Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Individual difference in thermal comfort: A literature review T

a b a,∗ c,d,∗∗ a,e a
Zhe Wang , Richard de Dear , Maohui Luo , Borong Lin , Yingdong He , Ali Ghahramani ,
Yingxin Zhuc,d
a
Centre for Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA
b
School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia
c
Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
d
Key Laboratory of Eco Planning & Green Building, Ministry of Education, Tsinghua University, China
e
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Human individual differences widely and markedly affect thermal comfort and should be carefully considered in
Individual difference the design and operation of the built environment. This paper aims to list and examine the magnitude and
Comfort temperature significance of individual difference in the preferred/neutral/comfort temperature through reviewing previous
Individual comfort model climate chamber and field studies. Causal factors for individual differences are investigated, including sex, age
Personal comfort systems
and etc. There is no clear and consistent conclusions as to the significance and size of inter-group differences in
thermal comfort (between females and males, or the young and the old). To address the issue of individual
difference, a paradigm shift from centralized to personalized air condition is on the way with the following three
steps: first, collecting individual physiological and psychological response; second, predict individual comfort
with machine learning algorithms; and third, accommodating individual difference with Personalized Comfort
Systems.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Individual differences in thermal comfort describes the phenom-
enon that subjects might perceive differently even they are exposed to
the same thermal environment. Because of individual differences, it is
challenging to provide a thermal environment that makes every occu-
pant satisfied. What suits one group or type of occupant may be un-
acceptable for others [77]. The effects of inter-individual and group
differences are amplified as we step beyond the comfort zone, with
models used for heat and cold stress/strain predictions in the average
population raise serious risks for individuals at the extremities of po-
pulation distributions [104].
In terms of the sources of individual differences, Humphreys and
Nicol [46] suggested they arise from phenomenological variances, in-
cluding (1) inter-individual differences in the temperature people
consider to be neutral, (2) inter-individual differences in interpreting
the semantic scale categories, and (3) intra-individual variations in
semantic judgments from time to time. Rupp et al. [85] categorized the
sources of individual differences as (1) physiological origins, namely
metabolic heat differences between individuals and age brackets, and
(2) cultural and behavioral differences expressed through clothing in-
sulation.
The issue of individual difference has been noticed and studied as
early as 1970s when the pioneer of thermal comfort study, P.O Fanger
designed and conducted his laboratory test in DTU to investigate the
influence of age, gender, adaptation and other factors on thermal
comfort [1]. Since then, plenty of original research papers have been
published on this topic. Especially under the recent context that more
and more personalized thermal comfort systems or devices, such as
wearable comfort devices and local heating/cooling devices [113],
which target on providing thermal comfort conditioning on personal
level rather than building level or even working zone level, emerged on
the market. It is worthwhile to revisit the concept of individual differ-
ence and summarize related literature on this topic.
1.2. Inter-individual and intra-individual differences in comfort
Inter-individual differences refer to the variance of comfort re-
sponses between people, while intra-individual differences refer to how
an individual feel in the same environment on different occasions. By

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author. Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.
E-mail addresses: lmhtongji@berkeley.com (M. Luo), linbr@tsinghua.edu.cn (B. Lin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.040
Received 28 February 2018; Received in revised form 26 April 2018; Accepted 27 April 2018
Available online 30 April 2018
0360-1323/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Wang et al.
pointing out the fact that the thermal comfort models were derived
from the group mean response and unable to predict the thermal re-
sponses of a specific individual, Fountain et al. [33] argued that the
inter-individual variance between people were frequently greater than
1 scale unit (on a 7-point thermal sensation scale). By analyzing the
ASHRAE thermal comfort database, Humphreys and Nicol [46] found
that scatter from individual differences have a standard deviation of
around 1 scale unit (on the 7-point sensation scale). One unit in ASH-
RAE's 7-point scale corresponds to approximately 3 °C in a typical office
indoor climate, indicating that the inter-individual differences in the
preferred ambient temperature might be as large as 3 °C.
The intra-individual variances were found to be on the order of 1
scale unit by Fountain et al. [33]. Grivel and Candas [39] studied
whether the preferred temperature varied through time while clothing
(insulation) and metabolic heat production were held constant in a
controlled exposure inside a climate chamber. Subjects were allowed to
adjust the ambient temperature freely and it was found that only 25%
(12 out of 48) never adjusted ambient temperature in the 1 h after their
preferred ambient temperature had been established. The remaining 36
subjects made temperature adjustments on average 5 times (varying
from 1 to 14 times) per hour, with the mean temperature variation
amplitude of 1.5 °C (varying from 0.3 to 9.1 °C).
1.3. Objectives
The objectives of this paper are threefold: 1) to assess existence and
significance of individual differences on thermal comfort, 2) to sum-
mary the factors might lead to the individual difference in thermal
comfort, and 3) to review the possible solutions to address the issue of
individual difference. It is the hope of the authors that the compre-
hensive literature review presented here could help researchers to have
a global picture on this topic before they move forward to design and
conduct their own experiment and research.
The method will be presented in Section 2. Then, sex, age, and other
factors which might lead to individual difference in thermal comfort
will be presented in Section 3, 4, and 5 respectively. In section 6, we
reviewed the recent progress to address the issue of individual differ-
ence, including the individual comfort model to predict individual
comfort demands, and the Personalized Comfort System to provide
individual thermal comfort. Conclusions will be drawn in Section 7.
2. Methods
2.1. Research methods: chamber and field
Climate chamber experiment and the field study are two major re-
search methods in the thermal comfort and built environment area.
Parsons [81] pointed out that there is no ‘chamber versus field’ argu-
ment, and chamber experiments and field studies are complementary to
each other. Both these research methods will be included in this review.
As mentioned above, the preferred/neutral temperature is of special
interest in this review paper because the preferred/neutral temperature
could provide direct implications for engineering practice, for example,
to determine the set point of cooling or heating. In chamber experi-
ment, there are two main ways to find the comfortable temperature.
The first way is to allow an individual subject to adjust the ambient
temperature of a climate chamber according to their own preference,
and record the average temperature through a given period of time.
This is defined as the subject's preferred temperature and by repeating the
procedure for a sample of subjects it is possible to define a group's or
sub-group's mean preferred temperature. The second procedure in-
volves statistically regressing subjects' thermal sensation votes, typi-
cally on a seven-point rating scale (McIntyre, 1978 seven-point scales of
warmth) against the room (or chamber) temperature prevailing at the
same time. By solving the resultant regression equation for a thermal
182
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
sensation vote ‘neutral’ (coded zero on most rating scales) the neutral
temperature can be estimated for the entire group of subjects, or sub-
group's (the so-called regression and interpolation method). The method
of allowing subjects to freely adjust the ambient temperature is re-
stricted to climate chambers where temperature can be precisely
quickly controlled (e.g. Ref. [29] [93]; [20]; [39], while the regression
and interpolation method is more commonly applied in field studies,
although it is also feasible in climate chamber experiments with more
than one subject at a time (e.g. Ref. [22] [96]; [62] [87]; [67]; [69]. In
chamber experiments it is more convenient to record the psychological
responses and their physiological correlates (e.g., skin temperature,
core-body temperature, heart rate, etc.) though it becomes increasingly
possible to measure physiological parameters with the advancing of
wearable sensing technology. Of the two approaches, the preferred
temperature method carries greater precision compared to the regression
and interpolation method which is more susceptible to the intervening
‘semantic noise’ in the adjectival descriptors used on rating scales,
which has been noted to have a seasonal pattern, with cooler-than-
neutral thermal sensations being preferred in warm seasons, and
warmer-than-neutral sensations being preferred in cold seasons/cli-
mates [18]; [71]. Additionally, the thermal neutral temperature might
not be the most preferred temperature [7] [79]; Humphreys and Han-
cock [45]; [70].
In field studies the indoor thermal environment inside actual
buildings cannot be strictly controlled, therefore, the regression and
interpolation method is the main method to determine neutral tem-
perature. However, due to the significant individual difference, if the
regression was determined by using the actual votes, the coefficient of
determination (R2) would be too low to have the statistical significance
to predict the occupants' thermal sensation [77]; [100]. Therefore, de
Dear and Brager [18] suggested that the regression could be based on
the “binned” thermal sensations rather than the actual vote. In this
method, the Mean Thermal Sensations (MTS) is calculated for each
specific temperature bin, which can be half-degree increment, and the
regression is based on the MTS weighted by the number of votes in the
bin rather than the individual votes of each occupant. The resultant
regression model and neutral temperature from binned votes are the
same as those obtained from un-binned votes, but the explained var-
iance (R2) is artificially inflated. Nevertheless, the binned regression
method has been widely utilized in the thermal comfort field studies
(e.g. Ref. [19] [24]; [9]; de Paula, Xavier and Lamberts, 2000 [77];
[100].
2.2. Search methods
To collect relevant research publications, the following keywords
were used: (‘thermal comfort’ or ‘neutral temperature’ or ‘comfort
temperature’ or ‘preferred temperature’) and (‘individual difference’ or
‘individual comfort’ or ‘gender’ or ‘sex’ or ‘age’) and (chamber experi-
ment or field study). Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge were the
two major literature databases used in this review. The method of
“reference by reference” was also used to find relevant publications. We
included only peer-reviewed conference or journal articles in this
paper. 112 papers have been reviewed in this paper in total. Both the
chamber and field studies will be included in this paper, however they
will be presented separately. Other information such as sample size,
subject characteristic will be reported to help readers to evaluate the
result.
3. Gender
3.1. Chamber experiment
Fanger et al. [29] studied the psychological and physiological
gender difference in thermal comfort by comparing 8 female college-
Z. Wang et al. Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193

age subjects with 8 male college-age subjects. No statistically significant

Insignificant gender difference (p > 0.05) in thermal sensation and mean

Weak gender difference in warm and neutral conditions, females tend to

Weak gender difference in warm and neutral conditions, females tend to

higher temp, and their response increased more rapidly with temperature
difference in preferred ambient temperature was found between female

