The effect of indoor environment quality on productivity in oil painting art studios

Oil painting studios require optimal indoor environments to improve artist health and productivity. This experimental study employs a mixed-methods approach to investigate the influence of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) on the productivity of two oil painting art studios, which were chosen for their similar environmental conditions and layouts. However, both studios are different in terms of IEQ, including air quality, lighting, thermal conditions, and acoustics, allowing for a comparative analysis. The data collection includes field measurements, questionnaires, observations, and productivity assessments, which are analyzed using descriptive statistics and environmental assessments. The research is done through three phases: pre-painting assessments, observation during the painting stage, and post-painting evaluations. With Studio One exhibiting enhanced outcomes compared to Studio Two, the findings suggest that studios with more favorable indoor environmental conditions—particularly regarding ventilation, thermal stability, and lighting—are associated with improved comfort and shorter task completion times. However, the comparative nature of the study limits causal attribution. In addition to highlighting the broader implications of IEQ factors in the studio, this experimental study emphasizes the importance of enhancing indoor conditions in art studios to most likely support artist productivity and health.

1 Introduction

Art studios are special workspaces designed to provide artists with the necessary environment to produce various forms of art (Pigrum, 2007). Thus, by offering adequate lighting, ventilation, and space management, it can optimize artistic expression and productivity (NIOSH, 2022; Sakhare and Ralegaonkar, 2014). Among the diverse categories of art studios are oil painting studios, which are a popular medium in fine arts. It’s also composed of pigments suspended in drying oils such as linseed oil; it may require specific environmental conditions due to the materials used. (Pigrum, 2007), While oil paint allows for rich textures and prolonged manipulation, it also most likely introduces environmental challenges (ASTM, 2021). It may lead to health risks, which mainly include respiratory complications and reduced productivity, which in turn may impact artistic productivity (UMASS, 2023).

Productivity in art studios is more than just output; it also includes efficiency, creativity, and the artist’s capacity to maintain focus and hopefully achieve artistic goals (Hensel, 2020). Optimal indoor conditions can significantly affect artists’ well-being and productivity (Pigrum, 2007; Fisk, 2002). In addition, the volatilization of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with high vapor pressure from solvents and mediums used in oil painting is capable of significantly affecting the indoor air quality, based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2022; EPA, 2023a, EPA, 2023b) and the University of Massachusetts (UMASS, 2023). In the context of oil painting studios, productivity is influenced not only by the artist’s skill and experience but might also be affected by the quality of the indoor environment (Pigrum, 2007). Several key factors of IEQ play a direct role in shaping productivity within art studios; Factors such as air quality, lighting, temperature, noise levels, and ventilation could significantly affect concentration, comfort, and health, all of which are critical to sustained artistic productivity (ASHRAE, 2020; Song et al., 2013; Ouimet, 2018; Oenio, 2022; Al-Jokhadar et al., 2023; Alnusairat et al., 2025). In this study, we distinguish between health and safety assessments, which evaluate compliance with thresholds such as pollutant concentrations, noise exposure levels, and temperature ranges, and comfort assessments, which capture participants’ subjective perceptions. While contaminants may exceed safety thresholds without noticeable discomfort, both perspectives are essential.

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) is a primary concern, as pollutants can negatively affect air quality indoors more severely than outdoor air (EPA, 2022; UMASS, 2023). The quality of air could significantly impact cognitive performance and productivity (UMASS, 2023). Thus, the presence of harmful substances in art supplies such as turpentine oil, poses a possible significant risk to artists, such as potentially influence respiratory health, allergies, chronic illnesses, emotional well-being, stress levels, anxiety, and depression, highlighting the necessity for proper ventilation and safety protocols, as well as implying the use of low-emission art materials such as linseed oil (ASHRAE, 2020; Song et al., 2013; Ouimet, 2018; Oenio, 2022).

Thermal comfort is equally critical, as extreme temperatures and humidity levels most likely impact both artistic productivity and the storage of artworks (ASTM, 2021). An ideal temperature range of 20 °C–24 °C and the ideal humidity are necessary to potentially enhance focus and efficiency, while ensuring the longevity of stored artwork (ASHRAE, 1994; ASTM, 2021), reinforcing the importance of stable environmental conditions (Mandala, 2019; Rajkumar et al., 2016; Haynes, 2008).

Lighting can potentially play a fundamental role in influencing artists’ productivity and well-being (Nascimento and Masuda, 2014), as inadequate lighting may also cause eye strain and possibly reduce precision in artwork (Nascimento and Masuda, 2014). For that reason, proper lighting, both natural and artificial, in addition of elements such as angle, intensity, temperature, and color rendering is essential for visual comfort, impacting color perception, mood, and atmosphere and possibly ensure optimal working conditions, making it imperative to design studios with effective lighting strategies (Gurney, 2010; Scott, 2020; Fussell, 2020; Yot, 2011; Zhao et al., 2015).

