European Collaborative Action - Urban Air, Indoor Environment and Human Exposure, Report No 30, Framework for health-based ventilation guidelines in Europe

The present report describes the findings and recommendations of the HealthVent (Health-based ventilation guidelines for Europe) project that funded by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumers in the framework of the Second Programme of Community Action in the Field of Health (2008-2013). HealthVent developed a framework for health-based ventilation guidelines for public and residential buildings in Europe and assessed the consequences of implementing these guidelines, bearing in mind future trends in the built environment, including energy efficiency and environmental sustainability issues.JRC.F.2-Consumer Products Safet

What does the scientific literature tell us about the ventilation-health relationship in public and residential buildings?

Objective of this paper is to examine whether the available epidemiological evidence provides information on the link between outdoor air ventilation rates and health, and whether it can be used for regulatory purposes when setting ventilation requirements for non-industrial built environments.Effects on health were seen for a wide range of outdoor ventilation rates from 6 to 7 L/s per person, which were the lowest ventilation rates at which no effects on any health outcomes were observed in field studies, up to 25-40 L/s per person, which were in some studies the lowest outdoor ventilation rates at which no effects on health outcomes were seen. These data show that, in general, higher ventilation rates in many cases will reduce health outcomes, and that there are the minimum rates, at which some health outcomes can be avoided. But these data have many limitations, such as crude estimation of outdoor ventilation rates, diversity and variability of ventilation rates at which effects were seen, a diversity of outcomes (in case of health otcomes being mainly acute not chronic). Among other limitations there are incomplete data on the strength of pollution sources and exposures as well as a wide range of sensibility of the exposed populations.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. They cannot be used for regulative purposes, unless the required ventilation rates are related to actual exposures and are prescribed only when full advantage of other methods for controlling exposures has been taken

What does the scientific literature tell us about the ventilation-health relationship in public and residential buildings?

Objective of this paper is to examine whether the available epidemiological evidence provides information on the link between outdoor air ventilation rates and health, and whether it can be used for regulatory purposes when setting ventilation requirements for non-industrial built environments. Effects on health were seen for a wide range of outdoor ventilation rates from 6-7 L/s per person, which were the lowest ventilation rates at which no effects on any health outcomes were observed in field studies, up to 25-40 L/s per person, which were in some studies the lowest outdoor ventilation rates at which no effects on health outcomes were seen. These data show that, in general, higher ventilation rates in many cases will reduce health outcomes, and that there are the minimum rates, at which some health outcomes can be avoided. But these data have many limitations, such as crude estimation of outdoor ventilation rates, diversity and variability of ventilation rates at which effects were seen, a diversity of outcomes. Among other limitations there are incomplete data on the strength of pollution sources and exposures as well as a wide range of sensibility of the exposed populations. 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. They cannot be used for regulative purposes, unless the required ventilation rates are related to actual exposures and are prescribed only when full advantage of other methods for controlling exposures has been taken.JRC.I.1-Chemical Assessment and Testin

Epidemiology of Soft Tissue Sarcoma and Bone Sarcoma inItaly: Analysis of Data from 15 Population-Based Cancer Registries

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare cancers of mesenchymal origin. In this study, we provide updated, world age-standardised incidence rate (ASR) and European age-standardised incidence rate for malignant soft tissue sarcoma (ICD-O-3 topographic code C47–C49) and bone sarcoma (C40, C41) in Italy, by area (north, centre, and south) and by cancer registry. We also assess morphology in relation to site and area and assess metastases at diagnosis. We analysed 1,112 cases, with incidence 2009–2012, provided by 15 cancer registries (CRs) affiliated to the Association of Italian Cancer Registries (AIRTUM). Overall, ASR was 1.7/100,000/year for soft tissue sarcoma and 0.7 for bone sarcoma. Central Italy had the highest (2.4) ASR and south Italy had the lowest (1.6) ASR for soft tissue sarcoma. Central Italy had the highest (1.1) ASR and north Italy had the lowest (0.7) ASR for bone sarcoma. By CR, ASRs ranged from 1.1 to 2.6 for soft tissue sarcoma and from 0 to 1.4 for bone sarcoma. The most frequent soft tissue sarcomas were sarcoma not otherwise specified (NOS) (29.4%) and liposarcoma (22.2%); the most common bone sarcoma was chondrosarcoma (37.6%). Soft tissue sarcomas occurred most frequently (35.6%) in lower limb connective tissue; bone sarcomas arose mainly (68.8%) in long bones. The frequencies of morphologies arising at different sites varied considerably by Italian area; for example, 20% of hemangiosarcomas occurred in the head and neck in south Italy with 17% at this site in the centre and 6% in the north. For soft tissue sarcoma, the highest ASRs of 2.6 and 2.4 contrast with the lowest ASRs 1.1 and 1.3, suggesting high-risk hot spots that deserve further investigation. The marked variations in morphology distribution with site and geography suggest geographic variation in risk factors that may also repay further investigation particularly since sarcoma etiology is poorly understood