Significant difference (p < 0.05). Males felt warmer than females at

Weak gender difference, comfort temperature of females are around

Weak gender difference near neutral conditions; females are more
and male subjects though the skin temperature and metabolic rate of

Insignificant gender difference in thermal subjective perception

females were slightly lower than those of the males (P < 0.05).
Beshir and Ramsey [5] compared the thermal sensation and pro-
ductivity of the male and female by recruiting 31 male and 15 female
subjects. Subjects were exposed to four climatic conditions of Wet Bulb

1.2 °C higher than males, significance not reported

Globe Temperature (WBGT); 23.3, 32.2, 37.8 and 43.3 °C. During the
experiment, subjects were performing perceptual-motor tasks and were
asked to complete surveys on their thermal sensation and subjective
estimates of drowsiness, boredom and fatigue. Subjects were not al-
lowed to adjust the ambient temperature during the experiment. To

Insignificant gender difference

Insignificant gender difference

Insignificant gender difference

sensitive to cool environment

find out their preferred temperature, linear regression was utilized to fit

feel cooler in cool conditions

feel cooler in cool conditions

subjects' thermal sensation with WBGT, and then substitute the thermal

Significant difference1
sensation to neutral in the regression equations obtained from the ex-
periment. Beshir and Ramsey [5] found that the thermally neutral

skin temperature
WBGT was 22 °C for male and 25 °C for females. Females tended to feel

Conclusion
more uncomfortable, and report higher levels of both drowsiness and
boredom, than males at both high and low temperature extremes. Males
reported higher fatigue than females at the upper temperature levels.
Grivel and Candas [39] compared the ambient temperatures pre-

Sample size
ferred by young European males and females at rest by inviting 24 male
and 24 female subjects with the average age of 22, to stay in a climate

36

15

16

24

16

10

10

10
chamber and freely set the indoor temperature at the levels they pre-

9
ferred. The experiment was designed to explicitly control two factors:

Sample size Comfort Temp. (Standard

gender and the time of day. It was found that women had a slight but
not statistically significant preference for higher temperature levels
than their male counterparts.

Deviation) oC
de Dear et al. [20] replicated Fanger et al.’s [29] preferred tem-

WBGT: 25
25.3 (1.5)

25.5 (0.7)
perature experiment with 16 male and 16 female college students in
Female

Singapore. Subjects were sedentary, wore a standard clothing ensemble

26.9

26.3
(0.6 clo) for a 150 min exposure during which they were invited to
adjust the chamber ambient temperature according to preference every
10 min. Mean temperatures preferred by males and females at the end
of the 150 min exposure were not significantly different.
36

31

16

24

16

10

12

10
8

9
In Asia, Lan et al. [62] studied the gender difference in thermal
comfort of Shanghainese. Major findings of this research were fourfold;
Comfort Temp. (Standard

first, the comfortable temperature of the females was 26.3 °C, 1 °C

higher than that of the males. Second, females generally prefer slightly
warmer temperature because females' skin temperature is consistently
Deviation) oC

lower than that of the males. Third, the Heart Rate Variability analysis
WBGT: 22
25.2 (0.8)

25.4 (1.6)

showed that females were physiologically more sensitive to the cool

Male

environment while males were more sensitive to the warm environ-

26.4

25.3

ment. Fourth, females were more sensitive to temperature and less

sensitive to humidity than the males. Liu et al. [67] exposed 12 male
Chinese college age students
Danish high-school students

Young college age students

Young college age students

and 10 female college students to 21, 24, 26 and 29 °C in a sequential

Chinese college students
Young European adults

order. Female subjects' thermal sensation and mean skin temperature

perceptual-motor tasks
Americans performing

Young adults (20–29)

were generally lower than that of males. However, these differences

Subject description

Young college-age

were not significant statistically (p > 0.05).

Singaporeans

Table 1 summarized the major chamber studies on gender differ-

College-age

Caucasians

ence in thermal comfort.

The above research focus on isothermal environments. In non-uni-
form and transient thermal environment, Schellen et al. [89] found the
whole-body thermal sensation of females was more significantly influ-
Chamber studies of gender differences.

enced by the local sensation and skin temperature of the extremities

insulation
Condition

(hands and arms) than was the case for males. Hashiguchi et al. [41]
Clothing

0.7 clo

0.6 clo
0.6 clo

0.6 clo

0.6 clo
1.0 clo

0.8 clo

0.6 clo
0.8 clo

0.6 clo

studied the gender difference in thermal comfort under thermal strati-

fication and found females were more sensitive to and less satisfied with
thermal stratification (p < 0.05) than males at the early phase of ex-
Pellerin and Candas [82]
Webb and Parsons [101]
Grivel and Candas [39]
Beshir and Ramsey [5]

posure (first 20 min in the total 120 min), but the gender difference
Schellen et al. [88]
de Dear et al. [21]

vanished with the increasing exposure times.

Wyon et al. [107]

Fanger et al. [29]

Lan et al. [62]

Liu et al. [67]

Parsons [81]
Researcher
Table 1

1
The preferred temperature was found according to linear regression and interpola-
tion.

183
 Z. Wang et al.

Table 2
Summary of field studies on gender differences in thermal comfort.
Researcher Condition Male Female Gender difference

Region Season Age Building type Neutral Temp. Sample size Neutral Temp. Sample size

Schiller et al. [90] San Francisco, US Winter, 20–50 Office buildings 117 187 Insignificant
Summer
Busch [8] Bangkok, Thailand Hot and wet 18–75 Office buildings 24.6 476 25.4 669 Weak, significance
season not reported
Karyono [57] Jakarta, Indonesia Four seasons 19–53 Office buildings 26.7 345 26.6 227 Insignificant
Cena and de Dear [10]; Kalgoorlie, Western Australia Winter, 16–67 Office buildings 641 585 Insignificant
Erlandson et al. [28] Summer
Nakano et al. [77] Tokyo, Japan Four seasons 20s and 30s Office buildings 22.9 222 25.1 184 Significant
de Dear and Fountain Townsville, Australia Dry and wet 17–64 Office buildings 24.2 515 24.3 719 Insignificant
[19]; seasons
Erlandson et al. [27]
Fato et al. [32] Bari, Italy Winter, 17–50 Office buildings, lecture Winter: 20.3 in AC, 1165 Winter: 21.3 in AC, 675 Weak, significance
Summer rooms, library 19.8 in NV; 21.4 in NV; not reported
Summer: 22.8 in Summer: 24.8 in
AC, 26.2 in NV AC, 26.4 in NV
Yamtraipat et al. [108] Chiang Mai, Bangkok, Mahasarakham, Whole year 17–60 Office buildings 25.7 620 26.2 900 Weak, significance
Prachuabkirikhan, Thailand not reported
Wang [100] Harbin, China Winter 14–80 Residential buildings 20.9 59 21.9 61 Significant