Another critical component that can affect productivity in art studios is acoustic comfort. Noise pollution or excessive noise, possibly caused by machinery, tools, or external sources, can be disruptive and might negatively impact concentration and creativity (Ouimet, 2018), as well as cause stress, fatigue, and hearing issues (WHO, 2022), which further affect artistic output. Which is why it's essential in the art studio to strike a balance between a quiet workspace and the necessary level of ambient sound (Luscombe, 2022; McNeer et al., 2017). The layout of the space has a critical impact on the quality of the work environment (Abed et al., 2024). The layout of a studio and a well-structured workspace could influence the organization and concentration levels of the artists, and it can also allow artists to access tools efficiently, which minimizes disruptions and can promote a more productive environment in the studio (Kamaruddin and Zahid, 2011; Grabner and Jacob, 2010).

Investigations advise that a serene and natural environment, such as greenery or natural light that is in the artist’s surroundings and art studio location, can possibly contribute to reducing stress and enhancing artistic inspiration (Vartanian et al., 2023; Milano, 2022).

Strategic planning is required for approaching poor IEQ in art studios to ensure that artists work in a productive and healthy environment. Improving indoor air quality and respiratory health can be achieved by using the correct ventilation applications, such as air filtration systems, opening windows, and using air purifiers (McCann, 2005; Rossol, 2001; Ouimet, 2018). As well as, appropriate management and disposal of hazardous art materials are mainly essential to lower the possibility of chemical exposure and to mostly guarantee studio safety (Ibenegbu et al., 2021; ASTM, 2021; Davis, 2022; CIT, 2019). Another approach is for studios to be supplied with protection gear, such as gloves, masks, and ventilation hoods, to reduce exposure to toxic substances if used during painting (Ouimet, 2018; Looney, 2023).

The specific impact on art studios, particularly those specializing in oil painting, is poorly studied. Although IEQ is known to affect productivity in workspaces, research typically focuses on offices and industrial settings, overlooking how air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, and acoustics can potentially influence artists’ productivity and well-being in studio environments (NIOSH, 2022; Sakhare and Ralegaonkar, 2014).

This experimental study targets the research gap on the indoor environment of art studios by employing a mixed-methods approach to estimate the possible effect of IEQ factors on productivity in art studios, offering insights on how to potentially improve the studio for enhanced artistic productivity and the well-being of the artist.

The main objective of this experimental study is to evaluate how indoor environmental quality affects oil painters’ productivity through an experimental study of two oil painting studios with differing environmental quality.

2 Methodology

This empirical experimental study investigates the possible impact of IEQ on the health and productivity of the artists in oil painting studios located in Amman, Jordan. As mentioned in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2022; EPA, 2023a, EPA, 2023b) and the University of Massachusetts (UMASS, 2023), optimal indoor conditions can potentially affect artists’ well-being and productivity. To conduct a comparative analysis, two art studios were selected for this study that differ in their environmental conditions: Studio One features enhanced IEQ with tailored lighting, precise temperature and humidity control, adequate ventilation, and a designed acoustic environment, while Studio Two maintains standard conditions typical of traditional art studios. The study employs a mixed-methods approach combining field measurements, observations, questionnaires, and an empirical experiment conducted over a 2-h painting session. All participants were asked to complete a painting of identical subject matter, canvas size, and materials, with no time limit imposed (Figure 1). Display the research methodology and its phases.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Research design.

2.1 Sampling and participants

Participants were selected through purposive stratified sampling to represent different experiences in painting backgrounds, levels in oil painting, and consistent exposure to studio environments similar to those studied, aiming to balance diversity in expertise while maintaining consistency in studio familiarity. Invitations were sent to 30 artists meeting these criteria, and 20 agreed to participate voluntarily; therefore, the study included 20 participating oil painting artists from Amman, Jordan. The selection criteria required participants to have prior experience with oil painting and regular exposure to studio-based artistic work.

2.2 Experimental settings

The study was conducted in two oil painting studios in Amman, which had similar layouts but distinct environmental conditions (Figure 2). Therefore, Studio One used customized LED lighting, precise temperature control through split-unit HVAC systems, humidity maintained between 37% and 51%, mechanical ventilation with filters, low-emission linseed oil medium, and acoustic panels for noise reduction. While Studio Two relied on natural daylight through side windows, no mechanical cooling (temperature fluctuated 24.9 °C–27.6 °C), ventilation via operable windows only, use of higher-emission turpentine oil medium, and a background noise from adjacent spaces and street traffic, as well as using turpentine oil as a medium with high emissions. In Studio One, windows were present, but participants were instructed not to alter the window or HVAC settings during the experiment. Studio Two, by contrast, had no acoustic treatment, and background noise sources included both street traffic and activities from adjacent studios. These settings were created to potentially provide a controlled basis for analyzing how IEQ can affect the artists’ health and productivity. This section also distinguishes between natural and artificial lighting strategies, ventilation mechanisms (mechanical vs. natural), acoustic treatments, and indoor air quality sources. These details clarify how the ‘indoor environment works’ in each studio and remove ambiguity later in Section 3.3.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Photo of Studio one and Studio two.

