## 4 Discussion  
### Indoor Environmental Quality  
The provision of an adequate IEQ in university buildings is of critical importance given the substantial amount of time students spend in classroom environments. This exposure can have a considerable effect on their well-being. The affected areas include cognitive performance, physical health, comfort, satisfaction, and mental health [7; 51]. The high density of occupants in these environments significantly affects fluctuations in temperature, relative humidity, CO\({}_{2}\) levels, and noise levels [34]. Furthermore, the pervasive use of personal laptops contributes to increased heat generation, which may result in deviations between the target and observed thermal conditions. Inefficient heating or cooling systems  
Figure 10: Life cycle assessment indicators by resource type [kg CO\({}_{2}\)e]. Figure 9: Global warming potential of operational energy by resource type [kg CO\({}_{2}\)e]. may adversely impact student well-being by influencing their cognitive function, stress levels, productivity, health, and ultimately academic performance [16; 27]. Standards offer guidance on the environmental conditions in classrooms, including ventilation rates (ASHRAE 62.1 [52]), temperature and humidity ranges (ASHRAE 55, ISO 7730 [44; 53]), lighting levels (EN 12464-1 [46]), and acoustic parameters (ANSI/ASA S12.60 [54]). However, a comprehensive analysis of these factors within university classrooms is notably lacking. Specifically, there is limited research that has simultaneously evaluated thermal comfort, lighting, indoor air quality, and acoustics in these settings [55]. This study adopts a holistic approach by investigating all four IEQ factors by comparing measurements against the established standards. The IEQ conditions in the educational building, monitored through an academic year, generally aligned with the thermal comfort criteria specified in international and national regulations [44; 56] for the heating season. These standards typically recommend temperatures in the range of 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C, relative humidity from 30% to 70%, air velocity below 0.2 m/s, CO\({}_{2}\) concentrations under 1000 ppm, and lighting levels from 300 lx to 500 lx. The European Standard EN 15251 [45] defines thermal comfort categories with varying temperature ranges: Category 1 (higher comfort) specifies 21-23 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the heating season and 23.5-25.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C in summer, while Category 3 (moderate comfort) allows 19-25 \({}^{\circ}\)C in winter and 22-27 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the cooling season. Our field study, the results of which are illustrated in Figure 4, demonstrated that the educational facility adhered to the Category 1 thermal comfort criteria for 33.3% of the year, specifically from November to February. This period coincided with the heating season and effective temperature control within the building, resulting in a mean indoor air temperature of 22.95 \({}^{\circ}\)C. During another 33.3% of the year, encompassing March to May and October, the building's indoor temperatures fell within the Category 3 criteria for thermal comfort. This period was marked by an average indoor air temperature of 25.72 \({}^{\circ}\)C. It is noteworthy that even though the heating system remained operational, the temperatures observed in March and April surpassed the upper limit specified for Category 1 of thermal comfort due to the heat gained due to solar irradiation. During the summer months (June, July, August, and even September), the indoor temperatures surpassed the recommended comfort limits, reaching a mean value of 30.65 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This exceedance is attributed to the facility's lack of a centralized air conditioning system. In terms of relative humidity, EN 15251 classifies 30-50% as Category 1 and 25-60% as Category 2.