Within the United States, adults spend roughly 90 percent of their day indoors, an amount that has been on the rise for several generations [1, 2]. This reality places populations in continuous exposure to certain complex mixtures of chemicals and contaminants associated with indoor air quality. This is underscored by the fact that across business sectors and industries, employees are increasingly being given the opportunity to work from home. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, over a third of individuals in professional and management, business, or financial operations performed some or all of their main job in their residence [3]. While traditionally an adult worker would spend some of their day in an office building and some of their day in their home, the shift to a remote workforce keeps employees in the same microenvironment for more time. Further, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers are increasing the types of work that can be done from home, and preliminary evidence suggests that both workers and employers enjoy the flexibility of working remotely and many positions will continue to remain remote even after the risks associated with the pandemic have passed [4].
With the increasing popularity of remote working, specifically in a home office, there is a critical need to better understand and characterize the potential environmental differences between these two spaces. Research has explored the air quality within offices and workspaces for some decades, often identifying potential health risks and offering suggestion for mitigating these exposures [5]. Due to the differences in maintenance responsibilities and available guidelines in commercial office buildings and residential homes, we hypothesized that individuals in the U.S. may be exposed to higher concentrations of pollutants in the home than in a traditional office environment, where there are initiatives to keep indoor air pollutants as low as possible.
Research has produced strong evidence that exposure to certain ambient compounds can cause negatve health outcomes. For instance, particular matter (PM) is related to acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma diagnosis, diagnosis of several additional health conditions including cardiopulmonary disorders and even increased mortality of the exposed [6–8]. This is particularly true with PM10 (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter) and PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter) [9].
The objective of this study was to explore and determine the difference in air composition between office workspaces provided by employers (traditional office) and the home office. While the exact composition of indoor air is complex and highly variable, this pilot cohort study assessed select pollutants that have been associated with sick building syndrome and other adverse health effects to generate findings in an attempt to bridge this critical knowledge gap.