See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258139990

A Thermal Comfort Investigation of a Facility Department of a Hospital in

Hot-Humid Climate: Correlation between Objective and Subjective
Measurements

Article  in  Indoor and Built Environment · October 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1420326X12460067

CITATIONS READS

21 801

6 authors, including:

F. Azizpour Saeid Moghimi

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Semnan University
13 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mat Sohif
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
206 PUBLICATIONS   3,093 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enission Trading Scheme for Cement Factories View project

Numerical and experimental study on hybrid compression air conditioning systems using R134a View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mat Sohif on 15 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Study Paper
Indoor and Built Accepted: August 12, 2012
Environment Indoor Built Environ 2013;22;5:836–845

A Thermal Comfort
Investigation of a Facility
Department of a Hospital in
Hot-Humid Climate:
Correlation between
Objective and Subjective
Measurements
F. Azizpour S. Moghimi C. H. Lim S. Mat E. Salleh
K. Sopian
Solar Energy Research Institute, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Key Words humid areas would prefer cooler environment to

Hot-humid region E Neutral temperature E Predicted
mean vote (PMV) E Thermal comfort E Thermal
sensation vote (TSV)
Abstract
A field study on assessing thermal comfort has been
performed on one of the large-scale hospitals in
Malaysia, a country where the climate is classified as
hot-humid. The main objective of this study was to
examine the comfort criteria by American Society of
Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Engineers, US
(ASHRAE) standards in hot-humid regions and also to
find the correlation between predicted mean vote (PMV)
according to Fanger’s theory and thermal sensation
vote (TSV) according to occupant votes. Therefore, both
objective and subjective data was collected in this
hospital, and this study’s results have confirmed that
the preferred temperature is not necessarily in com-
pliance with a neutral temperature, and people in hot-
neutral temperature. In addition, by analyzing linear
regression, a strong correlation between PMV and TSV
was found while R2 ¼ 0.950, and also the neutral
temperature point in this field study was around
þ0.75 on the seven-point ASHRAE thermal sensation
scale.
Introduction
Appropriate indoor air quality (IAQ) is necessary for a
healthy environment [1]. Several short-term and long-term
problems regarding health and productivity are associated
to poor IAQ including temperature, humidity, air velocity,
lighting, noise and CO2 [2,3]. A comfortable indoor
environment is an essential condition for any building
type. So far, a lot of studies have been done on climate,
adaptive and behavioural factors relating to and affecting
thermal comfort, HVAC and control systems [4,5].