184
Karjalainen [54] Finland Winter, summer Residential, office and 1538 1556 Significant
university buildings
Becker and Paciuk [4] Israel Winter, Residential buildings 178 216 Insignificant
Summer
Wong et al. [106] Hong Kong, China Summer 60–97 Centers for elderly 100 303 Insignificant
Kuchen and Fisch [61] Germany Winter Office buildings 173 148 Insignificant
Al-Rashidi et al. [114] Kuwait Autumn 11–17 Middle school lecture 21 167 22 169 Weak, significance
buildings not reported
Peng [83] Nanjing, China Winter, Residential buildings 300 300 Insignificant
Summer
Choi et al. [14] US Winter, 19–69 Governmental office 23.3 190 23.7 212 Insignificant
Summer buildings
Indraganti and Rao [50] Hyderabad, India Summer 17–69 Residential buildings 35 64 Weak, significance
not reported
Katafygiotou and Cyprus Winter, summer Pupils (majority) Primary schools 28.09 in summer; 60 28.48 in summer; 40 Significant
Serghides [58] and employees 15.76 in winter 16.24 in winter
Yun et al. [112] Seoul, South Korea Late spring, 4–6 NV kindergarten 22.6 59 21.6 60 Weak, significance
early summer not reported
Indraganti et al. [51] India Winter 18–70 AC Office buildings 26.7 for AC; 28.5 1198 for AC, 27 for AC, 27.8 for 237 for AC, Significant
for NV 959 for NV NV 393 for NV
Lu et al. [68] Hainan, China 18–52 Residential buildings 25.8 991 26.3 953 Weak, significance
not reported
Rupp et al. [86] Southern Brazil All season Office building 23.4 4158 24.2 3406 Significant
Maykot et al. [74] Florianópolis, Brazil Autumn and Office building 23.1 796 24.3 479 Significant
winter
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 1. Literature summary on gender-related differences in comfort tempera-
ture.
3.2. Field study
Table 2 summarized the field studies on the gender difference in
thermal comfort.
Cena and de Dear [10]'s field study in Western Australia found little
gender difference in thermal sensation in office workplaces, however
there were significantly more frequent expressions of thermal dis-
satisfaction from the females than the males.
Nakano et al. [77]'s field study in an office building in Tokyo found
significant gender differences in thermal comfort. The neutral tem-
perature was found to be 2.2 °C lower for males (P < 0.05), attributed
to heavier clothing insulation worn by males compared to females.
Additionally, females were found to be more sensitive to low humidity
than males.
Wang [100] performed a field study during the winter season in
Harbin, a city located in China's northern ‘Severe Cold’ climate region.
By comparing 61 females and 59 males, it was found that although
females wore heavier clothes than males indoor, the neutral tempera-
ture of females remained one degree warmer than the males' (21.9 °C
vs. 20.9 °C). Females were also found to be more sensitive to tem-
perature variations than males, with decreasing operative temperature
prompting a more significant drop in thermal sensation votes of the
females compared to the males (slope: 0.24 vs. 0.20 vote oC−1). Whe-
ther the gender difference is statistically significant or not was not re-
ported.
Peng [83] field study in naturally ventilated buildings with sample
size of 600 in Nanjing, a city located in China's ‘Hot Summer and Cold
Winter’ climate region, showed that the neutral temperature of male
was 0.4 °C and 0.5 °C lower than that of females in summer and in
winter respectively, but failed to reach statistical significance.
Choi et al. [14] measured the thermal environment of 402 work-
stations in a governmental office building in the US and collected si-
multaneous subjective responses from 212 female subjects and 190
male subjects. It was found the females' satisfaction level was sig-
nificantly lower (P = 0.000) than that of the males. The comfort tem-
perature in the cooling season is 23.7 °C for the female and 23.3 for the
males, but again failed to reach statistical significance.
A statistically significant but weak gender difference was found in
Indraganti and Rao [50]'s field study in India. Contrary to the main-
stream observation that females were more sensitive to and critical of
indoor thermal environments than males, Indraganti and Rao [50]
found a marginally higher percentage of females in India felt thermally
comfortable at home (74%) compared to males (69%). The researchers
speculated that this was because Indian females spent longer hours at
home than males and therefore had a greater sense of belonging and
better control on the environment, all of which promoted greater ac-
ceptance and tolerance of thermal adversities than Indian males.
In Europe, Fato et al., [32] field study in university buildings in
Southern Italy reported gender differences in neutral temperature as
large as 2 °C in naturally ventilated buildings in summer. Additionally,
the comfort range for Italian females was found to be narrower than for
185
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
males by 1.3 °C. In contrast Becker and Paciuks' [4] field study in Israel
in a similar climate zone in both winter and summer found no statis-
tically significant gender difference in thermal sensation versus opera-
tive temperature correlation. Kuchen and Fischs' [61] German field
study found no significant difference between male and female comfort
vote. Katafygiotou and Serghides' [58] conducted a primary school field
study in another Mediterranean climate location, Cyprus. Both pupils
and employees were invited to fill in the survey and females were found
to feel colder in winter, while males felt warmer in summer.
3.3. Discussion
The conclusions of previous studies regarding gender effects are
classified into three categories:
● Statistically significant gender difference clearly observed
● Weak gender difference found but the statistical significance was not
reported by authors
● No statistically significant gender difference observed.
Fig. 1 summarizes the gender differences in comfort temperature.
Contradictory results were found in the research literature reviewed
here. 39% previous research found no significant gender differences in
the comfort temperature, while another 32% found the gender differ-
ence was weak, but gave no statistical evidence to support the sig-
nificance of the effect. Given the weight of evidence on the side of the
null hypothesis, the conclusion at this point in time must be that there is
no difference in comfort temperature between the sexes.
Although no consistent conclusion could be drawn on whether
gender differences regarding comfort temperature exist, a consistent
conclusion can be reached that females are more critical about the in-
door thermal environment, and they are more sensitive to deviations
from an optimal comfort environment. Based on a meta-analysis of the
results collected from 14 previous research papers (12 field studies and
2 chamber experiments), Karjalainen [55] concluded that, compared
with males, females are 1.74 times (95% CI 1.61–1.89) more likely to
express thermal dissatisfaction, more sensitive to and more dissatisfied
with deviations from an optimal thermal environment, especially in
cooler-than-neutral indoor environments. It was then suggested that
females have a greater demand for individual environmental control
than males, and that females should primarily be used as subjects when
examining indoor thermal comfort requirements, because, if females
are satisfied it is most likely that males will also be satisfied [54]; [55].
The logistic regression of Rupp et al. [86]'s field investigation showed
that the 80% acceptability temperature range of female is 2 °C narrower
for females than for males. Mining from a large Post-Occupant Eva-
luation database with 38257 responses collected from 600 buildings,
the mean thermal satisfaction score of the female is 0.5 point lower
(p < 0.001) than that of the male on the 7-point satisfaction scale [59].
Since it is reasonable to assume that both the female and the male were
exposed to the same thermal environment in such a big database, the
fact of lower satisfaction score of the female indicates that the female
are more critical about the thermal environment than the male.
Many previous researchers have found females to be more sensitive
to and less satisfied with cold exposures (e.g. Ref. [31] [81]; [63] [62];
[41] [94]; [68], which could be explained from the behavioral and
physiological perspective. The clothing behavior was believed to be a
substantial source of gender difference in thermal comfort especially in
the office settings. Fountain et al. [33] observed that the preferred
temperature for females sitting at her desk with bare legs in a skirt,
which is required by the corporate dress code, might be significantly
different from her male colleagues in a business suit. This logic has been
reiterated by Cena and de Dears' [10] field study in Western Australia,
Fato et al., [32]'s field study in Italy, and also Wang [100]'s field study
in China.
As for the physiological difference between genders, Van Ooijen
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. Why females are more sensitive to and less dissatisfied with cold exposures.
et al. [98] experiment on 12 male and 13 female subjects found that in
cold exposures (22 and 16 °C), women have a lower Resting Metabolic
Rate than men, which is also mentioned by the literature review of Luo
et al. [72]. Wagner and Horvath's [99] compared the cardiovascular
reactions to cold exposures between male and female with an experi-
ment on 20 male and 17 female subjects found cold exposures. It was
found that in cold exposures (minimal clothing in 20, 15 and 10 °C),
male subjects have higher stroke volumes and blood circulation to the
body extremities (hand and forearm) than females. As a result, cold
exposures led to a greater decrease in skin temperature (especially in
the extremities) for females than that for males [41]. Meanwhile, fe-
males were found to be more sensitive to thermal stimulation at the
forearm (p < 0.05 [38], and hand [66] than males. All the factors
mentioned above and summarized in Fig. 2 explained what has been
found by previous researchers that females are more sensitive to and
less dissatisfied to with cold exposures.
4. Age
The number of older people is growing rapidly and expected to
account for 16.7% of the world's population in 2030. As most elder
people wish to age-in-place, age-in-place strategies become increasingly
important, among which the thermal environment for elderly housing
should be carefully designed since the thermal requirements for the
elderly might differ from the young [97].
4.1. Climate chamber experiment
Table 3 summarized the major chamber studies on age-related dif-
ference in thermal comfort. Fanger's [30] chamber experiment method
of exposing subjects to 8 different ambient temperatures for 3 h each
failed to find significant differences in thermal sensation between age
groups. Clothing insulation was held constant by making subjects wear
a standard clothing ensemble with a 0.6 clo intrinsic insulation value,
while metabolic rate was held constant (sedentary) across samples of
elderly subjects (n = 8, mean age 68 ± 5 yrs) and college-age subjects
186
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
(n = 8, mean age 23 ± 2 yrs).
Natsume et al. [78] compared the difference in the preferred am-
bient temperature between the elderly and young by recruiting 6 senior
Japanese males (between 71 and 76 yrs) and 6 young Japanese males
(between 21 and 30 yrs). Each subject participated in 4 experiments
with “factorial” combination of chamber starting temperatures (20 and
40 °C) and seasons (summer and winter). The Natsune et al. experiment
lasted for 45 min and the mean ambient temperature during the last
10 min was designated as their preferred temperature. The preferred
ambient temperature of the old group was found to be 0.7 °C lower than
that of the young group. Whether this difference is statistically sig-
nificant or not was not reported in this paper. Moreover, the very short
duration of the exposure undermines the validity of the preferred
temperatures given that earlier preferred temperature research proto-
cols allocated well over 2 h to the same task (e.g. Ref. [30]; [21].
Taylor et al. [92] experiment on the effects of age on room tem-
perature preferences recruited old and young subjects with similar body
mass, height and sum of skinfold thickness. Preferred temperature was
established by allowing subjects to adjust the indoor temperature ac-
cording to their own preferences. No age-related differences were ob-
served in the preferred temperature (24.9 °C for the young and 24.5 °C
for the elderly; p > 0.05). However, the skin temperature of the elderly
group was significantly lower than the young group in both heat-in-
duced changes and cold-induced changes (p < 0.05). The elderly
group felt less comfortable in cold-induced changes (p < 0.05) but
more comfortable in heat-induced changes (p < 0.05) compared to
their young counterparts.
Tsuzuki and Ohfuku [96] compared the thermal sensation and
temperature regulation function of the elderly and college-aged persons
by exposing subjects to 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31 °C at a steady 60% RH. It
was found that, although the metabolic rate for the elderly group was
only 70% that of the younger group, the preferred temperature range,
as defined by the lowest unacceptability rate, for both young and el-
derly subjects were the same: 25–27 °C.
As indicated in Table 3, the results from the four chamber studies,
which all adopted the preferred temperature research protocol, could not
Z. Wang et al.
Table 3
Climate chamber studies of age-related differences in preferred room temperature.
Researcher Condition Old
Clothing Subject Preferred
description Temp.
Fanger [30]
Natsume et al. [78] Short pants Japanese male 31.3
only
Taylor et al. [92] Shorts and Healthy males 24.5
sandals
Tsuzuki and Ohfuku 0.63 clo. Healthy Japanese 25–27
[96]
Fig. 3. A hypothetical explanation on why no age-related statistically significant difference in the preferred temp.
reject the null hypothesis – there is no statistically significant difference
in the preferred room temperature between the young and the old. No
further explanations were offered by previous researchers, but a hy-
pothesis, as shown in Fig. 3, can be built by connecting Tsuzuki and
Ohfuku's [96]; and DeGroot and Kenney's [23] observation of a reduced
metabolic rate with Taylor et al.’s [92] observation of the elderly
having a significantly lower skin temperature in their preferred ambient
temperature compared to the young. Reduced metabolic heat produc-
tion in elderly subjects, combined with reduced skin temperature re-
sulted from the weakened vasodilatation and vasoconstriction of the
elderly [96], indicates that the skin-to-ambient temperature gradient
for elderly subjects would be smaller than for young subjects under the
same ambient temperature exposure, and this seems to be appropriate
for the reduced metabolic heat required to be dissipated for elderly
subjects.
Another group of researchers utilized the chamber experiment
method to study the age-related differences in physiological responses
to thermal environment.
4.1.1. Thermoregulation
It has generally been accepted by the majority of the thermal en-
vironmental research community that healthy, elderly human subjects
are less able to maintain core temperature in cold exposures than young
counterparts. By exposing 36 young (18–30 yrs) and 46 elderly subjects
(65–89 yrs) to a mild cold stress, DeGroot and Kenney [23] found the
healthy aged humans failed to maintain the esophageal temperature.
The esophageal temperature of the elderly fell progressively throughout
cold exposures (p < 0.01 after 35 min exposure), but was well main-
tained in the young. Collins et al. [17] found during a 2-h exposure to
6 °C air temperature, the core temperature fell by −0.3 °C in the older
subjects (63–70 yrs), while dropping only −0.1 °C in the young
(18–24 yrs). Similar results have been reported by Mathew et al. [73].
Human beings respond to cold exposures with two major physio-
logical adjustments: (1) peripheral vasoconstriction to limit the loss of
body heat, which was reflected by the decline of skin temperature, (2)
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
Young Conclusion
Age Sample size Preferred Age Sample size
(SD) Temp. (SD)
68 (5) 8 23 (2) 8 No significant difference
73 (2) 6 31.7 24 (4) 6 Weak difference, but
significance not reported
66.9 24.9 22.9 No significant difference
(4.1) (2.9)
109 25–27 100 No significant difference
shivering to increase metabolic heat productions [111]. Both of these
two physiological adjustments were found to be weaker in the elderly.
The skin vasodilatation and vasoconstriction of the elderly were found
to be weaker than the young [96]. In cold exposure, the elderly could
not reduce heat loss by vasoconstriction as the young did. As for the
shivering to increase metabolic heat production, the elderly were found
to have a lower metabolic rate than the young [96]; [23].
4.1.2. Thermo sensitivity
Hashiguchi et al.’s [40] experiment on eight elderly and eight young
healthy male compared the thermos sensitivity of the elderly and the
young. Subjects sat for 30 min in the pre-room (25 °C) before entering
the chamber with heating (∼21 °C) or without heating (15 °C) and
staying there for 90 min. Rectal temperature and skin temperature at 15
local body locations were measured. Then the univariate regression
method was utilized to study how the whole-body Thermal Comfort
(TC) was influenced by the skin temperature of different body parts.
The skin temperature of corporal part (chest and back) were sig-
nificantly connected with TC for the young subjects but insignificantly
connected with TC for the elderly subjects. It was concluded that the
thermal sensation and thermal comfort of the elderly population was
more influenced by peripheral skin temperature (instep, calf, and hand)
rather than the corporal skin temperature (back and chest), and ac-
cordingly suggested that it is particularly important for elderly people
to avoid a decrease in peripheral skin temperature.
4.2. Field study
Table 4 summarized the major field studies on age-related differ-
ence in thermal comfort. Cena et al. [11] conducted a field survey in
Canada based on a sample of 101 healthy elderly subjects with average
2
Since this research basically compare the adolescence (25 and below) and the adult
(above 25), rather than the older and the young. This result is not included in the sum-
mary figure of Fig. 4.
187
Z. Wang et al. Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193