2.3 Study instruments

By examining air quality, lighting, noise, and thermal comfort, we aim to understand how these factors can influence artists during painting sessions.

2.3.1 Measurements

Instruments were used to measure IEQ factors, including indoor air, thermal comfort, acoustics, and lighting, effectively taken every 30 min during a 2-h painting session to capture any changes in the indoor conditions, to ensure comprehensive monitoring using the Extech CO250 (for CO₂, temperature, humidity; accuracy ±50 ppm ± 5%, ±0.6 °C, ±5% RH), the Extech VFM200 (for VOCs and formaldehyde), the Extech 407730 sound level meter (±1.5 dB, values reported as dB(A)), and the Extech LT40 light meter (±5%). Calibration was performed before measurements to ensure accuracy (Figure 3). Measurements were taken every 30 min over a 2-h painting session due to time and resource constraints. While illuminance can be reliably assessed using spot readings, as well as measuring at the primary work plane (canvas height on easel), with the sensor oriented horizontally toward the task surface. Measurements were taken at predefined grid points while daylight conditions were noted. Parameters such as noise would benefit from longer-term continuous monitoring. Noise values are reported as A-weighted equivalent continuous sound levels (dB(A)), in line with WHO standards.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Measurement points in studio one and two.

No standardized pre-occupancy baseline (t₀) measurements were conducted prior to participant entry and material use. Therefore, reported values represent during-session conditions rather than baseline-adjusted changes.

For indoor air quality parameters (CO₂, HCHO, and TVOCs), both average concentrations (mean over the 2-h session) and peak values (maximum recorded value) are reported, as short-term peak exposure is relevant for health-based interpretation. Noise levels are reported as A-weighted equivalent continuous sound levels (LAeq) over each 30-min interval, with maximum observed values also noted. Concentrations of HCHO and TVOCs are reported in mg/m³, while CO₂ is reported in ppm, consistent with instrument output and guideline standards.

Here we distinguish between measurement tools (the instruments described in Section 2.3.1) and measurement points (the spatial positions inside the studios shown in Figure 3). All field measurements were conducted only in summer (July). Questionnaire items also asked participants to recall experiences across different seasons.

2.3.2 Observation

Observations were conducted on July 6th and 8th, 2023, for a duration of 2 h from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., in the two art studios, through direct visual monitoring of participants (no video recording, to ensure comfort and ethical compliance). Artists’ body language and work pace were noted in relation to changes in temperature, air quality, and lighting, in addition to monitoring any changes.

2.3.3 Questionnaires

A two-phase structured questionnaire was utilized to enable a detailed analysis of indoor environmental quality and its potential impact on productivity and well-being, and to also assess the studio environment and participants’ experiences. As such, the first phase consisted of the Pre-Class Questionnaire, which collected personal information and participants’ perceptions of the studio environment before the painting session, while the second phase consisted of the Post-Class Questionnaire, which gathered data on participants’ experiences, symptoms, and perceptions after the painting session, all combined to gather comprehensive data. Questionnaire items also asked participants to recall experiences across different seasons.

2.3.4 Productivity measurement

In this study, productivity was operationalized as the time to completion of oil paintings. Time-to-completion was used as a proxy measure of productivity, without formal normalization for task complexity or artist experience to ensure fair comparison. We acknowledge that productivity in artistic contexts is multidimensional and can also include creativity, effort, and quality of output. However, for the purpose of this experimental design and to allow objective comparison across participants, completion time was used as a proxy indicator.

2.4 Ethical considerations

The research followed ethical guidelines ensuring confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any time without consequence, as well as providing informed consent to all participants before the study, as well as Data anonymization to protect participant identity. The study protocol was reviewed and deemed exempt from formal ethics committee approval due to minimal risk. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

3 Results and analysis

The research investigated how IEQ factors affect productivity in oil painting studios; thus, Questionnaire data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, field measurements were meticulously recorded and benchmarked, and Observational data were incorporated. All were conducted to clarify artists’ perceptions of their working environment, also to compare outcomes against established IEQ standards, and eventually, to provide contextual insights that enhance the analysis of the quantitative findings.