ß The Author(s), 2012. Reprints and permissions:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav F. Azizpour,
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X12460067 Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Accessible online at http://ibe.sagepub.com 43600, Malaysia. Tel. þ603-8921 4596, Fax þ603-8921 4593,
Figures 1–4 appear in colour online E-Mail fa.azizpour@gmail.com
These are all important issues that must be considered by
architects and engineers when designing and retrofitting
buildings. As such, significant opportunities are regained
regarding saving energy, reducing emissions and provid-
ing appropriate thermal conditions in buildings [2,6,7].
Hospitals in particular face these issues more critically
than other buildings due to their unique characteristics
and requirements [8,9]. Hospitals operate around the
clock, and their micro climate can significantly affect
both patients and staffs. Patients’ thermal requirements
are not only due to physical weakness but can also affect
the healing process and the length of stay in hospital
[10,11].
There are an increasing number of studies that show
how workers’ satisfaction with their work environment
including thermal conditions could greatly influence their
productivity [12,13]. Furthermore, the high correlation
between environmental factors, health, productivity and
satisfaction with the work environment could decrease
absenteeism amongst staff [14,15].
The first scientific studies on thermal comfort began in
1950s. Then, Fanger’s theory based on a fully controlled
climate chamber opened the way for researchers to
evaluate thermal comfort. In recent years, researchers’
interest in the adaptive theory of thermal comfort has led
to qualifying and improving thermal environment, sub-
jectively and objectively [16,17]. Fundamentally, the
adaptive theory implies that humans can play a key role
in thermal comfort, meaning that people can create
thermal conditions in which they would prefer, con-
sciously or unconsciously, given the opportunity to modify
their ambient thermal environment such as changing
metabolic rate, posture and clothing [18].
There are many standards for describing thermal
comfort in indoor environments. The two most fre-
quently used standards are American Society of Heating,
Air conditioning & Refrigeration Engineers, US
(ASHRAE) standard 55-2010 [19] and ISO 7730:2005
[20]. Also, some researchers are focusing on thermal
comfort in hot-humid climates and have found some
differences to the predicted mean vote (PMV) model as
prescribed by the standards. Studies show that not all of
the above standards are totally suitable for hot-humid
region conditions [21,22].
The main objectives of this study are as follows:
. To evaluate the thermal sensation vote (TSV) through a
field study based on subjective data collection.
. To evaluate the predicted mean vote (PMV) in the field
study according to objective data collection.
A Thermal Comfort Investigation in Hot-Humid Climate
. To find the relationship between TSV and PMV and
examine the ASHRAE thermal comfort criteria in a
hot-humid region.
. To evaluate IAQ in the field study based on objective
measurements.
Research Methodology
Climate Background and Site Description
Malaysia is a hot and humid tropical country, lying
between Latitude 18 and 78 north and Longitude 1008 and
1208 east. Malaysia has a yearly mean temperature of 268C
to 278C, high day time temperatures of 298C to 348C and a
relative humidity (RH) of 70% to 90% throughout the
year [23].
The assessment of thermal comfort was conducted at
University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center’s
(UKMMC) facility department built on 240,000 m2 and
situated in Cheras, Selongor.
The facility department is a three-story building
located in the west of UKMMC and was established
in 1997. More information on this building is listed in
Table 1.
Data Collection
The facility department of UKMMC is divided into 5
thermal zones according to different thermal conditions
and activity. The 5 thermal zones are lobby, office, praying
room, kindergarten and catering area. The lobby, kinder-
garten and catering areas are located on the ground floor
while the praying room and office are on the first floor.
The total number of occupants in all 5 zones is around
200. In this study, which investigates thermal comfort,
Table 1. Information regarding the field study (facility department
of UKMMC)
Structure of roof Steep roof, clay tile
Structure of external wall Normal brick þ 2-layer plaster
Total volume (m3) 27682 m3
