Next Article in Journal
Study on the Interaction Effect of Negative Air Ions and Nitrogen Oxide Concentrations in Urban Forest Ecosystems Driven by Meteorological Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Quantification of Multi-Source Road Emissions in an Urban Environment Using Inverse Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantifying the Relationship Between Mean Radiant Temperature and Indoor Air Temperature Across Building Orientations in Hot and Dry Steppe Climates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/atmos16101185
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perception of Dry Air: Links to the Indoor Environment and Respiratory and Allergic Symptoms Among Occupants

by
Xin Li
1,
Yuexia Sun
1,*,
Huiyan Deng
2 and
Juan Wang
3,4
1
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China
2
Graduate School, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
3
Department of Medical Sciences, Respiratory-, Allergy- and Sleep Research, Uppsala University, 75185 Uppsala, Sweden
4
Department of Medical Sciences, Clinical Physiology, Uppsala University, 75185 Uppsala, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2025, 16(10), 1185; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16101185
Submission received: 14 August 2025 / Revised: 11 October 2025 / Accepted: 12 October 2025 / Published: 14 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Interactions Between Indoor Environmental Quality, Occupant Behaviour, and Building Performance Under a Changing Climate)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Perceived dry air is a common complaint in indoor environments, yet its health associations and environmental factors related to this perception are unclear. We surveyed 7865 families and measured the indoor environment in 399 dwellings in Tianjin, China, from 2013 to 2016. It was found that 10% of the surveyed families reported frequently perceived dry air. The dry air perception was significantly associated with wheeze (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.60), rhinitis (AOR = 1.91), eczema (AOR = 1.89), and common cold infections (AOR = 1.64) in children and sick building syndrome symptoms in adults (AOR: 2.63–8.59). Higher concentrations of di-isobutyl (DiBP) and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBzP) were observed in homes with dry air perception. Although higher relative humidity might reduce the perception of dry air (AOR = 0.66), lower air exchange rates attenuated the protective effect. Additionally, building characteristics related to pollution exposures, such as living near highways (AOR = 1.31), visible mold spots (AOR = 1.50), and suspected moisture problems (AOR = 1.88), were associated with indoor dry air perception. Our findings suggest that perceived dry air was correlated with indoor exposure to pollution and could be used as an indicator for sick buildings.

1. Introduction

People spend up to 90% of their time indoors, and indoor air quality can influence occupants’ health [1,2,3]. It has been reported that dry air perception is common in office work environments. A number of studies have reported that perceived dry air was associated with sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms [4,5,6,7,8,9]. A large-scale study in the early 1990s of 4943 office workers in Sweden reported that perceived dry air was a common finding in sick buildings [4]. A study conducted in public universities in Malaysia found that there was a significant association between perceived dry air and the occurrence of scaling and itching on the scalp or ears, as well as heavy headache [5]. A Japanese study found that perceived dry air in offices was a significant risk factor for eye irritation, upper respiratory symptoms, and skin problems [6,7]. Evidence from cross-sectional studies conducted in hospitals in both Iran and Turkey indicated that the perception of dry air was significantly associated with a higher risk of SBS [8,9]. However, in contrast to the well-documented research in work environments, investigations of perceived dry air within residential settings are limited [10,11,12,13,14,15].
It has been suggested that low relative air humidity may influence the mucous membranes of the upper airways, causing a dryness sensation [16]. The mechanisms underlying dry air perception remain poorly understood [17,18]. Some researchers have emphasized the role of low air humidity and have demonstrated that elevated relative humidity may alleviate dryness-related symptoms. For instance, a hospital study in Japan found that an increase in relative humidity from 33% to 44% resulted in a reduction in complaints of dry air among staff [19]. Similarly, a series of studies in Finland found that an increase in relative humidity (RH) may relieve symptoms of dry eyes and upper airways [20,21,22]. In contrast, other researchers have focused on the role of air pollutants in dry air perception. Indoor pollutants can act as stimulants to the trigeminal nerve, thereby inducing a perception of dry air [23,24,25]. One simulated aircraft cabin environment study indicated that airborne compounds stimulated the mucosal tissues or skin, which was often expressed as dryness [26]. A field study in offices found that the production of irritating substances, such as aldehydes and free radicals, in the door environment was positively associated with the sensation of dry air [27]. Furthermore, building characteristics may influence both pollution dispersion and humidity, yet their combined effects remain unquantified [13]. However, most previous studies have focused on a single factor (either humidity or pollutants) and have not included building characteristics, humidity levels, and pollutant concentrations in the same study.
In summary, there is a long-standing dispute about both the cause of perceived dry air and its associated health effects. Previous studies have been performed mostly in office-like environments. The number of studies investigating dry air perception in the home environment is sparse. Dampness, new furniture, and living near a highway have been reported to be associated with the perception of dry air in Chinese homes [10,13]. However, there is a lack of studies on the environmental determinants of dry air perception that have used an objective assessment of the indoor environment.
From 2013 to 2016, we performed a home environment study in Tianjin, China, which consisted of two phases. In the first phase, data on occupants’ health and building characteristics was collected by a questionnaire. In the second phase, indoor environmental parameters (i.e., indoor air temperature, relative humidity, ventilation rate, chemical and biological pollutants) were systematically measured in the homes. The objectives of this study are to examine the association between perceived dry air and occupants’ health in the home environment and to identify home environment factors associated with dry air perception.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics

In the first phase, verbal consents were obtained from the participants. Written consents were obtained from the participants in the second phase. The ethics committee at Tianjin University approved this study.

2.2. Study Design

This study is part of the China, Children, Homes, Health (CCHH) project and was conducted in Tianjin, China, between 2013 and 2016 [28]. The Tianjin area covers 11,920 km2 with a population of 15 million, rising to 18 million if including seasonal migrants [29]. The seasonal average outdoor humidity of the investigated areas in spring, summer, autumn, and winter is 52%, 72%, 65%, and 57%, respectively. The seasonal average outdoor air temperature is 13.4 °C in spring, 25.7 °C in summer, 13.6 °C in autumn, and −1.7 °C in winter [30]. This study consisted of two phases (Figure 1). In the first phase (1 April 2013–31 December 2014), questionnaires were administered to 10084 families with children aged 0–8 years old in the Tianjin area. One parent per family was invited to answer the survey. In the second phase (1 September 2013–31 January 2016), 399 families participated in home inspections and measurements. Since February 2016, the data has been accessed for research purposes. However, the authors had no access to information that could identify individual participants.

2.3. Questionnaire Survey in the First Phase

The survey contained 99 questions covering family members’ demographic information; perceived dry air; children’s wheeze, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold infection; parents’ sick building syndrome symptoms; and environmental and living habit factors.

2.3.1. Questions on Demographic Information

Demographic data, including the children’s gender and age, the parents’ gender and age, family atopic history, and annual household income, were obtained from the questionnaire survey. Atopic history of the family was evaluated and reported as asthma/rhinitis/eczema among parents or siblings of the investigated children. Household incomes were classified as <RMB 50 thousand; RMB 50–100 thousand; >RMB 100 thousand.

2.3.2. Questions on Perceived Dry Air

The question on perceived dry air in the surveyed homes was “have you ever perceived dry air in the last three months?” The response was one of three options: (1) Yes, frequently; (2) Yes, occasionally; or (3) No, never.
In the analysis to identify factors affecting perceived dry air, the answers were classified as one of two categories: frequently or occasionally/never.

2.3.3. Questions on Children’s Wheeze, Rhinitis, Eczema, and Common Cold Infection

The questions on the children’s wheeze, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold infection were as follows:
Current wheeze: “has your child had wheezing or whistling in the chest in the last 12 months?” (options: Yes; No).
Current rhinitis: “has your child had a problem with sneezing, or a runny, or a blocked nose when he/she did not have a cold or the flu in the last 12 months?” (options: Yes; No).
Current eczema: “has your child had eczema symptoms at any time in the last 12 months?” (options: Yes; No).
Common cold infection frequency: “has your child had several colds in the last 12 months?” (options: 1–2 times; 3–5 times; 6 times).

