Next Article in Journal
Diachronic Changes and Factors Influencing the Exterior Design of High-Rise Apartment Buildings
Previous Article in Journal
Facilitating Patient-Centric Thinking in Hospital Facility Management: A Case of Pharmaceutical Inventory
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/buildings12070890
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Thermal Perception in Naturally Ventilated University Buildings in Spain during the Cold Season

by
Antonio J. Aguilar
1,
María L. de la Hoz-Torres
2,*,
María Dolores Martínez-Aires
2 and
Diego P. Ruiz
1
1
Department of Applied Physics, University of Granada, Av. Severo Ochoa s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
2
Department of Building Construction, University of Granada, Av. Severo Ochoa s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2022, 12(7), 890; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070890
Submission received: 3 June 2022 / Revised: 22 June 2022 / Accepted: 22 June 2022 / Published: 24 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Building Energy, Physics, Environment, and Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The indoor thermal environment has become a critical factor, due to its impact on the energy efficiency of a building and the health and performance of its occupants. It is particularly important for educational buildings, where students and teachers are exposed to these thermal conditions. This study assessed the impact of natural ventilation efficiency and university students’ thermal perception during the cold season. A field monitoring campaign and a questionnaire survey were conducted. A total of 989 students participated in this study. The results show that, although the CO2 concentration in 90% of the evaluated classrooms was below the European recommended value (i.e., 800 ppm), only 18% of the classrooms were within the thermal comfort zone defined by national regulations. These thermal conditions caused 55% of the students surveyed to report that they were dissatisfied, and that this environment interfered with their academic performance. Significant differences were found between thermal sensation votes from female and male students (p < 0.001). The obtained neutral temperature was one degree higher for female students than for males. Our results suggest that ventilation protocols need to be modified by adjusting the window opening strategy, and these findings should be used as guidelines during their redesign.

1. Introduction

The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) is one of the many factors that influence occupants’ satisfaction. A good value of IEQ is crucial, as it not only affects the building’s energy efficiency and energy consumption [1,2,3], but also the health and emotions of the building’ occupants [4]. This is of particular importance in educational buildings, where students, teachers and other staff spend long periods of the day. Previous studies have highlighted that students’ concentration and learning abilities may be negatively affected by a poor IEQ [5,6,7], and health problems may even be created or worsened [8]. However, the management of indoor environmental conditions in educational buildings in Europe is different from that in other types of buildings (e.g., offices or residential buildings) due to their characteristics; for example, the high occupant density in classrooms (three to four times higher than in residential or commercial buildings [9]), and the fact that indoor air is renewed by natural ventilation [10].
An unsatisfactory indoor thermal environment can negatively influence the students’ learning and performance [11]. Thermal comfort is defined as “that condition of mind that expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment and is assessed by subjective evaluation” [12,13]. Thermal comfort is therefore a subjective variable, and has received attention from researchers in recent years. Previous research conducted in different climate regions has analysed indoor thermal conditions and students’ subjective thermal perception in educational buildings. For instance, Jowkar et al. [14] conducted a study in university buildings in Scotland and England, and found evidence of the influence of students’ acclimatisation (students from Edinburgh reported higher values of neutral mean thermal sensation votes (TSVs) than Coventry students). In addition, Stazi et al. [15] conducted a measurement campaign over several years in a school building in Italy, and concluded that students tended to suffer from poor air quality during the heating season, as the students placed a high priority on satisfying thermal perceptions. Stazi found that indoor and outdoor temperatures were the main factors driving window-opening behaviours, while CO2 concentration was not a stimulus. Similar conclusions were reported in research by Duarte et al. [16] on Portuguese educational buildings, where it was reported that manual opening of windows provided adequate ventilation for average outdoor temperatures above 19 °C. However, it was also found that when average outdoor temperatures were below 16 °C, manual window opening was inadequate, and for average outdoor temperatures of 16–19 °C, manual window opening depended on the indoor air temperature. In the same vein, Heracleous and Michael [17] evaluated the thermal comfort and indoor air quality conditions in a typical classroom with natural ventilation, in a secondary school in Cyprus. They also concluded that window-opening behaviour was highly influenced by the outdoor temperature, and that windows were closed when outdoor temperatures were lower than 15 °C. Papadopoulos et al. [18] reported that, in transition season in classrooms (free-running), there is a correlation between operative temperature and mean outdoor temperature. Another research study performed by Korsavi et al. [19,20] found that 55% of all CO2 measurements were above 1000 ppm, as ventilation was higher during the warm season than the cold season. They also concluded that indoor air quality was strongly affected by the adaptive behaviours of the occupants. Kim and de Dear [21] conducted a study in secondary school buildings located across temperate and subtropical climate regions in New South Wales and concluded that the students’ 80% acceptability zone was wider than that suggested by the PMV model. Hamzah et al. [22] found that the students’ neutral temperature obtained using the PMV model was lower than the value of neutral temperature obtained from the actual TSV. It is worth noting that, according to the adaptive thermal model, the neutral temperature in warm climates is higher than the neutral temperature in cold climates [23]. Previous studies concluded that students feel comfortable at cooler values of the thermal sensation scale [24,25].
In addition, previous studies have analysed thermal perception in other types of buildings, such as that of Ozarisoy and Altan [26], who explored the determinant factors of the development of adaptive thermal comfort of households through a field study conducted in flats in Cyprus. Their results reported that 80% of the participants were slightly comfortable in a temperature ranging from 28.5 to 31.50 °C. These findings suggest that, in hot and dry climates in which thermally uncomfortable indoor environments occurs, occupants of residential buildings appear to tolerate warmer conditions than in other climate regions, particularly in summer.
Indoor environmental conditions inside educational buildings have also been affected by the protocols implemented as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreaks. Reopening college and university campuses after COVID-19 lockdowns posed a global challenge. Ensuring proper ventilation with outside air to reduce the concentration of airborne contaminants required the implementation of new ventilation protocols. International organisations have issued guidelines with the aim of minimising the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus [27], and governments of countries around the world have taken measures to prevent and control its spread. In the case of Spain, these measures included increasing the ventilation rate in classrooms (to at least six air changes per hour) through continuous natural ventilation (i.e., windows and doors remaining continuously open during class lectures), increasing social distancing (to at least 1.5 m), and requiring hand washing and the use of facemasks indoors [28]. Regarding the EU guidelines for ventilation, the Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associations (REHVA) has recommended using CO2 concentration as an indicator of good indoor air quality, and has suggested a traffic light indicator for effective ventilation, where concentration values of below 800 ppm indicate good ventilation (green light), values between 800 and 1000 ppm represent acceptable ventilation (orange light), and values above 1000 ppm indicate unacceptable ventilation (red light) [27]. Consequently, the normal use of classrooms was modified, and new protocols and ventilation strategies were implemented, resulting in alterations to the classroom’s indoor environmental conditions [29,30,31,32].
Furthermore, it should be noted that students’ freedom to apply adaptive behaviours has been limited as a result of these new pandemic protocols. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, students in higher education buildings had the freedom to choose appropriate adaptive behaviours, both personal (e.g., changing where they were sitting during the teaching-learning process) and environmental (e.g., closing or opening classroom windows, using blinds, etc.) [33,34]. However, in the current situation, students must not close windows and doors due to the ventilation protocols (i.e., continuous natural ventilation). Moreover, as social distancing must be maintained at all times (at least 1.5 m), students cannot freely choose their positions within the class.
As students’ thermal perception can be influenced by the level of control possibilities within a space and the available adaptive behaviours, it is necessary to evaluate these new indoor environmental conditions, since the alterations in the thermal quality of the learning environment affects students’ learning achievements and physical and psychological health. Given that the studies mentioned previously were conducted before the implementation of the COVID-19 protocols, this study aimed to evaluate students’ thermal perception in higher educational buildings in southern Spain after the implementation of pandemic protocols. For this purpose, a questionnaire survey was conducted simultaneously with a sensor monitoring campaign during university lectures in the first semester of the academic year 2021–2022 (i.e., November 2021 to January 2022, corresponding to the cold season).

