Abstract

Summary

Work-from-home lighting environments frequently fall short of both commercial illuminance and circadian lighting standards, with artificial lighting achieving only 7.5% of required EML levels—posing risks to circadian health and visual comfort. Despite this, most participants were unaware of inadequate lighting, though 80% expressed preference for human-centric lighting (HCL) task solutions, suggesting strong market potential for circadian-supportive home office products.
Abstract

Key Findings

  • Only 7.5% of required EML was achieved under artificial lighting alone in WFH environments.
  • 34.3% of recorded EML readings fell below regulatory requirements even under daylight conditions.
  • Mean lux level recorded was 452.4 lux with 0.729 uniformity, below commercial standards for common WFH tasks.
  • 80% of WFH installations met general safety lighting requirements but not commercial task-lighting standards.
  • 46.2% of participants reported noticeable headaches or eye strain when working from home.
  • 80% of participants indicated HCL task lighting would be preferable to their current setup.
  • 63.2% of participants would not accept more than a 10% efficiency reduction compared to non-HCL systems.
  • Participant lighting priorities ranked: wellbeing first, followed by efficiency, home impact, and cost.
Categories

Categories

Workplace Performance: Evaluates lighting conditions in work-from-home environments against commercial regulatory standards for task performance and alertness.
Sleep & Circadian Health: Measures equivalent melanopic lux (EML) levels in WFH settings to assess compliance with circadian lighting requirements.
Eye Health & Vision: Documents prevalence of headaches and eye strain among remote workers under substandard lighting conditions.
Authors

Author(s)

F Roberts, M White, S Memon, BJ He, S Yang
Publication Date

Publication Year

2023
View more publications