Evaluation of thermal environment and human thermal comfort in 8 types of public places from 2019 to 2021

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the thermal environment of different types of public places and the thermal comfort of employees, so as to provide scientific basis for the establishment of microclimate standards and health supervision requirements. Methods: From June 2019 to December 2021, 50 public places (178 times) of 8 categories in Wuxi were selected, including hotels, swimming pools (gymnasiums), bathing places, shopping malls (supermarkets), barber shops, beauty shops, waiting rooms (bus station) and gyms. In summer and winter, microclimate indicators such as temperature and wind speed were measured in all kinds of places, combined with the work attire and physical activity of employees in the places. Fanger thermal comfort equation and center for the built environment (CBE) thermal comfort calculation tool were used to evaluate the predicted mean vote (PMV), predicted percent dissatisfied (PPD) and standard effective temperature (SET) according to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 55-2020. The modification effects of seasonal and temperature control conditions on thermal comfort were analyzed. The consistency of GB 37488-2019 "Hygienic Indicators and Limits in Public Places" and ASHRAE 55-2020 evaluation results on thermal environment was compared. Results: The thermal sensation of hotel, barber shop staff and the gym front-desk staff were moderate, while the thermal sensation of swimming place lifeguard, bathing place cleaning staff and gym trainer were slightly warm in summer and winter. Waiting room (bus station) cleaning and working staff, shopping mall staff felt slightly warm in summer and moderate in winter. Service staff in bathing places felt slightly warm in winter, while staff in beauty salons felt slightly cool in winter. The thermal comfort compliance of hotel cleaning staff and shopping mall staff in summer was lower than that in winter (χ(2)=7.01, 7.22, P=0.008, 0.007). The thermal comfort compliance of shopping mall staff in the condition of air conditioning off was higher than that in the condition of air conditioning on (χ(2)=7.01, P=0.008). The SET values of front-desk staff in hotels with different health supervision levels were significantly different (F=3.30, P=0.024). The PPD value and SET value of the front-desk staff, and the PPD value of cleaning staff of hotels above three stars were lower than those of hotels below three stars (P<0.05). The thermal comfort compliance of front-desk staff and cleaning staff in hotels above three stars was higher than that in hotels below three stars (χ(2)=8.33, 8.09, P=0.016, 0.018). The consistency of the two criteria was highest among waiting room (bus station) staff (100.0%, 1/1) and lowest among gym front-desk staff (0%, 0/2) and waiting room (bus station) cleaning staff (0%, 0/1) . Conclusion: There are different degrees of thermal discomfort in different seasons, under the condition of air conditioning and health supervision, and the microclimate indicators can not fully reflect the thermal comfort of human body. The health supervision of microclimate should be strengthened, the applicability of health standard limit value should be evaluated in many aspects, and the thermal comfort of occupational group should be improved.