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology used in this field study included measurements of both objective parameters (through a sensor monitoring campaign) and subjective variables (through a questionnaire survey) to evaluate the indoor thermal perception of students. The following sections describe the characteristics of the buildings and lecture classrooms assessed, the sensors and survey applied, and the procedure followed during the measurement campaign. Figure 1 shows the methodological workflow developed for the study.

2.1. Descriptions of the Buildings and Classrooms

Data collection took place in lecture rooms in the educational buildings of Fuentenueva Campus of the University of Granada (Figure 2). This campus is located in Granada, a city in Andalusia (in the southern region of Spain), which is characterised by a climate classified as Csa according to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. The temperature is generally in the range 0–34 °C, and rarely rises above 38 °C or drops below −4 °C during the course of the year. All the buildings in which the field study was conducted were naturally ventilated. A summary of the characteristics of the investigated buildings is shown in Table 1. The selected classrooms were a representative sample of the typical classrooms in each building, and the study was conducted in classrooms where the lecturers gave consent and the teaching–learning activities were comparable (i.e., the lecture lasted at least one hour and students remained seated throughout).

2.2. Enviromental Evaluation

Ambient parameters can affect the heat balance of the human body and thus the thermal comfort of the occupants of buildings [35]. In this study, the indoor environmental variables recorded during field measurements were the air temperature (°C), mean radiant temperature (°C), air velocity (m/s), relative humidity (RH) (%) and CO2 concentration (ppm). The variables were recorded at a sampling interval of 1 min. The characteristics of the sensors are summarised in Table 2. The sensors were positioned 10 min before the lecture started, and were evenly distributed in the classroom at 0.6 m above floor level, following the recommendations in ISO 7726:1998. An example of the layout of the sensors’ locations is shown in Figure 3. The layout was similar in all classrooms.
The parameters of the outdoor thermal environment (air temperature, RH and air velocity) were obtained from the state meteorological agency AEMET [36], whose meteorological station is located in Cartuja Campus, close to the study area.

