Stylianos Kephalopoulos

TL;DR: The available data do not provide a sound basis for determining specific outdoor air ventilation rates that can be universally applicable in different public and residential buildings to protect against health risks, and they cannot be used for regulative purposes.

TL;DR: Indoor inhalation exposure contributions are much higher compared to the outdoor or in-transit microenvironment contributions, accounting for almost 99% in the case of formaldehyde, and a significant part of the populations living in European cities exceed the annual ambient benzene air quality guideline.

TL;DR: Modelling shows that combination of controlling the indoor air sources and selecting appropriate ventilation rate was the most effective to reduce health risks, and if indoor sources cannot be removed or their emissions cannot be limited to an accepted level, ventilation needs to be increased to remove remaining pollutants.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the association between exposures and the health outcomes using logistic regression models on individual indoor air pollutants (IAPs); a VOC (volatile organic compound) score defined as the sum of the number of pollutants to which the children were highly exposed (concentration N median of the distribution) in classroom was also introduced to evaluate the multiexposure outcome association, while adjusting for several confounding factors.

TL;DR: In the framework of the EXPOLIS study in Milan, Italy, 48-h carbon monoxide exposures of 50 office workers were monitored over a 1-year period and ETS exposure at the workplaces were probably misclassified due to differences in awareness to tobacco smoke between smokers and nonsmokers.