## 1 Introduction
Other studies have looked to improve the year-round thermal comfort, increase the appropriate CO\({}_{2}\) concentration hours from 34% pre-retrofit to 100% post-retrofit, and decrease the energy demand while improving IEQ [24; 25]. Research performed by [PERSON] et al. [26] focused on the connection between IEQ and academic performance in air-conditioned university classrooms, utilizing environmental variables like temperature, humidity, CO\({}_{2}\) levels, and lighting. Their findings indicate that thermal comfort, IAQ, and visual conditions hold equal significance; however, the acoustic environment emerges as the primary factor influencing learning outcomes, with a strong correlation between complaints and declines in performance. Physical factors including temperature, sound pressure levels, and illumination affect thermal, acoustic, and lighting experiences; thus, these factors contribute to overall happiness [27]. Factors including indoor temperature and individuals' clothing styles and age can also affect the levels of emissions in indoor air. Educational facilities are distinct because of their occupants, types of activities, and usage patterns [28; 29]. One experimental study performed in an educational building in Serbia found that the air pollutant concentrations exceeded the safe limits due to faulty boiler operations and poor ventilation [30], but due to the restricted 10-day data collection period in April, these findings may not have been representative of the year-round air quality, particularly considering seasonal changes in heating and ventilation. In Romania, studies have explored the relationship between certain IEQ parameters (thermal comfort and IAQ) and energy efficiency in rural schools. The results show that keeping windows closed increases CO\({}_{2}\) and humidity levels during class, with heat build up in the summer due to high occupancy [31, 32]. Research carried out by [PERSON] et al. [33] in which the IAQ and thermal comfort in schools were analyzed revealed that during winter, the CO\({}_{2}\) levels rose above the recommended levels, while temperatures did not reach 19 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Yet another field investigation undertaken by [PERSON] et al. [34] in which the CO\({}_{2}\), temperature, noise, and thermal comfort were measured revealed that there were significant fluctuations in CO\({}_{2}\) levels during the day, the average temperature was 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and the sound levels surpassed the threshold limit. Contemporary research on educational buildings places strong emphasis on investigating various indoor environmental quality parameters, as evidenced by numerous studies [35, 36, 37]. However, only a few of these studies have assessed the cumulative impact of all IEQ parameters in conjunction [6, 38] or the relationship between IEQ parameters and energy efficiency [13, 38, 39]. Other researchers have focused specifically on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions [15, 40]. This disparity highlights an important research gap: a comprehensive overview of how IEQ interacts with the energy use and environmental impacts in educational buildings. This underscores the pressing need for innovative approaches that offer a more holistic perspective, enriching our understanding of the intricate connections between energy consumption, IEQ, and environmental outcomes in educational spaces. In response to these challenges, this study aims to explore and assess long-term measurements of the IEQ parameters, energy use, and associated emissions within an educational building. The goal is to identify how these factors interact over time, which can provide insights into the building's performance, inform design improvements, enhance occupants' comfort and health, and reduce the emissions associated with energy use. Integrating strategies that consider all of these factors is not merely an operational necessity; it represents a commitment to sustainable development.