2.3. Thermal Perception Survey

The thermal perceptions of the higher education students were evaluated using a questionnaire survey during regular lectures. The questionnaire was based on the UNE–CEN/TR 16798-2:2019 Standard’s recommendations for evaluation of the indoor environmental quality, and included items related to personal information (gender, age and clothing, and type of masks worn by students during the survey) and thermal perception (thermal satisfaction vote (TSaV), TSV and thermal interference with the students’ performance (TIP)). TSaV, TSV and TIP were examined based on a seven-point Likert scale. Table 3 shows the scale used in the questionnaire survey. The questionnaires were filled out by the students during the final minutes of the lecture. The clothing insulation values were calculated based on the clothing selected by the students and using the guidelines stated in ISO 7730.
The collected subjective data were analysed and the significant differences between the responses were evaluated. For this purpose, the normality of the data was checked using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. A t-test was then used to examine the significant differences from normally distributed data, and a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to examine non-normally distributed data. Spearman’s correlation test was used to determine the relationship between the variables. Linear fits were used to assess the relationship between TSVs and Top. The neutral temperature (Tn) was calculated based on these linear fits. An exponential fit was used to explore the relationship between CO2 concentration inside the classroom and the total open area (m2) and the occupation density (m2/student). The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS (v. 23.0) software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Indoor and Outdoor Environments

The average, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values obtained from measurements of the indoor and outdoor environmental parameters are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that there were significant differences between the indoor and outdoor parameters. The indoor air was renewed by continuous natural ventilation through opening of the doors and windows, and the indoor environmental variables were therefore influenced by this ventilation protocol. The results obtained for the indoor operating temperature and RH show a wide variation (14.6–28.2 °C and 19.6–50.1%, respectively).

3.2. Students’ Thermal Perceptions

A total of 1100 questionnaires were collected in this field study, of which 989 were valid (111 were discarded as incomplete). Table 5 shows the distributions of the general information on the respondents. An approximately equal number of male and female subjects participated in this study (with only 8% more males than females). In addition, 84% of the participants were aged between 18 and 24, a figure that rose to 91% when participants aged 25–30 were included. These values were as expected, since the statistical data published in the annual report for the academic year 2020/2021 by the University of Granada indicated that 95% of the students enrolled in university degrees were aged between 18 and 30 [37]. In terms of the masks worn by students, the type most frequently used was a surgical mask (75%), followed by an FFP2 mask (16%). Only 8% of the students who participated in this study wore different types of mask.
The clothing insulation value was calculated on the basis of the clothing worn by each student, following the conventional clo table defined in ISO 7730 [38]. The distribution of the clothing insulation values is shown in Figure 4. The median clothing insulation value was 0.60 clo for males and 0.77 clo for females. Although previous research on the effect of clothing on people’s perception of the thermal environment has found that differences in clothing insulation between males and females were negligible for the cold seasons [39], the results obtained in this study show significant differences (p < 0.001).
Figure 5 shows the subjective thermal perception data collected through the questionnaires, including the percentage distributions of TSaV (Figure 5a), TSV (Figure 5b) and TIP (Figure 5c). The collected data were divided into two groups based on gender, and significant differences were found for these three subjective variables between the votes reported by female and male students (p < 0.001). With respect to the TSaV, the predominant responses of students of both genders were ‘very dissatisfied’, ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘slightly dissatisfied’ with the indoor thermal conditions (accounting for a total response of 47% for males and 64% for females). Only 11% of females and 18% of males reported a ‘neutral’ response. It should be noted that the percentage of females reporting satisfaction with the temperature was lower than the percentage of males. For the TSV, 55% of the female students’ votes and 63% of the males’ were in the comfort range (i.e., between ‘slightly cool’ (−1) and ‘slightly warm’ according to [12]). Of the TSVs that were outside the comfort range, the percentage of students who considered the environment ‘cold’ or ‘cool’ (40% of females and 28% of males) was higher than those that considered it to be ‘warm’ or ‘hot’ (5% and 9% of females and males, respectively).
About 47% of the male and 66% of the female occupants reported that the indoor thermal conditions interfered with their academic performance (based on the total responses of ‘interfere a lot’, ‘interfere’ and ‘slightly interfere’). However, only 21% of males and 17% of females indicated that the indoor thermal conditions enhanced learning (based on the total responses of ‘slightly enhance’, ‘enhance’ and ‘enhance a lot’). It was notable that only 17% of the female students gave a neutral response to this question, a much lower value than for the males (32%). In view of these results, it is possible to conclude that the percentage of female students who reported that the indoor thermal conditions interfered with their academic performance was much higher than for the male students.
The relationships between the subjective variables were also examined, and the distributions of the values of TSaV and TIP reported by the students in relation to the TSV values are shown in Figure 6. Between 95% and 100% of the students who voted that the indoor thermal conditions were cold or cool were also dissatisfied, and reported that these conditions interfered with their academic performance.
Of the students who reported that the temperature was within a comfortable range (between ‘slightly cool’ and slightly ‘warm’), both male and female students indicated that a slightly warm indoor environment was more satisfactory and enhanced their academic work. In the case of female students who reported a ‘slightly cool’ TSV, a higher percentage of dissatisfaction was observed (80%) than for male students (64%). Similar results were found with regard to interference in academic performance.
In contrast, of those students who reported a ‘warm’ TSV, lower percentages were dissatisfied (13% of male students and 21% of female students) or indicated that the thermal conditions interfered with their academic performance (16% and 21% of male and female students, respectively). These results evidence a preference for a warmer indoor environment during cold season.
To illustrate the relationship between the objective and subjective variables, Figure 7 shows the values of TSV against Top. A linear regression was used to analyse the thermal neutrality (Tn), and the fitting equations obtained in this way are shown in Table 6. Since significant differences were found between the TSVs reported by male and female students, the data were evaluated separately. The overall total Tn was 23.8 °C, with values of 23.2 °C for males and 24.2 °C for females.
The difference between the values of Tn obtained for the male and female students shows that the female students had a preference for warmer temperatures. This finding is also reflected in Figure 8, which shows the relationships between the difference between Top and Tn (i.e., DT) and the percentages of dissatisfied students (Figure 8a) and those reporting learning interference (Figure 8b). These results indicate a lower percentage of dissatisfied students (≤20%) when DT ranges from −2 to 4 °C.

3.3. Continuous Natural Ventilation and the Indoor Thermal and Air Quality Environment

Figure 9a shows the relationship between the total open area (m2) of windows and doors used to provide continuous natural ventilation, and the CO2 concentration inside the classrooms. If the recommendations for ventilation efficiency given in the REHVA guidelines are considered, we see that 90% of the lectures in which measurements were conducted had values lower than 800 ppm, meaning that the ventilation strategy provided enough air circulation according to these guidelines. Figure 9b shows the occupation density (m2/student) against CO2 concentration. As expected, the lower the area per occupant, the higher the CO2 concentration in the classroom. The fitting equations are shown in Table 7. In addition, the relationship was examined using the Spearman correlation test. The results showed a moderate relationship between CO2 concentration and the total open area ( ρ = −0.515, p < 0.01). Regarding the CO2 concentration and occupation, a moderate-low relationship was obtained (ρ = −0.451, p < 0.01).
Although the CO2 concentrations remained below 800 ppm in most of the analysed scenarios, these ventilation strategies also affected the indoor environmental conditions. In fact, the results presented in the previous section indicate that a high percentage of students were dissatisfied with the indoor thermal conditions, and considered that the indoor environment was ‘cold’, ‘cool’ or ‘slightly cool’ (49.2%). This was due to the influence of the outside temperature on the indoor thermal conditions, from the open windows. This is evident in Figure 10, which shows the total percentage of students who were dissatisfied with the indoor thermal conditions as a function of the outdoor temperature and the total area of open windows.

4. Discussion

The results obtained in this study represent the students’ perceptions of the indoor thermal environment during the cold season in a naturally ventilated higher education building. The reopening of educational buildings for the academic year 2021/2022 posed a challenge to building managers, and the need to ensure that indoor spaces were healthy and safe for students and teachers led to the implementation of ventilation protocols to ensure effective air renewal.
The results presented here show that a strategy of continuous natural ventilation was able to provide effective air renewal and kept the CO2 concentration below 800 ppm in more than 90% of the classrooms (Figure 9). However, this protocol also influenced the indoor thermal conditions of these spaces. The average indoor temperature was 20.5 °C, below the lower limit given in the Regulation on Building Heating Installations (RITE) (which states that the indoor operative temperature should be in the range 21.0–23.0 °C during the winter season) [40]. Only 18% of the evaluated classrooms were in this range, which was reflected in the high percentage of dissatisfied students. Our findings are similar to those reported by Monge-Barrio et al. [41], who conducted a study to evaluate the use of natural ventilation to improve IAQ in educational buildings in northern Spain. They found that, although natural ventilation helped to improve IAQ (with lower CO2 concentrations), this resulted in lower temperatures inside the classroom, especially on the coldest days of the winter season.
The values obtained for Tn (23.2 °C for males and 24.2 °C for females) were slightly above the range given in the RITE standard. It was observed that students preferred a warmer environment during the cold season. The percentage of dissatisfied students was lower when the difference between Tn and Top was between −2 and 4 °C (see Figure 8). Lower values of TSV were detected for female students than for male students, and significant differences between the overall votes of males and females were detected. This effect has been also found in previous research conducted in cold regions [42]. Similar results were reported by Jowkar et al. [14], who conducted a study of higher educational buildings in Coventry and Edinburgh, and concluded that women tended to have statistically higher thermal preferences and lower thermal TSVs than men. Although the clothing insulation value for females was higher than for males, female students assessed the indoor environment as cooler and preferred warmer thermal conditions.
If these results are compared with those reported by other studies carried out in educational buildings in different climatic regions, it is found that the Tn in cold climates is lower than the Tn in warmer climates [23]. Regarding the analysis of students’ thermal comfort in regions located in the Tropics, Hamzah et al. [22] carried out a study in the tropical city of Makassar and found that the Tn values were 29.0 and 28.5 °C for TSV and TCV, respectively, with an average clothing insulation of 0.69 clo. Kim and Dear [21] conducted a study in secondary school buildings located across temperate and subtropical climate regions in New South Wales and investigated the students’ perception of classroom thermal environment in relation to adaptive comfort guidelines. They found a neutral temperature of 24.4 °C with an average clothing insulation of 0.48 clo. In contrast a the study conducted by Liu et al. [23] in rural school classrooms in Northwest China reported a neutral temperature of 15 °C. Nevertheless, this study reported that the students’ average clothing insulation was found to be 1.6 clo, which is much higher than that found in studies in warmer regions.
Considering studies conducted in other types of buildings, the Tn also differs from the Tn obtained in the present study. As an example, Ozarisoy [26] conducted a study during summer in multi-family social-housing units in Cyprus and found a Tn of 28.5 °C. However, it should be noted that households’ freedom to apply adaptive behaviours has not been limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as in the case of students in educational buildings.
It should be also noted that significant differences were found between the clothing insulation values for female and male students, with the median value for female students being 0.17 clo above the value for the male students. It should be also be borne in mind that the adaptive behaviour of students during lectures was limited due to the pandemic protocols; it is possible that students came to class expecting different indoor environmental conditions, and did not dress appropriately for this new scenario. As a result, their indoor thermal comfort may have been compromised. This is evidenced in Figure 8, which shows the percentage of dissatisfied students as a function of outdoor temperature and the total area of open windows. In a study of thermal comfort in university classrooms of south-west Spain during mid-season (spring), Miranda et al. [32] also reported that different natural ventilation strategies are recommended when the outdoor temperature is below 12 °C (i.e., limiting the number of open windows) in order to minimise the number of dissatisfied students.
In view of the fact that the implemented protocols affected the students’ perception of the thermal environment, not only resulting in a high percentage of students who were dissatisfied with the indoor thermal conditions, but also in 56% stating that these thermal conditions negatively affected their academic performance, we conclude that these new protocols need to be adapted.

5. Limitations

Unlike other types of buildings (i.e., commercial, industrial or residential buildings), educational buildings should provide a conducive environment to enhance the teaching and learning process [24]. The specific characteristics of educational buildings are especially important in the analysis of the thermal environment and the thermal perception of students. The reopening of university campuses after lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of new ventilation protocols has resulted in limiting students’ freedom to apply adaptive behaviour. In this context, this study aimed to assess the thermal perception of students in educational buildings and, therefore, the obtained results should not be extrapolated to other populations without prior considerations.

6. Conclusions

The indoor thermal environmental conditions were significantly affected by the new ventilation protocols resulting from the COVID pandemic during the cold season. Adaptive behaviours by students were limited, as they were prevented from opening or closing windows, and the results reflect the high number of dissatisfied students. Although our results show that continuous natural ventilation allowed these spaces to be safe and healthy, its effect on thermal conditions must be taken into account, as it had a strong impact on student satisfaction and performance.
Amongst our other findings, we observed statistically significant differences between the TSav, TSV and TIP values reported by male and female students. Female students reported a value for Tn that was 1 °C higher than that for men, showing a preference for warmer temperatures for comfort. It is worth noting that, even though the clothing insulation values were higher for females than for males, there were significant differences in the results, and females indicated a preference for warmer thermal conditions.
Finally, we recommend that the findings obtained in this study are taken into account and the protocols modified to ensure that indoor thermal conditions do not negatively affect student satisfaction and academic performance. From the results obtained in this study, we conclude that the maximum range of deviation in the temperature from Tn, to ensure the percentage of dissatisfied students does not exceed 20%, is −2 to 4 °C. Consequently, additional measures should be considered to adapt these protocols during the cold-mid season, in order to contribute to keeping spaces safe while minimising the negative impact on students’ academic performance.