2.3.4. Questions on Symptoms of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS)

The questions on the SBS symptoms of the parents were similar to those used in a previous Swedish office study [31]. The questions were as follows: During the previous three months, have you had any symptoms of (1) fatigue; (2) feeling heavy headed; (3) headache; (4) nausea/dizziness; (5) difficulty concentrating; (6) itching, burning, or irritation of the eyes; (7) irritating, stuffy or runny nose; (8) hoarse, dry throat; (9) cough; (10) dry or flushed facial skin; (11) scaling/itching scalp or ears; and (12) dry hands, itching, or red skin. Each question had three possible responses: (1) Yes, frequently (weekly); (2) Yes, occasionally; or (3) No, never. The response “frequently” was compared to “occasionally/never” in the present study.

2.3.5. Questions on Building Characteristics, Dampness Indicators, and Lifestyle Factors

We asked about building characteristics (such as proximity of the home to a highway; house type; and floor covering, wall covering, and window type in bedrooms), dampness problems at home (visible mold/damp spots; suspected dampness; floor moisture; flooding; condensation on windowpane in winter), and lifestyles (frequency of room cleaning; window opening; sun-curing of bedding), as shown in Appendix B Table A1. Sun-curing of bedding was defined as airing out bedding in the sun. The house types identified in the investigation included Pingfangs, which were characterized as single-story houses in Chinese villages with cement flooring and lime wall covering, and apartments, which were characterized by laminated wooden floors and painted indoor walls (see Appendix C, Figure A1).

2.4. Home Inspections and Measurements in the Second Phase

For the physical parameter assessment, we employed a portable indoor air quality monitor (AZ®7798, Hengxin, Taiwan, China) to continuously measure temperature, relative humidity, and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in each home for 24 h, with a sampling frequency of once per minute. The CO2 sensors had an accuracy of ±50 ppm, while the temperature and RH sensors maintained an accuracy of ±0.5 °C and ±3%, respectively. We calibrated the monitor prior to measurements, following the procedure recommended by the manufacturer (AZ®7798, Reference Manual, Section 4.2). The device was placed 1.0–1.5 m above the floor, away from occupants, doors, windows, and corners of the room. We used CO2 produced by occupants as a tracer gas to calculate the air exchange rate in each home [32]. We calculated the average value of temperature, relative humidity, and the air exchange rate in 24 h for each home.
To collect dust for measurement of chemical pollutants, we used household vacuum cleaners with filter socks (made of nylon) mounted on an aluminum suction device to collect dust samples (20–100 mg) from the upper parts of furniture, door frames, and windows. We avoided collecting samples from plastic surfaces. Subsequently, the collected dust samples were wrapped in aluminum foil bags and kept in a refrigerator at −20 °C until analysis. The dust was analyzed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) [33] to measure the concentrations of phthalates, i.e., diethyl (DEP), di-isobutyl (DiBP), di-n-butyl (DnBP), benzyl butyl (BBzP), di-2-ethylhexyl (DEHP), and di-isononyl (DiNP), in the dust. Six blank filter socks without any dust were analyzed. The limits of quantification (LOQ) were calculated based on the levels of the compounds in the blanks, as 3 times standard deviation (3 × SD), which were DEP 0.004 μg, DiBP 0.230 μg, DnBP 0.184 μg, BBzP 0.012 μg, DEHP 0.581 μg, and DiNP 0.020 μg. For statistical analysis, any concentrations that fell below these LOQs were replaced with the LOQs/2.
For biological pollutants, we collected dust (100–150 mg) from the children’s beds for analysis of house dust mite allergens. We also collected dust (at least 100 mg) from 10 m2 of the floor area in the children’s bedrooms for analysis of endotoxins. All dust samples were stored in a refrigerator at −20 °C until analysis. We used the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method to determine the concentration of dust mite allergens for Dermatophagoides pteronissinus (Der p1) and Der-matophagoides farinae (Der f1). The detection thresholds of Der p1 and Der f1 were 10 and 100 ng/g, respectively. Any concentration below this value was replaced by half of the threshold for statistical analysis. Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate (LAL) was used to quantify endotoxins in the dust samples, with a detection limit of 1000 endotoxin units (EUs) per gram. Details on the instruments, measurement locations, sampling intervals, and chemical analysis are described in Appendix A: Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Dust.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Chi-square tests were used to compare the prevalence of health outcomes among children and adults across different groups. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the associations between perceived dry air and health outcomes, adjusted for age, gender, atopic family history, and annual household income. A similar methodology was used to identify the factors affecting perceived dry air, including both self-reported factors and measured indoor environmental parameters. The results were expressed as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with an increment of per 1 °C for temperature, 10% for relative humidity, 1 g/m3 for absolute humidity, 0.1 h−1 for air exchange rate, and per interquartile range increase in the biological and chemical parameter.
All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0. We accepted p < 0.05 as statistically significant.

3. Results

In the first phase, parents representing 7865 homes answered the questionnaire survey, a response rate of 78% (with 2219 households not participating). Finally, 7366 families with children aged 0–8 years were included in the statistical analysis of the survey data. In the second phase, 399 homes were invited for home measurements and inspections. After matching measurement seasons and survey periods, there were 334 valid datasets for analysis of measured parameters, excluding 65 families (Figure 1).
In the first-phase survey, 692 (10.3%) of the participating parents (one parent per home) reported frequent dry air perception, 2871 (42.8%) reported occasional dry air perception, and 3150 (46.9%) did not have any dry air perception. The recall period was the last 3 months.

3.1. Associations Between Dry Air Perception and Occupants’ Health

Associations between dry air perception at home, reported by the parents, and health outcomes in the children (i.e., respiratory symptoms) and in the parents (i.e., SBS symptoms) were analyzed in the first-phase questionnaire survey.

3.1.1. Associations Between Perceived Dry Air and Children’s Wheezing, Rhinitis, Eczema, and Common Cold Infection

Among the 7366 children (one per home), 4.9% had current wheezing, 29.8% had current rhinitis, and 14.9% had eczema. Regarding common cold infections in the children, 60.4% had such infections 1–2 times per year, 27.2% had infections 3–5 times, and 4.1% had more than six common cold infections per year.
The distribution of the children’s health outcomes in homes stratified by perceived dry air is shown in Appendix C, Figure A2. In homes with parental reports of frequent perceived dry air, the prevalence of children’s wheeze, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold infections was higher (p < 0.05). Perceived dry air was significantly associated with wheeze, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold among the children, and the associations were stronger for frequently perceived dry air (Table 1).

3.1.2. Associations Between Perceived Dry Air and Parental SBS Symptoms

Appendix B, Table A2 presents the prevalence of SBS symptoms among the parents in the surveyed homes. Fatigue (10.7%), scaling scalp or ears (5.6%), and dry throat (5.1%) were the most frequently reported SBS symptoms.
The distribution of SBS symptoms stratified by perceived dry air (frequently, occasionally, never) is shown in Appendix C, Figure A3. In homes with frequent complaints of dry air, the prevalence of general, mucosal, and skin SBS symptoms among the parents was higher (p < 0.05). The associations between perceived dry air and parents’ SBS symptoms are shown in Table 2. Occasionally perceived dry air was associated with fatigue, eye irritation, dry throat, dry facial skin, and scaling of the scalp or ears. Frequently perceived dry air was associated with all types of SBS symptoms. There was a clear dose–response relationship between the intensity of perceived dry air and SBS symptoms.
The sensitivity analysis of the associations between perceived dry air and the children’s health and the parents’ SBS symptoms, with stratification, with respect to eye irritation symptoms, is shown in Appendix B, Table A3 and Table A4. Among the residents reporting no irritation of the eyes, frequent dry air perception remained significantly associated with wheezing, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold infections in the children, as well as SBS symptoms in the parents (p < 0.05).

3.2. Home Environmental Factors in Association with Perceived Dry Air

The questionnaire data on the home environment (i.e., building characteristics, dampness indicator, lifestyle factors) and data from the home environment measurements (i.e., indoor air temperature, relative humidity, ventilation, concentration of phthalate, house dust mite allergens, and endotoxins) were analyzed for associations with perceived dry air in the home.

3.2.1. Self-Reported Building Characteristics, Dampness Indicators, and Lifestyle Factors

Frequently reported perceived dry air, stratified by subgroups with different building characteristics, dampness indicators, and living habits, is shown in Appendix B, Table A5. The adjusted odds ratios for frequently perceived dry air are shown in Table 3. Frequent sun-curing of bedding (these beddings were not directly on the floor) and daily cleaning were negatively associated with frequently perceived dry air. Homes with modern decoration (i.e., laminated wood flooring and wallpaper) and dampness indicators were associated with frequently perceived dry air. Pingfang buildings had fewer complaints of dry air perception, as compared to apartments.

