10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Indoor Microclimate and Microbiological Risks in Heritage Buildings: A Case Study of the Neologic Sinagogue, Oradea, Romania

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Heritage buildings face risks related to the degradation of exhibited or stored artefacts, up to their destruction over time, as well as the health of workers and visitors. The main causes are microclimatic parameters (temperature, humidity, brightness, particles suspension, pollutants, degree of ventilation or air circulation), biological (bacteria, fungi, molds and insects) and anthropogenic ones (improper maintenance of the building and overcrowding of rooms). In accordance with these, the present study considers a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the air quality and the degree of microbiological contamination of the surfaces and the air inside a synagogue in the municipality of Oradea, Romania. The microbiological study highlighted the presence of some potentially harmful genera of fungi (Alternaria sp., Penicillium sp., Aspergillus sp., Botrytis sp. and Cladosporium sp.) in the indoor air and on the surfaces inside the synagogue; suggesting an average degree of fungal contamination, with possible risk to individual health, especially in children and people with allergic status or allergic respiratory diseases. Statistical analysis concerning the occupational exposure to airborne microbes poses health risks to employees and visitors. Multivariate regression analysis results emphasize that higher symptoms scores were independently associated with experiencing a too low indoor air temperature; these symptoms would disappear within one to two hours after leaving the space. Air pollutants have become part of everyday life; therefore, consistent monitoring of indoor environments offers an effective approach to prevent or minimize the adverse health risk to building occupants in spaces such as heritage buildings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC).

          The health-care facility environment is rarely implicated in disease transmission, except among patients who are immunocompromised. Nonetheless, inadvertent exposures to environmental pathogens (e.g., Aspergillus spp. and Legionella spp.) or airborne pathogens (e.g., Mycobacterium tuberculosis and varicella-zoster virus) can result in adverse patient outcomes and cause illness among health-care workers. Environmental infection-control strategies and engineering controls can effectively prevent these infections. The incidence of health-care--associated infections and pseudo-outbreaks can be minimized by 1) appropriate use of cleaners and disinfectants; 2) appropriate maintenance of medical equipment (e.g., automated endoscope reprocessors or hydrotherapy equipment); 3) adherence to water-quality standards for hemodialysis, and to ventilation standards for specialized care environments (e.g., airborne infection isolation rooms, protective environments, or operating rooms); and 4) prompt management of water intrusion into the facility. Routine environmental sampling is not usually advised, except for water quality determinations in hemodialysis settings and other situations where sampling is directed by epidemiologic principles, and results can be applied directly to infection-control decisions. This report reviews previous guidelines and strategies for preventing environment-associated infections in health-care facilities and offers recommendations. These include 1) evidence-based recommendations supported by studies; 2) requirements of federal agencies (e.g., Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and U.S. Department of Justice); 3) guidelines and standards from building and equipment professional organizations (e.g., American Institute of Architects, Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, and American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers); 4) recommendations derived from scientific theory or rationale; and 5) experienced opinions based upon infection-control and engineering practices. The report also suggests a series of performance measurements as a means to evaluate infection-control efforts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Toxicology of nanoparticles.

            While nanotechnology and the production of nanoparticles are growing exponentially, research into the toxicological impact and possible hazard of nanoparticles to human health and the environment is still in its infancy. This review aims to give a comprehensive summary of what is known today about nanoparticle toxicology, the mechanisms at the cellular level, entry routes into the body and possible impacts to public health. Proper characterisation of the nanomaterial, as well as understanding processes happening on the nanoparticle surface when in contact with living systems, is crucial to understand possible toxicological effects. Dose as a key parameter is essential in hazard identification and risk assessment of nanotechnologies. Understanding nanoparticle pathways and entry routes into the body requires further research in order to inform policy makers and regulatory bodies about the nanotoxicological potential of certain nanomaterials. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              It's about time: a comparison of Canadian and American time-activity patterns.

              This study compares two North American time-activity data bases: the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) of 9386 interviewees in 1992-1994 in the continental USA with the Canadian Human Activity Pattern Survey (CHAPS) of 2381 interviewees in 1996-1997 in four major Canadian cities. Identical surveys and methodology were used to collect this data: random sample telephone selection within the identified telephone exchanges, computer-assisted telephone interviews, overselection of children and weekends in the 24-h recall diary and the same interviewers. Very similar response rates were obtained: 63% (NHAPS) and 64.5% (CHAPS). Results of comparisons by age within major activity and location groups suggest activity and location patterns are very similar (most differences being less than 1% or 14 min in a 24-h day) with the exception of seasonal differences. Canadians spend less time outdoors in winter and less time indoors in summer than their U.S. counterparts. When exposure assessments use time of year or outdoor/indoor exposure gradients, these differences may result in significant differences in exposure assessments. Otherwise, the 24-h time activity patterns of North Americans are remarkably similar and use of the combined data set for some exposure assessments may be feasible.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                BUILCO
                Buildings
                Buildings
                MDPI AG
                2075-5309
                September 2023
                September 07 2023
                : 13
                : 9
                : 2277
                Article
                10.3390/buildings13092277
                fa7a02a6-6e36-4382-b6c7-c3b9f66deb68
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article