Author Contributions

M.L.d.l.H.-T. and A.J.A. conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, validation and writing—original draft preparation; D.P.R. and M.D.M.-A. methodology, validation, resources, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Consejo General de la Arquitectura Técnica (CGATE) and the State Research Agency (SRA) of Spain and European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) under project PID2019-108761RB-I00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are provided upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The first author wish to acknowledge the support of the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades of Spain under an FPU grant.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bortolini, R.; Forcada, N. Association between building characteristics and indoor environmental quality through post-occupancy evaluation. Energies 2021, 14, 1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lai, J.H.; Man, C.S. Developing a performance evaluation scheme for engineering facilities in commercial buildings: State-of-the-art review. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2017, 21, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Vijayan, D.S.; Sivasuriyan, A.; Patchamuthu, P. Thermal performance of energy-efficient buildings for sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Heinzerling, D.; Schiavon, S.; Webster, T.; Arens, E. Indoor environmental quality assessment models: A literature review and a proposed weighting and classification scheme. Build. Environ. 2013, 70, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Almeida, R.M.; Ramos, N.M.; De Freitas, V.P. Thermal comfort models and pupils’ perception in free-running school buildings of a mild climate country. Energy Build. 2016, 111, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barrett, P.; Davies, F.; Zhang, Y.; Barrett, L. The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Build. Environ. 2015, 89, 118–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Corgnati, S.P.; Filippi, M.; Viazzo, S. Perception of the thermal environment in high school and university classrooms: Subjective preferences and thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 951–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baloch, R.M.; Maesano, C.N.; Christoffersen, J.; Banerjee, S.; Gabriel, M.; Csobod, É.; de Oliveira Fernandes, E.; Annesi-Maesano, I.; Szuppinger, P.; Prokai, R. Indoor air pollution, physical and comfort parameters related to schoolchildren’s health: Data from the European SINPHONIE study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 139870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chithra, V.; Nagendra, S.S. Indoor air quality investigations in a naturally ventilated school building located close to an urban roadway in Chennai, India. Build. Environ. 2012, 54, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. World Health Organization (WHO). Europe, School Environment: Policies and Current Status. 2015, p. 82. Available online: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/publications/2015/the-school-environment-policies-and-current-status (accessed on 30 October 2021).
  11. Mendell, M.J.; Heath, G.A. Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 2005, 15, 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Standard 55-2013; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy: Atlanta, Georgia, 2013.
  13. UNE-CEN/TR 16798-2:2019; Energy Performance of Buildings—Ventilation for Buildings—Part 2: Interpretation of the Requirements in EN 16798-1—Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality, Thermal ENVIRONMENT, Lighting and Acoustics (Module M1-6). UNE: Armidale, Australia, 2019.
  14. Jowkar, M.; Rijal, H.B.; Montazami, A.; Brusey, J.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A. The influence of acclimatization, age and gender-related differences on thermal perception in university buildings: Case studies in Scotland and England. Build. Environ. 2020, 179, 106933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stazi, F.; Naspi, F.; Ulpiani, G.; Di Perna, C. Indoor air quality and thermal comfort optimization in classrooms developing an automatic system for windows opening and closing. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 732–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duarte, R.; da Glória Gomes, M.; Rodrigues, A.M. Classroom ventilation with manual opening of windows: Findings from a two-year-long experimental study of a Portuguese secondary school. Build. Environ. 2017, 124, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Heracleous, C.; Michael, A. Experimental assessment of the impact of natural ventilation on indoor air quality and thermal comfort conditions of educational buildings in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the heating period. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Papadopoulos, G.; Tolis, E.I.; Panaras, G. IEQ assessment in free-running university classrooms. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2022, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Korsavi, S.S.; Montazami, A.; Mumovic, D. Ventilation rates in naturally ventilated primary schools in the UK; Contextual, Occupant and Building-related (COB) factors. Build. Environ. 2020, 181, 107061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Korsavi, S.S.; Montazami, A.; Mumovic, D. Indoor air quality (IAQ) in naturally-ventilated primary schools in the UK: Occupant-related factors. Build. Environ. 2020, 180, 106992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, J.; de Dear, R. Thermal comfort expectations and adaptive behavioural characteristics of primary and secondary school students. Build. Environ. 2018, 127, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hamzah, B.; Gou, Z.; Mulyadi, R.; Amin, S. Thermal comfort analyses of secondary school students in the tropics. Buildings 2018, 8, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Liu, Y.; Jiang, J.; Wang, D.; Liu, J. The indoor thermal environment of rural school classrooms in Northwestern China. Indoor Built Environ. 2017, 26, 662–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, M.K.; Ooka, R.; Rijal, H.B.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, A.; Mahapatra, S. Progress in thermal comfort studies in classrooms over last 50 years and way forward. Energy Build. 2019, 188, 149–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jing, S.; Lei, Y.; Wang, H.; Song, C.; Yan, X. Thermal comfort and energy-saving potential in university classrooms during the heating season. Energy Build. 2019, 202, 109390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ozarisoy, B.; Altan, H. Regression forecasting of ‘neutral’adaptive thermal comfort: A field study investigation in the south-eastern Mediterranean climate of Cyprus. Build. Environ. 2021, 202, 108013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. REHVA, COVID19 Guidance. How to Operate HVAC and Other Building Service Systems to Prevent the Spread of the Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Disease (COVID-19) in Workplaces Version 4.1. Available online: https://www.rehva.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/REHVA_COVID-19_guidance_document_V4.1_15042021.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
  28. Ministry of Health of the Spanish Government. Evaluación del Riesgo de la Transmisión de SARS-CoV-2 Mediante Aerosoles. Medidas de Prevención y Recomendaciones. Ministerio de Sanidad. Gobierno de España. Available online: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov/documentos/COVID19_Aerosoles.pdf. (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  29. Aguilar, A.J.; María, L.; Costa, N.; Arezes, P.; Martínez-Aires, M.D.; Ruiz, D.P. Assessment of ventilation rates inside educational buildings in Southwestern Europe: Analysis of implemented strategic measures. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 51, 104204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. de la Hoz-Torres, M.L.; Aguilar, A.J.; Ruiz, D.P.; Martínez-Aires, M.D. Analysis of Impact of Natural Ventilation Strategies in Ventilation Rates and Indoor Environmental Acoustics Using Sensor Measurement Data in Educational Buildings. Sensors 2021, 21, 6122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Villanueva, F.; Notario, A.; Cabañas, B.; Martín, P.; Salgado, S.; Gabriel, M.F. Assessment of CO2 and aerosol (PM2.5, PM10, UFP) concentrations during the reopening of schools in the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of a metropolitan area in Central-Southern Spain. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miranda, M.; Romero, P.; Valero-Amaro, V.; Arranz, J.; Montero, I. Ventilation conditions and their influence on thermal comfort in examination classrooms in times of COVID-19. A case study in a Spanish area with Mediterranean climate. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2022, 240, 113910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nicol, F.; Humphreys, M.; Roaf, S. Adaptive Thermal Comfort: Principles and Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jowkar, M.; Montazami, A. Thermal Comfort in the UK Higher Educational Buildings: The Influence of Thermal History on Students’ Thermal Comfort. In Proceedings of the Windsor Conference, Rethinking Comfort, Windsor, UK, 12–15 April 2018; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  35. Enescu, D. A review of thermal comfort models and indicators for indoor environments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 1353–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. State Meteorological Agency (AEMET). Available online: http://www.aemet.es (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  37. University of Granada (UGR). Annex Statistical Data UGR 2021. 2021. Available online: https://secretariageneral.ugr.es/pages/memorias/academica/20202021/estadistica/_doc/01/%21 (accessed on 26 May 2022).
  38. ISO 7730:2005; Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort using Calculation of the PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria. International Organisation for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; p. 7730.
  39. Schiavon, S.; Lee, K.H. Dynamic predictive clothing insulation models based on outdoor air and indoor operative temperatures. Build. Environ. 2013, 59, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism. Reglamento de Instalaciones Termicas En Los Edificios. Versión Consolidada. 2013. Available online: https://energia.gob.es/desarrollo/EficienciaEnergetica/RITE/Reglamento/RDecreto-1027-2007-Consolidado-9092013.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
  41. Monge-Barrio, A.; Bes-Rastrollo, M.; Dorregaray-Oyaregui, S.; González-Martínez, P.; Martin-Calvo, N.; López-Hernández, D.; Arriazu-Ramos, A.; Sánchez-Ostiz, A. Encouraging natural ventilation to improve indoor environmental conditions at schools. Case studies in the north of Spain before and during COVID. Energy Build. 2022, 254, 111567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Huang, B.; Hong, B.; Tian, Y.; Yuan, T.; Su, M. Outdoor thermal benchmarks and thermal safety for children: A study in China’s cold region. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 12 00890 g001 550
Figure 1. Methodological flow diagram.
Figure 1. Methodological flow diagram.
Buildings 12 00890 g001
Buildings 12 00890 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Investigated buildings’ location. (b) Building 1. (c) Building 2. (d) Building 3.
Figure 2. (a) Investigated buildings’ location. (b) Building 1. (c) Building 2. (d) Building 3.
Buildings 12 00890 g002
Buildings 12 00890 g003 550
Figure 3. Example of the layout of the sensor locations during field measurements.
Figure 3. Example of the layout of the sensor locations during field measurements.
Buildings 12 00890 g003
Buildings 12 00890 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of clothing insulation values by gender. Red indicates males’ clothing insulation. Blue colour indicates females’ clothing insulation. Circle indicates the mean value.
Figure 4. Distribution of clothing insulation values by gender. Red indicates males’ clothing insulation. Blue colour indicates females’ clothing insulation. Circle indicates the mean value.
Buildings 12 00890 g004
Buildings 12 00890 g005 550
Figure 5. Distribution of responses obtained for (a) TSaV; (b) TSV; (c) TIP.