age of 73.4 yrs. It was found that the elderly do not perceive thermal

The mean neutral temperature for elderly people was 5 °C lower in winter but 0.3 °C higher in summer than PMV
Insignificant age-related difference of comfort temperature, however the acceptable range of the elderly is narrower

The comfort temperature for younger subjects (below 25) is 0.7 °C higher (p < 0.001) than senior subjects (above
comfort differently from younger generations, when clothing, meta-

Insignificant age-related difference of comfort temperature; over 40s’ group are more thermally satisfied in an
Higher comfortable ambient temperature is needed by the elderly, which is due to the lower metabolic rate bolic rate and anthropometric characteristics have been taken into ac-
count. However, Cena et al. [11] admitted that the elderly, on average,

Insignificant age-related difference between subjects from the under-50 group and the above-50 group
had a lower activity level, and by implication a lower metabolic rate,
thus needed a higher ambient temperature for comfort than younger
Weak, the comfort range for the elder is narrower than for the young, significance not reported
persons.
Becker and Paciuks' [4] field study in Israel during both winter and
summer found no statistically significant age-related difference in the
functional dependence of thermal sensation on operative temperature.
Wong et al.’s [106] field study in Hong Kong's centers for the elderly
equivalent thermal environment in the cooling season than under 40s’ group

found a clear trend of higher neutral temperature required by the more

model, which is developed majorly from the young adults, predicted. senior people. The average age effect was one PMV-unit per 25 years for
elderly aged above 60 years (R2 = 0.95, p < 0.05).
Significant: higher comfort temperature in the more senior group

Peng [83] field study with sample size of 600 in Nanjing China
showed that the neutral temperature of the elderly (above 50 years old)
is 0.54 °C lower and 0.47 °C higher than that of young (18 years and
under) in summer and in winter respectively. The comfortable tem-
perature ranges of the elderly was narrower than that of the young,
however age was not a significant factor for subjects' thermal comfort in
naturally ventilated buildings.
Hwang and Chen [47] studied the thermal comfort requirements of
elderly people in residential environments in Taiwan through a one-on-
Weak, significance not reported

one (researcher-subject) survey and concurrent indoor thermal en-

vironmental assessment. Logistic regression was utilized to regress the
percentage of thermal preference votes against the operative tempera-
ture. The preferred temperature was found at the intersection of the
“wanting warmer” curve and “wanting cooler” curve, which was
Insignificant
Conclusions

25.0 °C for the elders and 25.3 °C for the non-elders [13]. Though the
age-related difference in preferred temperature was insignificant, the
acceptable temperature range of the elderly, that is, the comfort zone,
25)2

was narrower. Age-related behavioral differences were also identified.

Elderly Taiwanese tended to choose opening windows or adjusting
Governmental office buildings

clothes, rather than using mechanical cooling/heating as a response to

NV residential buildings

hot or cold weather.

Residential buildings

Residential buildings

Residential buildings
Residential buildings

Residential buildings

Choi et al. [14]'s field study in governmental office buildings in the

Centers for elderly

Office buildings

Office buildings

U.S. found that the over 40's age group had higher levels of thermal
Building type

satisfaction than the under 40's group in equivalent thermal environ-

ments during the cooling season. No statistically significant difference
between the over 40s and under 40s was found in either the heating or
swing seasons. The most satisfying (least complained about) tempera-
ture during the cooling season for the over 40s’ group was 23.4 °C,
Sample size

which was not significantly different from that for the under 40s’ group
6046

7564

(23.71 °C).
101

394
403

402

100

672
87

In Indraganti and Raos' [50] field study in India, the age effect on
Winter, Summer

Winter, Summer
Winter, Summer
Winter, Summer

Winter, Summer

the correlation between the thermal sensation and environmental

Field studies on age-related differences in comfort temperatures.

temperature was found to be too weak (r = −0.04) to be of any en-

All seasons

gineering significance.
Summer

Summer
Season

Winter

Winter

4.3. Discussion
Hyderabad, Chennai,

Fig. 4 summarizes the age-related difference in comfort tempera-

Hamilton, Ontario,

Hong Kong, China

Hyderabad, India

tures found in the research literature reviewed above. Similar to the

Shanghai, China

Southern Brazil
Nanjing, China
Taiwan, China
Canada
Region

Israel

India
U.S.

Indraganti, and Rao [50]

Hwang and Chen [47]
Becker and Paciuk [4]

Indraganti et al. [51]

Wong et al. [106]

Rupp et al. [86]

Cena et al. [11]

Choi et al. [14]

Jiao et al. [53]

Researcher

Peng [83]
Table 4

Fig. 4. Summary on age-related differences in comfort temperature.