3.2.2. Measured Indoor Environmental Factors

The distribution of the measured indoor environmental factors is shown in Appendix B, Table A6. The measured physical factors included indoor air temperature (median 20.7 °C), relative humidity (median 45%), and the air exchange rate (median 0.5 h−1).
The prevalence of frequently perceived dry air, stratified by subgroups of different physical parameters, is shown in Table 4. With an increase in indoor air humidity and the air exchange rate, the prevalence of perceived dry air decreased. The associations between physical parameters and perceived dry air are shown in Table 5. In rooms with a lower air exchange rate, the protective effect of higher RH for perceived dry air attenuated (Appendix C, Figure A4).
The biological and chemical factors included endotoxins, house dust mite allergens, and phthalate exposure in homes. The predominant allergen was Der f1, with a concentration 20–30 times higher than that of Der p1. The predominant phthalates were DEHP, DnBP, and DiBP (See Appendix B, Table A6). The prevalence of frequently perceived dry air, stratified by different subgroups of biological and chemical pollutants, is shown in Table 6. Exposure to DiBP and BBzP seems to have a negative influence on dry air perception (p < 0.0.5). The associations between biological pollutants, chemical pollutants, and perceived dry air are shown in Table 7.

4. Discussion

In this study, we observed that homes with perceived dry air had a higher prevalence of asthma and allergies among children and a higher prevalence of SBS symptoms among adults. Modern construction technologies (e.g., laminated wood flooring, wallpaper covering, windows with PVC frames, and double-pane glass) and dampness indicators were associated with perceived dry air, while living habits, such as frequent sun-curing of bedding and daily cleaning, were negatively associated with perceived dry air. Higher indoor air humidity was significantly associated with a lower prevalence of dry air perception. However, lower air exchange rates, which can be associated with poorer indoor air quality, attenuated the beneficial effects of higher air humidity.

4.1. Associations Between Perceived Dry Air and Health Outcomes

We found that perceived dry air was related to asthma and allergies in children and SBS symptoms in adults. This result is consistent with findings from studies in other regions in China, such as Baotou [10], Chongqing [13], Nanjing [34], and Urumqi [11]. A study in Baotou revealed that perceived dry air in homes was associated with increased prevalence of asthma and allergy symptoms in children [10]. A study in Urumqi demonstrated that perceived dry air was negatively associated with the remission of asthma allergy symptoms in children in the first two years of life [11]. A study in urban, suburban, and industrial areas in Nanjing found that perceived dry air was associated with wheeze, dry cough, and rhinitis [34]. Moreover, perceived dry air has been reported to be associated with the prevalence of all types of residents’ SBS symptoms [13,35]. Our study showed that in homes with perceived dry air, parents were more likely to have symptoms such as dry throat, dry facial skin, and dry hands. A previous large cohort study found that perceived dry air was an important predictor for general and mucosal SBS symptoms [36]. Our results demonstrated that dry air perception is an important part of the perception of indoor air quality.
Our sensitivity analysis (see Appendix B, Table A3 and Table A4) found that perceived dry air persisted as a prevalent concern even among individuals without eye irritation symptoms. This finding suggests that perceived dry air constitutes an independent environmental stressor rather than merely a secondary manifestation of ocular discomfort. These findings necessitate dedicated investigations to elucidate the multifactorial mechanisms underlying dry air perception, including potential contributions from non-ocular sensory pathways and environmental parameter interactions.

4.2. Home Characteristics and Environmental Factors in Association with Perceived Dry Air

We found that occupants living near a highway frequently perceived dry air. It has been reported that traffic pollutants enter into the indoor environment through infiltration [37,38,39]. A previous study conducted in Chongqing discovered that occupants proximal to a highway often perceived unpleasant and pungent odors [13]. Previous studies indicate that indoor pollutants, which stimulate mucous membranes/skin, might induce the perception of dry air [40]. Thus, pollutants with original outdoor sources might be a contributing factor to the perceived dry air in homes.
We found that in rooms with laminated wood floorings, painted walls, or PVC window frames, the prevalence of dry air perception was more common. Laminated wood floors, painted walls, and PVC-framed windows can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-VOCs (SVOCs) [41]. The significant association between these modern decoration materials and perceived dry air in our study might be due to the pollutants emitted from these materials. This hypothesis was confirmed by our home inspections, which showed that SVOCs, such as DiBP and BBzP, were positively associated with perceived dry air (Table 6). Moreover, modern construction technologies make buildings so tight that low ventilation may not dilute indoor pollutants effectively [42,43,44]. We observed that the presence of double-glazed windowpanes, the use of air conditioners, and condensation on windowpanes, which indicate inadequate ventilation [32,45], were significantly associated with perceived dry air.
Damp buildings can be either buildings with demonstrable moisture damage or buildings with a low rate of ventilation accompanied by increased humidity. In our study, indoor humidity issues were self-reported by occupants and measured by inspectors. Self-reported visible mold spots and suspected moisture problems were significantly related to perceived dry air, consistent with a previous study [46]. Building dampness is hypothesized to foster the proliferation of microorganisms, including mold, fungi, and bacteria, which can release irritating odors and elevate VOC emissions, thereby contributing to complaints of perceived dry air [47,48,49]. Measured data shows that higher indoor air humidity is associated with alleviated dry air perception. However, in rooms with lower air exchange rates, the protective effect of higher relative humidity against dry air perception was diminished (Appendix C, Figure A3). This observation indicates that ventilation plays a moderating role in the association between indoor humidity and perceived dry air. This could be attributed to inadequate ventilation exacerbating indoor air pollution, thereby attenuating the protective effect of high humidity against perceived dry air. Our finding is consistent with previous studies, indicating that the benefits of increased humidity levels are offset by the increased concentrations of pollutants [50,51]. Caution is warranted with respect to humidifying air to protect people from dry air discomfort because of the inconsistent and even conflicting association between humidity and dry air perception in our study, as well as in previous investigations [52,53]. Additionally, improper operation [54,55,56] and poor maintenance of humidifiers [57,58] may produce even more severe health hazards. A chemical catastrophe in South Korea in 2011 was linked to disinfectants used in household humidifiers [54,55,56]. Poor maintenance of humidification units in ventilation systems may promote microbial growth and facilitate their dispersal throughout buildings [57,58]. Therefore, we suggest that dry air perception should be primarily tackled by methods other than air humidification.

4.3. Implication

Our study found that perceived dry air in the home environment was closely associated with occupants’ respiratory health and SBS symptoms. Objective assessments of the home environment in our study indicated that indoor pollutants and humidity can be determinants of dry air perception. Even though higher indoor humidity was linked to a lower perception of dry air, increased indoor moisture load might aggravate mold growth [46] and house dust mite infestation [59] and, consequently, lead to the risk of asthma and other respiratory diseases [13], as well as sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms [49]. Improving ventilation may therefore be essential for enhancing overall indoor air quality and reducing dry air perception.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations

The key strengths of this study were the large sample size for the questionnaire survey (i.e., 7865 homes) and the high response rate (i.e., 78%), which should reduce the risk of selection bias. Second, we systematically measured various home environmental parameters, including physical, chemical, and biological factors, to identify environmental factors that can be related to dry air perception.
However, this study also has the limitations inherent in any cross-sectional design. The data on health outcomes and dry air perception was collected based on parental reporting, which could be subject to recall bias. The association between home environmental factors and the perceived dry air in a cross-sectional study cannot prove a causal relationship. Future studies are required to elucidate the mechanisms behind dry air perception.

5. Conclusions

We found that dry air perception in homes was associated with sick building syndrome symptoms as well as asthma and allergy among occupants, suggesting that the perception of dry air should be considered as an important indicator of sick building syndrome in future studies. Higher concentrations of DiBP and BBzP were related to complaints of perceived dry air in Chinese homes. Additionally, building characteristics related to pollution exposure, such as living near a highway, dampness problems, and modern construction technologies, were associated with dry air perception. The findings of our study can provide practical solutions for indoor environment problems to alleviate dry air complaints and to improve occupants’ health.