Figure 5. Distribution of responses obtained for (a) TSaV; (b) TSV; (c) TIP.
Buildings 12 00890 g005
Buildings 12 00890 g006 550
Figure 6. (a) Distributions of TSaV versus TSV results for male students; (b) Distributions of TSaV versus TSV results for female students; (c) Distributions of TIP versus TSV results for male students; (d) Distributions of TIP versus TSV results for female students.
Figure 6. (a) Distributions of TSaV versus TSV results for male students; (b) Distributions of TSaV versus TSV results for female students; (c) Distributions of TIP versus TSV results for male students; (d) Distributions of TIP versus TSV results for female students.
Buildings 12 00890 g006
Buildings 12 00890 g007 550
Figure 7. (a) TSV values reported by students versus Top; (b) values of TSV reported by female and male students versus Top.
Figure 7. (a) TSV values reported by students versus Top; (b) values of TSV reported by female and male students versus Top.
Buildings 12 00890 g007
Buildings 12 00890 g008 550
Figure 8. (a) Percentage of dissatisfied students versus DT; (b) percentage reporting learning interference versus TSV.
Figure 8. (a) Percentage of dissatisfied students versus DT; (b) percentage reporting learning interference versus TSV.
Buildings 12 00890 g008
Buildings 12 00890 g009 550
Figure 9. (a) CO2 concentration versus total open area (m2); (b) CO2 concentration versus occupation density (m2/student). Red line indicates the REHVA CO2 concentration limit recommendation.
Figure 9. (a) CO2 concentration versus total open area (m2); (b) CO2 concentration versus occupation density (m2/student). Red line indicates the REHVA CO2 concentration limit recommendation.
Buildings 12 00890 g009
Buildings 12 00890 g010 550
Figure 10. Relationship between the percentage of dissatisfied students, outdoor temperature and total area of open windows.
Figure 10. Relationship between the percentage of dissatisfied students, outdoor temperature and total area of open windows.
Buildings 12 00890 g010
Table
Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of the investigated buildings.
Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of the investigated buildings.
BuildingFinishing MaterialsType of WindowsAverage Area (m2)No. of Surveyed RoomsAve. Occupancy Ratio (m2/person)
1Wall: Gypsum plasterAluminium glazed windows
(tilt and turn)		144 ± 4462.0 ± 0.6
Floor: Terrazzo
Ceiling: Registrable suspended ceiling
2Wall: Gypsum plasterAluminium glazed windows (sliding)173 ± 5381.7 ± 0.9
Floor: Terrazzo
Ceiling: Registrable suspended ceiling
3Wall: Gypsum plasterAluminium glazed windows
(tilt and turn)		92 ± 12101.2 ± 0.2
Floor: Terrazzo
Ceiling: Registrable suspended ceiling
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the sensors used in the field measurement campaign.
Table 2. Characteristics of the sensors used in the field measurement campaign.
SensorModelParameterRangeAccuracy
CO2 analyser HOBO®MX1102CO2 concentration0 to 5.000 ppm±50 ppm ±5% reading accuracy
AHLBORN air temperature sensorFHAD 46-C41AAir temperature meter−20 to +80 °CTypical ±0.2 K at 5 to 60 °C
maximum ±0.4 K at 5 to 60 °C
maximum ±0.7 K at −20 to +80 °C
AHLBORN RH sensorFHAD 46-C41ARH0 to 98% RH±2.0% RH in the range 10–90% RH
±4.0% RH in the range 5–98% RH
Delta OHM hotwire air speed transmitterHD403TS2Air speed0.1–5 m/s±0.2 m/s + 3% f.s.
AHLBORN black ball thermometerFPA805GTSMean radiant temperature−50 to 200 °C0.1 °C
Table
Table 3. Scales used in the questionnaire survey.
Table 3. Scales used in the questionnaire survey.
IndexLevelScale
TSaVVery dissatisfied, dissatisfied, slightly dissatisfied, neutral, slightly satisfied, satisfied, very satisfied(−3), (−2), (−1), (0), (1), (2), (3)
TSVCold, cool, slightly cool, neutral, slightly warm, warm, hot(−3), (−2), (−1), (0), (1), (2), (3)
TIPInterfere a lot, interfere, slightly interfere, neutral, slightly enhance, enhance, enhance a lot(−3), (−2), (−1), (0), (1), (2), (3)
Note: TSaV: thermal satisfaction vote; TSV: thermal sensation vote, TIP: thermal interference in the students’ performance.
Table
Table 4. Summary of values obtained from the sensor monitoring campaign.
Table 4. Summary of values obtained from the sensor monitoring campaign.
TypeOutdoor Indoor
Air Temperature (°C)RH (%)Air Velocity (m/s)Operative Temperature (Top) (°C)RH (%)Air Velocity (m/s)CO2 Concentration (ppm)
Average13.158.45.0720.637.90.03566.4
STD *7.521.25.483.97.30.04118.2
Max30.494.023.0028.250.10.19897.3
Min2.116.0<0.0114.619.6<0.01410.0
* STD: standard deviation value.
Table
Table 5. Characteristics of the sensors used in the field measurement campaign.
Table 5. Characteristics of the sensors used in the field measurement campaign.
VariableNumber of Respondents, N (%)
GenderMale539 (54%)
Female450 (46%)
Agen/a31 (3%)
18–24829 (84%)
25–30107 (11%)
+3022 (2%)
Type of maskFFP2163 (16%)
Surgical742 (75%)
Cloth60 (6%)
n/a24 (2%)
Table
Table 6. Fitting equations of TSV against top.
Table 6. Fitting equations of TSV against top.
Fittingp-ValueR2
TotalTSV = 0.21 top − 4.99p < 0.0010.74
MaleTSV = 0.20 top − 4.64p < 0.0010.65
FemaleTSV = 0.23 top − 5.56p < 0.0010.68
Table
Table 7. Fitting equations.
Table 7. Fitting equations.
VariablesFittingp-ValueR2
CO2 concentration/total open area (m2)CO2 = 599.3 e−0.57x + 499.5p < 0.0010.42
CO2 concentration (ppm)/occupation (m2/student)CO2 = 1894.6 e−0.90x +526.9p < 0.0010.40
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aguilar, A.J.; de la Hoz-Torres, M.L.; Martínez-Aires, M.D.; Ruiz, D.P. Thermal Perception in Naturally Ventilated University Buildings in Spain during the Cold Season. Buildings 2022, 12, 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070890

AMA Style

Aguilar AJ, de la Hoz-Torres ML, Martínez-Aires MD, Ruiz DP. Thermal Perception in Naturally Ventilated University Buildings in Spain during the Cold Season. Buildings. 2022; 12(7):890. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070890

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aguilar, Antonio J., María L. de la Hoz-Torres, María Dolores Martínez-Aires, and Diego P. Ruiz. 2022. "Thermal Perception in Naturally Ventilated University Buildings in Spain during the Cold Season" Buildings 12, no. 7: 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070890

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop