Home / LEV Testing / Guide
LEV testing - air quality and the brain
We tend to think of air quality as a health-and-safety matter - and it is - but research increasingly links poor indoor air quality to something else: how well people think. Studies associate high indoor CO2, poor ventilation and fine particulates with measurable dips in cognitive performance, especially on complex tasks. Here is what the emerging evidence suggests, and why good ventilation matters for a workplace's air, in plain terms. This is general information - an evolving field, presented cautiously.
The short answer
Poor indoor air is usually framed as a health or comfort issue - stuffiness, headaches, the afternoon slump. But a growing body of research suggests it may be doing something more specific: reducing how well people think. If that's right, then a workplace's air quality affects not just health and comfort but productivity and performance. Here's what the emerging evidence suggests, stated cautiously because it's an evolving field. This is general information. The CO2 connection. The clearest strand of this research concerns carbon dioxide (CO2). Indoor CO2 builds up when people occupy a space that isn't well ventilated: we breathe out CO2, and without enough fresh air coming in to dilute and remove it, it accumulates. So indoor CO2 level is a useful marker of ventilation - a stuffy, poorly ventilated room has high CO2, a well-ventilated one has lower CO2 (closer to the outdoor level). This makes CO2 both a possible direct factor and a proxy for overall air freshness. What the research suggests. Studies have associated higher indoor CO2 levels with dips in cognitive performance - slower response times, and poorer scores on tests of thinking and decision-making. Importantly, the effects appear strongest on complex, demanding cognitive tasks (strategic thinking, decision-making, information use) rather than on simple, routine ones. So it's not that people can't function in stuffy air, but that their higher-level thinking may be measurably blunted. Some studies report meaningful declines as CO2 rises into the levels common in poorly ventilated occupied rooms. Alongside CO2, research also implicates fine particulates (PM2.5) and low ventilation rates generally: higher particulate levels and poorer ventilation have been associated with slower, less accurate cognitive performance. So the picture is that several aspects of poor indoor air quality - high CO2, fine particulates, low ventilation - are linked to reduced cognition. Why ventilation is the common thread. Ventilation is the common thread through all of this. Good ventilation brings in fresh outdoor air and removes stale indoor air, which keeps CO2 down (diluting what people breathe out), removes or dilutes indoor pollutants, and generally keeps the air fresh. So improving ventilation addresses the main factors at once - lower CO2, fewer accumulated pollutants, fresher air. This is why the practical message of the research tends to be about ventilation: ventilate well, and you keep the air quality (and, the research suggests, the thinking) better; ventilate poorly, and CO2 and pollutants build up, with possible cognitive costs. A cautious note. It's worth being cautious and honest about this evidence. It's an evolving, actively researched field, and the exact levels at which effects occur, the size of the effect, and the precise mechanisms are still being studied and debated (some findings are stronger than others, and there's ongoing discussion about how large and how consistent the effects really are). So this shouldn't be overclaimed - it's not a settled, precise science of 'X ppm CO2 means Y% worse thinking'. But the broad, increasingly supported message is reasonable: indoor air quality can affect cognitive performance, poor ventilation (high CO2) is the main culprit, and good ventilation helps. What it means in practice. So in practice, the research adds a productivity-and-performance reason to the existing health-and-comfort reasons for good indoor air quality. For workplaces, offices and any occupied indoor space, it suggests that ensuring adequate ventilation - enough fresh air for the number of people and the space - is worth getting right, not just for health and comfort but potentially for how well people think and work. Monitoring CO2 (as a ventilation marker) can help identify stuffy, under-ventilated spaces. And where the air quality issue is a specific contaminant at a source (rather than general stuffiness), local exhaust ventilation (LEV) captures it at source, while general ventilation handles the overall freshness. The takeaway. So a growing body of research links poor indoor air quality - especially high CO2 from poor ventilation, plus fine particulates - to reduced cognitive performance, particularly on complex tasks. It's an evolving field to treat cautiously, but the broad message is increasingly supported: good ventilation supports not just health and comfort but how well people think and work. So keeping indoor air fresh, with adequate ventilation, is worth getting right. This is general information - an emerging area, stated cautiously. This is general information.
Key points
The CO2 connection
The clearest strand of this research concerns carbon dioxide (CO2). Indoor CO2 builds up when people occupy a space that isn't well ventilated: we breathe out CO2, and without enough fresh air coming in to dilute and remove it, it accumulates. So indoor CO2 level is a useful marker of ventilation - a stuffy, poorly ventilated room full of people has high CO2, while a well-ventilated one has lower CO2 (closer to the fresh outdoor level).
This dual role is important. CO2 may be a direct factor in the cognitive effects (some research points that way), but it's also a proxy for overall air freshness - high CO2 tends to go with stale, pollutant-laden air generally, because the same poor ventilation that lets CO2 build up also lets other things accumulate. So measuring CO2 is a practical way to gauge whether a space is well ventilated or stuffy. This is why CO2 features so prominently in the research and the practical advice - it's both a candidate cause and an easy-to-measure sign of poor ventilation. So the CO2 connection - indoor CO2 as a marker of ventilation - is the starting point: CO2 rises when ventilation is poor, making it central to the air-and-cognition question. What the research finds is next. So indoor CO2 signals how well a space is ventilated. This is general information. This is general information.
What the research suggests
Studies have associated higher indoor CO2 levels with dips in cognitive performance - slower response times, and poorer scores on tests of thinking and decision-making. Importantly, the effects appear strongest on complex, demanding cognitive tasks (strategic thinking, decision-making, using information) rather than on simple, routine ones. So the suggestion isn't that people can't function in stuffy air, but that their higher-level thinking may be measurably blunted by it.
Some studies report meaningful declines as CO2 rises into the levels common in poorly ventilated occupied rooms (well above the fresh outdoor level). Alongside CO2, research also implicates fine particulates (PM2.5) and low ventilation rates generally: higher particulate levels and poorer ventilation have been associated with slower, less accurate cognitive performance. So the broader picture is that several aspects of poor indoor air quality - high CO2, fine particulates, low ventilation - are linked to reduced cognition, with complex thinking the most affected. This is stated as what the research suggests, not proven fact for every setting (the cautious note comes below). So what the research suggests - dips in performance, strongest on complex tasks - is the core finding: poor air quality is linked to poorer, especially complex, thinking. Why ventilation is the thread is next. So poor air is linked to blunted complex thinking. This is general information. This is general information.
Ventilation is the common thread
Ventilation is the common thread through all of this. Good ventilation brings in fresh outdoor air and removes stale indoor air, which keeps CO2 down (diluting what people breathe out), removes or dilutes indoor pollutants (including fine particulates from indoor and outdoor sources), and generally keeps the air fresh. So improving ventilation addresses the main implicated factors at once - lower CO2, fewer accumulated pollutants, fresher air.
This is why the practical message of the research tends to be about ventilation rather than any single pollutant: ventilate well, and you keep the air quality (and, the research suggests, the thinking) better; ventilate poorly, and CO2 and pollutants build up together, with possible cognitive costs. It also means the fix is generally straightforward in principle - more fresh air - even if achieving it in a given building takes attention (adequate ventilation for the number of people and the space, whether by mechanical ventilation or opening up, kept working). So ventilation is both the likely root of the problem (poor ventilation lets the air degrade) and the lever for the solution (good ventilation keeps it fresh). So ventilation is the common thread - fresh air addresses the main factors at once - is the practical heart of it: the answer to poor indoor air quality is good ventilation. A cautious note on the evidence is next. So good ventilation tackles the whole problem at once. This is general information. This is general information.
A cautious note
It's worth being cautious and honest about this evidence. It's an evolving, actively researched field, and the exact levels at which effects occur, the size of the effect, and the precise mechanisms are still being studied and debated. Some findings are stronger and more consistent than others, and there's ongoing scientific discussion about how large and how reliable the cognitive effects really are, and exactly what drives them (CO2 itself, or the other things that go with high CO2).
So this shouldn't be overclaimed. It's not a settled, precise science where a given CO2 level reliably means a given percentage drop in thinking - the reality is more nuanced and still being pinned down. Presenting it as hard, exact fact would overstate the current evidence. But the broad, increasingly supported message is reasonable and worth acting on: indoor air quality can affect cognitive performance, poor ventilation (with high CO2) is the main culprit, and good ventilation helps. So the honest position is confidence in the general direction (poor air quality is linked to poorer thinking; ventilation matters) with humility about the precise numbers. So a cautious note - an evolving field, not to overclaim - keeps it honest: the link is increasingly supported in broad terms, while the specifics are still being researched. What it means in practice is next. So take the direction seriously, but don't overstate the specifics. This is general information. This is general information.
What it means in practice
So in practice, this research adds a productivity-and-performance reason to the existing health-and-comfort reasons for good indoor air quality. For workplaces, offices and any occupied indoor space, it suggests that ensuring adequate ventilation - enough fresh air for the number of people and the space - is worth getting right, not just for health and comfort but potentially for how well people think and work. Stuffy, under-ventilated spaces may be quietly dulling performance, so keeping the air fresh has a possible payoff in clearer thinking.
Practically, monitoring CO2 (as a ventilation marker) can help identify stuffy, under-ventilated spaces that need more fresh air - a rising CO2 level is a sign to improve ventilation. Keeping ventilation systems working well (and clean) supports this. And where the air quality issue is a specific contaminant released at a source (a process, a machine) rather than general stuffiness, local exhaust ventilation (LEV) captures that contaminant at source, while general ventilation handles the overall freshness - the two doing different jobs. So the message is to take indoor air quality seriously as more than a comfort issue: adequate ventilation supports health, comfort and, the research increasingly suggests, cognitive performance. So what it means in practice - good ventilation supports thinking, not just health - is the takeaway: keep the air fresh, and you support how well people work as well as their health. So ventilate well - for thinking as well as health. This is general information. This is general information.
Questions
A growing body of research suggests it can - high indoor CO2 (a marker of poor ventilation), fine particulates and low ventilation are linked to measurable dips in cognitive performance, especially on complex tasks; it's an evolving field, so stated cautiously, but the broad direction is increasingly supported. A growing body of research suggests that poor indoor air quality can affect cognitive performance - how well people think and perform mental tasks. The clearest strand concerns carbon dioxide (CO2): studies have associated higher indoor CO2 levels (which build up when a space is poorly ventilated) with dips in cognitive performance, such as slower response times and poorer scores on tests of thinking and decision-making. The effects appear strongest on complex, demanding tasks rather than simple, routine ones. Alongside CO2, research also implicates fine particulates (PM2.5) and low ventilation rates generally. So the emerging picture is that poor indoor air quality is linked to reduced cognition, particularly complex thinking. That said, it's an evolving, actively researched field - the exact levels, size of effect and mechanisms are still being studied and debated - so it shouldn't be overclaimed as precise, settled science. But the broad message (poor air quality can affect cognition, poor ventilation is the main culprit, good ventilation helps) is increasingly supported. So yes, research suggests it can - stated cautiously. So research suggests it can, especially for complex thinking. This is general information. This is general information.
Because CO2 builds up when people occupy a poorly ventilated space (we breathe it out and it accumulates without fresh air), so it's a useful marker of ventilation - high CO2 means stuffy, under-ventilated air, and it's also a possible direct factor in the cognitive effects research has found. Indoor CO2 is important for air quality because it's a useful marker of ventilation, and possibly a direct factor in the cognitive effects. CO2 builds up when people occupy a space that isn't well ventilated: we breathe out CO2, and without enough fresh air coming in to dilute and remove it, it accumulates. So a stuffy, poorly ventilated room full of people has high CO2, while a well-ventilated one has lower CO2 (closer to the fresh outdoor level). This makes CO2 an easy-to-measure sign of whether a space is well ventilated or stuffy. On top of being a marker, CO2 may be a direct factor in the cognitive effects research has associated with poor air (some findings point that way), and it's also a proxy for overall air freshness - the same poor ventilation that lets CO2 build up lets other pollutants accumulate too. So monitoring CO2 helps identify under-ventilated spaces that need more fresh air. This is why CO2 features prominently in both the research and the practical advice on indoor air quality. So it's a measurable sign of poor ventilation, and a possible direct factor. So because it signals poor ventilation and may affect cognition. This is general information. This is general information.
Research suggests complex, demanding cognitive tasks - strategic thinking, decision-making, using information - are more affected than simple, routine ones; so it's higher-level thinking that appears to be blunted by stuffy, high-CO2 air, rather than basic functioning. Research suggests that complex, demanding cognitive tasks are the most affected by poor air quality - more so than simple, routine ones. Studies looking at cognitive performance in relation to indoor CO2 and ventilation have found the effects strongest on higher-level thinking: strategic thinking, decision-making, using and applying information, and similar demanding mental tasks. Simple, routine tasks appear less affected. So the suggestion isn't that people can't function at all in stuffy, poorly ventilated air, but that their higher-level, complex thinking may be measurably blunted by it - which matters for work involving judgement, problem-solving and decisions. This pattern (complex tasks affected more than simple ones) is one of the more consistent findings in the research, and it makes intuitive sense: demanding mental work has less spare capacity to absorb any impairment. It's part of why the research is relevant to workplaces, where a lot of valuable work is complex and cognitive. As with the field generally, this should be taken as the research's suggestion rather than precise, settled fact. So complex, higher-level thinking tasks appear most affected. So demanding, complex cognitive tasks most of all. This is general information. This is general information.
It's an emerging, actively researched field - the broad direction (poor air quality, especially high CO2, is linked to reduced cognition) is increasingly supported, but the exact levels, size of effect and mechanisms are still being studied and debated, so it should be treated as a reasonable emerging finding, not precise settled science. The evidence on air quality and cognition should be treated as an emerging, increasingly supported finding rather than precise, settled science. It's an actively researched field, and the broad direction is reasonably well supported: multiple studies link poor indoor air quality (especially high CO2 from poor ventilation, plus fine particulates and low ventilation) to reduced cognitive performance, particularly on complex tasks. So the general message is credible. However, the specifics are still being worked out and debated: the exact CO2 levels at which effects occur, the size of the effect, how consistent it is across studies and settings, and the precise mechanisms (whether CO2 itself, or the other things that accompany high CO2, drives the effect). Some findings are stronger than others. So it shouldn't be overclaimed - it's not a case of a given CO2 level reliably causing a precise percentage drop in thinking. The honest position is confidence in the general direction (poor air quality is linked to poorer thinking; ventilation matters) with humility about the exact numbers. So it's reliable in broad direction, still being refined in detail. So the direction is credible; the specifics are still emerging. This is general information. This is general information.
Mainly ensure adequate ventilation - enough fresh air for the people and space - which keeps CO2 and pollutants down; monitoring CO2 helps spot stuffy spaces, keeping ventilation systems working and clean helps, and where a specific contaminant is released at a source, LEV captures it while general ventilation handles freshness. To improve indoor air for cognition (and health and comfort), the main thing is ensuring adequate ventilation - enough fresh air for the number of people and the space - because good ventilation addresses the main implicated factors at once: it keeps CO2 down (diluting what people breathe out), removes or dilutes indoor pollutants (including fine particulates), and keeps the air fresh generally. Practical steps: monitor CO2 as a ventilation marker (a rising CO2 level signals a stuffy, under-ventilated space needing more fresh air); ensure the ventilation is adequate for the occupancy (whether mechanical ventilation or opening up), and keep ventilation systems working and clean; and, where the air quality issue is a specific contaminant released at a source (a process or machine) rather than general stuffiness, use local exhaust ventilation (LEV) to capture that contaminant at source, while general ventilation handles the overall freshness. So the answer is broadly about fresh air: ventilate well for the space and people, monitor CO2, and capture specific contaminants at source. This supports health, comfort and, the research suggests, thinking. So improve ventilation - fresh air, monitored CO2, LEV at sources. So mainly by ensuring good ventilation and fresh air. This is general information. This is general information.
Mainly general ventilation - the CO2-and-cognition link is about overall fresh air for the space; LEV is for capturing a specific contaminant at its source, so where poor air comes from a source (a process, machine), LEV helps, while general ventilation handles overall freshness and CO2 - the two do different jobs. This is mainly about general ventilation, though LEV plays a role for specific contaminants. The CO2-and-cognition link is chiefly about general (whole-space) ventilation: CO2 builds up across an occupied space when there isn't enough fresh air overall, so keeping CO2 down and the air fresh is a matter of adequate general ventilation for the number of people and the space. That's the main lever for the air-quality-and-cognition issue. Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) does a different job: it captures a specific contaminant at its source (a process, machine or task releasing dust, fume or vapour), before it spreads into the general air. So where a workplace's air quality problem is a specific contaminant released at a source, LEV is the right control for that contaminant - while general ventilation handles the overall freshness and CO2. The two are complementary: general ventilation for the whole-space air (freshness, CO2), LEV for specific sources. So for the cognition-and-CO2 question specifically, general ventilation is the main answer; LEV addresses specific contaminant sources that also affect air quality. So mainly general ventilation, with LEV for specific sources. So general ventilation for CO2; LEV for specific contaminants. This is general information. This is general information.
Good air quality is partly general ventilation (fresh air, low CO2) and partly capturing specific contaminants at source with LEV; we test LEV and extraction so the source-capture side works - one part of keeping a workplace's air fresh, which supports health, comfort and, research suggests, how well people think. Ask us to test your LEV. This is general information.