3.1 Questionnaire results

The questionnaire findings include the viewpoint of the participants in both studios to provide information about the studios as well as the indoor environment conditions, supplying statistical data that helps optimize art studio spaces for enhanced productivity.

3.1.1 Pre-class questionnaire results

The pre-class questionnaire was conducted to gather data on participants’ personal information, possible already existing health issues, and comfort inside the art studio, as well as the safety practices measurements taken in both art studios, as illustrated in Tables 1, 2.

Table 1

Table 1. Pre-class questionnaire results.

Table 2

Table 2. Safety practices results.

The analysis reveals key insights into the participants’ done before painting, and comfort levels of artists in the studio environment and layout. The age distribution offers a broad perspective on how different age groups perceive and interact with their studio environment by providing a balanced representation among the age groups of the participants. The gender distribution indicates a higher female representation that could influence findings related to health and safety practices. Most participants ' time spent in the studio was collected to ensure that they spent enough time in the studio environment to determine its impact. The participants’ art levels vary, which could affect their perceptions and interactions with the studio environment, which can also balance diversity in expertise while maintaining consistency in studio familiarity.

The health problems were collected and documented to determine any relation with the quality of the indoor environment. These health issues also underscore the importance of maintaining good indoor air quality and a clean environment to prevent exacerbating respiratory and skin conditions, as applied in (EPA, 2022; UMASS, 2023).

The findings of the data collected on the art studio safety practices questionnaire highlight areas where improvements can be made, particularly in educating artists about the importance of reading labels and using protective gear, as stated in previous studies to potentially improve the overall health and productivity of artists in the studio (Rossol, 2001; Ouimet, 2018; CIT, 2019).

3.1.2 Basic indoor environment information in art studios

The following section (Table 3) discusses the analysis of basic indoor environmental information in the two art studios, which reveals a distinct difference in thermal comfort, cleanliness, and general comfort between the two studios.

Table 3

Table 3. Basic indoor environment information questionnaire results (Studio One vs. Studio Two).

The data from the basic indoor environment information in the art Studios’ responses shows that Studio One displays mostly favorable thermal conditions and no possible concerns regarding Dust and cleanliness, while Studio Two exhibits more issues regarding thermal comfort and cleanliness. Only a significantly small responses reported no issues in the presence of dust or dirt in Studio, while Studio One displayed the opposite, with no issues reported regarding dust and dirt on equipment, floors, windows, doors, or general cleaning.

Additionally, the comfort levels in the art studio indicate a high comfort level, which suggests that the layout setup of the studio is generally adequate, but displays the opposite in studio two, with more room for improvements in the provided layout for the comfort of the artists and the improvement of their work process.

These findings emphasize the need for a better thermal condition, enhanced cleaning practices, and the safety and comfort of the studio environment in Studio Two to create a more comfortable and hopefully a healthier environment for artists, which could also significantly enhance the working conditions and overall satisfaction of the artists inside these spaces (Rajkumar et al., 2016; ASHRAE, 1994; Kamaruddin and Zahid, 2011).

3.1.3 Post-class questionnaire results

The analysis of symptom frequency in Studio One and Studio Two reveals notable differences in indoor environmental quality and its likely impact on artists, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Symptom results.

The data collected from the health symptoms part of the post-class questionnaire shows better results in Studio One, with a notably lower health concerns related to the quality of the environment measured with responses in Studio Two. It is worth mentioning that participants with existing health problems like allergies or eczema reported unfavorable symptoms such as a stuffy nose, skin irritation. For that reason, studios should inquire about any health problems that artists already have to provide a better environmental condition to allow them to have a more pleasant experience for a possible superior artwork manufacturing and less exposure to health problems.

The results of the data analyses emphasize the importance of maintaining high indoor environmental standards, corroborating previous research on the influence of IEQ on health, productivity, and its potential effects on artists’ health (EPA, 2022; ASHRAE, 2020; Song et al., 2013).

3.1.4 Basic indoor environment information in art studios

The following section (Table 4) discusses the analysis of the basic indoor environment information for Studio One and Studio Two in thermal comfort, dust, noise, air quality, and visual comfort, which can impact the artists’ productivity and wellbeing.

Table 4

Table 4. Detailed indoor environment information questionnaire results (Studio One vs. Studio Two – noise, air quality, and visual comfort).

In Studio One, the temperature was acceptable, and none of the participants found it poor, while dust was mainly not a major concern, and Noise problems were minimal. On the other hand, Air quality feedback was also positive, with no air quality problems reported, and the visual comfort data was well-rated as well, with no significant issues in lighting provided.

In contrast, Studio Two showed less favorable conditions in thermal comfort, and dust was a major issue for most participants as well. Other problems were reported with noise, as well as negative feedback on air quality, mainly, with no respondents finding it good. Visual comfort was also problematic, with shared problems of the presence of reflections and overall discomfort with the lighting.