188
Z. Wang et al.
research in gender difference, the conclusions about the size and sig-
nificance of age-related differences in the preferred/neutral tempera-
ture were far from consistent, but if one regards the “weak but not
statistically significant” results as falling on the side of the null hy-
pothesis, the weight of evidence in this review supports no difference in
thermal comfort temperatures between the young and the elderly,
especially once clothing, metabolic and anthropometric differences
have been take into account. However, it seems generally accepted that
the older people are less responsive to changes in thermal environment
and more vulnerable to extreme thermal conditions [97]. The accep-
table range of comfort temperatures for the elderly is narrower than for
the young, probably because the ability to thermoregulate tends to
decline with age [96] [23]; [83]; [47].
5. Other factors contributing to inter-individual differences in
comfort
Given the same gender and age condition, other factors may give
rise to inter-individual thermal comfort differences.
5.1. Cold syndrome in Japan
Nagashima et al. [76] reported on Japanese females suffering from
“cold syndrome”, defined as persistent and intolerable feelings of
coldness in environments described by most people as thermally com-
fortable. By asking 10 qualitative questions such as “whether you feel
colder than others do”, Nagashima et al. [76] divided 12 female sub-
jects into two groups: Group C (Cold Syndrome) and Group N (No Cold
Syndrome). Then subjects were exposed to a mild cold environment
(23.5 °C) and a neutral environment (29.5 °C), each for 2 h. Subjects
were asked to report thermal comfort every 10 min by marking on a line
rating scale, labelled “cold” on one end and “not at all” on the other
end. In the neutral condition, no significant difference in thermal
comfort votes has been found. However, in the cold environment,
Group C felt significantly colder in both body and extremities than
Group N. Additionally, no significant differences of rectal temperature,
mean skin temperature, mean arterial pressure, plasma norepinephrine,
epinephrine level, cortisol level have been found between the Group C
and Group N. However, the finger temperature, and the heart rate of
Group C were significantly lower than Group N, while the metabolic
rate of Group C was higher than Group. Jacquot et al. [52] exposed 16
healthy females in Japan to dynamic temperature protocols and found
significant individual differences in neutral temperature, varying from
17 to 30 °C. Jacquot et al. [52] suggested that by categorizing subjects
according to their thermal sensation votes (four categories: narrow
range preference, broad range preference, cool preference, warm pre-
ference), more precise predictions of thermal sensation could be made,
but the authors offered no explanations of why individuals fell into
these four categories.
Yasuoka et al. [109] further investigated individual differences in
thermal comfort and preference of young Japanese females with psy-
chological and physiological methods. Thirteen subjects were recruited
and each was allowed to adjust the indoor temperature of climate
chamber according to her own preference. The other variables were all
controlled, including 1) the relative humidity at 50%, 2) the air velocity
within 0.1 m/s, 3) subjects clothing at 0.3 clo, 4) subjects having meal
90 min before the experiment, 5) in good health and the mid-follicular
phase of the menstrual cycle. It was found the preferred indoor tem-
perature varied from 27.0 °C to 31.9 °C (stdev 0.67 °C). Yasuoka et al.
[109] divided the 13 subjects into 2 groups: 6 subjects in the group H
who preferred higher temperature, and 7 subjects in the group M who
preferred lower temperature. By further investigation the psychological
and physiological differences of these two groups, it was found that
group H felt colder than group M in cooler environment (25 °C with
0.38 clo). In terms of physiological parameters, the heart rate of group
M decreased significantly in cooler air temperature, which was not
189
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
observed in group H, but no other physiological parameters showed any
statistically significant differences between groups, including resting
metabolic rate, mean skin temperature, and skin temperature of ex-
tremities (hand, feet). In the absence of any substantive physiological
data to explain the cold syndrome, Yasuoka et al. [109] speculated that
it was the result of 1) the thermoreceptors, 2) the sensory threshold to
changes in skin temperature due to changes in ambient temperature,
and 3) the intensity of sympathetic nerve activity mediated vasomotion.
5.2. Circadian rhythm
Due to the circadian cycle driven by the human “biological clock”
[103], thermoregulatory response [75] of body temperature rises in the
morning, peaking in the afternoon and falling in the evening. This
general pattern has been confirmed by Terai et al. [93]'s measurement
on the subjects' oral, rectal and tympanic temperature. Whether the
circadian rhythm in body temperature affects preferred ambient tem-
peratures indoors has attracted some researchers' attention.
Fanger et al. [29] recruited 16 college-age subjects to participate in
four tests: two in the morning (9–12 a.m.), and two in the evening
(19–22 p.m.). During the experiment, subjects clothed in 0.6 clo. and
were allowed to adjust the ambient temperature according to their own
preferences. It was found though the rectal temperature and mean skin
temperature were slightly higher in the evening than in the morning
(P < 0.05), but the preferred temperature difference between morning
and evening was only 0.2 °C and not statistically significant. Since the
greatest changes in human's internal temperature occurred after 22
p.m., Fanger et al. [29] recommended a further investigation on hu-
man's preferred ambient temperature over a complete 24-h period.
Fanger et al. [29]'s conclusion was confirmed by Terai et al. [93]'s more
precise and extensive experiments on 23 healthy male college-aged
subjects. Prior to the chamber experiment, subjects were directed to
measure their oral temperatures at rest every 2 h from 6:00 to 24:00 for
three consecutive days, so that the time for each subject's oral tem-
perature minimum and maximum could be established. The chamber
experiment was scheduled at the time when the subjects' oral tem-
perature reached the minimum and the maximum levels of the day, or
the time when the oral temperature rose and fell most rapidly for each
individual subject. It was found the preferred ambient temperature
tended to be higher during oral temperature rising periods (7:00–10:00)
compared to the falling periods (17:00–21:00), but the difference of
0.3 °C was not statistically significant.
Using a larger sample of subjects (n = 48), Grivel and Candas [39]
found that time-of-day was statistically significant in a chamber ex-
periment with young European subjects. The morning experiment took
place between 9:00 and 12:00, the afternoon experiment between 15:00
and 18:00, with a “standard lunch” supplied at 12:15. Analysis of
variance between morning and afternoon groups revealed significant
time-of-day effects (p < 0.05), with an overall increase of the pre-
ferred ambient temperature of 1.5 °C between morning and afternoon.
Moreover, this difference is more pronounced in male subjects
(+2.4 °C, p < 0.01) than female subjects (+0.6 °C, p > 0.05). This
finding was confirmed by Karyono [57]'s field study with 596 office
workers in Jakarta, which found a statistically significant variation of
occupants' neutral temperature between the morning (25.5 °C) and the
afternoon (28.8 °C).
5.3. Physical disabilities
Webb and Parsons [101] studied the thermal comfort requirements
for people with physical disabilities. 16 subjects without physical dis-
abilities and 16 subjects with physical disabilities, including cerebral
palsy, spina bifida, stroke, Friedrich's ataxia, blindness, paralysis, heart
condition, encephalitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, missing limbs and
metal in legs. Both samples were exposed in cool (18.5 °C,
PMV = −1.5), neutral (23 °C, PMV = 0) and warm (29 °C,
Z. Wang et al. Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193

Table 5
Fitness-related differences in thermal comfort in children.
Researcher Age Sports Environment Gender Sample size Measurement

o
Temp. C RH Obese Non- Physiological Psychological
obese

Dougherty et al. 9–12 Exercise for 70 min (30% VO2peak) 38 50% Boys 7 7 Core temp.; Thermal sensation
[25] Hear rate
Dougherty et al. 9–12 Walk for three 20-min bouts 34 50% Boys 7 7 Core temp.; Thermal sensation;
[26] interspersed with 36 Skin temp.;
5-min rests (30% VO2peak) 38 Heart rate;
42 Blood pressure;
Sehl et al. [91] 12–15 Cycle for 30 min (50–55% VO2peak) 35 45% Boys 17 16 Rectal temp.; Sweat Thermal sensation
volume
Leites et al. [64] 7–11 Cycle for 30 min (∼55% VO2peak) 35 40% Girls 13 14 Rectal temp.; Sweat Thermal sensation; Thermal
24 50% volume; comfort
Heart rate

PMV = +1.5) conditions for 3 h duration. Thermal comfort votes were
collected every 15 min and no significant differences of thermal sen-
sation (P > 0.05) between subjects with and without disabilities were
found.
Given the diversity of disabilities in their sample, Webb et al. [102]
followed up with a more internally homogenous sample of subjects with
disability namely multiple sclerosis. Using the same basic protocol to
compare the thermal comfort responses of subjects with and without
multiple sclerosis, 32 subjects with multiple sclerosis were recruited.
Again, exposures were cool (18.5 °C, PMV = −1.5), neutral (23 °C,
PMV = 0), and warm (29 °C, PMV = 1.5). The variance of thermal
comfort votes of subjects with multiple sclerosis was much larger, in-
dicating that the inter-individual differences between subjects with
multiple sclerosis was more significant than in the sample of healthy
subjects. Additionally, the actual percentage of dissatisfied subjects
with multiple sclerosis was higher than the prediction by Fanger [30]
model.
5.4. Fitness
A body of research has examined thermal responses of obese and
lean children while performing physical exercises. The details of these
researches have been summarized in Table 5.
The obese boys were found to feel hotter than the non-obese group
performing the same exercise under the same indoor environmental
conditions [25] [26]; [91]. Sehl et al. [91] reported that the rectal
temperature, sweating volume, and heart rate were similar between
obese and non-obese group, both before and after the exercises were
performed. However, Dougherty et al. [25] reported that the core
temperature of the obese group was higher than the non-obese group
(37.62 vs. 37.41, p < 0.004). Compared with non-obese boys, the
obese boys were found to be less naturally heat-acclimatized, or sub-
sequently acclimated at a slower rate [25], and had significantly lower
environmental limits for uncomfortable heat stress3 (p < 0.03) in
warm environments [26]. Contrarily, obese subjects tend to feel less
cold in the cold environment. In cold exposures, obese individuals have
been found to be better able to resist body cooling than lean individuals
due to the thicker layers of adipose tissue and smaller surface areas
relative to body mass [95]; [110].
However, the thermoregulatory and perceptual difference between
obese and non-obese boys were not confirmed in Leites et al.’ (2013)
study between obese and lean primary-school girls. 14 lean and 13
obese girls were recruited in this experiment and required to cycle
30 min in neutral (24 °C and 50% relative humidity) and warm (35 °C
3
The environmental limit for uncomfortable heat stress is defined as the temperature
above which an imbalance between heat gain and heat loss forces body core temperature
to change.
and 40% relative humidity) conditions. No significant differences were
found between the obese and the lean group in psychological (thermal
sensation, thermal comfort) and physiological (sweat volume and heart
rate) responses. The only statistically significant difference is the rectal
temperature of the obese group is higher by 0.3 °C (p = 0.03).
The field study in office buildings in Southern Brazil found that BMI
has a significant impact on occupants' thermal sensation, clothing habit,
and the comfort temperature [84]; [86]. Normal/underweight subjects
(BMI≤25.0 kg/m2) tend to wear more, experience lower thermal sen-
sation (despite with the higher clothing insulation), and have 0.4 °C
higher (p < 0.001) comfort temperature than the overweight subjects
(BMI > 25.0 kg/m2). Indraganti et al. [51]'s field investigation in India
found the comfort temperature of overweight population (BMI >
25.0 kg/m2) is 0.7° C less (N = 3865, p < 0.001) than the underweight
population (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2).
Hwang et al. [49]'s field study in hospitals compared the preferred
temperature of the frail population and the vigorous population. Out of
the 937 subjects surveyed, 582 reported their physical strength as
“frail” and the remaining 345 subjects thought their physical strength
as vigorous. It was found self-perceived health had a statistically sig-
nificant (p-value = 0.000) influence on preferred temperature. By using
probit analysis, the preferred effective temperatures for “vigorous”
subjects were 1.5 °C lower in winter (22.5 °C vs. 24.0 °C) and 0.8 °C
lower in summer (23.7 °C vs. 24.5 °C) compared to subjects describing
their physical strength as “frail.”
To conclude, fitness, such as obeseness and self-perceived health, is
an influential factor for the individual difference in thermal comfort.
Obese individuals were found to be less comfortable in the hot en-
vironment but more resistant to the cold environment. Additionally,
healthy individuals prefer lower ambient temperature than the frail.
6. Solutions
6.1. Detect individual difference – wearable sensors and machine learning
Because of individual difference, the PMV or adaptive model, which
is designed to evaluate and predict the thermal comfort of a group of
people, is not able to accurately predict the thermal comfort of in-
dividuals. By analyzing the ASHRAE database of comfort field studies,
Humphreys and Nicol [46] found the standard deviation of the thermal
sensation in the same ambient temperature to be approximately 1 scale
unit which corresponds to about 3 °C difference in neutral temperature.
The explanation of larger individual differences in field settings com-
pared to climate chamber experiments lies in the greater diversity of
clothing insulation and metabolic rate in real-life. Greater degrees of
freedom in real-world settings permits building occupants to adjusting
their clothing to adapt to the varied temperatures encountered inside
buildings.

190
Z. Wang et al.
Table 6
Corrective Power of different PCS.
PCS Type
Warm exposure Cooling by frontal air jets
Cooling by ceiling fan/large area box fan
Cooling by chairs
Cool exposure Heating by chairs
Heating by foot/leg/wrist/palm warmers
The first step to address the issue of individual difference is to detect
and predict it. Fortunately, with the rapid development of sensing and
computation technology, thermal comfort models to predict in-
dividual's thermal comfort state and demands become possible. Since
2015, increasing researches could be found in the area of developing
individual thermal comfort model. The individual model is a good
supplement to the PMV or adaptive model, which aim to evaluate and
predict the thermal comfort of a group of people rather than each in-
dividual.
In terms of the sensing technology, Ghahramani et al. [35] and
Ghahramani et al. [37] developed an infrared thermography based
technique to monitor and predict an individual's thermal comfort level
by measuring the skin temperature on human face. Li et al. [65] de-
veloped a smart phone app - based platform to collect subjects' phy-
siological data (heart rate, skin temperature, activity level) measured
by Microsoft band, and psychological data (thermal comfort and pre-
ference) from the phone app [60]. collected and utilized user behavior
data, to be more specific under what temperature the subject turn on/
off the warming/cooling, to develop individual comfort model. The
user behavior data is called unconscious vote in the social science
subject is very informative in developing individual models.
After the individual physiological and psychological data has been
collected, variant machine learning algorithms have been proposed to
analysis the data and to predict the thermal comfort levels and demands
of individual subjects. Adaptive Stochastic Modeling [34], Dynamic
Bayesian Network [36], Random Forest [65]; [12], Hidden Markov-
Based Learning [37] [60]. compared Classification Trees, Gaussian
Process Classification, Gradient Boosting Method, Kernel Support
Vector Machine, Random Forest, Regularized Logistic Regression and
found the latter three algorithms have higher prediction accuracy.
It is very challenging to compare the predictive accuracy of the
different models and algorithms proposed by variance research teams,
since the model input, sample size, number of predictors all vary sig-
nificantly. To facilitate the algorithm comparison, selection and opti-
mization, an open-source, public-available data set is needed.
6.2. Satisfy individual difference – personal comfort systems
The conventional, centralized air-conditioning system aims to con-
stantly maintain an optimum indoor environment with uniformly dis-
tributed temperature throughout the occupied zone, but this “one-size-
fits-all” approach inevitably disappoints a significant fraction of
building occupants at any one time due to individual differences in
their comfort requirements. Parkinson and de Dear [80] pointed out the
191
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
Condition Corrective Power
Ambient temp.: 26–27 °C; 1-3 °C
Air velocity: 0.36–0.60 m/s
Ambient temp.: 28 °C; 2-3 °C
Air velocity: 0.4–0.6 m/s
Ambient temp.: 30 °C; 2-4 °C
Air velocity: 0.8–1.0 m/s
Ambient temp.: 32 °C; 4-7 °C
Air velocity: 2.0 m/s
Supply air temp.: lower by 2–5 K
Ambient temp.: 26–27 °C; 3 °C
Air velocity: 0.25–0.60 m/s
Ambient temp.: 28 °C; 4 °C
Air velocity: 0.25–0.60 m/s
Ambient temp.: 33 °C; 4-7 °C
Air velocity: 1.0 m/s
−2 ∼ −5 °C
7–10 °C
2 °C in a field study;
6-10 °C in lab studies
dilemma faced by the centralized HVAC system that either decrease the
set-point temperature to the dissatisfaction of those who prefer warmer
temperature, or maintain temperatures at the higher boundaries of the
comfort range to the dissatisfaction of those preferring cooler tem-
peratures. Little surprise that the actual satisfaction rate of occupants of
actual buildings often falls short of the 80% target satisfaction rate
specified in ASHRAE Standard [2] [44]; [56].
In addressing the issue of individual differences, Personal Comfort
System (PCS) afford the potential co-benefit of energy savings as well
[113]. Instead of the conventional approach of conditioning the entire
volume of space inside a building, the PCS strategy focuses on con-
ditioning the micro-environment of each occupant instead. Bauman
et al. [3] found that occupant satisfaction rates in PCS buildings could
be significantly higher than conventionally in conditioned buildings.
The energy benefits of PCS arise because they permit a more relaxed
approach to the control of ambient temperature inside a building [43].
The concept of Corrective Power (CP) was introduced into the PCS
discourse by Zhang et al. [113]; and is defined as the difference be-
tween two ambient temperatures in which the same occupant thermal
sensation is achieved – one with PCS in use, and one without PCS (i.e.
uniform environment) as the reference condition. The concept of CP,
originally proposed to quantify PCS's ability to produce comfort in
ambient temperatures that are above or below the subjects' neutral
temperatures, could also be useful in quantifying the potential for PCS
to accommodate individual differences in thermal comfort require-
ments. If the CP of a specific PCS exceeds the scale of individual dif-
ference in occupants' preferred temperature, this particular PCS can be
assumed capable of delivering thermal satisfaction to every occupant
i.e. theoretically zero complaint. Zhang et al. [113] categorized PCS
into 5 types and summarized the CP of each under different ambient
conditions, as described in Table 6. The CP of cooling PCS ranges from 1
to 6 °C and the CP of heating PCS ranges from 2 to 10 °C. All types of
PCS cooling and heating systems in Table 6 are capable of compen-
sating for discomfort arising from individual differences in ambient
thermal requirements, which is on the scale of 2–3 °C. PCS is particu-
larly helpful for occupant groups whose thermal dissatisfaction rate
would increase markedly once the ambient temperature deviated from
the collective optimum.
7. Conclusion
Individual differences in thermal comfort widely exist and should be
carefully considered in the design and operation of built environments.
Gender and age, considered as two major sources for individual
Z. Wang et al.
difference, were discussed in detail in Section 3 and Section 4. To
summarize and compare the relevant research, the research findings on
individual difference were clustered into three categories: 1) significant
difference, 2) insignificant difference, 3) weak difference and sig-
nificance not reported. It was found that no consistent conclusions
could be drawn on the size and significance of inter-group differences in
the preferred/neutral temperature between females and males, nor the
young and the elderly. Around half of research investigated found no
significant difference, while one-fifth of previous research reported
significant difference between female and male, or between the young
and the old in the preferred/neutral temperature. However, it is be-
lieved that certain groups of occupants (females and the elderly) are
more critical of indoor thermal environments, and more sensitive to
deviations from an optimal environment, than other sub-populations
(males and the young). Differences in clothing and physiological re-
sponses (such as metabolic rate, peripheral vasoconstriction/vasodila-
tation and etc.) are the most likely explanations for between-group and
individual differences in thermal comfort requirements. Once the
clothing and anthropometric parameters were controlled, inter-group
differences in thermal comfort are annulled. Others factors such as cold
syndrome, circadian rhythm, physical disabilities, fitness and etc., have
been examined and found to have impact on thermal comfort.
Rapid technology advancement has provided opportunities to ad-
dress the issue of individual difference by shifting the built environment
paradigm from centralized, fixed set points to individualized, time-
variant air conditioning. The following three steps empowered this
paradigm shift. First, wearable devices collect the subjects' physiolo-
gical and psychological response to the thermal environment. Second,
machine learning algorithms predict the comfort levels and thermal
demands of individual subject rather than the average response of a
group of people. Third, PCS provide individual and personalized
thermal environment to eradicate thermal discomforts arising from
individual differences in requirements of the occupants of shared
spaces, and to achieve thermal satisfaction for every building occupant.
The individualized air conditioning strategies are most beneficial for
particularly sensitive occupants, including females and the elderly.
Considering these comfort benefits alongside their energy co-benefit,
clearly the individualized air conditioning strategies warrant further
investigation in future research.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant number 5151101128) and the China
Scholarship Council (No. 201706130019).
References
[1] F.R.D.A. Alfano, B.W. Olesen, B.I. Palella, Povl Ole Fanger's impact ten years later,
Energy Build. 152 (2017) 243–249.
[2] A. Arens, M.A. Humphreys, R. de Dear, H. Zhang, Are ‘class A’ temperature re-
quirements realistic or desirable? Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 4–10.
[3] F.S. Bauman, T.G. Carter, A.V. Baughman, E.A. Arens, Field study of the impact of
a desktop task/ambient conditioning system in office buildings, Build. Eng. 104