Total floor area (m2) 5957 m2
Max. no. of occupants 250
Cooling system Air conditioned
Ext. wall area (m2) 4010 m2
Ext. opening area (m2) 853 m2
UKMMC: University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center.
Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 837
both objective and subjective measurements were per-
formed in May and June 2011.
Objective Measurement
Physical data for determining the level of thermal
comfort and IAQ was measured with the Thermal
Comfort Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI). This
equipment can measure ambient temperature, mean
radiant temperature (MRT), RH, air velocity (V), lux
level, noise and CO2. All measurements were taken at a
height of 1.0 m above the ground and calibration was done
prior to measurement.
The first step was to evaluate the thermal comfort.
There are six physical factors affecting human thermal
comfort. The four environmental factors which were
measured are air temperature, MRT, humidity, air
velocity and the two personal factors of clothing insulation
value (CLO) and activity level (MET), which are estimated
in accordance with ASHRAE 55-2010 [24,25]. The
personal factors of the personnel of each thermal zone
monitored by this study are presented in Table 2.
In all thermal zones, the Clo-value (thermal resistance)
was set at 0.6 according to staff uniforms at UKMMC
since this study focused on staffs other than in the praying
room where the Clo was estimated to be 0.7 due to
additional cover while praying. Regarding different
activities observed in different zones, the MET value for
the lobby was 1.5 (walking), for the office it was 1.2
(sedentary activity), for the praying room it was 1.4
(praying), for the kindergarten it was 1.2 (sedentary
activity) and for the catering area it was 2.0 due to more
active activity compared to the other zones.
In the second step, to briefly evaluate the IAQ, all
environmental factors including temperature, humidity,
air velocity, CO2, light level and noise were compared to
the standards given, namely ASHRAE 62.1, Singapore
Indoor Air Quality Guidelines (SIAQG), World Health
Organization (WHO) and Malaysian Standard (MS)
[26–29].
Table 2. The estimated values of CLO and MET
NO Thermal zone CLO MET (W/m2)
1 Lobby 0.6 1.5
2 Office 0.6 1.2
3 Praying room 0.7 1.4
4 Kindergarten 0.6 1.2
5 Catering area 0.6 2 The results obtained by comparing simultaneous votes
CLO: clothing insulation value; MET: metabolic rate.
838 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845
Subjective Measurement
This study focused on hospital staff. For the subjective
survey, a sample size of 110 filled out questionnaires, were
provided by staffs in the different thermal zones. The
questionnaire for this survey is given in the Appendix,
including the following information:
(A) Demographic information
(B) Thermal sensation
(C) Thermal preference
(D) Thermal acceptance
(E) Thermal tolerance
(F) Control ability of thermal conditions
The sampled gender distribution was 24.5% male and
75.5% female, while age distribution was 5.5% below 20
years old, 60% between 20 and 30, 21% between 30 and 40
and 13.5% older than 40. Clearly, the majority of
respondents were 20- to 30-year-old females.
Results and Discussion
Evaluating the TSV
Two questionnaire questions were used to evaluate the
TSV, as follows:
1. How do you feel about the temperature at this
moment?
2. How would you like to feel?
The first question regards thermal sensation and the
answers comprised seven points on the ASHRAE scale
(i.e. cold, cool, slightly cool, neutral, slightly warm, warm
and hot). The second question regards thermal preference
and there were 5 possible answers: much cooler than now,
a little cooler than now, no change, a little warmer than
now and much warmer than now.
A sample size of 110 subjects, all staff, took part in the
survey. Tables 3 and 4 show the descriptive statistical
analysis in SPSS.
According to Table 5, in the cumulative percent
column, 70.9% of respondents voted on the neutral and
cool side on the 7-point scale, while according to Table 3,
the cumulative percent of those who preferred ‘‘cooler
than now’’ was 60%. However, Table 4 illustrates that
among 71% of respondents voting within the three central
categories of the ASHRAE thermal sensation scale
preferred to feel ‘‘cooler than now’’.
on both thermal sensation and thermal preference as
shown in Tables 3–5 suggest that neutral thermal
Azizpour et al.
Table 3. Thermal preference vote
Frequency Percentage Valid Cumulative
percentage percentage

Valid Much cooler than now 7 6.4 6.4 6.4

A little cooler than now 59 53.6 53.6 60.0
No change 22 20.0 20.0 80.0
A little warmer 22 20.0 20.0 100.0
than now
Total 110 100.0 100.0

Table 4. Cross tabulation of thermal sensation and thermal preference

Cold–cool Feel three scale Warm–hot Total
Slightly cool–neutral–slightly warm

Thermal preference Cooler than now 6 47 (71%) 13 66

No change 7 15 0 22
Warmer than now 14 8 0 22
Total 27 70 13 110

Table 5. Thermal sensation vote on the 7-point ASHRAE scale Table 6. Value calculation according to Fanger’s theory for five
thermal zones in UKMMC
Frequency Percentage Valid Cumulative
percentage percentage Zone OP PMV PPD % MET CLO

Valid Cold 3 2.7 2.7 2.7 Lobby 28.83 1.5 48.4 1.5 0.6
Cool 24 21.8 21.8 24.5 Office 25.35 0.1 5.1 1.2 0.6
Slightly cool 25 22.7 22.7 47.3 Praying room 26.35 0.8 17.2 1.4 0.7
Neutral 26 23.6 23.6 70.9 Kindergarten 22.10 –1.5 52.9 1.2 0.6
Slightly warm 19 17.3 17.3 88.2 Catering area 27.25 1.5 48.2 2 0.6
Warm 10 9.1 9.1 97.3
Hot 3 2.7 2.7 100.0 UKMMC: University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center;
Total 110 100.0 100.0 OP: operative temperature; PMV: predictive mean value; PPD:
predicted percentage of dissatisfied; MET: metabolic rate; CLO:
ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Air conditioning & clothing insulation value.
Refrigeration Engineers, US.

sensations are not always the preferred thermal state. de
Dear (1998) believes that thermal preference temperature
is more suited than thermal neutral temperature to serve as
the criterion for thermal comfort [16].
It has also been revealed that UKMMC occupants
prefer cooler than neutral temperature since the signifi-
cance level in this test was 0.000. This finding is in
agreement with a study on classrooms in China done by
Zhang et al. in 2007 [30] and in workplaces and residences
in Taiwan [21]. Furthermore, it echoes Humphreys’
hypothesis [31]. Moreover, it aligns well with McIntryre’s
studies of 1980 [32]. McIntryre realized that people in hot-
humid regions would prefer a ‘‘slightly cool’’ environment,
while people in cold regions would prefer a ‘‘slightly
warm’’ environment [18].
Evaluating Thermal Comfort Index
PMV and predicted percentage of dissatisfied people
(PPD) were calculated in this field study (UKMMC)
according to Fanger’s formula for all 5 thermal zones.
The results are presented in Table 6 and Figure 1. The
personal factor values used in the calculation are taken
from Table 2.
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 1, the PMV, PPD and
OP are calculated based on Fanger’s model in all thermal
zones. In the lobby at 28.838C operative temperature (OP),
the PMV value was 1.5 and that 48.4% of occupants were
dissatisfied with their environment. In the office, the PMV
value was 0.1 and 5.1% of people were dissatisfied. In the
praying room, the mean vote was predicted to be 0.8 with
17.2% dissatisfied. In the kindergarten, the PMV value

A Thermal Comfort Investigation in Hot-Humid Climate Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 839
 100

Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD)

90
80
70
lobby
60
52.9% 48.2 % kinder garden
50
40 48.4 % catering area

30 office
20
17.2% praying room
10
5.1 %
0
–3 –2.5 –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Predicted Mean Vote (PMV)
Fig. 1. Predictive mean value (PMV) versus predicted percentage of dissatisfaction (PPD) in five thermal zones.

Table 7. A profile of TSV and calculated PMV and PPD values for each investigated thermal zone
Zone OP TSV on ASHRAE scale Mean TSV PMV PPD
Cool Cold Slightly cold Neutral Slightly warm Warm Hot
¼ –3 ¼ –2 ¼ –1 ¼0 ¼þ1 ¼ þ2 ¼ þ3

Lobby 28.83 0 0 1 2 5 3 1 þ1.08 þ1.5 48.4%

Office 25.35 0 6 8 5 0 1 0 –0.90 þ0.8 5.1%
Praying room 26.35 0 0 5 4 2 0 0 –0.27 þ0.1 17.2%
Kindergarten 22.10 2 12 1 0 0 0 0 –2.06 –1.5 52.9%
Catering 27.25 0 0 3 3 4 2 1 þ0.61 þ1.5 48.2%

ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Engineers, US; OP: operative temperature; PMV:
predictive mean value; PPD: predicted percentage of dissatisfaction; TSV: thermal sensation vote.

