Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Dashboard Framework and Index for Higher Educational Institutions

Abstract

This research proposes a 10-step methodology for developing an enhanced IAQ dashboard and classroom index (CI) in higher educational facilities located in arid environments. The identified parameters of the enhanced IAQ dashboard–inspired by the pandemic experience, result from the literature review and the outcome of two electronic surveys of (52) respondents, including health professionals and facility management experts. On the other hand, the indicators included in the CI are based on (80) occupant survey responses, including parameters related to IAQ, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), and thermal comfort, amongst other classroom operative considerations. The CI is further tested in four learning spaces at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. The main contribution of this research is to suggest a conceptual visualization of the dashboard and a practical classroom index that integrates a representative number of contextual indicators to recommend optimal IAQ scenarios for a given educational facility. This study concludes by highlighting several key findings: (1) both qualitative and quantitative metrics are necessary to capture indoor air quality-related parameters accurately; (2) tailoring the dashboard as well as the CI to specific contexts enhances its applicability across diverse locations; and finally, (3) the IAQ dashboard and CI offer flexibility for ad-hoc applications.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Controlling buildings’ ventilation systems improves the quality of breathable air and reduces associated health risks. Flu viruses, such as COVID-19—and its variants—spread more effectively in crowded, inadequately ventilated spaces, where people spend long periods in proximity. Viral transmission from one person to another most commonly happens via respiratory droplets or aerosols [1]. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) has gained wide attention because of the extensive time people spend indoors, and the focus on IAQ research has been gaining significant momentum since the start of the pandemic.

In educational spaces, such as universities, vigilantly monitoring IAQ is essential for various reasons. Students and faculty spend significant time in enclosed learning spaces with a high occupancy rate. Poor IAQ considerably impacts learning productivity and concentration levels, and prolonged exposure time can lead to cognitive health hazards, declining concentration levels, and other respiratory-related health diseases [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. By regularly monitoring the status of IAQ in academic institutions, early identification of contaminants is possible, enhancing the thermal comfort of occupants and understanding energy-related implications on Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems. Also, by having readily available data on IAQ, facility managers can make informed decisions regarding the welfare of students by improving the indoor conditions of learning spaces.

1.2. Research Problematic

The pandemic served as a wake-up call, highlighting the critical importance of managing indoor air quality in university classrooms. The pandemic caused the closure of classrooms worldwide, forcing 1.5 billion students and 63 million educators to suddenly modify their face-to-face academic practices wherever possible [9]. With the reopening of university campuses, precautionary measures were adopted at varying degrees to limit infection rates. The urgency to adapt stringent methods to stop the rapid viral transmission during the daily usage of classes and laboratories was thus a pressing matter. Contingent upon the new norm post-pandemic, the current rate of digital innovation in IAQ monitoring systems is unprecedented [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Ensuring the health of occupants has become an urgent priority for facility managers. One way to accomplish this is to control the building’s ventilation systems and the resultant air quality.

1.3. IAQ Recommendations and Guidelines—Post Pandemic

A large body of literature was published following the pandemic, providing recommendations to building operators and facility managers on improving IAQ levels within enclosed spaces. By comparing the pre- and post-COVID IAQ recommendations within published guidelines, it becomes apparent that policymakers and academics are revising their recommendations to improve IAQ levels best. For example, pre-COVID, IAQ monitoring recommendations were mainly preventative measures to cater to occupants’ health and comfort. An important IAQ standard in this regard is the ASHRAE 62.1 standard, which specifies minimum ventilation rates together with the ASHRAE EPIDEMIC TASK FORCE to provide acceptable IAQ to occupants and minimize adverse health effects [19,20]. Post-COVID, IAQ authorities—including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and the Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning associations (REHVA)—have all provided guidance documents and addenda to issued standards to combat the pandemic in terms of reducing the viral transmission within indoor spaces to prioritize the health of occupants. Comfort and environmental considerations of energy performance are not among the strategic objectives of such guidelines—refer to Table S1-I in Supplementary Materials.

The academic literature builds on such recommendations where popular research topics include occupants’ health and thermal comfort, HVAC systems maintenance and operations, modes, and rates of viral transmission, and the role of technology post the pandemic in improving IAQ. Though the reviewed literature does not necessarily study the status of IAQ in academic institutions, the scientific findings apply to all non-medical institutions. The following subsections briefly summarize what we have learned about the IAQ-instigated recommendations post-pandemic and what they mean for the academic setting.

1.3.1. Occupant Health and Thermal Comfort

Researchers are assessing the effect of high ventilation rate requirements on occupants’ health and thermal comfort [2,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Most published recommendations favor increasing fresh air intake by both allowing natural ventilation in spaces and operating HVAC systems under full capacities–given that naturally ventilated buildings can rarely meet thermal comfort requirements [23,27,28]. In turn, well-ventilated indoor spaces–following IAQ guidelines during the pandemic–undervalue the thermal comfort of occupants. This translates to thermally undermined learning environments due to the opening of windows and an increased percentage of fresh air in HVAC systems: cool indoor environments in the winter season and exceeding the thermal threshold in arid climates–regardless of the weather conditions.

Thermal comfort directly impacts physical health and occupant productivity [22,29]. Following the logic that clean air regulates the human body’s metabolism, conversely, high exposure to indoor air pollutants (such as aerosols, particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen compounds) can cause acute and chronic health effects. Thus, measuring and monitoring IAQ in high-performance buildings is imperative to achieve good IAQ and optimize ventilation systems for energy reductions [22,24,30]. Many researchers have studied the effect of IAQ on occupants’ performance in an educational setting, and thus, maintaining a good quality IAQ in classrooms is essential for successful learning dynamics.

1.3.2. Mechanical Ventilation

Recommendations published within the academic literature point toward measures to improve HVAC system efficiencies and maintenance schemes and simulate the effects of viral transmission through mechanical ventilation systems [14,22,25,31,32,33]. Increasing the ventilation rate–synonymous with fresh air intake and using high-efficiency air purifiers–is one of the most prominent recommendations to reduce infection rates in mechanically ventilated spaces. Such recommendations were applied by many academic institutions around the globe, which, in turn, had implications for higher energy consumption rates when campuses returned to full operations.

1.3.3. Viral Transmission

Best practices to reduce viral transmission include both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical measures [25,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Non-medical measures other than HVAC systems and ventilation considerations include reducing occupant capacity within indoor spaces, limiting pollutants emissions, prohibiting air recirculation–especially in highly contaminated environments, and maintaining the facilities’ hygiene and cleanliness requirements.

1.3.4. Role of Technology Post-Covid to Improve IAQ

The role of technology in improving IAQ has seen many applications post the pandemic [41,42,43,44]. Examples of technical innovations include sensors to track occupants’ movement via carbon dioxide monitoring, and hence improve HVAC efficiencies; decentralized IAQ monitoring systems (e.g., mobile applications) that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms for data collection and processing, as well as HVAC-related innovations to reduce energy consumption and increase operational efficiencies. During the pandemic, many institutions monitored the health of students, faculty, and staff via mobile applications, online surveys, and tracking devices, and the use of technology to monitor health has resulted in an exponential rise in technological solutions [10,45,46,47]. Many of the solutions available are yet to be re-directed for use after the pandemic, which has opened a dialogue on the issues of data privacy and security. After the pandemic, academic institutions are now more aware of their digital footprint and are taking more proactive measures for information security. Moreover, many universities have built a digital infrastructure to track the health status of occupants; this infrastructure has yet to be re-directed for other uses in the aftermath of the pandemic.

1.4. Selected Commercially Available IAQ Monitoring Devices

Various systems for monitoring different air parameters—particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and detecting harmful gases—help evaluate the IAQ and provide real-time readings. When applied in an academic setting, this data-driven approach allows universities to promptly identify deviations from healthy air standards and proactively maintain a safe and comfortable environment for students, faculty, and staff. There are many commercially available models by which the IAQ monitoring systems are designed [48,49,50,51,52,53]—refer to Table S1-II in Supplementary Materials. Though they are not all specific to academic buildings, their functionalities can be applied in the same way.

1.5. IAQ Parameters and Probable Health Risks

Before designing or selecting a monitoring solution, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the specific parameters that need to be monitored to address the unique needs and potential challenges of the university environment, ensuring that the chosen system provides accurate and relevant data for effective decision-making and proactive air quality management [13,54]. Several IAQ standards identify the measurable parameters of good quality air, including the World Health Organization [55] and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [20]. Such parameters are identified based on whether they exceed a certain threshold, in which case there will be consequential health risks. Parameters include PM, CO₂, NOX, SOX, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Refer to Table S1-III in Supplementary Materials: Literature Review for more detailed information on probable health risks.

1.6. Identifying Relevant IAQ Dashboard Parameters within Selected Literature Studies

To identify relevant IAQ dashboard parameters, an extensive examination of pertinent literature focused on monitoring systems within recently published journal articles is summarized in Table S1-IV in Supplementary Materials. One evident trend is using the Internet of Things (IoT) to build the IAQ monitoring system, a cost-effective air quality system for real-time monitoring. These systems can detect harmful gases in indoor environments, such as propane, ethanol, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. There are other models available that have been tested in an educational setting, where IoT architecture is used to create a Wi-Fi module containing a multi-gas sensor and microcontroller [56] and can be designed to have low-cost sensors that rely on natural convection to move air to the sensor passively [15]. In the educational setting, sampling usually starts early in the morning and finishes when the pupils leave the classroom each day [18]. These systems generally monitor CO₂, PM2.5, total volatile organic compounds (tVOCs), aldehydes, temperature, and relative humidity [10]. Many commercially available IAQ monitoring solutions are available on the market. Refer to Table S1-II in Supplementary Materials. This shows that various IAQ monitoring systems are available to measure various parameters.

1.7. Air Quality Index

Taking one step backward to give a more universal context for air quality monitoring involves first introducing the most common index: an overall indicator used to measure ambient air quality. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a numerical index used to report daily air quality. It aims to provide simple information about local air quality, how clean or unhealthy the air is, and what associated health effects might be a concern. Several types of IAQ indexes are available, depending on the specific type of pollutant being measured. Amongst the most well-known is the EPA AQI. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a particular AQI. The AQI is calculated for five major air pollutants regulated by the clean air act: ground-level ozone, particle pollutants, carbon monoxide, Sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Refer to Table S1-V in Supplementary Materials for more detailed information on the US-EPA’s Air Quality Index.

On the other hand, indoor air quality indices lack the standardization seen in ambient air quality measures. Efforts are frequently tailored to specific building types, occupancy rates, and local pathogens [57,58,59,60]. Parameter selection for these indices is often contingent upon pollutant concentrations relevant to the building’s activities or specific local pollutants. Moreover, such IAQ indices are not restricted to IAQ parameters alone [59]. A recent example from the literature presents an Indoor Environmental Quality index, which includes thermal comfort, acoustic comfort, and illumination levels [58]. In another study, users’ perception was an integral part of the index and did not rely on the measurable indicators alone [61]. In another study, the use of IoT was exercised by leveraging a blend of environmental parameters and an adaptive neuro-fuzzy interference system to improve computing accuracy [62]. These collective efforts highlight the growing recognition of the multifaceted nature of IAQ assessment and the evolving landscape of research aimed at improving indoor environmental conditions.

1.8. Identified Gap, Aims, and Contribution

The notable observation in commercially available IAQ monitoring systems is that their focus is solely on-air quality parameters, whereby they do not take into consideration the health status of occupants nor the quantification of energy consumption rates because of the operating HVAC systems, nor are the spatial parameters of the built environment considered. As a result, a literature gap, as well as a market gap, was identified.

This research aims to provide an expert-validated framework for an augmented IAQ dashboard and classroom index that would allow facility managers to monitor and track IAQ levels and make informed decisions regarding the safety and security of students in higher education spaces, specifically in arid environments. The specific concerns of air environments lie in the high energy consumption due to air conditioning, the thermal (dis)comfort due to the large temperature difference between outdoor and the indoors, and high PM2.5 concentrations due to environmental context. Therefore, the research objectives are to (1) identify, through the literature and expert responses, the IAQ and IEQ as well as thermal comfort-related parameters that are of most importance in higher education spaces in arid environments, (2) develop the framework and conceptual visualization of an enhanced IAQ dashboard and, and (3) enable facility managers within educational facilities to compare between learning spaces–via a generated classroom index–for improved IAQ conditions.

This research contributes indirectly to decreased rates of infection and an improvement in occupants’ health through an IAQ dashboard that balances IAQ, energy, comfort, the health of occupants, and spatial parameters. This research introduces an expert-validated framework for an advanced IAQ dashboard and classroom index, with a focus on arid educational environments. By identifying crucial IAQ parameters, conceptualizing the dashboard, and designing the CI, this study offers practical tools for facility managers to improve the overall learning ability of students by optimizing operative variables in a classroom environment.

1.9. Research Structure

This paper reviews the current pertinent literature before presenting the research methodology. The research methodology (Section 2) is divided into two main sections: one dedicated to the enhanced IAQ dashboard (Section 2.1) and the second to the CI (Section 2.2). Section 3 presents the scope and limitations of the research study. Section 4 is focused on presenting the enhanced IAQ dashboard in terms of discussing the results obtained and presenting a summary of the key features of the proposed IAQ dashboard. Section 5 presents the main indicators constituting the classroom index and the lessons learned upon utilizing the CI when comparing learning spaces to one another. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the key findings of the research, presents some suggestions for future research, and makes recommendations for facility managers in higher education institutions.

2. Methodology

The research methodology utilizes qualitative tools and analytical methods. The research methodology consists of 10 sequential steps to arrive at the proposed classroom index. This methodology outlines a systematic approach to data-driven framework development for understanding and improving indoor air quality and related parameters affecting students’ learning abilities. The methodological process was designed to ensure the research’s reliability and practical relevance of the framework in learning spaces. The ten-step process includes desktop review, survey design and dissemination, survey validation, initial framework development, dashboard visualization, index conceptualization, index development, index visualization, index implementation, and iteration. The Delphi method inspired the two-step survey and expert panel process to offer validation for the findings. Finally, this paper provides a synthesis and consolidation of the results to propose the framework and conceptual visualization of the enhanced IAQ dashboard and classroom index. Figure 1 visualizes this methodological process. Further details on each methodology step are provided in the following subsections.

2.1. Designing an Enhanced IAQ Dashboard

2.1.1. Step 01: Literature Review

The literature review contains an analytical review of selected academic journals addressing the issue of IAQ monitoring systems in the aftermath of the pandemic. Moreover, a desktop survey of available market technical innovations in IAQ monitoring systems of software and hardware applications was conducted. The academic and market desktop review aims to scan scholarly articles to identify IAQ parameters relevant to the dashboard design. Refer to the Literature Review Key Findings section in the Results section, which is further supported by S1—Literature Review in Supplementary Materials.

2.1.2. Step 02: Survey Design and Dissemination

After reviewing the literature, identifying the relevant research gaps, and elaborating on the research question, a pilot survey was designed and tested on (19) respondents. The pilot survey tested the survey design and explored the audience’s general feedback on their understanding of the survey questions–refer to S2—Pilot Survey in Supplementary Materials.

Afterward, an expert survey was designed based on the pilot survey responses and testing. Based on the insights gained from the pilot survey, iterative refinements were made to the survey–this included adding a ranking of importance questions to the identified IAQ parameters in question, rephrasing selected questions, and removing secondary questions, resulting in a more detailed and robust survey instrument for subsequent data collection. Thirty-three (33) responses were collected from industry, health, and facility management experts. The leading target group is facility managers located in Egypt, whose information was found through the Egyptian Facility Management Association network. Emails were sent to (58) participants, with a low % response rate of 15% (9 responses). The other 24 responses are a result of a targeted survey to facility managers working in Egypt via LinkedIn—a professional social media networking platform—targeting the profiles of environmental consultants, health professionals, academic researchers, and experts within the authors’ network–refer to Experts’ Survey Results in the Results section which is further supported by S3—Experts Survey—Supplementary Materials. The survey respondents are highly accomplished professionals, including facility managers, architects, software consultants, health professionals, environmental consultants, academics, and top management in corporations of related industries—Figure 2.

In summary, the survey covered the following aspects:

• IAQ Parameters. The respondents gave weight to the importance of the relevance of the IAQ dashboard parameters and the degree to which they are willing to invest in monitoring equipment and data management systems to acquire such information.
• Air-Quality Related Concepts. It also discussed their awareness of the Air Quality Index (AQI) and their knowledge about carbon footprint and energy efficiency related to thermal comfort and HVAC ventilation. They offered new information and knowledge regarding IAQ perceptions and understanding among the respondents.
• Dashboard Design. The last set of questions of the survey was dedicated to gaining a deeper understanding of the relevance of the dashboard to facility management in terms of objectives of use, practical design considerations, and perceived operational risks and their associated mitigation measures.

2.1.3. Step 03: Experts’ Panel for Survey Validation and Dashboard Design

Based on these survey findings and the insights collected, the experts’ panel worked on developing a theoretical framework and conceptual visual design for the dashboard. The online experts’ panel targeted top-tier professionals who responded to the survey. The experts’ panel has two activities, labeled part 1 and part 2. Part 1 was to gain the experts’ insights (7 participants) on the survey responses for validation. Part 2 was to carry out a brainstorming activity to design a conceptual landing page for the proposed IAQ dashboard while discussing its main features. Figure 3 shows a snapshot of the dashboard brainstorming exercise–using Google Slides. The PowerPoint slide shows the actual parameters that were selected to be included on the landing page (light yellow background). The icons on the margins were options for participants to select from. They are divided into the following categories: charts and metrics (top left), parameters (bottom left), information icons (top right), and action items (bottom right). The instructions for carrying out the brainstorming activity are written at the top of the page (top right). Excerpts from the experts’ panel are shown in the analysis section of this research paper. Refer to S4 in Supplementary Materials, which summarizes the comments and suggestions put forth by the participants, focusing on the IAQ parameters and the proposed features for the dashboard’s user experience (UX) and user interface (UI). The panel discussion was conducted via Zoom software, allowing video conferencing, sharing pre-prepared presentations with all participants, and recording the session. The discussion was carried out mainly in Arabic to accommodate the seven participants, and the moderator was an Egyptian national for whom Arabic is a first language—refer to

Table 1. Experts Panel Profile.

No.	Title	Field	Yrs. of Exp.
1	Environmental Consultant—Managing Director	Environment	34+
2	Principle Architect—LEED AP—Managing Director	Architecture	25+
3	Professor Emeritus—Uppsala University	Sustainability	45+
4	Project Architect—Specialization Healthcare	Architecture and Healthcare	10+
5	Research Associate—Specialization Architecture	Architecture	10+
6	Mechanical Engineer	Facility Management	10+
7	Academic Advisor	Building Performance	10+

. Technical jargon remained in English as many of its words were not easily translated into Arabic but were used as loan words from English. The panel was transcribed using Sonix software, which detects multiple languages. Selected quotes were translated—refer to Experts’ Panel Results in the Results section, which is further supported by S4 in Supplementary Materials.

2.1.4. Step 04: Initial Framework Development

The fourth stage consolidates the research findings related to developing the IAQ dashboard framework. The proposed IAQ dashboard framework used the outcomes of the above three methodological steps to produce the initial framework. Refer to S5 in Supplementary Materials for Steps 1 to 4 of the methodology. The initial proposition includes indicators for each of the identified key features and proposed suggestions for the frequency of monitoring of each indicator. This is performed while considering the practicalities of data collection within a university setting, reflecting on the user experience requirements, and identifying the reference for each proposed indicator—refer to Section 4.3.

2.1.5. Step 05: Dashboard Visualization

The fifth step is concerned with the dashboard visualization. The process includes designing and developing a dashboard interface to visualize key metrics and insights derived from these data. In other words, we adopted visualization techniques such as charts, graphs, and UI/UX techniques to effectively communicate information to identified user groups.

2.2. Developing a Classroom Index

2.2.1. Step 06: Index Conceptualization and Contextualization

What we can consider as the core foundation of this work is a simplified Classroom Index (CI), which considers both qualitative (QL) and quantitative (QN) methods in assessing the indoor environmental quality inside learning spaces, i.e., classrooms. The index was conceptualized in terms of the broad categories that it takes into consideration or foresees as a prerequisite for a healthy university classroom. The index was also contextualized, meaning that it is specific to learning spaces, and the identified parameters are focused on the operative conditions. The focus of the selected indicators is on the operative mode of classrooms, meaning that it would be used to assess existing classrooms. The core purpose of this index is to assess the classroom operative performance post-COVID in terms of thermal performance, air quality, and environmental conditions. It is also used to understand the overall health conditions of occupants and the impact of indoor environmental conditions on their ability to learn.

2.2.2. Step 07: Index Indicators Development

The sixth step is defining the indicators and setting appropriate measurable values. The core purpose of the classroom is to assess classroom air quality, occupant thermal comfort, and indoor environmental quality with respect to operational effectiveness. It also relates the classroom conditions to the health of occupants and how this influences their learning ability.

2.2.3. Step 08: Index Visualization

The seventh step was to visualize the index and set the scoring scale. Also, the initial framework was refined and expanded based on feedback from stakeholders and additional insights gained through contextualization.

2.2.4. Step 09: Index Implementation

Sample spaces were selected as a case study to pilot the index and compare between selected spaces. The case study spaces–four in total–are located at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. Data were collected for selected learning spaces, a case study in the American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt: two medium-sized classrooms, which are mechanically ventilated, and two design studios, which are mechanically ventilated. Data for the index were obtained and collected via multiple sources.

(1)

First, regarding an occupant survey, refer to [63] for detailed information about the survey.

(2)

Second, IAQ monitors (Qingping Air Quality Monitor, Light, Model Number: CGS. Each portable IAQ monitor—Was installed in selected learning spaces and connected to the wireless network. The automatic logging of IAQ parameters occurred at a 15-min interval for three consecutive months (February to March 2022)), and logged IAQ-related parameters at 15-min intervals were installed in the selected classrooms for a duration of three months (February 2022–May 2022). The analysis conducted for the outcome of the IAQ monitoring and data logging employed statistical analysis techniques such as descriptive statistics and analysis pertaining to ventilation violation rates to identify patterns and trends within the logged data of Carbon Dioxide, Particulate Matter, Total Volatile Organic Compounds, Temperature, and Relative Humidity. A detailed analysis of the collected IAQ data samples can be referred to in [64].

(3)

Third, an equation to estimate energy efficiency was utilized and measured for each selected space. This equation is based on a parametric model simulation of a university classroom in Cairo, Egypt [65]. Finally, the outcome of these collected data was used to assess classroom quality and effectiveness.

2.2.5. Step 10: Iteration

The final step is an iteration of the overall dashboard design visuals and classroom indicators. This incorporated insights from implementation experiences and stakeholder input to refine the framework’s utility and effectiveness.

3. Scope and Limitations

The proposed IAQ framework and CI are not without limitations. Acknowledging this study’s constraints, particularly in its scope and generalizability is essential.

(1)

The assumptions taken in hand of the proposed framework do not take into account the full potential of the product’s commercialization process.

(2)

The experts’ panel is considering a first round of validation and consolidating the research findings. Further future validation is to take place after producing the first full revised version of the dashboard visualization. This would include both the research input of relevant metrics, indicators, type of infographics, and the user’s experience (UX), as well as feedback regarding the user interface (UI)

(3)

Moreover, the technical roadmap is left out of the scope of this research as many directions are not bound to the proposed framework metrics and indicators but rather to the technical infrastructure and available fiscal resources.

(4)

Backend design is yet another element that is left out of the scope of the dashboard.

(5)

The proposed Classroom Inex (CI) does not include score-weighting as it is left to the end-user–i.e., facility managers–to extract the relevant criteria to enable them to monitor IAQ-related parameters efficiently within their institutions.

Despite these limitations, the research represents a significant step forward in IAQ management strategies for higher education in arid climates.

4. What Main Features Did Experts Suggest for the Enhanced IAQ Dashboard?

The following section capitalizes on the validation workshop outcome by interpreting the comments and suggestions put forth by the participants, focusing on the IAQ parameters and the proposed features for the dashboard’s user experience (UX) and user interface (UI) to come up with a framework for the enhanced IAQ dashboard. The subsections below discuss the findings and process, concluding with a concise proposal.

4.1. Air Quality Parameters

During the workshop, participants highlighted various IAQ parameters that should be included in the dashboard for effective monitoring and decision-making in a university setting, commenting on the survey findings (33 responses). While some parameters were deemed crucial for immediate monitoring, others required further integration or consideration.

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) emerged as an important parameter to monitor in real-time, according to the experts’ panel and the survey findings. Its importance is directly linked to the willingness to invest in equipment for measuring IAQ parameters. The experts’ panel mentioned that high CO₂ levels can indicate poor ventilation, prompting the need for immediate action, such as opening windows or adjusting airflow systems. In line with this, participants suggested integrating sensors that could automate window operations when CO₂ levels exceed certain thresholds. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were identified as significant pollutants, but participants noted that instantaneous monitoring might be challenging. However, including VOC, specifically TVOCs, monitoring capabilities was recommended for a comprehensive IAQ assessment, albeit with the understanding that real-time measurements may not be feasible. Finally, Particulate Matter (PM2.5) was also recognized as an essential parameter to monitor, particularly in relation to dust accumulation resulting from open windows or construction activities. Participants emphasized the importance of incorporating housekeeping details into the dashboard, ensuring that cleanliness and maintenance practices are considered to maintain optimal IAQ.

4.2. Thermal Comfort Parameters

Thermal comfort emerged as a key consideration, but participants acknowledged the challenges of accurately assessing it using surveys, particularly with students. Standards such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), in which software known as the ARC system, were mentioned to be used as a reference. The importance of incorporating thermal comfort surveys aligned with the LEED standard was emphasized, urging serious participation and prior notifications to ensure reliable data.

4.3. Carbon, Energy, and Ventilation

The status of air conditioning, whether it is on or off, was suggested as another parameter to include in the dashboard. Additionally, participants highlighted the relevance of including parameters that measure air conditioning performance in terms of energy efficiency. Monitoring the status of ventilation systems and their relation to energy efficiency was the inspiration for linking a more detailed reporting system on Carbon Footprint (CF) accounting. Further, the dashboard customization can link to previously developed CF accounting calculators, where facility managers can consider energy consumption not only for HVAC systems but also for the entire building infrastructure. The conceptual framework emphasizes that each institution will utilize additional indicators and readings from a carbon footprint calculator. This approach facilitates comprehensive data collection and calculations to estimate the carbon footprint, encompassing various factors contributing to emissions within the building’s operations and activities.

4.4. Health Indicators

Health indicators such as the number of sick days were among the propositions detected in the survey findings and confirmed in importance during the experts’ panel. Further suggestions were to link to the medical reports–for example, issued by the university clinic–to monitor the rate of infections during the onset of highly infectious airborne-related viral transmissions.

4.5. Spatial Considerations

Among the spatial parameters to be considered by the dashboard is optimizing for both occupant density and IAQ parameters. An evident case in university classrooms where prolonged use of spaces affects the quality of air. The other is the wall-to-window ratio, and this is among many other attributes that would be included in the backend calculations to enhance the energy efficiency performance of facilities.

4.6. Index

The proposed IAQ dashboard was envisioned to have an integrated index similar to the AQI of the US-EPA but for indoor spaces by the experts’ panel. It considers multiple parameters, providing users with an overall assessment of indoor conditions. Furthermore, participants emphasized the significance of including an action center within the dashboard. The action center would facilitate demand control of ventilation and economizer systems, enabling users to make necessary adjustments or alert facility managers for appropriate actions. Interestingly, among the survey respondents, 40% are familiar with the concept of an Air Quality Index (AQI). However, a higher percentage, 70% of the survey respondents, agree that implementing an AQI could serve as a beneficial visualization tool for the IAQ dashboard indicators. Considering that the survey respondents are experts in the field, this signifies that there is limited awareness of the AQI and its interpretation, indicating the need for educational efforts to improve public understanding of air quality metrics.

Moreover, the proposed framework IAQ dashboard is suggested to include a cutting-edge interactive mapping feature designed to empower end users, i.e., facility managers. This feature was suggested during the experts’ panel as a way to allow navigation between different zones within the building, offering a visual representation of the spatial layout. This feature is suggested to enable real-time data access of installed monitors, and thus, would enable facility managers to keep-track of critical IAQ metrics and indicators specific to each zone.

4.7. Action Centre

Participants recognized the need for the IAQ dashboard to allow for a feedback system through the incorporation of an action center that serves as a centralized hub for notifications and messages. This feature streamlines communication and responsiveness by consolidating all relevant alerts, updates, and messages in one accessible location. The action center not only ensures that users promptly receive crucial notifications but also facilitates a seamless transition from receiving information to taking immediate action.

For example, the experts’ panel participants recommended incorporating an alarm feature that triggers when the CO2 threshold reaches a predefined limit; an arbitrary threshold level was given as an example: 2000 ppm to address high carbon dioxide levels. This alarm would notify facility management and provide them with a designated timeframe, as suggested 15 min, to respond appropriately. Otherwise, the alarm would go off.

4.8. Other Design Considerations

The experts’ panel was in agreement with the survey participants’ feedback on what counts as important for their facility’s dashboard design and customization. Linking to existing software systems was the number one motivation for adopting a new dashboard for IAQ monitoring. This integration would enable users to access detailed insights and take informed actions accordingly. They recommended implementing measures such as controlling the sources of pollution, ensuring adequate ventilation, and utilizing supplemental air cleaning and filtration systems. Another suggestion was to periodically sample occupants’ annoyance levels to verify the effectiveness of the IAQ system. Integration of openings was also emphasized, along with addressing potential EMI interference. Setting alarms for emission levels and monitoring energy consumption were deemed important. Finally, respondents proposed linking the IAQ tool with an Action Plan Agenda for further enhancing indoor air quality.

The suggestions by the experts’ panel complemented the feedback provided by the survey respondents and emphasized the importance of complying with industry standards to facilitate integration with current systems. Defining a standard API and protocols aligned with the existing IoT infrastructure would promote the hardware and software of IAQ devices, enabling cloud integration, online monitoring, alerting, and historical analysis in a separate database. The IAQ dashboard should have a detailed structure and integrate within a predefined industry standard framework, considering cost analysis and pricing structure, which would aid decision-makers in integrating the solution with their existing infrastructure. Collaboration with industry leaders and compliance with IoT and cloud platform standards are key factors in promoting the IAQ dashboard. Other risk mitigation strategies voiced by the survey respondents–including complying with industry standards for interfacing, IoT, and automation, particularly regarding Building Management Systems Integration for large areas or complexes.

On another note, the survey respondents highlighted the relevance of integrating the IAQ dashboard with quality of life (QoL), particularly in educational facilities, to raise awareness and encourage its application in other settings.

While the design of the dashboard framework pilots higher educational institutions (HEIs), which was given as a point of reference during the experts’ panel, it is applicable to a wide range of building typologies. HEIs–as in an academic setting–were the starting point for conducting the initial research, as there is a documented need that inspired the embedded functionalities of the dashboard, such as reporting on carbon footprint and impact on performance. Carrying out the framework for other types of facilities would entail customization to suit the specific needs of the facility in question.

Additional suggestions included conducting a cost lifecycle analysis, ensuring user-friendliness, focusing on priority pollutants, examining the relationship between IAQ and organizational profitability, and emphasizing the importance of data analysis for guiding preventive actions against adverse health impacts. These suggestions aim to enhance the usability, effectiveness, and awareness of the IAQ dashboard.

While cost was acknowledged as a concern, the experts proposed a cost-effective solution by incorporating commercially available IAQ monitors within sample spaces in a large educational institution. This attempts to study critical spaces where specific measured parameters are a concern, and later, when the root cause issue is resolved, the sensors are transferred to another space to be monitored via the dashboard.

4.9. Reference, Context, and Scale

When the experts’ panel was asked to comment on the survey results, they emphasized several key points. They suggested utilizing existing tools, such as the LEED ARC software as a reference, which focuses on Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) and indicators related to building performance, as a reference for developing the dashboard. Understanding the reasons behind respondents’ relevance ratings for each parameter was deemed crucial, as it relies on the specific contextual conditions of the facility and the aspects that can be effectively monitored. Although the IAQ dashboard was initially examined in the context of the pandemic, it was advised that its design should also consider the post-pandemic situation, taking into account the transition of facilities from the extreme measures implemented during the peak time of COVID-19.

4.10. Enhanced IAQ Dashboard Framework Summary

Considering the insights of the pilot survey received, the proposed IAQ dashboard attempts to consider AQ, energy, comfort, health and well-being, and spatial parameters. The strategic aim of the dashboard is to enable building operators to monitor their facility, interact with occupants, and take informed decisions for ensuring a safe indoor environment within their facilities.

Moreover, the proposed IAQ dashboard design parameters attempt to include an IAQ index as well as an action center as key design features—see Section 5. The IAQ index is a benchmark of the identified parameters and weights given to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Further, the IAQ dashboard is suggested to include an action center composed of interactive design features (e.g., in-app messaging, notification center) that are in line with the outcome of the decision-making tool managed by the building operator.

The proposed initial framework for an enhanced IAQ dashboard sets an example for many facilities in developing countries to adapt, which can inform both facility managers and occupants on the prevailing IAQ conditions as well as environmental and health indicators. The primary goal is to raise awareness among the population about the importance of indoor air quality and its direct impact on health. By promoting a better understanding of IAQ, the dashboard aims to empower individuals to take proactive measures to improve the air quality in educational spaces. The proposal can be customized and applied to homes, schools, workplaces, and other indoor spaces. Through the proposed methodology, the dashboard aims to become a valuable tool for decision-makers to implement effective policies and regulations to improve the status of air quality in developing countries. The IAQ dashboard must be aligned with the facility’s emissions and air quality monitoring program and customized to its specific operations.

Table 2. Proposed Framework for Enhanced IAQ Dashboard.

No.	Key Feature	Frequency of Monitoring	UX/UI Comments	Insights
1.0	Air Quality Parameters
1.1	Carbon Dioxide	Instantaneous	Each of the selected parameters is to be provided in the form of a gauged meter	All sources
1.2	VOCs	Periodic		Experts’ panel
1.3	PM 2.5	Instantaneous		Experts’ panel
2.0	Thermal Comfort Parameters
2.1	Temperature	Instantaneous	Individual Readings + to reflect the thermal comfort zone chart	Experts’ Survey
2.2	Relative Humidity	Instantaneous		Experts’ Survey
2.3	Wind Speed	Periodic		Experts’ panel
	Thermal Comfort Survey	Periodic	Connected to an electronic survey to integrate feedback from occupants	Experts’ panel
3.0	Carbon, Energy, and Ventilation
3.1	Windows open/closed	Instantaneous	Individual Reading for selected windows via a motion sensor	Experts’ panel
3.2	HVAC on/off	Instantaneous	-	Experts’ panel
3.3	Energy Efficiency of HVAC System	Periodic	Individual Reading for Selected HVAC Units	Experts’ panel
3.4	Carbon Footprint Indicator	Instantaneous	Individual Reading Based on HVAC operations, energy losses (windows opening during HVAC operations)	Experts’ Survey
4.0	Health Indicators
4.1	Number of Sick Days of Occupants	Daily	Individual Reading Input to be provided by a clinic/or medical facility connected to the academic institution	Pilot Survey
5.0	Spatial Considerations
5.1	Occupancy Rate	Instantaneous	Individual Reading/Space to show on the Interactive Map of the Facilities Input according to Classroom Schedule	Experts’ panel
5.2	Wall to Opening Ration	Instantaneous		Experts’ panel
6.0	Index
6.1	Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Index	Instantaneous	A sum of all dashboard parameters at a given point in time. The Enhanced IAQ Index takes the form of an integrated gauged meter–with three main subthemes: ○ AQ ○ Environmental ○ Health	All sources
6.2	Interactive Mapping of the Academic Facility	Updated Periodically	Interactive map showing the location of monitored parameters	Experts’ panel
7.0	Action Center
7.1	Notifications	Instantaneous	In case of threshold increase in studied parameters	Experts’ panel
7.2	Messages	Instantaneous	To include options to remedy problematic parameters–examples of action messages: ○ Turn on/off AC ○ Turn on a heating device ○ Turn off a cooling device ○ Turn on Humidifier ○ Open/Close Windows	Commercially Available IAQ Monitors–Reference

aims to summarize the key features of the practical preposition of the dashboard for university settings, and it acknowledges the source of the suggestions provided either by survey respondents or experts of the focus group.

With such a framework in mind, the conceptual visualization of the enhanced IAQ Dashboard shows a user-friendly digital interface of a given facility, where the user can navigate between the different spaces and can access real-time and historical information about the proposed parameters–including air quality, thermal comfort, carbon/energy/ventilation, health indicators; all through perceiving the spatial layout of the facility. The IAQ Dashboard visually presents these data through intuitive charts, graphs, and color-coded indicators, allowing the user/facility manager to quickly assess the current state of studied parameters—see Figure 4.

5. What Is the Main Concept behind the Classroom Index? How Does It Work?

This section presents the development process of the classroom index, shedding light on its conceptual framework, indicator selection process, and scoring system. The section ends by piloting the index via a comparative analysis across four distinct learning spaces.

5.1. Integrating the Healthy Design Framework of University Classrooms

While a comprehensive design framework to assess healthy university classroom adequateness is beyond the scope of this research, an operational framework is. More specifically, this scope considers that the evaluated classrooms are existing classrooms and are in ‘good’ standing in terms of architectural and educative overall conceptual criteria mentioned in the Healthy Design Framework of a university classroom. The healthy design framework refers to the existing classroom conditions, which advocates that the spatial and digital design of the classroom is optimized for occupants’ comfort, well-being, and learning. It comprises five main pillars: architecture, education, technology, human aspects, and contextual factors. This framework is based on [66] and is under review.

5.2. Main Indicators Considered

The proposed CI is short for the following nomenclature: Classroom Indoor Environmental Quality Index (CIEQI). The CIEQI considers five main groups of indicators. Figure 5 shows the correlation between the healthy design framework of a university classroom and the CI. The three core indicators are Thermal Comfort Parameters, Indoor Air Quality, and Indoor Environmental Quality—Operational efficiency. The secondary layer is occupants’ health. The fifth and final metric is the ‘Ability to Learn’ or ‘Impact on Learning.’ The group of indicators is beneficial in comparing a set of classrooms to one another to understand how to make the indoor environment more conducive to occupants’ well-being and ability to learn—refer to

Table 3. Classroom Index—Number of Indicators.

No.	Category	Number of Indicators
1.0	Thermal Comfort Parameters
1.1	Measurement of Classroom Presets	2
1.2	Occupants’ Perception of Temperature
2.0	Indoor Air Quality
2.1	Measuring Indoor Air Quality Parameters	4
2.2	Measuring Carbon Dioxide Violation Rates in Selected Classroom
2.3	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Mechanical Ventilation Levels
2.4	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Cross-Ventilation
3.0	Indoor Environmental Quality—Operational Efficiency
3.1	Annual Mechanical Ventilation Energy	5
3.2	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Natural Ventilation
3.3	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Noise Control
3.4	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Classroom Cleanliness
3.5	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Overall Comfort in the Classroom
4.0	Health Indicators
4.1	Occupants’ Perception of Heat Stress-Related Disorders	1
5.0	Impact on Learning
5.1	Occupant Perception of the Ability to Learn	1
Total Number of Indicators		13

. Nine out of the thirteen indicators are based on data acquired through occupant surveys. Three indicators are based on actual measurements (Classroom Presets, Thermal Comfort Parameters of Relative Humidity, Temperature, and Windspeed, and one indicator is based on an equation (Predictive Equation for Annual Mechanical Ventilation Energy Efficiency). Each indicator is defined, assigned to a research question, and normalized to a scale from 1 to 5. The breakdown of the indicators, definition, research question, and scale are included in S6—Supplementary Materials.

5.3. Scoring and Assessment

When evaluating classrooms based on the CI, we propose a 5-point score for each indicator, resulting in a maximum of 65-point system. We proposed five evaluation categories, representing the final score for the CI. Depending on the rating, a classroom can, at best, attain an A and, at worst, attain an F score—refer to

Table 4. Evaluation Tiers.

Category	Evaluation	Score
A	Classroom Operative Conditions are in good standing	65–52
B	Classroom Operative Conditions are acceptable	51–39
C	Classroom Operative Conditions need minor improvements	38–26
D	Classroom Operative Conditions need major improvements	25–13
F	Classroom Operative Conditions are not acceptable	12–0

.

5.4. Comparing Learning Spaces Using Classroom Index

We find the following if we conduct a trial run of the Classroom Index to compare selected classrooms. Only one classroom has attained an A score, and three classrooms have received a B score—refer to Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 and

Table 5. Pilot run of CI to compare selected learning spaces based on the 13 indicators.

No.	Category	Max Score	Class 01	Class 02	Studio 01	Studio 02
1.0	Thermal Comfort Parameters	10	7	7.39	7.14	6.71
1.1	Measurement of Classroom Presets	5	4	4	4	3
1.2	Occupants’ Perception of Temperature	5	3.62	3.39	3.14	3.71
2.0	Indoor Air Quality	20	16.66	15.5	15.27	16.5
2.1	Measuring Indoor Air Quality Parameters	5	5	5	5	5
2.2	Measuring Carbon Dioxide Violation Rates in Selected Classroom	5	4.5	4.5	5	5
2.3	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Mechanical Ventilation Levels	5	3.54	3.26	2.87	3.36
2.4	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Cross-Ventilation	5	3.62	2.74	2.4	3.14
3.0	Indoor Environmental Quality—Operational Efficiency	25	20.5	18.05	16	16.85
3.1	Annual Mechanical Ventilation Energy	5	5	5	4	4
3.2	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Natural Ventilation	5	2.9	2.65	2.2	2.64
3.3	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Noise Control	5	4.1	3.7	3.27	3.07
3.4	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Classroom Cleanliness	5	4.6	3.6	3.53	3.43
3.5	Occupant Satisfaction Regarding Overall Comfort in the Classroom	5	3.9	3.1	3	3.71
4.0	Health Indicators	5	3	3	3	3
4.1	Occupants’ Perception of Heat Stress-Related Disorders	5	3	3	3	3
5.0	Impact on Learning	5	3.38	2.87	3.07	3.14
5.1	Occupant Perception of the Ability to Learn	5	3.38	2.87	3.07	3.14
Total Number of Evaluated Indicators		13
Total Score		65	50.54	46.81	44.48	46.2
CI Score			A	B	B	B

. The breakdown of the scoring criteria for the selected learning spaces can be found in Annex F.

Several key findings emerge when comparing the four learning spaces using the CI. First, all spaces scored relatively high in terms of thermal comfort parameters, with Studio 01 achieving the highest score of 7.39. However, when examining indoor air quality (IAQ), Class 01 and Class 02 outperformed the design studios, indicating potential areas for improvement in IAQ management within the two studio environments. Class 01 and Class 02 exhibited higher satisfaction levels regarding mechanical ventilation compared to the design studios. Regarding operational efficiency and indoor environmental quality, Class 01 demonstrated the highest score, highlighting its effectiveness in providing a conducive learning environment.

Conversely, Studio 01 and Studio 02 received lower scores in these categories, suggesting that the volume of the space was a primary deciding factor in the consumption rate of mechanical ventilation energy. Regarding health indicators and impact on learning, all spaces showed similar scores, indicating comparable levels of occupant perception. Facility managers can leverage these findings to prioritize improvement efforts, focusing on areas with lower scores to enhance overall IAQ and optimize learning environments.

6. Conclusions

The enhanced IAQ dashboard framework aims to provide a tool for facility managers to both monitor and control the air quality, inform on energy performance, measure thermal comfort, and detect potential health hazards among occupants. Developing an IAQ dashboard customized to arid environments presents a critical opportunity to tackle the issues of IAQ, IEQ, and the thermal comfort of occupants. By raising awareness and providing real-time data on IAQ parameters, the proposed IAQ dashboard can empower individuals as end-users and facility managers as decision-makers to take proactive action to improve air quality. The comparative analysis of four learning spaces using the CI has yielded interesting insights, pinpointing areas for improvement and guiding targeted interventions. Facility managers are left to problem-solve for energy efficiency measures of HVAC systems, remedy IAQ parameters that surpass acceptable threshold levels, and read between the lines to understand occupants’ concerns regarding thermal comfort indicators. The proposed methodology has provided a means to tailor the dashboard to specific contexts, applying it to diverse locations. This would enable future cross-sectional studies to be carried out for comparison purposes and validation of impacts. What we can deduce as a conclusion about the classroom index is that quantitative metrics are not enough to validate the adequacy of the space in terms of its indoor air quality conditions. User inputs are essential to capture a realistic snapshot of perception, satisfaction levels, and expectations of the CIEQI levels. Lessons learned from the pandemic emphasize the importance of simple, clear communication between end users and ensuring widespread adoption.

The proposed IAQ dashboard and the CI provide ample opportunities for ad-hoc applications that can further provide invaluable insights to building operators and AQ practitioners, such as:

• Informing on the inter-relatedness between occupant health and environmental qualities of the built environment.
• Providing dynamic IAQ monitoring data to optimize building performance, which can be further processed via machine learning technologies.
• Predicting the carbon footprint of a given indoor environment.
• Availing technical and financial benchmark performance indicators.
• Generating audit reports on IAQ and energy efficiency performance.