The results indicate that Studio One is more comfortable and suggests higher satisfaction and potentially better productivity for artistic activities compared to Studio Two. Conversely, the negative feedback in Studio Two highlights areas needing improvement with issues like temperature regulation, dust reduction, noise management, air quality, and lighting optimization could significantly improve conditions in Studio Two, aligning it more closely with Studio One (ASHRAE, 2020; Sakhare and Ralegaonkar, 2014; Ouimet, 2018).

3.1.5 Overall satisfaction

The bar chart (Figure 5) compares the impact on productivity in Studio One and Studio Two of various indoor environmental factors; The factors considered are light, air quality, dust, noise, and temperature, with responses categorized into five levels: 1- Never Affect, 2- Slightly Affect, 3- Moderately Affect, 4- Affect, and 5- Strongly Affect.

Figure 5

Figure 5. The effect of indoor environment on productivity.

These findings highlight the critical role of indoor environmental factors in the two art studios in artists’ point of view, particularly by improving lighting and air quality, and imploring efforts to manage dust and noise, as well as Maintaining comfortable could enhance productivity in both studios (ASHRAE, 2020; Veitch, 2013; Song et al., 2013), with light and air quality being the most chosen significant factors.

3.2 Measurement results

Our study involved a thorough investigation of thermal comfort, indoor air quality (specifically CO₂, HCHO, and TVOC), lighting conditions, and ambient noise levels within these studios, providing valuable insights into the complex interplay between the studio environment and the productive output of artists. The results gathered from measurements executed in two oil painting art studios (Table 5) emphasize the possible impact of the indoor environment on productivity.

Table 5

Table 5. Measurement results.

Both art studios fall under the ASHRAE recommended temperature range of 20 °C–27 °C (ASHRAE, 1994), though Studio Two is at the higher end, yet humidity levels in both studios are within the ASHRAE range of 30%–60% (ASHRAE, 1994). However, the higher temperature and humidity in Studio Two suggest a less controlled environment, which could potentially reduce productivity. Furthermore, Studio One comfortably meets the ASHRAE CO₂ limit of below 1,000 ppm, whereas Studio Two exceeds this limit (ASHRAE, 2007). Average formaldehyde concentrations in both studios were below the WHO guideline value of 0.1 mg/m³. However, peak concentrations in Studio One exceeded this threshold (maximum = 0.43 mg/m³), indicating short-term exposure events rather than sustained exceedance (WHO, 2000). This highlights the importance of considering peak values in addition to mean concentrations when assessing health-related exposure in art studios. Moreover, TVOC levels in both studios exceed the EU guideline of 0.3 mg/m³, with Studio Two significantly higher (Evia, 2023); TVOC values are reported as average concentrations over the session, with maximum values indicating episodic emission peaks associated with painting activity. As well as lighting levels in both studios fall short of the IES recommendation of 300–500 lux for detailed tasks (Veitch, 2013). Ultimately, Average A-weighted equivalent noise levels (LAeq) exceeded the WHO-recommended value of 50 dB(A), with higher peak values observed in Studio Two (WHO, 2022).

Studio One generally exhibited more stable and favorable indoor environmental conditions than Studio Two, which were associated with improved comfort indicators during the painting sessions.

3.3 Results of observation

Observations were conducted on July 6th and 8th, 2023, in both Studios to determine the effect of IEQ quality on artists during the painting process by monitoring the actions of the participants and the changes that may accrue to the IEQ factors.

Studio one’s indoor air quality was exceptional compared with studio two. Studio one applied effective ventilation as well as the use of low-emission materials such as linseed oil, whereas studio two faced several challenges by using turpentine oil, which resulted in poor air quality and unpleasant odors, creating an uncomfortable working environment. Additionally, Studio One maintained consistent temperatures, enhancing thermal comfort for the artists, along with relatively excellent visual comfort provided by natural light and a well-designed layout, with also using sound-absorbing materials to ensure a quiet and focused workspace, while inadequate temperature control found in studio two most likely led to discomfort among artists, in addition of using poor lighting which can cause shadows on canvases and possibly affecting visibility as well as the accuracy of details.

The artists’ productivity and their painting completion speed were also observed. Therefore, the optimal conditions in Studio One were well-maintained, which had a well-maintained indoor environment, including effective temperature control, adequate lighting, sound management, and clean air. Observational notes indicated faster early-stage progress in Studio One, though this observation was qualitative and not formally quantified. Observed differences may reflect a combination of initial conditions and occupancy-related effects.

3.4 Results of productivity

In order to measure productivity data, the time required to complete each painting was meticulously recorded by documenting the start and finish times of each artist’s painting sessions, taken by the participant during the experiment; for that reason, the recorded times were thoroughly reviewed and cross-checked for accuracy (Table 6).

Table 6

Table 6. The time-to-completion duration analysis.

The visual representation of time-to-completion data (Figure 6) illustrates the distribution of completion times for both studios, to help with comprehending the spread and central tendencies of the data for both Studio One and Studio Two.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Comparison of time to completion between Studio One and Studio Two.

The descriptive statistics of the productivity assessments indicate that Studio One exhibits better metrics and consistently, with less variable time-to-completion data than in Studio Two, with the combination of lower mean and median times; therefore, the observed differences in time-to-completion suggest an association between more favorable indoor environmental conditions and shorter painting completion times. Nevertheless, we recognize that completion time reflects only one dimension of productivity. Broader measures — such as artistic quality, perceived effort, and creativity — should be included in future research to capture the full scope of productivity in art studios. Formal hypothesis testing was not emphasized due to limited sample size; therefore, results are presented as exploratory estimates of magnitude rather than confirmatory evidence.

4 Discussion

This research aimed to examine the influence of IEQ factors on the productivity of oil painting artists in Amman, Jordan, by comparing two art studios with distinct environmental conditions, indicating notable disparities in productivity and comfort levels, underscoring the significance of optimal IEQ. Because the two studios differed simultaneously in ventilation strategy, painting medium, lighting design, acoustic treatment, and cleanliness, this study does not isolate the effect of any single IEQ factor. Observed differences should therefore be interpreted as associative rather than causal.

Approximately 20% of participants reported asthma or respiratory conditions, which may influence symptom perception. Due to sample size constraints, stratified or sensitivity analyses were not conducted; however, future studies should explicitly control for respiratory vulnerability to assess the robustness of perceived IAQ effects.

The comparative findings indicate that Studio One was characterized by more favorable indoor air quality conditions than Studio Two during the monitored sessions (ASHRAE, 2020; Song et al., 2013; EPA, 2022). In Studio One, windows were present, but participants were instructed not to alter the window or HVAC settings during the experiment. Although Studio One demonstrated better overall air quality, short-term peaks in formaldehyde concentrations exceeded WHO guidelines, suggesting that even well-ventilated studios may experience transient pollutant spikes related to material use. Studio Two, by contrast, had no acoustic treatment, and background noise sources included both street traffic and activities from adjacent studiosOur methodology explicitly combined objective monitoring for health and safety with subjective questionnaires for comfort. Discrepancies between the two (e.g., undetected pollutants) highlight the need for integrated evaluation approaches.

Thermal comfort emerged as another significant factor in our investigation, with variables such as stable temperature and humidity levels, by maintaining an ideal temperature range of 20 °C–24 °C for optimal performance, Studio One contributing to a more comfortable working environment, corroborating previous studies that illustrate the detrimental effects of temperature fluctuations on physiological and psychological well-being (HSE, 2022; Rajkumar et al., 2016), but the discomfort from temperature variations negatively impacted artists in studio two (Haynes, 2008; ASTM, 2021).

Lighting conditions in the art studio also played a role in possibly influencing the productivity of the artists, as providing inadequate lighting in Studio Two resulted in shadows and visibility challenges (Fussell, 2020; Yot, 2011), although Studio One provided improved lighting compared to Studio Two, measured illuminance levels in both studios were below IES standards, making lighting still suboptimal. Studio One’s effective temperature control was achieved through HVAC-based split-unit regulation, maintaining 20.8 °C–26.2 °C. (Gurney, 2010; Scott, 2020).

The quieter environment in Studio One, achieved through the incorporation of sound-absorbing materials, facilitated improved concentration, productivity, and acoustic comfort; at the same time, the frequent disruptions caused by noise in Studio Two emphasized the importance of maintaining acoustic comfort in art studios (Luscombe, 2022). This is consistent with the literature that discusses the possible effects of noise on mental states and creative processes (WHO, 2022).

The overall productivity in Studio One was higher, as evidenced by the shorter and more consistent time-to-completion data for paintings. These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that favorable indoor environmental conditions may support efficiency in task-based activities (Oyeranti, 2010; Pigrum, 2007; Hensel, 2020). However, we acknowledge that time to completion captures only one dimension of productivity. Future research should incorporate energy/resources used, perceived effort, and creativity measures.

The following Table 7 presents an exploratory prioritization of indoor environmental factors based on a combined interpretation of questionnaire responses, field measurements, and observational findings. The ranking reflects relative prominence within this specific comparative context and does not represent quantified causal impact. The ranking is based on a combined analysis of questionnaire data, environmental measurements, and observational findings.