was in the negative and was equal to –1.5 with 52.9% many studies that have emphasized the role of adaptation
PPD. Finally, in the catering area, the calculated PMV and to climate on thermal comfort evaluation [4,21,31].
PPD were 1.5 and 48.2%, respectively. By analyzing the linear regression between TSV and
PMV, a strong relation (R2 ¼ 0.950) was found with
equation y ¼ 0.982x þ 0.757 (Figure 2), while the new
Correlation between Subjective and Objective
PMV limit corresponding to the neutrality range in this
Measurements
A comparison between two kinds of data collection was field study was –0.22 and þ1.73 as opposed to –1 and þ1
conducted to clarify an important question in this field: Is as suggested by Fanger’s model. In addition, the neutrality
there any correlation between TSV and PMV in hot- point was þ0.75 and not 0 as acclaimed by Fanger’s
humid regions? To answer the question, the mean actual model, meaning that the neutrality point for people in hot-
vote in the 5 thermal zones was considered. Table 7 humid regions would be closer to ‘‘slightly warm’’ on the
provides a comparison of the TSV, PMV and PPD values. seven-point ASHRAE scale.
As presented in Table 7, in all thermal zones, the
calculated PMV value was higher than mean TSV. It can Correlation between OP and TSV
be inferred that people in Malaysia are well acclimatized Figure 3 depicts the correlation between the mean TSV
and accustomed to hot-humid weather and would tolerate with OP in each investigated thermal zone within the
higher temperatures. This finding is in agreement with operative 22–298C temperature range.

840 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 Azizpour et al.

 2

y = 0.982x + 0.757 1.5

predicted mean vote (PMV)

R² = 0.950 1

0.5

0
–2.5 –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
–0.5

–1

–1.5

–2
thermal sensation vote (TSV)
Fig. 2. Linear regression on predictive mean value (PMV) with thermal sensation vote (TSV).

3
2.5
2 y = 0.487x – 12.96
Thermal Sensation Vote (TSV)

1.5 R² = 0.965
1
0.5
0
–0.5 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
–1
–1.5
–2
–2.5
–3
Operative Temperature (OP)
Fig. 3. Linear regression on thermal sensation vote (TSV) with operative temperature (OP).

The neutral OP estimated by the regression line for TSV Table 8 shows the comparison between the results
equal to 0 was 26.88C, and the strong relationship was obtained from this study are similar to previous thermal
indicated in Figure 3 as R2 ¼ 0.965. The regression line comfort studies [30,33–36].
slope in Figure 3 is equal to 0.487/8C, which means more
than a 28C variation of OP can cause the result to equal 1 Evaluating the IAQ
as variation of TSV. To evaluate IAQ, six environmental factors were
Figure 4 shows the relationship between OP and measured in 5 thermal zones as listed in Table 9. The
calculated PMV with R2 ¼ 0.951 and the slope of this factors were compared with set standards including
regression line is exactly the same as the slope of the linear ASHRAE, SIAGE, WHO and MS.
regression model relating TSV with OP. Table 9 illustrates the average of six environmental
The neutral OP derived from the PMV regression factors measures by thermal comfort in five different
analysis is equal to 258C, nearly 1.88C lower than the thermal zones. ASHRAE defines the range of comfort
regression result of mean thermal sensation vote. temperature between 228C and 248C [26], while the

A Thermal Comfort Investigation in Hot-Humid Climate Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 841
 3
2.5
y = 0.487x – 12.20
2
R² = 0.951
Predicted Mean Vote(PMV)

1.5
1
0.5
0
–0.5
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
–1
–1.5
–2
–2.5
–3
Operative temperature
Fig. 4. Linear regression on predictive mean value (PMV) with operative temperature (OP).

Table 8. Regression formulas from similar studies

Author Location Regression formula R2 References

de Dear 1985 Australia TSV ¼ 0.522 TO – 12.67 0.9849 [33]

Donnini, 1997 Cold climate TSV ¼ 0.493 TO – 11.69 0.9899 [34]
Cena, 1999 Hot–humid TSV ¼ 0.21 TO – 4.28 (summer) 0.8426 [35]
TSV ¼ 0.27 TO – 6.29 (winter) 0.8888
Hwang, 2006 Taiwan TSV ¼ 0.1413ET*– 3.762 0.8857 [36]
Observed, 2011 Malaysia TSV ¼ 0.487 TO – 12.96 0.9650 —

TSV: thermal sensation vote.

Table 9. Comparison of environmental factors to set standards in five thermal zones

Zone Temperature (8C) Humidity (%) Air velocity (m/s) CO2 (ppm) Lux (lumen/m2) Noise (dBA)
Av M ASHRAE SIAGE Av M ASHRAE SIAGE Av M WHO Av M ASHRAE Av M MS Av M WHO
SIAGE SIAGE

Lobby 29.0 22–24 22.5–25.5 64.2 40–60 70 0.4 0.25 888 1000 81 100 68 70
Office 25.2 22–24 22.5–25.5 60.1 40–60 70 0.3 0.25 1074 1000 92 300–500 50 40
Praying room 25.8 22–24 22.5–25.5 57.9 40–60 70 0.3 0.25 924 1000 156 200 59 40
Kindergarten 21.0 22–24 22.5–25.5 40.9 40–60 70 0.5 0.25 926 1000 162 200 56 50–55
Catering area 27.8 22–24 22.5–25.5 75.2 40–60 70 0.9 0.25 930 1000 69 150–300 62 70

Av M: average of measured data; ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Engineers, US;
SIAQG: Singapore Indoor Air Quality Guidelines, WHO: World Health Organization; MS: Malaysian Standard.

SIAGE comfort temperature ranges between 22.58C and
25.58C [27]. According to both standards, the lobby,
praying room, kindergarten and catering area were not in
the comfort range. The averages of the second factor,
humidity, according to the ASHRAE standard [26], all
zones were out of range except the Kindergarten;
according to SIAGE [27], all were within range except
the catering area. Air velocity, the third factor, exceeded
the threshold in all zones by 0.25 m.s–1. As Table 9
demonstrates, CO2 in all zones except the Office was below

842 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 Azizpour et al.

the threshold of ASHRAE [26] and SIAGE [27] set at
1000 ppm. In the office, this would be the case due to the
number of occupants, which was affecting the level of
CO2, 1074 ppm was measured. The lighting level standard
may vary from zone to zone due to different activity being
carried out in each particular zone. According to the
Malaysian standard 1525, proper lighting levels would be
100 lux for the Lobby, 300–500 lux for the office, 200 lux
for the praying room and kindergarten and 150–300 lux
for the catering area [29]. Thus, all zones in this study were
below the range. The recommended WHO standards on
the last factor, which is the noise level, are 70 dBA in the
lobby, around 40 dBA in the office and praying room, 50–
55 dBA in the kindergarten and 70 dBA in the catering
area [28]. According to these standards, the noise level in
the office, praying room and kindergarten exceeded the
acceptable range [26,37].
Conclusions
The most important findings of this field study on
thermal comfort of staff working in a hospital department
in a hot-humid climate region, such as Malaysia, were
derived by examining the thermal comfort criteria given by
ASHRAE standards. Objective measurements and sub-
jective surveys were both conducted to identify the
relationship between PMV and actual mean vote (TSV).
In addition, the IAQ of the case study was briefly
evaluated and the conditions were compared with several
standards.
. Through descriptive statistical analysis performed in
SPSS, it was found that 70.9% of staff voted on neutral
and cool on the seven-point thermal sensation
ASHRAE scale, while the percentage of those who
preferred ‘‘cooler than now’’ was 60%. On the other
hand, 71% of staff who voted within the three central
categories of the ASHRAE scale preferred to feel
‘‘cooler than now’’ indicating that the neutral tempera-
ture is not always preferred.
. In addition, it was clarified that people in this field
study from a hot-humid area would prefer the lower
temperature to the neutral.
. In all 5 thermal zones (lobby, office, praying room,
kindergarten and catering area) the PMV was higher
than the TSV, revealing that participants in this survey
are acclimatized to the hot-humid weather.
. TSV regression models on PMV indicated a strong
correlation between PMV and actual mean vote.
. Moreover, by analyzing the linear regression between
TSV and PMV, neutrality in this field study was found
to be around þ0.75 rather than 0 as given in Fanger’s
model.
. TSV and PMV regression models on OP showed that
the neutral temperature was 26.88C and 258C, respect-
ively; meaning that neutral temperature in this field
study according to Fanger’s theory (PMV) was 1.88C
lower than actual mean vote (TSV). The slope of these
two regressions were exactly the same and equal to
0.487/8C, meaning that the 28C OP variation would
cause the result to equal 1 as variation of both TSV and
PMV.
. The CO2 level in the office was higher than the standard
range due to the number of occupants. The lighting
level in all 5 zones was lower than the criteria given by
the standards mentioned above. The noise level in the
office and praying room where the occupants need to
concentrate exceeded the WHO standards and will
require appropriate remediation to be decided by the
decision makers of the hospital.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Solar
Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Malaysia for sponsoring the work under the project Science fund
UKM-DLP-2011-032. Thanks as well to Malika Mouhdi and the
UKMMC staff for their valuable assistance in this project.

References

1 Yu CWF, Kim JT: Building environmental
assessment schemes for rating of IAQ in
sustainable buildings: Indoor Built Environ
2011;20(1):5–15.
2 Kumar S, Mahdavi A: Integrating thermal
comfort field data analysis in a case-based
building simulation environment: Build
Environ 2001;36:711–720.
3 Department of Occupational Safety and Health,
Ministry of Human Resources, Malaysia: Code
of Practice on Indoor Air Quality. Malaysia,
Department of Occupational Safety and Health,
Ministry of Human Resources, 2005.
4 Nicol JF, Humphreys MA: Adaptive thermal
comfort and sustainable thermal standards for
buildings: Energy Build 2002;34:563–572.
5 Buratti C, Ricciardi P: Adaptive analysis of
thermal comfort in university classroom: corre-
lation between experimental data and math-
ematical models: Build Environ 2009;44:674–
687.
6 De Dear R: Thermal comfort in practice:
Indoor Air 2004;14:32–39.

A Thermal Comfort Investigation in Hot-Humid Climate Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 843
7 Moghimi S, Mat S, Lim CH, Zaharim A,
Sopian K: Building Energy Index (BEI) in
large scale hospital: case study of Malaysia: in
Proceeding GEMESED’11, Proceedings of the
4th WSEAS International Conference on
‘‘Recent Researches in Geography Geology,
Energy, Environment and Biomedicine’’, Corfu
Island, Greece, July 14–16, 2011, pp. 171–174.
8 Saad SG: Integrated environmental manage-
ment for hospitals: Indoor Built Environ
2003;12(1–2):93–98.
9 Harris DD, Pacheco A, Lindner AS: Detecting
potential pathogens on hospital surfaces: an
assessment of carpet tile flooring in the hospital
patient environment: Indoor Built Environ
2010;19(2):239–249.
10 Hwang RL, Cheng MJ, Chien JH: Patient
thermal comfort requirement for hospital
environment in Taiwan: Build Environ
2007;47:2980–2987.
11 Azizpour F, Moghimi S, Lim CH, Mat S,
Sopian K: Objective and subjective assess-
ments of thermal comfort in hot-humid
region: in Proceedings of 5th WSEAS
International Conferences on ‘‘Recent
Researches in Chemistry, Biology,
Environment and Culture’’, Montreux,
Switzerland, December 29–31, 2011, pp. 207–
210.
12 Freire RZ, Oliveira GHC, Mendes N:
Predictive controllers for thermal comfort
optimization and energy savings: Energy
Build 2008;40:1353–1365.
13 Yau YH, Chew BT: Thermal comfort study of
hospital workers in Malaysia: Indoor Air
2009;19:500–510.
14 Ashraf A, Shikdar NMS: Worker productivity
and occupational health and safety issues in
selected industries: Comput Ind Eng
2003;45:563–572.
15 Olesen BW: International standards and ergo-
nomics of the thermal environment: J Appl
Ergonomic 1995;26:293–302.
16 de Dear R, Brager GS: Towards an adaptive
model of thermal comfort and preference:
ASHRAE Transact 1998;104:145–167.
17 Brager GS, de Dear R: Thermal adaptation in
the built environment: a literature review:
Energy Build 1998;27:83–96.
844 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845
18 Corgnati SP, Filippi M, Viazzo S: Perception
of the thermal environment in high school and
university classrooms: subjective preferences
and thermal comfort: Build Environ
2007;42(2):951–959.
19 ASHRAE 55-2010: Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta,
GA, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-conditioning
Engineering, 2010.
20 ISO7730:2005: 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. Geneva,
Switzerland, International Standard
Organisation, 2005.
21 Hwang R-L, Cheng M-J, Lin T-P, Ho M-C:
Thermal perceptions, general adaptation
methods and occupant’s idea about the trade-
off between thermal comfort and energy saving
in hot-humid regions: Build Environ
2009;44(6):1128–1134.
22 Van Hoof J: Forty years of Fanger’s model of
thermal comfort: comfort for all? Indoor Air
2008;18(3):182–201.
23 Dahlan ND, Jones PJ, Alexander DK, Salleh
E, Dixon D: Field measurement and subjects’
votes assessment on thermal comfort in high-
rise hostels in Malaysia: Indoor Built Environ
2008;17(4):334–345.
24 Azizpour F, Moghimi S, Lim C, Mat S,
Zaharim A, Sopian K: Thermal comfort
assessment in large scale hospital: case study
in Malaysia: in Proceeding GEMESED’11,
Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International
Conference on ‘‘Recent Researches in
Geography, Geology, Energy, Environment
and Biomedicine’’, Corfu Island, Greece, July
14–16, 2011, pp. 171–174.
25 Rowe D: Activity rates and thermal comfort of
office occupants in Sydney: J Therm Biol
2001;26:415–418.
26 ASHRAE standard 62.1-2010: Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA,
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineering, 2010.
27 The Institute of Environmental Epidemiology:
Guidelines for Good Indoor Air Quality in
Office Premises. Singapore, The Institute of
Environmental Epidemiology, Ministry of the
Environment, 1996.
28 WHO 2000: Guidelines for Air Quality. United
Nations Environment Programme. Geneva,
International Labour Organisation and
World Health Organization, 1999.
29 MS 1525:2007: Code of Practice on Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy for Non-
Residential Buildings. Malaysia, Department
of Standards Malaysia, 2008.
30 Zhang G, Zheng C, Yang W, Zhang Q,
Moschandreas DJ: Thermal comfort investiga-
tion of naturally ventilated classrooms in a
subtropical region: Indoor Built Environ
2007;16(2):148–158.
31 Humphreys MA, Nicol JF: Understanding the
adaptive approach to thermal comfort:
ASHRAE Transact 1998;104(1B):991–1004.
32 McIntyre DA: Indoor Climate. London,
Applied Science Publishers Ltd. (presented at
1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings), 1980.
33 De Dear RJ, Auliciems A: Validation of the
predicted mean vote model of thermal comfort
in six Australian field studies: ASHRAE
Transact 1985;91(2B):452–468.
34 Donnini G, Molina J, Martello C, Lai DHC,
Lai HK, Chang CY, Laflamme M, Nguyen
VH, Haghighat F: Field study of occupant
comfort and office thermal environments in a
cold climate: ASHRAE Transact
1997;103(Part 2):205–220.
35 Cena K, de Dear RJ: Field study of occupant
comfort and office thermal environments in a
hot, arid climate: ASHRAE Transact
1999;105(2):204–217.
36 Hwang RL, Lin TP, Kuo NJ: Field experi-
ments on thermal comfort in campus class-
rooms in Taiwan: Energy Build 2006;38(1):53–
62.
37 Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH.
Guidelines for community noise. Available at:
www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guideli-
nes2.html (accessed March 16, 2011).
Azizpour et al.
 Appendix: Questionnaire Synthesis

A Thermal Comfort Investigation in Hot-Humid Climate Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:836–845 845

View publication stats