(1998) 1153.
[4] R. Becker, M. Paciuk, Thermal comfort in residential buildings–failure to predict
by standard model, Build. Environ. 44 (5) (2009) 948–960.
[5] M.Y. Beshir, J.D. Ramsey, Comparison between male and female subjective esti-
mates of thermal effects and sensations, Appl. Ergon. 12 (1) (1981) 29–33.
[7] G.S. Brager, M.E. Fountain, C.C. Benton, E.A. Arens, F.S. Bauman, A comparison of
methods for assessing thermal sensation and acceptability in the field, in:
N.A. Oseland, M.A. Humphreys (Eds.), Proceedings Thermal Comfort, Past,
Present and Future, Garston, 1994, pp. 17–39.
[8] J.F. Busch, Thermal responses to the Thai office environment, Build. Eng. 96 (1)
(1990) 859–872.
[9] K. Cena, R.J. de Dear, Field study of occupant comfort and office thermal en-
vironments in a hot, arid climate, Build. Eng. 105 (1999) 204.
[10] K. Cena, R. de Dear, Thermal comfort and behavioural strategies in office
buildings located in a hot-arid climate, J. Therm. Biol. 26 (4) (2001) 409–414.
[11] K. Cena, J.R. Spotila, E.B. Ryan, Effect of behavioral strategies and activity on
thermal comfort of the elderly, AHSRAE trans. 94 (pt 1) (1988) 311–460.
[12] T. Chaudhuri, D. Zhai, Y.C. Soh, H. Li, L. Xie, Random forest based thermal
192
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
comfort prediction from gender-specific physiological parameters using wearable
sensing technology, Energy Build. 166 (2018) 391–406.
[13] M.J. Cheng, R.L. Hwang, Thermal comfort requirements in air-conditioned re-
sidences in hot-humid climate, J. Tongji Univ. 38 (2008) 817–822.
[14] J. Choi, A. Aziz, V. Loftness, Investigation on the impacts of different genders and
ages on satisfaction with thermal environments in office buildings, Build. Environ.
45 (6) (2010) 1529–1535.
[17] K.J. Collins, J.C. Easton, H. Belfield-Smith, A.N. Exton-Smith, R.A. Pluck, Effects of
age on body temperature and blood pressure in cold environments, Clin. Sci. 69
(4) (1985) 465–470.
[18] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preferenc, Build. Eng. 104 (1) (1998) 145–167.
[19] R.J. de Dear, M.E. Fountain, Field experiments on occupant comfort and office
thermal environments in a hot-humid climate, Build. Eng. 100 (2) (1994)
457–475.
[20] R.J. de Dear, K.G. Leow, A. Ameen, Thermal comfort in the humid tropics. Part I.
Climate chamber experiments on temperature preferences in Singapore, Build.
Eng. 97 (1) (1991) 874–879.
[21] R.J. de Dear, K.G. Leow, S.C. Foo, Thermal comfort in the humid tropics: field
experiments in air conditioned and naturally ventilated buildings in Singapore,
Int. J. Biometeorol. 34 (4) (1991) 259–265.
[22] R.J. de Dear, A global database of thermal comfort field experiments, Build. Eng.
104 (1b) (1998) 1141–1152.
[23] D.W. DeGroot, W.L. Kenney, Impaired defense of core temperature in aged hu-
mans during mild cold stress, Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 292 (1)
(2007) R103–R108.
[24] G. Donnini, V.H. Nguyen, D.H.C. Lai, M. LaFlamme, F. Haghighat, J. Molina,
H.K. Lai, C. Martello, C.Y. Chang, Field Study of Occupant Comfort and Office
Thermal Environments in a Cold Climate (No. CONF-970668–), American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Atlanta, GA (United
States), 1997.
[25] K.A. Dougherty, M. Chow, W.L. Kenney, Responses of lean and obese boys to re-
peated summer exercise heat bouts, Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41 (2) (2009) 279.
[26] K.A. Dougherty, M. Chow, W.L. Kenney, Critical environmental limits for ex-
ercising heat-acclimated lean and obese boys, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 108 (4) (2010)
779–789.
[27] T. Erlandson, K. Cena, R. De Dear, G. Havenith, Environmental and human factors
influencing thermal comfort of office occupants in hot—humid and hot—arid
climates, Ergonomics 46 (6) (2003) 616–628.
[28] T.M. Erlandson, K. Cena, R. de Dear, Gender Differences and Non-thermal Factors
in Thermal Comfort of Office Occupants in a Hot-arid Climate vol. 3, Elsevier
Ergonomics Book Series, 2005, pp. 263–268.
[29] P.O. Fanger, J. Højbjerre, J.O.B. Thomsen, Thermal comfort conditions in the
morning and in the evening, IJB (Int. J. Biometeorol.) 18 (1) (1974) 16–22.
[30] P.O. Fanger, The Influence of Certain Special Factors on the Application of the
Comfort Equation. Thermal Comfort, McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 1970, pp.
68–106.
[31] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort. Analysis and Applications in Environmental
Engineering, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1970.
[32] I. Fato, F. Martellotta, C. Chiancarella, Thermal comfort in the climatic conditions
of Southern Italy, Trans.-Am. Soc. Heat. Refrig. Air Cond. Eng. 110 (2) (2004)
578–593.
[33] M. Fountain, G. Brager, R. de Dear, Expectations of indoor climate control, Energy
Build. 24 (3) (1996) 179–182.
[34] Ali Ghahramani, Chao Tang, Burcin Becerik-Gerber, An online learning approach
for quantifying personalized thermal comfort via adaptive stochastic modeling,
Build. Environ. 92 (2015) (2015) 86–96.
[35] Ali Ghahramani, et al., Infrared thermography of human face for monitoring
thermoregulation performance and estimating personal thermal comfort, Build.
Environ. 109 (2016) (2016) 1–11.
[36] Ali Ghahramani, et al., A study of time-dependent variations in personal thermal
comfort via a dynamic bayesian network, Sustain. human–build. ecosyst. 2015
(2016) 99–107.
[37] Ali Ghahramani, et al., Towards unsupervised learning of thermal comfort using
infrared thermography, Appl. Energy 211 (2018) (2018) 41–49.
[38] P. Golja, M.J. Tipton, I.B. Mekjavic, Cutaneous thermal thresholds—the re-
producibility of their measurements and the effect of gender, J. Therm. Biol. 28 (4)
(2003) 341–346.
[39] F. Grivel, V. Candas, Ambient temperatures preferred by young European males
and females at rest, Ergonomics 34 (3) (1991) 365–378.
[40] N. Hashiguchi, Y. Tochihara, T. Ohnaka, C. Tsuchida, T. Otsuki, Physiological and
subjective responses in the elderly when using floor heating and air conditioning
systems, J. Physiol. Anthropol. Appl. Hum. Sci. 23 (6) (2004) 205–213.
[41] N. Hashiguchi, Y. Feng, Y. Tochihara, Gender differences in thermal comfort and
mental performance at different vertical air temperatures, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
109 (1) (2010) 41–48.
[43] T. Hoyt, E. Arens, H. Zhang, Extending air temperature setpoints: simulated energy
savings and design considerations for new and retrofit buildings, Build. Environ.
88 (2015) 89–96.
[44] C. Huizenga, S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus, E.A. Arens, Air quality and thermal
comfort in office buildings: results of a large indoor environmental quality survey,
Proc. Healthy Build. 2006 (3) (2006) 393–397.
[45] M.A. Humphreys, M. Hancock, Do people like to feel ‘neutral’?: Exploring the
variation of the desired thermal sensation on the ASHRAE scale, Energy Build. 39
(7) (2007) 867–874.
[46] M.A. Humphreys, J.F. Nicol, The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes
in every-day thermal environments, Energy Build. 34 (6) (2002) 667–684.
[47] R.L. Hwang, C.P. Chen, Field study on behaviors and adaptation of elderly people
and their thermal comfort requirements in residential environments, Indoor Air 20
(3) (2010) 235–245.
Z. Wang et al.
[49] R.L. Hwang, T.P. Lin, M.J. Cheng, J.H. Chien, Patient thermal comfort requirement
for hospital environments in Taiwan, Build. Environ. 42 (8) (2007) 2980–2987.
[50] M. Indraganti, K.D. Rao, Effect of age, gender, economic group and tenure on
thermal comfort: a field study in residential buildings in hot and dry climate with
seasonal variations, Energy Build. 42 (3) (2010) 273–281.
[51] M. Indraganti, R. Ooka, H.B. Rijal, Thermal comfort in offices in India: behavioral
adaptation and the effect of age and gender, Energy Build. 103 (2015) 284–295.
[52] C.M. Jacquot, L. Schellen, B.R. Kingma, M.A. van Baak, W.D. van Marken
Lichtenbelt, Influence of thermophysiology on thermal behavior: the essentials of
categorization, Physiol. Behav. 128 (2014) 180–187.
[53] Y. Jiao, H. Yu, T. Wang, et al., Thermal comfort and adaptation of the elderly in
free-running environments in Shanghai, China, Build. Environ. 118 (2017)
259–272.
[54] S. Karjalainen, Gender differences in thermal comfort and use of thermostats in
everyday thermal environments, Build. Environ. 42 (4) (2007) 1594–1603.
[55] S. Karjalainen, Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review, Indoor Air 22 (2)
(2012) 96–109.
[56] C. Karmann, S. Schiavon, L.T. Graham, P. Raftery, F. Bauman, Comparing tem-
perature and acoustic satisfaction in 60 radiant and all-air buildings, Build.
Environ. 126 (2017) 431–441.
[57] T.H. Karyono, Report on thermal comfort and building energy studies in
Jakarta—Indonesia, Build. Environ. 35 (1) (2000) 77–90.
[58] M.C. Katafygiotou, D.K. Serghides, Thermal comfort of a typical secondary school
building in Cyprus, Sustainable Cities and Society 13 (2014) 303–312.
[59] J. Kim, R. de Dear, C. Candido, H. Zhang, E. Arens, Gender differences in office
occupant perception of indoor environmental quality (IEQ), Build. Environ. 70
(2013) 245–256.
[60] J. Kim, Y. Zhou, S. Schiavon, P. Raftery, G. Brager, Personal comfort models:
predicting individuals' thermal preference using occupant heating and cooling
behavior and machine learning, Build. Environ. 129 (2018) 96–106.
[61] E. Kuchen, M.N. Fisch, Spot monitoring: thermal comfort evaluation in 25 office
buildings in winter, Build. Environ. 44 (4) (2009) 839–847.
[62] L. Lan, Z. Lian, W. Liu, Y. Liu, Investigation of gender difference in thermal
comfort for Chinese people, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 102 (4) (2008) 471–480.
[63] J.Y. Lee, J.W. Choi, Influences of clothing types on metabolic, thermal and sub-
jective responses in a cool environment, J. Therm. Biol. 29 (4) (2004) 221–229.
[64] G.T. Leites, P.L. Sehl, G. dos Santos Cunha, A. Detoni Filho, F. Meyer, Responses of
obese and lean girls exercising under heat and thermoneutral conditions, J.
Pediatr. 162 (5) (2013) 1054–1060.
[65] D. Li, C.C. Menassa, V.R. Kamat, Personalized human comfort in indoor building
environments under diverse conditioning modes, Build. Environ. 126 (2017)
304–317.
[66] J.T. Liou, P.W. Lui, Y.L. Lo, L. Liou, S.S. Wang, H.B. Yuan, K.H. Chan, T.Y. Lee,
Normative data of quantitative thermal and vibratory thresholds in normal sub-
jects in Taiwan: gender and age effect, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi= Chin. Med. J.;
Free China ed 62 (7) (1999) 431–437.
[67] W. Liu, Z. Lian, Q. Deng, Y. Liu, Evaluation of calculation methods of mean skin
temperature for use in thermal comfort study, Build. Environ. 46 (2) (2011)
478–488.
[68] S. Lu, B. Pang, Y. Qi, K. Fang, Field study of thermal comfort in non-air-condi-
tioned buildings in a tropical island climate, Appl. Ergon. 66 (2018) 89–97.
[69] M. Luo, X. Zhou, Y. Zhu, J. Sundell, Revisiting an overlooked parameter in thermal
comfort studies, the metabolic rate, Energy Build. 118 (2016) 152–159.
[70] M. Luo, R. de Dear, et al., The dynamics of thermal comfort expectations: the
problem, challenge and implication, Build. Environ. 95 (2016) 322–329.
[71] M. Luo, B. Cao, Q. Ouyang, Y. Zhu, Indoor human thermal adaptation: dynamic
processes and weighting factors, Indoor Air 27 (2) (2017) 273–281.
[72] M. Luo, Z. Wang, K. Ke, et al., Human metabolic rate and thermal comfort in
buildings: the problem and challenge, Build. Environ. 131 (2018) 44–52.
[73] L. Mathew, S.S. Purkayastha, R. Singh, J.S. Gupta, Influence of aging in the
thermoregulatory efficiency of man, IJB (Int. J. Biometeorol.) 30 (2) (1986)
137–145.
[74] J.K. Maykot, R.F. Rupp, E. Ghisi, Assessment of gender on requirements for
thermal comfort in office buildings located in the Brazilian humid subtropical
climate, Energy Build. 158 (2018) 1170–1183.
[75] T. Midorikawa, Circadian variation of thermoregulatory responses to heat and
cold exposure in male subjects, Jpn. J. Biometeorol. 18 (1981) 24–30.
[76] K. Nagashima, T. Yoda, T. Yagishita, A. Taniguchi, T. Hosono, K. Kanosue,
Thermal regulation and comfort during a mild-cold exposure in young Japanese
women complaining of unusual coldness, J. Appl. Physiol. 92 (3) (2002)
1029–1035.
[77] J. Nakano, S.I. Tanabe, K.I. Kimura, Differences in perception of indoor environ-
ment between Japanese and non-Japanese workers, Energy Build. 34 (6) (2002)
615–621.
[78] K. Natsume, T. Ogawa, J. Sugenoya, N. Ohnishi, K. Imai, Preferred ambient
temperature for old and young men in summer and winter, IJB (Int. J.
Biometeorol.) 36 (1) (1992) 1–4.
[79] M. Paciuk, R. Becker, Predicted vs. recorded summer thermal responses in air
conditioned and naturally ventilated dwellings in Israel, Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Monterey, USA, vol.
5, 2002, pp. 104–109.
[80] T. Parkinson, R. de Dear, Thermal pleasure in built environments: spatial al-
liesthesia from contact heating, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (3) (2016) 248–262.
[81] K.C. Parsons, The effects of gender, acclimation state, the opportunity to adjust
clothing and physical disability on requirements for thermal comfort, Energy
Build. 34 (6) (2002) 593–599.
[82] N. Pellerin, V. Candas, Effects of steady-state noise and temperature conditions on
193
Building and Environment 138 (2018) 181–193
environmental perception and acceptability, Indoor Air 14 (2) (2004) 129–136.
[83] C. Peng, Survey of thermal comfort in residential buildings under natural condi-
tions in hot humid and cold wet seasons in Nanjing, Front. Architect. Civ. Eng.
China 4 (4) (2010) 503–511.
[84] R.F. Rupp, E. Ghisi, Predicting thermal comfort in office buildings in a Brazilian
temperate and humid climate, Energy Build. 144 (2017) 152–166.
[85] R.F. Rupp, N.G. Vásquez, R. Lamberts, A review of human thermal comfort in the
built environment, Energy Build. 105 (2015) 178–205.
[86] R.F. Rupp, J. Kim, R. de Dear, E. Ghisi, Associations of occupant demographics,
thermal history and obesity variables with their thermal comfort in air-condi-
tioned and mixed-mode ventilation office buildings, Build. Environ. (135)
(2018) 1–9.
[87] L. Schellen, W.D. van Marken Lichtenbelt, M.G.L.C. Loomans, J. Toftum, M.H. De
Wit, Differences between young adults and elderly in thermal comfort, pro-
ductivity, and thermal physiology in response to a moderate temperature drift and
a steady-state condition, Indoor Air 20 (4) (2010) 273–283.
[88] L. Schellen, M.G.L.C. Loomans, M.D. de Wit, B.W. Olesen, W.D. van Marken
Lichtenbelt, The influence of local effects on thermal sensation under non-uniform
environmental conditions—gender differences in thermophysiology, thermal
comfort and productivity during convective and radiant cooling, Physiol. Behav.
107 (2) (2012) 252–261.
[89] L. Schellen, M. Loomans, M. de Wit, W. van Marken Lichtenbelt, The influence of
different cooling techniques and gender on thermal perception, Build. Res. Inf. 41
(3) (2013) 330–341.
[90] G. Schiller, E.A. Arens, F. Bauman, C. Benton, M. Fountain, T. Doherty, A field
study of thermal environments and comfort in office buildings, Build. Eng. 94
(1988).
[91] P.L. Sehl, G.T. Leites, J.B. Martins, F. Meyer, Responses of obese and non-obese
boys cycling in the heat, Int. J. Sports Med. 33 (06) (2012) 497–501.
[92] N.A. Taylor, N.K. Allsopp, D.G. Parkes, Preferred room temperature of young vs
aged males: the influence of thermal sensation, thermal comfort, and affect, J.
Gerontol. Series A: Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 50 (4) (1995) M216–M221.
[93] Y. Terai, M. Asayama, T. Ogawa, J. Sugenoya, T. Miyagawa, Circadian variation of
preferred environmental temperature and body temperature, J. Therm. Biol. 10
(3) (1985) 151–156.
[94] D.K. Tiller, A. Musser, L.M. Wang, M.J. Radik, Combined effects of noise and
temperature on human comfort and performance, Build. Eng. 116 (2010)
522–540.
[95] M.M. Toner, W.D. McArdle, Physiological adjustments of man to the cold, Human
perform. physiol. environ. med. terrestrial extremes (1988) 361–399.
[96] K. Tsuzuki, T. Ohfuku, Thermal sensation and thermoregulation in elderly com-
pared to young people in Japanese winter season, Proc. indoor air 2 (2002)
659–664.
[97] J. Van Hoof, L. Schellen, V. Soebarto, J.K.W. Wong, J.K. Kazak, Ten questions
concerning thermal comfort and ageing, Build. Environ. 120 (2017) 123–133.
[98] A.M.J. Van Ooijen, W.D. van Marken Lichtenbelt, K.R. Westerterp, Individual
differences in body temperature and the relation to energy expenditure: the in-
fluence of mild cold, J. Therm. Biol. 26 (4) (2001) 455–459.
[99] J.A. Wagner, S.M. Horvath, Cardiovascular reactions to cold exposures differ with
age and gender, J. Appl. Physiol. 58 (1) (1985) 187–192.
[100] Z. Wang, A field study of the thermal comfort in residential buildings in Harbin,
Build. Environ. 41 (8) (2006) 1034–1039.
[101] L.H. Webb, K.C. Parsons, Thermal comfort requirements for people with physical
disabilities, Sustainable Buildings, Proceedings of the BEPAC and EPSRC Mini
Conference, Oxford, UK, 1997.
[102] L.H. Webb, K.C. Parsons, S.G. Hodder, Thermal comfort requirements: a study of
people with multiple sclerosis, Build. Eng. 105 (1999) 648–659.
[103] P. Webb, Metabolic heat balance data for 24-hour periods, IJB (Int. J.
Biometeorol.) 15 (2–4) (1971) 151–155.
[104] H.G. Wenzel, C. Mehnert, P. Schwarzenau, Evaluation of tolerance limits for
humans under heat stress and the problems involved, Scand. J. Work. Environ.
Health (1989) 7–14.
[106] L.T. Wong, K.N.K. Fong, K.W. Mui, W.W.Y. Wong, L.W. Lee, A field survey of the
expected desirable thermal environment for older people, Indoor Built Environ. 18
(4) (2009) 336–345.
[107] D.P. Wyon, I. Andersen, G.R. Lundqvist, Spontaneous magnitude estimation of
thermal discomfort during changes in the ambient temperature, Epidemiol. Infect.
70 (2) (1972) 203–221.
[108] N. Yamtraipat, J. Khedari, J. Hirunlabh, Thermal comfort standards for air con-
ditioned buildings in hot and humid Thailand considering additional factors of
acclimatization and education level, Sol. Energy 78 (4) (2005) 504–517.
[109] A. Yasuoka, H. Kubo, K. Tsuzuki, N. Isoda, Interindividual differences in thermal
comfort and the responses to skin cooling in young women, J. Therm. Biol. 37 (1)
(2012) 65–71.
[110] A.J. Young, Energy substrate utilization during exercise in extreme environments,
Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 18 (1) (1990) 65–118.
[111] A.J. Young, Effects of aging on human cold tolerance, Exp. Aging Res. 17 (3)
(1991) 205–213.
[112] H. Yun, I. Nam, J. Kim, J. Yang, K. Lee, J. Sohn, A field study of thermal comfort
for kindergarten children in Korea: an assessment of existing models and pre-
ferences of children, Build. Environ. 75 (2014) 182–189.
[113] H. Zhang, E. Arens, Y. Zhai, A review of the corrective power of personal comfort
systems in non-neutral ambient environments, Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 15–41.
[114] K.E. Al-Rashidi, D.L. Loveday, N.K. Al-Mutawa, Investigating the applicability of
different thermal comfort models in Kuwait classrooms operated in hybrid air-
conditioning mode, Sustain. Energy Build. (2009) 347–355.