Table 7

Table 7. Exploratory prioritization of indoor environmental factors based on combined qualitative and quantitative evidence.

The ranking differs from similar factor prioritization studies in office environments, such as [reference: doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111056], where thermal comfort often ranks higher than air quality. This comparison underscores the novelty of art studios as a context, where the use of solvents and paints elevates air quality as the most critical productivity factor.

5 Conclusion

The study identifies the effect of the indoor environment quality on productivity within oil painting art studios by studying each of the environmental factors, which include indoor air quality, lighting, acoustics, and thermal comfort. Indoor air quality emerged as a prominent factor associated with differences in comfort perceptions and reported symptoms between the two studios. In addition, lighting also played a crucial role in the possible color perception and visibility of the artist, followed by thermal comfort. Acoustics were ranked with the lesser impact on the artist, but still influenced the working environment. The findings suggest that oil painting studios with more favorable indoor environmental conditions—particularly regarding air quality, thermal stability, and lighting—are associated with improved comfort and shorter task completion times. However, due to confounding environmental differences between studios, these results should be interpreted as exploratory rather than causal. The limitations included a small sample size and a lack of focus on individual adaptability. Because the field study was limited to two summer days, long-term or seasonal conclusions cannot be generalized beyond this context. The study also did not account for participants’ prior or habitual studio preferences, which may bias perceptions of indoor environmental quality. The limited 2-h monitoring window and 30-min sampling intervals restrict our ability to capture finer fluctuations, particularly in noise and air quality. Future studies should include such background data. Future research with factors such as different art forms, ergonomic influences, and conducting longitudinal studies will be explored as well, toward deeper insights, because expanding participant diversity and experimental studies will potentially help validate findings across artistic disciplines. Another limitation is that Studio One used linseed oil while Studio Two used turpentine oil. This difference in painting medium interacts with ventilation, making it difficult to isolate whether air quality differences were due to oil type or ventilation strategy. Future research should control for painting medium while varying only ventilation type, as well as structured normalization procedures accounting for task complexity and experience.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Scientific Research Ethics Committee/Al-Ahliyya Amman University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

RA: Conceptualization, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation. SA: Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their thanks and extend their appreciation to all participants for this research.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abed, A. R., Alnusairat, S. F., and Alsous, J. I. (2024). “Social resilience of work from home environment Post-COVID-19: case of telecommuting,” in Integrating resiliency into future sustainable cities. Editors S. Shamout, M. Bradbury, H. Altan, Y. Patel, and P. McPherson (New York, NY: Springer), 91–102.

Google Scholar

Al-Jokhadar, A., Alnusairat, S., Abuhashem, Y., and Soudi, Y. (2023). The impact of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in design studios on the comfort and academic performance of architecture students. Buildings 13 (11), 2883. doi:10.3390/buildings13112883

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alnusairat, S., Abed, A., and Alsous, J. (2025). Quality of home-work environment and crises: a case study of call center employees. Archit. Sci. Rev. (ASR) 68 (4), 278–293. doi:10.1080/00038628.2024.2418557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

ASHRAE (1994). ASHRAE standard 55: thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Google Scholar

ASHRAE (2007). Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Google Scholar

ASHRAE (2020). ASHRAE position document on indoor air quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Google Scholar

ASTM (2021). Standard specification for artists’ oil, resin-oil, and alkyd paints. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Google Scholar

CIT (2019). The fine art studio health and safety manual. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis Community College, 1–14.

Google Scholar

Davis, S. (2022). Painting and drawing. Available online at: https://Ehs.Princeton.Edu/Health-Safety-The-Campus-Community/Art-Theater-Safety/Art-Safety/Painting-And-Drawing.

Google Scholar

EPA (2022). Indoor air quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality.

Google Scholar

EPA (2023a). Carbon monoxide's impact on indoor air quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/carbon-monoxides-impact-indoor-air-quality.

Google Scholar

EPA (2023b). What are volatile organic compounds (VOCs)? Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-volatile-organic-compounds-vocs.

Google Scholar

Evia (2023). Indoor air quality. European ventilation industry association. Available online at: https://www.evia.eu/indoor-air-quality/#_ftn2.

Google Scholar

Fisk, W. J. (2002). How IEQ affects health, productivity. Ashrae J. 44 (5), 56–60.

Google Scholar

Fussell, M. (2020). Lighting your art studio. Available online at: https://Thevirtualinstructor.Com/Blog/Lighting-Your-Art-Studio.

Google Scholar

Grabner, M., and Jacob, M. J. (2010). The studio reader: on the space of artists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Gurney, J. (2010). Color and light: a guide for the realist painter. New York: Andrews Mcmeel.

Google Scholar

Haynes, B. P. (2008). An evaluation of the impact of the office environment on productivity. England: Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive.