Author Contributions

X.L.: Writing—original draft and formal analysis. Y.S.: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, project administration, supervision, and writing—review and editing. H.D.: Data curation and investigation. J.W.: Supervision and writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2024YFE0106800) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21207097).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research (21207097) on the home environment and children’s health was approved by the Office of Science and Technology at Tianjin University in April 2013.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to all individuals who took part in this study. We thank Louise Weschler for her contribution to refining the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Dust

  • Sampling and analysis of dust-phase phthalate concentrations.
Field Sampling. A filter sock made of nylon connected to a vacuum cleaner was used to collect settled dust from the upper parts of furniture, doors, and window frames in the children’s bedroom. At least 20–100 mg of dust was collected for one sample.
Sample Analysis. The dust samples were sieved through a 0.25 mm pore size sieve to remove fabric fibers and hair. Sieved dust, weighing 100 mg, was wrapped in filter paper and extracted using a Soxhlet extractor with di-chloromethane for 6 h (five cycles) at 70 °C. The extracted solutions were concentrated to 1 mL using a rotary evaporator. An internal standard (BB, 1 μg/L) was added to the concentrated extract.
Phthalate esters were analyzed using an Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph coupled with a 5975C mass spectrometric detector (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped with a split-less injector and an HP-5 fused-silica capillary column (30.0 m × 250 μm × 0.25 μm). The injector and MS interface temperatures were set to 250 °C and 280 °C, respectively. High-purity nitrogen (≥99.99%) was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. The temperature program was as follows: 80 °C (hold 2 min), increase to 220 °C at 10 °C/min (hold 1 min), and then increase to 300 °C at 20 °C/min (hold 5 min). The total time of the procedure was 26 min.
2.
Sampling and analysis of house dust mite concentrations in dust.
Field Sampling. A filter sock made of nylon connected to a vacuum cleaner was used to collect settled dust samples from mattresses on the children’s beds. The whole surface of the mattress under the sheet was sampled, with a vacuuming speed of 2 min per m2.
Sample Analysis. The dust samples were sieved through a 60-mesh screen with a 0.3 mm pore-size grating to remove large particles and fibers. The mass of the recovered dust was then noted. The fine dust was suspended in tubes with phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.4) in a proportion of 100 mg fine dust per 2 mL buffer. We placed these tubes on a vortex shaker to oscillate for about 1 min so that the dust was fully dissolved in the phosphate-buffered saline. Mixing with the rotary mixer was continued for 2 h. The supernatants were harvested by 20 min centrifugation and frozen at −18 °C until assayed. The dust mite allergens Der f and Der p were analyzed by the antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method using monoclonal capture and detector antibodies. We performed all ELISAs in 96-well microtiter plates and tested the absorbance of the samples using a microplate reader. We plotted standard curves of standard allergen absorbance against the concentrations of the allergen standards using logistic curve fitting. We used the absorbance of the test samples to determine their allergen concentrations from the standard curve. All dust assaying kits used were purchased from Indoor Biotechnologies, Ltd. (Charlottesville, Virginia).
3.
Sampling and analysis of endotoxin concentrations in indoor dust.
Field Sampling. Dust samples were collected on the floors in the children’s bedrooms. A minimum of 100 mg dust was collected for each sample. The filter sock was then detached and wrapped in aluminum foil. The samples were transported to the laboratory and stored in a freezer at −20 °C until analysis.
Sample Analysis. The dust samples were sieved through a 60-mesh screen with a 0.3 mm pore-size grating to remove large particles and fibers. A volume of 2.6 mL of Tween 20 solution was added to 50 mL of water for the bacterial endotoxins test and mixed thoroughly to obtain water for the bacterial endotoxins test containing 0.05% Tween 20. Then, the dust was vortexed for 1 min in 0.05% Tween 20 to ensure complete dispersion and centrifuged for 40 min. We used 2 mL of the supernatant for analysis. Endotoxins were analyzed by the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) assay according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Gen Script, Inc., Piscataway, NJ, USA). All endotoxin levels were within the limits of detection of the assay. The resulting endotoxin unit (EU) per mL values were converted into EU/g dust.

Appendix B. Tables

Table A1. Questions on building characteristics, dampness problems, and living habits.
Table A1. Questions on building characteristics, dampness problems, and living habits.
Options
Building characteristics
Where is the residence situated?Suburban; Rural; Inner city
Is the residence near a highway?Yes; No
In which kind of dwelling is the child living in now?Pingfang; Apartment
Which flooring material is used in the residence?Cement; Stone; Wood; Laminated wood
Which surface layer is used on the inside walls in the residence?Stone; Tiles; Lime; Painting; Latex paint; Wallpaper
What kind of window frame is used in the residence?Wood frame; Aluminum frame; PVC frame
What kind of glass is used in the window frames?Single-pane; Double-pane
What kind of cooling method is used in the summer residence?Air conditioner; Electric fans; Opening window
Dampness problems
Have you noticed any visible mold or any visible damp stains on the floor, walls, or ceiling in the living room or bedroom?Yes; No
Do you suspect any humidity/mold problem inside the floor, walls, or ceiling that is not visible to residents?Yes; No
Are there any floor coverings that are detached or discolored/blackened in the living room or bedroom?Yes; No
Has there been any flooding or other kinds of water damage in the living room or bedroom?Yes; No
In winter, is condensation or moisture visible on the inside or at the bottom of windows (windowpanes) in living room or bedroom?Yes; No
Lifestyles
How often do you clean the floor?Less than everyday; Everyday
How often do you open a window for ventilation?Less than everyday; Everyday
How often do you sun-cure bed sheets?Sometimes/never; Often
Table A2. Prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms among investigated parents (n = 7366).
Table A2. Prevalence of sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms among investigated parents (n = 7366).
No, Never
n (%)		Yes, Occasionally
n (%)		Yes, Frequently
n (%)
General symptoms
Fatigue2388 (35.5)3617 (53.8)717 (10.7)
Heavy head4370 (66.1)2012 (30.4)234 (3.5)
Headache3972 (59.8)2466 (37.2)199 (3.0)
Dizziness5222 (79.1)1299 (19.7)80 (1.2)
Difficulty concentrating4675 (70.8)1725 (26.2)196 (3.0)
Mucosal symptoms
Eye irritation4851 (73.4)1543 (23.3)216 (3.3)
Nose irritation4374 (65.8)2030 (30.6)240 (3.6)
Dry throat3420 (51.2)2923 (43.7)341 (5.1)
Cough3249 (48.6)3287 (49.2)150 (2.2)
Skin symptoms
Dry facial skin4761 (72.5)1571 (23.9)233 (3.6)
Scaling scalp or ears4297 (65.0)1939 (29.4)373 (5.6)
Dry hands5217 (78.8)1200 (18.2)200 (3.0)
Table A3. Associations between household perceived dry air and children’s health stratified by eye irritation symptoms.
Table A3. Associations between household perceived dry air and children’s health stratified by eye irritation symptoms.
Eye Irritation
Never (n = 4851)Frequently (n = 216)
Perceived Dry Air, AOR a (95% CI)Perceived Dry Air, AOR a (95% CI)
No, NeverYes, OccasionallyYes, FrequentlyNo, NeverYes, OccasionallyYes, Frequently
Current wheeze1.000.93 (0.65, 1.33)2.14 (1.34, 3.40)------
Current rhinitis1.001.40 (1.20, 1.63)1.77 (1.37, 2.29)1.001.70 (0.82, 3.53)1.78 (0.78, 4.07)
Current eczema1.001.36 (1.10, 1.67)1.89 (1.38, 2.59)1.001.62 (0.64, 4.15)3.78 (1.41, 10.16)
Common cold infection (≥3)1.001.30 (1.12, 1.51)1.53 (1.19, 1.98)1.002.52 (1.16, 5.46)1.86 (0.77, 4.49)
a Logistic regression models, adjusted for child gender, child age, household income, and atopic family history. Bold font indicates p < 0.05.
Table A4. Associations between household perceived dry air and sick building syndrome (SBS) a symptoms among parents stratified by eye irritation symptoms.
Table A4. Associations between household perceived dry air and sick building syndrome (SBS) a symptoms among parents stratified by eye irritation symptoms.
Eye Irritation
Never (n = 4851)Frequently (n = 216)
Perceived Dry Air, AOR b (95% CI)Perceived Dry Air, AOR b (95% CI)
No, NeverYes, OccasionallyYes, FrequentlyNo, NeverYes, OccasionallyYes, Frequently
General symptoms
Fatigue1.001.13 (0.86, 1.49)2.66 (1.83, 3.84)1.000.76 (0.36, 1.60)1.57 (0.68, 3.62)
Heavy head1.001.12 (0.68, 1.87)2.04 (1.01, 4.14)1.001.40 (0.55, 3.61)3.09 (1.15, 8.29)
Headache1.001.49 (0.82, 2.71)5.52 (2.86, 10.66)1.000.69 (0.28, 1.74)0.81 (0.29, 2.27)
Dizziness1.001.40 (0.44, 4.46)7.63 (2.42,24.00)1.000.43 (0.12, 1.49)0.90 (0.27, 3.09)
Difficulty concentrating1.001.36 (0.75, 2.47)5.39 (2.78, 10.44)1.000.61 (0.24, 1.58)1.33 (0.50, 3.56)
Mucosal symptoms
Nose irritation1.001.05 (0.60, 1.82)3.20 (1.69, 6.08)1.001.55 (0.61, 3.93)2.72 (1.00, 7.37)
Dry throat1.001.39 (0.86, 2.27)8.30 (5.06, 13.59)1.002.00 (0.82, 4.86)4.03 (1.55, 10.48)
Cough1.001.59 (0.85, 2.98)4.02 (1.91, 8.47)1.000.50 (0.12, 2.03)2.87 (0.77, 10.69)
Skin symptoms
Dry facial skin1.003.53 (1.99, 6.25)7.20 (3.66, 14.19)1.000.78 (0.25, 2.46)7.26 (2.44, 21.61)
Scaling scalp or ears1.002.22 (1.49, 3.31)3.21 1.83, 5.62)1.000.52 (0.20, 1.34)2.13 (0.83, 5.47)
Dry hands1.001.60 (0.80, 3.16)9.03 (4.54, 17.98)1.000.58 (0.16, 2.16)6.78 (2.19, 21.00)
a SBS symptoms were classified as two categories: frequently vs. occasionally/never. b Logistic regression models adjusted for household income, respondent gender, and atopy. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table A5. Reports of frequently perceived dry air, stratified by subgroups of different building characteristics, dampness problems, and lifestyles (n = 7366).
Table A5. Reports of frequently perceived dry air, stratified by subgroups of different building characteristics, dampness problems, and lifestyles (n = 7366).
Perceived Dry Air ap-Value b
Yes, Frequently n (%)
Building characteristics
House site
        Suburban/rural, n = 3238231 (7.6)
        Inner city, n = 3539432 (12.9)<0.001
Near highway
        No, n = 4277380 (9.4)
        Yes, n = 2550282 (11.7)0.003
House type
        Pingfang c, n = 2227121 (5.9)
        Apartment, n = 4709544 (12.2)<0.001
Floor covering
        Cement/stone, n = 3244228 (7.3)
        Wood/laminated wood, n = 3140 408 (13.6)<0.001
Wall covering
        Stone/tiles/lime, n = 1543 97 (6.6)
        Painting/latex paint/wallpaper, n = 4843530 (11.5)<0.001
Window frames
        Wood, n = 1564116(7.9)
        Aluminum/PVC, n = 5119531 (10.8)0.001
Glass type of window
        Single-pane, n = 2990252(8.9)
        Double-pane, n = 3376 371(11.4)0.001
Cooling in summer
        Electric fans, n = 1757142(8.1)
        Air conditioner, n = 3723394(10.6)0.004
Dampness problems
Visible mold/damp spot
        No, n = 5664524 (9.5)
        Yes, n = 882117 (14.1)<0.001
Suspected dampness
        No, n = 4623400 (8.9)
        Yes, n = 1089167 (16.2)<0.001
Floor moisture
        No, n = 5982543 (9.4)
        Yes, n = 52997 (19.4)<0.001
Flooding in house
        No, n = 6206566 (9.4)
        Yes, n = 29262 (22.1)<0.001
Condensation on windowpane in winter
        No, n = 3815317 (8.5)
        Yes, n = 1828232 (13.2)<0.001
Lifestyles
Cleaning frequency
        Less than every day, n = 2050261 (13.3)
        Every day, n = 4910421 (9.0)<0.001
Window opening frequency
        Less than every day, n = 40644 (11.4)
        Every day, n = 6506635 (10.2)0.442
Sun-cured bedding frequency
        Not frequently, n = 3609424 (12.3)
        Frequently, n = 2957221 (7.9)<0.001
a Perceived dry air was categorized as frequently vs. occasionally/never. b p-value in Chi-square test. c Single-family house in the countryside. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table A6. Distribution of physical parameters and chemical and biological pollutants in the inspected homes (n = 334).
Table A6. Distribution of physical parameters and chemical and biological pollutants in the inspected homes (n = 334).
MeanS.D aMinimum25th Percentile50th Percentile75th PercentileMaximum
Physical
Temperature (°C) 20.44.27.017.820.723.230.4
Relative humidity (%)45.313.413.635.945.354.774.9
Absolute humidity (%)8.73.02.76.78.410.318.6
Air exchange rate (h−1)0.720.580.100.340.540.893.56
Biological
Endotoxin (EU/g)3652.961999.8760.132262.813773.804874.9011,625.30
Der f1 (ng/g)2296.834754.6150.00179.75711.962313.0243,411.92
Der p1(ng/g)142.96526.825.0011.0825.6571.285000.00
Chemical
DEP b (μg/g)0.560.880.010.180.290.6010.01
DiBP b (μg/g)41.44108.150.126.1115.1133.941202.86
DnBP b (μg/g)210.99621.900.0915.1240.70125.486076.28
BBZP b (μg/g)0.9610.780.010.030.080.23182.90
DEHP b (μg/g)366.58887.770.9036.28111.12318.309178.27
DiNP b (μg/g)0.590.970.010.170.270.638.65
a Standard deviation. b Diethyl (DEP), di-isobutyl (DiBP), di-n-butyl (DnBP), butyl benzyl (BBzP), di-2-ethylhexyl (DEHP), di-isononyl (DiNP).

Appendix C. Figures

Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a1
Figure A1. Facade ((a). Pingfang; (b). apartment) and wall structures ((c). Pingfang; (d). apartment) of dwellings in Northern China.
Figure A1. Facade ((a). Pingfang; (b). apartment) and wall structures ((c). Pingfang; (d). apartment) of dwellings in Northern China.
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a1
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a2
Figure A2. Distribution of children’s wheeze, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold infection in the last 12 months in homes with different frequencies of perceived dry air (a p-value in Chi-square test) (n = 7366).
Figure A2. Distribution of children’s wheeze, rhinitis, eczema, and common cold infection in the last 12 months in homes with different frequencies of perceived dry air (a p-value in Chi-square test) (n = 7366).
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a2
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a3
Figure A3. Distribution of sick building syndrome (SBS) g symptoms among parents in homes with different frequencies of perceived dry air (a p-value in the Chi-square test; b at least one general symptom (fatigue, heavy head, headache, dizziness, or difficulty concentrating); c at least one mucosal symptom (eye irritation, nose irritation, dry throat, or cough); d at least one skin symptom (dry facial skin, scaling scalp or ears, or dry hands); e at least one general, mucosal, or skin symptom; f at least one symptom in each category: general, mucosal, and skin problems; g SBS symptoms were classified into two categories: frequently vs. occasionally/never) (n = 7366).
Figure A3. Distribution of sick building syndrome (SBS) g symptoms among parents in homes with different frequencies of perceived dry air (a p-value in the Chi-square test; b at least one general symptom (fatigue, heavy head, headache, dizziness, or difficulty concentrating); c at least one mucosal symptom (eye irritation, nose irritation, dry throat, or cough); d at least one skin symptom (dry facial skin, scaling scalp or ears, or dry hands); e at least one general, mucosal, or skin symptom; f at least one symptom in each category: general, mucosal, and skin problems; g SBS symptoms were classified into two categories: frequently vs. occasionally/never) (n = 7366).
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a3
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a4
Figure A4. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of relative humidity (RH) at quartile levels of the air exchange rate (ACR) for perceived dry air (adjusted for respondent gender and atopic problems) (n = 334).
Figure A4. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of relative humidity (RH) at quartile levels of the air exchange rate (ACR) for perceived dry air (adjusted for respondent gender and atopic problems) (n = 334).
Atmosphere 16 01185 g0a4

References

  1. Brasche, S.; Bischof, W. Daily time spent indoors in German homes-baseline data for the assessment of indoor exposure of German occupants. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2005, 208, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yoon, H.; Seo, J.; Yoo, S.-K.; Kim, P.-J.; Park, J.; Choe, Y.; Yang, W. Updated general exposure factors for risk assessment in the Korean population. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2023, 33, 1013–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Klepeis, N.E.; Nelson, W.C.; Ott, W.R.; Robinson, J.P.; Tsang, A.M.; Switzer, P.; Behar, J.V.; Hern, S.C.; Engelmann, W.H. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2001, 11, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sundell, J.; Lindvall, T. Indoor Air Humidity And Sensation Of Dryness As Risk Indicators Of Sbs. Indoor Air 1993, 3, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mansor, A.A.; Abdullah, S.; Ahmad, A.N.; Ahmed, A.N.; Zulkifli, M.F.R.; Jusoh, S.M.; Ismail, M. Indoor air quality and sick building syndrome symptoms in administrative office at public university. Dialogues Health 2024, 4, 100178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Azuma, K.; Ikeda, K.; Kagi, N.; Yanagi, U.; Osawa, H. Prevalence and risk factors associated with nonspecific building-related symptoms in office employees in Japan: Relationships between work environment, Indoor Air Quality, and occupational stress. Indoor Air 2015, 25, 499–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Azuma, K.; Ikeda, K.; Kagi, N.; Yanagi, U.; Osawa, H. Evaluating prevalence and risk factors of building-related symptoms among office workers: Seasonal characteristics of symptoms and psychosocial and physical environmental factors. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2017, 22, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jafakesh, S.; Mirhadian, L.; Atrkar Roshan, Z.; Gol Hosseini, M.J. Sick Building Syndrome in Nurses of Intensive Care Units and Its Associated Factors. J. Holist. Nurs. Midwifery 2019, 29, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Arikan, I.; Tekin, Ö.F.; Erbas, O. Relationship between sick building syndrome and indoor air quality among hospital staff. Med. Lav. 2018, 109, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bu, Z.; Wang, L.; Weschler, L.B.; Li, B.; Sundell, J.; Zhang, Y. Associations between perceptions of odors and dryness and children’s asthma and allergies: A cross-sectional study of home environment in Baotou. Build. Environ. 2016, 106, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lin, Z.; Norback, D.; Wang, T.; Zhang, X.; Shi, J.; Kan, H.; Zhao, Z. The first 2-year home environment in relation to the new onset and remission of asthmatic and allergic symptoms in 4246 preschool children. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 553, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Huang, S.; Garshick, E.; Weschler, L.B.; Hong, C.; Li, J.; Li, L.; Qu, F.; Gao, D.; Zhou, Y.; Sundell, J.; et al. Home environmental and lifestyle factors associated with asthma, rhinitis and wheeze in children in Beijing, China. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, J.; Li, B.; Yang, Q.; Yu, W.; Wang, H.; Norback, D.; Sundell, J. Odors and sensations of humidity and dryness in relation to sick building syndrome and home environment in Chongqing, China. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e72385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, R.; Weschler, L.B.; Ye, J.; Wang, Z.; Deng, Q.; Li, B.; Qian, H.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, S.; et al. Associations between home environmental factors and childhood eczema and related symptoms in different cities in China. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Norbäck, D.; Zhang, X.; Tian, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, L.; Chen, X.; Zeng, Z.; Lu, C.; Zhao, Z. Prenatal and perinatal home environment and reported onset of wheeze, rhinitis and eczema symptoms in preschool children in Northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 774, 145700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arundel, A.V.; Sterling, E.M.; Biggin, J.H.; Sterling, T.D. Indirect health effects of relative humidity in indoor environments. Environ. Health Perspect. 1986, 65, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kjaergaard, S.K.; Pedersen, O.F.; Taudorf, E.; Mølhave, L. Assessment of changes in eye redness by a photographic method and the relation to sensory eye irritation. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1990, 62, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Norbäck, D. Subjective Indoor Air Quality in Schools—The Influence of High Room Temperature, Carpeting, Fleecy Wall Materials and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Indoor Air 1995, 5, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hashiguchi, N.; Hirakawa, M.; Tochihara, Y.; Kaji, Y.; Karaki, C. Effects of setting up of humidifiers on thermal conditions and subjective responses of patients and staff in a hospital during winter. Appl. Ergon. 2008, 39, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Reinikainen, L.M.; Jaakkola, J.J.; Seppänen, O. The effect of air humidification on symptoms and perception of indoor air quality in office workers: A six-period cross-over trial. Arch. Environ. Health 1992, 47, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reinikainen, L.M.; Jaakkola, J.J. Effects of temperature and humidification in the office environment. Arch. Environ. Health 2001, 56, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Reinikainen, L.M.; Jaakkola, J.J. Significance of humidity and temperature on skin and upper airway symptoms. Indoor Air 2003, 13, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Silver, W.L.; Finger, T.E. The anatomical and electrophysiological basis of peripheral nasal trigeminal chemoreception. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1170, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Baroody, F.M.; Foster, K.A.; Markaryan, A.; deTineo, M.; Naclerio, R.M. Nasal ocular reflexes and eye symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008, 100, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersen, I.; Lundqvist, G.R.; Jensen, P.L.; Proctor, D.F. Human response to 78-hour exposure to dry air. Arch. Environ. Health 1974, 29, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Strøm-Tejsen, P.; Weschler, C.J.; Wargocki, P.; Myśków, D.; Zarzycka, J. The influence of ozone on self-evaluation of symptoms in a simulated aircraft cabin. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2008, 18, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sundell, J.; Anderson, B.; Anderson, K.; Lindvall, T. Volatile Organic Compounds in Ventilating Air in Buildings at Different Sampling Points in the Buildings and their Relationship with the Prevalence of Occupant Symptoms. Indoor Air 1993, 3, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, Y.; Li, B.; Huang, C.; Yang, X.; Qian, H.; Deng, Q.; Zhao, Z.; Li, A.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, X.; et al. Ten cities cross-sectional questionnaire survey of children asthma and other allergies in China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2013, 58, 4182–4189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tianjin Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Bulletin of Tianjin National Economic and Social Development in 2025. Available online: https://stats.tj.gov.cn/tjsj_52032/tjgb/202503/t20250321_6889872.html (accessed on 4 September 2025).
  30. National Meteorological Information Center. Tianjin Climate. Available online: http://data.cma.cn/data/weatherBk.html (accessed on 9 September 2025).
  31. Sundell, J. On the Association Between Building Ventilation Characteristics, Some Indoor Environmental Exposures, Some Allergic Manifestations and Subjective Symptom Reports. Indoor Air 1994, 4, 7–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hou, J.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Q.; Kong, X.; Sundell, J. Air change rates at night in northeast Chinese homes. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, Q.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Hou, J.; Wang, P.; Kong, X.; Sundell, J. Phthalate exposure in Chinese homes and its association with household consumer products. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 136965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Qian, H.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, M.; Weschler, L.; Sundell, J. Associations Between Parents’ Perceived Air Quality in Homes and Health Among Children in Nanjing, China. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Saijo, Y.; Nakagi, Y.; Ito, T.; Sugioka, Y.; Endo, H.; Yoshida, T. Relation of dampness to sick building syndrome in Japanese public apartment houses. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2009, 14, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brauer, C.; Kolstad, H.; Ørbæk, P.; Mikkelsen, S. No consistent risk factor pattern for symptoms related to the sick building syndrome: A prospective population based study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2006, 79, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, Y.; Chen, B.; Guo, Y.; Peng, F.; Zhao, J. Indoor air environment of residential buildings in Dalian, China. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 1235–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Salehi, A.; Torres, I.; Ramos, A. Experimental analysis of building airtightness in traditional residential Portuguese buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 151, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Geng, S.B.; Xiao, M.X. Indoor and Outdoor Air Contaminants Coupling Relationship and Measures of Improving Indoor Air Quality. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 178–181, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wolkoff, P. Indoor air pollutants in office environments: Assessment of comfort, health, and performance. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2013, 216, 371–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Choi, H.; Schmidbauer, N.; Sundell, J.; Hasselgren, M.; Spengler, J.; Bornehag, C.-G. Common Household Chemicals and the Allergy Risks in Pre-School Age Children. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salthammer, T.; Fuhrmann, F.; Kaufhold, S.; Meyer, B.; Schwarz, A. Effects of Climatic Parameters on Formaldehyde Concentrations in Indoor Air. Indoor Air 1995, 5, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Huang, S.; Wei, W.; Weschler, L.B.; Salthammer, T.; Kan, H.; Bu, Z.; Zhang, Y. Indoor formaldehyde concentrations in urban China: Preliminary study of some important influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 590–591, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sun, Y.; Ayoma Marasinghe, S.; Hou, J.; Wang, P.; Zhang, Q.; Sundell, J. Household indoor air quality in northeast China: On-site inspection and measurement in 399 Tianjin area residences. Environ. Int. 2024, 190, 108825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Emenius, G.; Korsgaard, J.; Wickman, M. Window pane condensation and high indoor vapour contribution − markers of an unhealthy indoor climate? Clin. Exp. Allergy 2000, 30, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bornehag, C.G.; Sundell, J.; Bonini, S.; Custovic, A.; Malmberg, P.; Skerfving, S.; Sigsgaard, T.; Verhoeff, A. Dampness in buildings as a risk factor for health effects, EUROEXPO: A multidisciplinary review of the literature (1998–2000) on dampness and mite exposure in buildings and health effectsAbstract. Indoor Air 2004, 14, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Nevalainen, A.; Pasanen, A.L.; Niininen, M.; Reponen, T.; Kalliokoski, P.; Jantunen, M.J. The indoor air quality in Finnish homes with mold problems. Environ. Int. 1991, 17, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Norbäck, D.; Björnsson, E.; Janson, C.; Palmgren, U.; Boman, G. Current asthma and biochemical signs of inflammation in relation to building dampness in dwellings. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 1999, 3, 368–376. [Google Scholar]
  49. Crook, B.; Burton, N.C. Indoor moulds, Sick Building Syndrome and building related illness. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2010, 24, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Strøm-Tejsen, P.; Wyon, D.P.; Lagercrantz, L.; Fang, L. Passenger evaluation of the optimum balance between fresh air supply and humidity from 7-h exposures in a simulated aircraft cabinAbstract. Indoor Air 2007, 17, 92–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hou, J.; Sun, Y.; Dai, X.; Liu, J.; Shen, X.; Tan, H.; Yin, H.; Huang, K.; Gao, Y.; Lai, D.; et al. Associations of indoor carbon dioxide concentrations, air temperature, and humidity with perceived air quality and sick building syndrome symptoms in Chinese homes. Indoor Air 2021, 31, 1018–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Andersen, I.; Mølhave, L.; Proctor, D.F. Human response to controlled levels of combinations of sulfur dioxide and inert dust. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 1981, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Andersen, I.B.; Lundqvist, G.R.; Proctor, D.F.; Jensen, P.L. Human Nasal Mucosal Function under Four Controlled Humidities. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1972, 106, 438–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kim, K.W.; Ahn, K.; Yang, H.J.; Lee, S.; Park, J.D.; Kim, W.K.; Kim, J.T.; Kim, H.H.; Rha, Y.H.; Park, Y.M.; et al. Humidifier disinfectant-associated children’s interstitial lung disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 189, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, J.H.; Kim, Y.H.; Kwon, J.H. Fatal misuse of humidifier disinfectants in Korea: Importance of screening risk assessment and implications for management of chemicals in consumer products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2498–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yang, H.-J.; Kim, H.-J.; Yu, J.; Lee, E.; Jung, Y.-H.; Kim, H.-Y.; Seo, J.-H.; Kwon, G.-Y.; Park, J.-H.; Gwack, J.; et al. Inhalation Toxicity of Humidifier Disinfectants as a Risk Factor of Children’s Interstitial Lung Disease in Korea: A Case-Control Study. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fisman, D.N.; Lim, S.; Wellenius, G.A.; Johnson, C.; Britz, P.; Gaskins, M.; Maher, J.; Mittleman, M.A.; Spain, C.V.; Haas, C.N.; et al. It’s not the heat, it’s the humidity: Wet weather increases legionellosis risk in the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area. J. Infect. Dis. 2005, 192, 2066–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chen, N.T.; Chen, M.J.; Guo, C.Y.; Chen, K.T.; Su, H.J. Precipitation increases the occurrence of sporadic Legionnaires’ disease in Taiwan. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e114337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  59. Sun, Y.; Cui, L.; Hou, J.; Luo, S.; Norbäck, D.; Sundell, J. Role of ventilation and cleaning for controlling house dust mite allergen infestation: A study on associations of house dust mite allergen concentrations with home environment and life styles in Tianjin area, China. Indoor Air 2022, 32, e13084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 16 01185 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study design.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study design.
Atmosphere 16 01185 g001
Table 1. Associations between household perceived dry air and children’s health (n = 7366).
Table 1. Associations between household perceived dry air and children’s health (n = 7366).
AOR a (95%CI)
No, NeverYes, Occasionallyp-ValueYes, Frequentlyp-Value
Current wheeze1.001.16 (0.87, 1.54)0.2992.60 (1.84, 3.66)<0.001
Current rhinitis1.001.38 (1.22, 1.57)<0.0011.91 (1.57, 2.32)<0.001
Current eczema1.001.39 (1.17, 1.64)<0.0011.89 (1.49, 2.40)<0.001
Common cold infection (≥3) 1.001.39 (1.22, 1.57)<0.0011.64 (1.35, 1.99)<0.001
a Logistic regression models, adjusted for child gender, child age, household income, and atopic family history. Bold font indicates p < 0.05.
Table 2. Associations between household perceived dry air and sick building syndrome (SBS) a symptoms among parents (n = 7366).
Table 2. Associations between household perceived dry air and sick building syndrome (SBS) a symptoms among parents (n = 7366).
AOR b (95% CI)
No, NeverYes, Occasionallyp-ValueYes, Frequentlyp-Value
General symptoms
Fatigue 1.001.27 (1.04, 1.54)0.0182.63 (2.04, 3.40)<0.001
Heavy head 1.001.13 (0.80, 1.58)0.4992.80 (1.87, 4.20)<0.001
Headache 1.001.39 (0.95, 2.03)0.0912.99 (1.88, 4.73)<0.001
Dizziness 1.001.10 (0.57, 2.11)0.7794.52 (2.29, 8.91)<0.001
Difficulty concentrating 1.001.22 (0.82, 1.82)0.3154.86 (3.17, 7.43)<0.001
≥One general SBS symptom c 1.001.33 (1.11, 1.59)0.0023.01 (2.38, 3.80)<0.001
Mucosal symptoms
Eye irritation 1.001.55 (1.07, 2.25)0.0213.74 (2.43, 5.75)<0.001
Nose irritation 1.001.10 (0.77, 1.56)0.5983.61 (2.44, 5.36)<0.001
Dry throat 1.002.08 (1.50, 2.91)<0.0018.10 (5.67, 11.56)<0.001
Cough 1.001.45 (0.92, 2.29)0.1113.83 (2.27, 6.44)<0.001
≥One mucosal SBS symptom d 1.001.51 (1.21, 1.87)<0.0014.69 (3.62, 6.08)<0.001
Skin symptoms
Dry facial skin 1.001.77 (1.20, 2.61)0.0047.28 (4.84, 10.94)<0.001
Scaling of the scalp or ears 1.001.68 (1.23, 2.21)<0.0013.47 (2.47, 4.88)<0.001
Dry hands 1.001.44 (0.93, 2.25)0.1068.59 (5.54, 13.30)<0.001
≥One skin SBS symptom e 1.001.80 (1.43, 2.26)<0.0014.87 (3.69, 6.42)<0.001
≥One SBS symptom f 1.001.56 (1.35, 1.80)<0.0013.85 (3.13, 4.74)<0.001
General, mucosal, and skin SBS symptoms g 1.001.50 (0.86, 2.63)0.1558.19 (4.80, 14.48)<0.001
a SBS symptoms were classified into two categories: frequently vs. occasionally/never. b Logistic regression models adjusted for household income, respondent gender, and atopy. c At least one general symptom (fatigue, heavy head, headache, dizziness, or difficulty concentrating). d At least one mucosal symptom (eye irritation, nose irritation, dry throat, or cough). e At least one skin symptom (dry facial skin, scaling/itching scalp or ears, or dry hands). f At least one general, mucosal, or skin symptom. g At least one symptom in each category, general, mucosal, and skin symptoms. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table 3. Building characteristics, dampness indicators, and lifestyles in association with frequently perceived dry air a (n = 7366).
Table 3. Building characteristics, dampness indicators, and lifestyles in association with frequently perceived dry air a (n = 7366).
AOR b (95% CI)p-Value
Building characteristics
Location (inner city vs. suburban/rural)1.58 (1.29, 1.93)<0.001
Near highway (Yes vs. No) 1.31 (1.10, 1.57)0.002
House type (apartment vs. Pingfang c)2.01 (1.56, 2.56)<0.001
Flooring covering (wood/laminated wood vs. cement/stone)1.65 (1.35, 2.03)<0.001
Wall covering (painting/latex paint/wallpaper vs. lime)1.50 (1.16, 1.94)<0.001
Windows frames (aluminum/PVC windows vs. wood)1.29(1.01, 1.64)0.040
Glass type of window (double pane glass vs. single pane glass)1.16 (0.96, 1.39)0.123
Cooling in summer (air conditioner vs. electric fans/opening window)1.23 (0.98, 1.54)0.070
Dampness indicators
Visible damp or mold (Yes vs. No)1.50 (1.18, 1.90)0.001
Suspected dampness (Yes vs. No)1.88 (1.52, 2.33)<0.001
Floor moisture (Yes vs. No)2.45 (1.88, 3.17)<0.001
Flooding in house (Yes vs. No)2.37 (1.72, 3.25)<0.001
Condensation on windowpane in winter (Yes vs. No)1.50 (1.24, 1.83)<0.001
Lifestyles
Cleaning room frequency (every day vs. less)0.73 (0.61, 0.88)<0.001
Window opening (every day vs. less)0.97 (0.68, 1.41)0.895
Sun-curing bedding (frequently vs. not frequently)0.70 (0.58, 0.85)<0.001
a Perceived dry air was classified into two categories: frequently vs. occasionally/never. b Logistic regression models, adjusted for household income, respondent gender, and atopy. c Single-family house in the countryside. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table 4. Prevalence of frequently perceived dry air a, stratified by subgroups with different physical factors (n = 334).
Table 4. Prevalence of frequently perceived dry air a, stratified by subgroups with different physical factors (n = 334).
Perceived Dry Airp-Value b
Yes, Frequently n (%)
Temperature, °C
Min–25% (7.0–17.8)10 (13.2)
25–50% (17.8–20.7)18 (23.1)
50–75% (20.7–23.2)21 (27.6)
75%–Max (23.2–30.4)23 (29.1)0.083
Relative humidity, %
Min–25% (13.6–35.9)26 (32.9)
25–50% (35.9–45.3)18 (23.4)
50–75% (45.3–54.7)19 (24.4)
75%–Max (54.7–74.9)9 (12.0)0.023
Absolute humidity, %
Min–25% (2.7–6.7)24 (30.8)
25–50% (6.7–8.4)16 (21.1)
50–75% (8.4–10.3)20 (25.6)
75%–Max (10.3–18.6)12 (15.6)0.035
Air exchange rate, h−1
Min–25% (0.10–0.34)11 (18.6)
25–50% (0.34–0.54)11 (18.0)
50–75% (0.54–0.89)16 (25.8)
75%–Max (0.89–3.56)16 (26.2)0.555
a Perceived dry air was categorized as frequently vs. occasionally/never. b p-value in Chi-square test. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table 5. Associations between indoor physical factors and frequently perceived dry air a (n = 334).
Table 5. Associations between indoor physical factors and frequently perceived dry air a (n = 334).
AOR b (95%CI)p-Value
Temperature c 1.05 (0.97, 1.13)0.242
Relative humidity c0.66 (0.53, 0.84)0.001
absolute humidity c0.89 (0.80, 0.98)0.022
Air exchange rate c 0.99 (0.93, 1.05)0.688
a Perceived dry air was categorized as frequently vs. occasionally/never. b Logistic regression models, adjusted for household income, respondent gender, and atopy. c The parameters were treated as continuous variables, with an increase of 1 °C for temperature, 10% for relative humidity, 1 g/m3 for absolute humidity, and 0.1 h−1 for the air exchange rate. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table 6. Associations between indoor biological and chemical factors and frequently perceived dry air a (n = 334).
Table 6. Associations between indoor biological and chemical factors and frequently perceived dry air a (n = 334).
Perceived Dry Air ap-Value b
Yes, Frequently n (%)
Biological factors
Endotoxin (EU/g)
Min–25% (60.13–2262.81)16 (23.9)
25–50% (2262.81–3773.80)15 (22.4)
50–75% (3773.80–4874.90)15 (21.7)
75%–Max (4874.90–11,625.30)14 (20.9)0.980
Der f1(ng/g)
Min–25% (50.00–179.75)17 (23.3)
25–50% (179.75–711.96)20 (26.3)
50–75% (711.96–2313.02)12 (16.2)
75%–Max (2313.02–43,411.92)17 (24.6)0.474
Der p1(ng/g)
Min–25% (5.00–11.08)23 (31.5)
25–50% (11.08–25.65)14 (19.7)
50–75% (25.6–71.28)16 (21.9)
75%–Max (71.28–5000.00)13 (19.7)0.282
Chemical factors
DEP (μg/g)
Min–25% (0.01–0.18)15 (22.1)
25–50% (0.18–0.29)8 (11.3)
50–75% (0.29–0.60)21 (30.4)
75%–Max (0.60–10.01)15 (22.4)0.052
DiBP (μg/g)
Min–25% (0.12–6.11)6 (9.0)
25–50% (6.11–15.11)20 (28.6)
50–75% (15.11–33.94)14 (20.6)
75%–Max (33.94–1202.86)19 (27.1)0.021
DnBP (μg/g)
Min–25% (0.09–15.12)9 (13.4)
25–50% (15.12–40.70)15 (21.7)
50–75% (40.70–125.48)21 (30.4)
75%–Max (125.48–6076.28)14 (20.0)0.114
BBzP (μg/g)
Min–25% (0.01–0.03)14 (16.9)
25–50% (0.03–0.08)17 (29.8)
50–75% (0.08–0.23)8 (12.1)
75%–Max (0.23–182.90)20 (29.0)0.027
DEHP (μg/g)
Min–25% (0.90–36.28)16 (23.2)
25–50% (36.28–111.12)17 (25.0)
50–75% (111.12–318.30)12 (17.4)
75%–Max (318.30–9178.27)14 (20.3)0.714
DiNP (μg/g)
Min–25% (0.01–0.17)20 (27.4)
25–50% (0.17–0.27)7 (10.3)
50–75% (0.27–0.63)14 (20.6)
75%–Max (0.63–8.65)18 (27.3)0.048
a Perceived dry air was categorized as frequently vs. occasionally/never. b p-value in Chi-square test. Bold data indicates p < 0.05.
Table 7. Associations between biological and chemical factors and frequently perceived dry air a (n = 334).
Table 7. Associations between biological and chemical factors and frequently perceived dry air a (n = 334).
AOR c (95%CI)p-Value
Biological b
Endotoxin0.94 (0.62, 1.42)0.774
Der f11.01 (0.89, 1.15)0.864
Der p10.98 (0.92, 1.04)0.438
Chemical b
DEP0.98 (0.84, 1.14)0.784
DiBP1.00 (0.93, 1.07)0.910
DnBP0.96 (0.88, 1.04)0.310
BBzP1.02 (0.98, 1.07)0.238
DEHP0.98 (0.87, 1.10)0.758
DiNP0.97 (0.81, 1.16)0.739
a Perceived dry air was categorized as frequently vs. occasionally/never. b Adjusted odds ratios were estimated by IQR (interquartile range) increase in indoor biological and chemical factors. c Logistic regression models, adjusted for household income, respondent gender, and atopy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, X.; Sun, Y.; Deng, H.; Wang, J. Perception of Dry Air: Links to the Indoor Environment and Respiratory and Allergic Symptoms Among Occupants. Atmosphere 2025, 16, 1185. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16101185

AMA Style

Li X, Sun Y, Deng H, Wang J. Perception of Dry Air: Links to the Indoor Environment and Respiratory and Allergic Symptoms Among Occupants. Atmosphere. 2025; 16(10):1185. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16101185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Xin, Yuexia Sun, Huiyan Deng, and Juan Wang. 2025. "Perception of Dry Air: Links to the Indoor Environment and Respiratory and Allergic Symptoms Among Occupants" Atmosphere 16, no. 10: 1185. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16101185

APA Style

Li, X., Sun, Y., Deng, H., & Wang, J. (2025). Perception of Dry Air: Links to the Indoor Environment and Respiratory and Allergic Symptoms Among Occupants. Atmosphere, 16(10), 1185. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16101185

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop