Slashdot Mirror


Air Pollution is Bad For Productivity, Even in Office Jobs (qz.com)

It seems reasonable that breathing in pollution would affect worker productivity, but only recently has the damage been documented. From a report: In a series of studies that match readings from air monitors with the results of workers who are paid for daily piece work, researchers demonstrated that breathing polluted air impedes the ability of workers to pick berries, pack fruit, or even make phone calls from office cubicles.

The studies, which were collected in the journal Science (pay wall) in January, were conducted over 10 years by team of researchers at Columbia, the University of Southern California, and the University of California, San Diego. The biggest impact of air pollution was measured in farm workers in California's Central Valley, who were paid by the volume of grapes and blueberries they collected. On days that had higher readings of ground-level ozone -- a harmful gas formed when tailpipe emissions mix with sunlight -- worker productivity slumped.

Over the two years they measured the ozone, readings ranged from 10 to 86 parts per billion, and averaged 48 ppb. For every 10 ppb increase in ozone, worker productivity fell 5.5%. For farm workers paid about $9 or $10 an hour, the lost productivity translates into about 45 cents an hour of lower pay, said Matthew Neidell, an economist at Columbia and an author of the studies.

41 comments

  1. Confounding variables? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest impact of air pollution was measured in farm workers in California's Central Valley, who were paid by the volume of grapes and blueberries they collected. On days that had higher readings of ground-level ozone -- a harmful gas formed when tailpipe emissions mix with sunlight -- worker productivity slumped.

    I'd be curious about how (or whether) they controlled for other factors from the weather phenomena that generated the ozone exposure: Temperature, humidity, sunlight vs. cloudy vs. rain. Also other pollution components: Smoke, NOx, CO, etc.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many companies are migrating to an open office concept, one of the benefits of this is better circulation and this helps with some of the air quality issues. We're thinking about moving that direction at my company and this is one of the things that is driving it.

    2. Re:Confounding variables? by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      The air inside my office space is great. The problem is that the company forces me to go outside and stand next to traffic huffing exhaust for periodic 10-minute stretches. If they'd let me smoke inside I wouldn't have this problem.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re: Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get to breathe exhaust through the cigarette filter.

      Us indoors folks don't have a filter. Go away stinker.

    4. Re:Confounding variables? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      So you're complaining that you inhale toxic fumes because you're forced to go outside to inhale you own toxic fumes?

      That's either a failed troll, a failed joke, or I'm too tired to think afdsagxz.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. I think the polution generated from your cigarette might be a bit more significant to your health than the polution from the automobile exhaust.

    6. Re:Confounding variables? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I'd be curious about how (or whether) they controlled for other factors from the weather phenomena that generated the ozone exposure: Temperature, humidity, sunlight vs. cloudy vs. rain. Also other pollution components: Smoke, NOx, CO, etc.

      This is the wrong place to ask. The right place is the study. The study is paywalled, but the abstract is linked from the story. Using the abstract, you can find out who the authors are. Using the title and the authors, you may be able to find a preprint or even the full article with google; when that is not true, you may have luck contacting an author or the authors directly. Literally every time I have tried this, the author has provided me with a copy of the article. If you are actually curious about this, that's how to go about finding out. If you do find out, please share the information with the rest of us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standing outside doesn't matter if you're already inhaling cancer...

    8. Re:Confounding variables? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Amazing. Didn't know employers could force you to be a smoker.

    9. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason for migrating to open office is short term savings as more employees are crammed in the same space. All the other reasons are there to distract workers from the fact that their work environment is getting worse.

    10. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can present these proposals to your employer (and still remain in their good graces)

      1. I have been to buildings with an indoor garden, but this is a single-storey office, where that "indoor" area actually exists merely because the layout of the building is roughly like a figure eight. So there were two such areas.

      2. I have also worked in a box-like structure that was elevated only so that the space underneath was parking space.

      Well, these options may not be possible or available at all.

      I had a co-worker in Florida who would also take ten or fifteen minute breaks from coding; we used the time to chat with our peers -- sometimes shoot the bull, if not discussing design or programming approaches. Though I was also thinking of these little inconveniences that smokers had to contend with; but then my attention span would not last too long on these things.

      Should we train people on the positive health benefits of phone sanitizers now? No, no need to search for an AI-proof profession; find the magazine entry via copy-and-paste http://blog.modernmechanix.com/novel-weekly-service-keeps-phones-germfree/

    11. Re:Confounding variables? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The air inside my office space is great. The problem is that the company forces me to go outside and stand next to traffic huffing exhaust for periodic 10-minute stretches. If they'd let me smoke inside I wouldn't have this problem.

      I think I found your biggest confounding variable.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    12. Re:Confounding variables? by gnick · · Score: 1

      I had a co-worker in Florida who would also take ten or fifteen minute breaks from coding...

      Periodically taking a break from your code can be really useful sometimes and I think I could rationalize taking a couple of smoke breaks during the day, but I don't. I was just messing around. I am a smoker, but not before or during work. I don't like smelling like an ashtray around my coworkers. Mostly I use cigarettes in the evenings to get the pot off my breath.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    13. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a failed joke

      +5 successful joke. I am aware that smoking is worse for you than standing next to light traffic.

    14. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have authored the most amazing dry humoured Monty Python skit that was never done. Therefore, when I invent the Fun-Time-Machine (tm) I will collect you and then drop you off in the 70's and PLEASE direct this skit into reality :D

    15. Re:Confounding variables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A JOKE! A dry and excellent joke, best told with a straight face.
          It is as if he doesn't realize what he's doing is a bad thing, but notices when he's the victim of external bad things.

  2. Ozone? Really? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's interesting is that ozone is often used in office environments as a way of getting rid of other odors (e.g. mold). So there are several possibilities:

    • Ozone could just be a convenient way to measure overall outdoor air pollution, and we have no idea which specific contaminants are at issue.
    • Ozone itself causes problems, and we should stop using it to eliminate odors.
    • Ozone is an indication of the workplace trying to cover up something else, and that something else is responsible.

    I think this calls for some more direct experimentation.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Re:Ozone? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those copiers...

  4. And don't forget CO2. by HalfFlat · · Score: 3, Informative

    Excitingly, elevated levels of CO2 — such as those found in poorly ventilated rooms, or as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb, in our environment at large — also diminish our cognitive ability. See, e.g. this paper among others.

    If we don't stop burning coal and hydrocarbons soon, we'll be too stupid to ameliorate the consequences,

  5. Not a problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just pay the workers less so you can hire more at the same rate. Productivity is only a problem if you think of workers as human beings.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Mr Cook we are aware of your views.

  6. The worst pollutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perfumes and colognes.
    I hate when people hose themselves down with that shit.
    I get a splitting headache within minutes.

    Coffee is next on the list.
    "Hey, let's take some shit we found in the dirt, cover it with used motor oil, then burn it! It'll smell great!"

    1. Re:The worst pollutants? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're not far off. Perfumes and colognes are major contributors to office toxic pollutants, especially in low air exchange modern office environments.

      Give a hoot, don't perfume!

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  7. Open office is a killer of innovatiion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The noise pollution within the open office alone kills many genuine thought

  8. For those born after the 1980s by Solandri · · Score: 1

    I biked to school in Southern California in the 1980s. This was back before the air pollution controls had gotten really strict, so every day there was a thick blanket of brown smog which rolled from Los Angeles eastward. Most days you couldn't even see the mountains 15-20 miles away. Ozone was a big component of this smog, and it makes your lungs hurt when you breathe deeply. Often after biking home, I'd be unable to do any strenuous physical activity simply because I couldn't breathe deeply enough. I recall reading an article in the L.A. Times about a study which concluded that going for a morning jog in the smog was worse for your health than being a couch potato and not jogging.

  9. Office CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like this requires proof. It has been "a thing" for a long time, and there are office air quality standards.

    Years ago, I was at a company that had an employee sleeping at his desk. They tried to fire him. He lawyered up and claimed the air quality in the office was bad and causing him to become sleepy. They were forced to have an independent company test the air, and, believe it or not, the CO2 level was slightly above some standard. The company had to spend something like $30K to add more air exchange to the building's air handler. The employee was eventually fired for a security violation.

  10. Re:Ozone? Really? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    Carbon dioxide begins to affect human cognition and decision-making ability at around 600 ppm. It's a problem in newer energy-efficient buildings; some companies are beginning to install CO2 scrubbers in their ventilation systems to boost productivity.

  11. Re:Ozone? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean offices deliberately use a toxic substance that causes deadly lung disease to mask odors? I can't believe that is legal.

  12. 10 ppb ozone? by NichardRixon · · Score: 1

    Having worked around ozone producing electronics most of my life, it's really a stretch to believe that a minuscule 10 ppb increase could possibly cause a 5.5 percent decrease in productivity. Ozone is known to cause irritation to the lungs and mucous membranes in concentrations above 100 ppb, but having done it's damage to these tissues it seems logical that very little of it would make it into the blood as O3. What could possibly be the mechanism for the effects found by this research?

    Since ozone found at ground level is largely produced by automobile emissions, isn't it more likely that the drop in productivity is due to another byproduct of petroleum combustion?

    NR

  13. Does "Productivity" = "Profits"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Air Pollution is Bad For Productivity, Even in Office Jobs

    But is air pollution bad for profits?

  14. Folks need a study for this? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Dirty air is bad! We know that since 150 years....although there are plenty of deniers to that fact in the federal government. I guess that rule does not apply to exclusive golf courses.

  15. Air Pollution is expensive because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sickening and killing people is expensive. First there is the cost of health care, then the cost of lost productivity because dead people don't work and sick people are not as productivity as healthy people. The savings for pollution is penny on the dollar compared to the cost to society of pollution.

  16. Steel mill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love for them to test the air quality at the steel mill I work at. The company itself does not monitor air quality and does not provide any data to its own employees. People that question the air quality are fired or sidelined until they quit. Whenever I go out onto the factory floor my throat dries up and it becomes difficult to speak until I've been out of the factory for at least 30 minutes and had water to drink. A fine black metallic powder gets on everything out there. Leave a magnet in the open and it will soon be covered in it.

  17. EPA looking a bit more useful now, eh? by coofercat · · Score: 2

    (see title)

  18. And you're worried about ozone?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each year we develop thousands of new chemicals in which we have NO IDEA of what they do, and release them into the air.. Do the math.

  19. Workers are subject to environmental effects! by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Frail human workers are subject to environmental effects! They slow down when they can't breathe or it's too hot! we must replace them with robots!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  20. Office air pollution is the worst by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    Offices are the worst. Many offices reek of toxic chemicals leaching from the furniture, the carpets, the toxic cleaning chemicals used, the air conditioning system, and so on. This together with the toxic white flourescent lighting, it really is a health hazard. The buildings are sealed up tight trapping all of the toxic air. The WORST is the hideous and health destroying LED lighting which should be declared a human health hazard. We really need OSHA regulations becuase it's such a workplace health hazard, both the air pollutants issuing from the materials and the headache inducing, nauseating LED and flourescent lighting. Whatever happened to the trend to build offices out of low emissions, low chemical materials and to use warmer, less harsh incandescent lighting?

    1. Re:Office air pollution is the worst by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention all the flame retardant chemicals such as PBDEs. Society is being poisoned and saturated with chemicals, you need a gas mask to go into these buildings.

  21. Give OSHA a ring by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    if you suspect the air quality in your work environment is unhealthy. Few things motivate a company
    faster than OSHA threatening to shut their entire building down if they don't get shit fixed asap. Years
    of complaining, corporate bureaucracy and being told " We don't have the budget " get shoved aside and
    amazing amounts of budget money are quickly found to appease the OSHA inspector overlords.

    This comes with a risk, however.

    The company may decide it's cheaper to make you drive 100+ miles a day to another location vs getting
    the building you work in up to spec. We also know that retaliation is illegal, but once you get OSHA involved,
    the company is likely going to look for ANY reason they can to fire you. So, understand the risks before
    you do anything.

    Still, it's your health, so don't give the company the benefit of the doubt if you've complained in the past and
    nothing has been done to remedy the problem. You don't get to enjoy retirement if you're dead from some crazy
    lung disease you picked up because your company tried to save a few bucks from the cleaning budget.