Google Scholar

Hensel, S. (2020). Productivity in the studio. United States of America.

Google Scholar

HSE (2022). Thermal comfort. Available online at: https://Www.Hse.Gov.Uk/Temperature/Thermal/.

Google Scholar

Ibenegbu, C. I., Ubah, R., and Ibenegbu, Q. O. (2021). Awareness and attitudes of art students and lecturers on health hazards associated with fine and applied arts making in Nigeria. Glob. Adv. Health Med. 10, 2164956121998277. doi:10.1177/2164956121998277

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kamaruddin, S., and Zahid, K. A. (2011). The effect of layout design on productivity: an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 7 (4), 452–468. doi:10.1504/IJPQM.2011.040545

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Looney, N. (2023). Health and safety in the studio. Available online at: https://Visualartists.Ie/Health-And-Safety-In-The-Studio/.

Google Scholar

Luscombe, J. (2022). 12 ways noise affects worker well-being and productivity. Resonics.

Google Scholar

Mandala, A. (2019). Lighting quality in the architectural design studio case study: architecture design studio at universitas katolik parahyangan, bandung, Indonesia. Iop Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 238. 012032. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/238/1/012032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCann, M. (2005). “The hazards of working with all art and craft materials and the precautions every artist and craftsperson should take,” in Artist beware (updated and revised ed.) (New York).

Google Scholar

Mcneer, R. R., Bennett, C. L., and Horn, D. B. (2017). Factors affecting acoustics and speech intelligibility in the operating room: size matters. Dudaryk: Roman: Anesthesia And Analgesia.

Google Scholar

Milano, S. (2022). How does location affect the productivity of A business? Available online at: https://Bizfluent.Com/How-2071292-Start-Mobile-Car-Wash-Business.

Google Scholar

Nascimento, S. M. C., and Masuda, O. (2014). Best lighting for visual appreciation of artistic paintings—experiments with real paintings and real illumination. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 31 (4), A214–A219. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.31.00A214

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

NIOSH (2022). Indoor environmental quality. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/default.html.

Google Scholar

Oenio, L. (2022). Art Hazards—educating the artist. Wisconsin. J. Of Chem. Educ.

Google Scholar

Ouimet, T. (2018). Safety guide for art studios. Usa: united educaors.

Google Scholar

Oyeranti, G. A. (2010). Concept and measurement of productivity. Ibadan: University Of Ibadan.

Google Scholar

Pigrum, D. (2007). The ‘ontopology’ of the artist’s studio as workplace: researching the artist’s studio and the art/design classroom. Res. Post-Compulsory Educ. 12, 1–12. doi:10.1080/13596740701559720

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rajkumar, S., Amirtham, L. R., and Horrison, E. (2016). “Thermal comfort assessment of A studio art classroom in hot and humid climate conditions,” in International Conference On Urban Climate Jointly With 12th Symposium On The Urban Environment (India).

Google Scholar

Rossol, M. (2001). The artist’s complete health and safety guide. 3rd edition. New York: Allworth Press.

Google Scholar

Sakhare, V., and Ralegaonkar, R. (2014). Indoor environmental quality: review of parameters and assessment models. Archit. Sci. Rev. 57 (3), 177–184. doi:10.1080/00038628.2013.862609

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scott, D. (2020). Art studio lighting – how to properly light your art studio. Available online at: https://Drawpaintacademy.Com/Art-Studio-Lighting/.

Google Scholar

Song, Y., Wu, S., and Yan, Y. (2013). Control strategies for indoor environment. Nottingham.

Google Scholar

Umass. (2023). Painting safety in the arts. Available online at: https://Ehs.Umass.Edu/Painting-Safety-Arts.

Google Scholar

Vartanian, O., Navarret, G. A. C., and Skov, M. (2023). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Retrieved Proc. Natl. Acad. Of Sci. U. S. A. 31. doi:10.1073/Pnas.1301227110

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Veitch, J. A. (2013). Lighting quality and energy-efficiency effects on task performance, mood, health, satisfaction, and comfort. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 29 (1), 70–83.

Google Scholar

WHO (2000). The right to healthy indoor air. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Google Scholar

WHO. (2022). Environmental noise guidelines. Available online at: https://Www.Euro.Who.Int/__Data/Assets/Pdf_File/0008/383921/Noise-Guidelines-Eng.Pdf.

Google Scholar

Yot, R. (2011). Light for visual artists: Understanding and using light in art and design. London: Laurence King.

Google Scholar

Zhao, Z., Dong, L.-L., Chen, Y., Lou, Q., and Xu, W.-H. (2015). The impact of LED color rendering on the dark adaptation of human eyes at tunnel entrances. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1566. doi:10.3390/ijerph17051566

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar