso M. Indoor air quality and health in schools. J Bras Pneumol 2014;40(3):259-68. doi: 10.1590/s1806-37132014000300009. [Crossref]
35. Sunyer J, Esnaola M, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, Forns J, Rivas I, López-Vicente M, et al. Association between traffic-related air pollution in schools and cognitive development in primary school children: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2015;12(3):e1001792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001792. [Crossref]
36. Sunyer J, Suades-González E, García-Esteban R, Rivas I, Pujol J, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, et al. Traffic-related air pollution and attention in primary school children: short-term association. Epidemiology 2017;28(2):181-9. doi: 10.1097/ede.0000000000000603. [Crossref]
37. Grineski SE, Clark-Reyna SE, Collins TW. School-based exposure to hazardous air pollutants and grade point average: a multi-level study. Environ Res 2016;147:164-71. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.02.004. [Crossref]
38. Petersen S, Jensen KL, Pedersen AL, Rasmussen HS. The effect of increased classroom ventilation rate indicated by reduced CO2 concentration on the performance of schoolwork by children. Indoor Air 2016;26(3):366-79. doi: 10.1111/ina.12210. [Crossref]
39. Polidori A, Fine PM, White V, Kwon PS. Pilot study of high-performance air filtration for classroom applications. Indoor Air 2013;23(3):185-95. doi: 10.1111/ina.12013. [Crossref]
40. Bakó-Biró Z, Clements-Croome DJ, Kochhar N, Awbi HB, Williams MJ. Ventilation rates in schools and pupils’ performance. Build Environ 2012;48:215-23. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.08.018. [Crossref]
41. Coley DA, Greeves R, Saxby BK. The effect of low ventilation rates on the cognitive function of a primary school class. Int J Vent 2007;6(2):107-12. doi: 10.1080/14733315.2007.11683770. [Crossref]
42. Rosbach JT, Vonk M, Duijm F, van Ginkel JT, Gehring U, Brunekreef B. A ventilation intervention study in classrooms to improve indoor air quality: the FRESH study. Environ Health 2013;12:110. doi: 10.1186/1476-069x-12-110. [Crossref]
43. Wargocki P, Wyon DP. The effects of moderately raised classroom temperatures and classroom ventilation rate on the performance of schoolwork by children (RP-1257). HVAC&R Res 2007;13(2):193-220. doi: 10.1080/10789669.2007.10390951. [Crossref]
44. Mendell MJ, Eliseeva EA, Davies MM, Lobscheid A. Do classroom ventilation rates in California elementary schools influence standardized test scores? results from a prospective study. Indoor Air 2016;26(4):546-57. doi: 10.1111/ina.12241. [Crossref]
45. Toftum J, Kjeldsen BU, Wargocki P, Menå HR, Hansen EMN, Clausen G. Association between classroom ventilation mode and learning outcome in Danish schools. Build Environ 2015;92:494-503. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.017. [Crossref]
46. Martenies SE, Batterman SA. Effectiveness of using enhanced filters in schools and homes to reduce indoor exposures to PM2.5 from outdoor sources and subsequent health benefits for children with asthma. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52(18):10767-76. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02053. [Crossref]
47. Gilraine M. Air Filters, Pollution and Student Achievement. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Air-Filters%2C-Pollution%2C-and-Student-Achievement-Gilraine/8ae08d308f25e0834ad5fb9b5b9c6a775ccae1c4. Accessed April 5, 2020.
48. Roth S. The Effect of Indoor Air Pollution on Cognitive Performance: Evidence from the UK. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Effect-of-Indoor-Air-Pollution-on-Cognitive-the-Roth/6d210d6b55f2a3e908047ede9a716455c9ff34d4. Accessed April 5, 2020.
49. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reference Guide for Indoor Air Quality in Schools. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/reference-guide-indoor-air-quality-schools. Accessed April 5, 2020.
50. Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Esnaola M, Forns J, Basagaña X, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, et al. Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112(26):7937-42. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503402112. [Crossref]
51. Brilli F, Fares S, Ghirardo A, de Visser P, Calatayud V, Muñoz A, et al. Plants for sustainable improvement of indoor air quality. Trends Plant Sci 2018;23(6):507-12. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2018.03.004. [Crossref]
52. Sriprapat W, Suksabye P, Areephak S, Klantup P, Waraha A, Sawattan A, et al. Uptake of toluene and ethylbenzene by plants: removal of volatile indoor air contaminants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2014;102:147-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.01.032. [Crossref]
53. Dingle P, Tapsell P, Hu S. Reducing formaldehyde exposure in office environments using plants. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2000;64(2):302-8. doi: 10.1007/s001289910044. [Crossref]
54. Garrahan K. Friable asbestos in schools must be found by May 1988, removal plan must start by 1989. JAMA 1987;257(12):1570-1. doi: 10.1001/jama.257.12.1570. [Crossref]
55. Bluyssen PM. The role of flooring materials in health, comfort and performance of children in classrooms. Cogent Psychol 2016;3(1):1268774. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2016.1268774. [Crossref]
56. McCarthy MC, Ludwig JF, Brown SG, Vaughn DL, Roberts PT. Filtration effectiveness of HVAC systems at near-roadway schools. Indoor Air 2013;23(3):196-207. doi: 10.1111/ina.12015. [Crossref]
57. De Waegemaeker P, Bovyn N, Vanneste M, Verschraegen G. The effect of a mobile air purification unit on the air quality of a room contaminated with Aspergillus sp. J Hosp Infect 2010;76 Suppl 1:S35. doi: 10.1016/s0195-6701(10)60116-8. [Crossref]