EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 396 (2023) E3S Web of Conf., 396 (2023) 01048 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web of Conf.
Volume 396, 2023
The 11th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation & Energy Conservation in Buildings (IAQVEC2023)
Article Number 01048
Number of page(s) 7
Section Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Human Health, Comfort and Productivity
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601048
Published online 16 June 2023
  1. Caporale, A., Botti, L., Galizia, F.G., Mora, C., 2022. Assessing the impact of environmental quality factors on the industrial performance of aged workers: A literature review. Saf. Sci. 149, 105680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105680 [Google Scholar]
  2. Lan, L., Wargocki, P., Lian, Z., 2011. Quantitative measurement of productivity loss due to thermal discomfort. Energy Build. 43, 1057–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bueno, A.M., de Paula Xavier, A.A., Broday, E.E., 2021. Evaluating the connection between thermal comfort and productivity in buildings: A systematic literature review. Buildings 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11060244 [Google Scholar]
  4. Porras-Salazar, J.A., Schiavon, S., Wargocki, P., Cheung, T., Tham, K.W., 2021. Meta-analysis of 35 studies examining the effect of indoor temperature on office work performance. Build. Environ. 203, 108037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108037 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2020. Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fanger, P. O., 1970. Thermal comfort. Analysis and applications in environmental engineering. Thermal comfort. Analysis and applications in environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. [Google Scholar]
  7. Broday, E.E., Moreto, J.A., Xavier, A.A. de P., de Oliveira, R., 2019. The approximation between thermal sensation votes (TSV) and predicted mean vote (PMV): A comparative analysis. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 69, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.09.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Broday, E.E., Xavier, A.A. de P., de Oliveira, R., 2014. Comparative analysis of methods for determining the metabolic rate in order to provide a balance between man and the environment. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44, 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2014.05.006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gilani, S.I. ul H., Khan, M.H., Ali, M., 2016. Revisiting Fanger’s thermal comfort model using mean blood pressure as a bio-marker: An experimental investigation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 109, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.0 50 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Hoof, J., 2008. Forty years of Fanger’s model of thermal comfort: Comfort for all? Indoor Air 18, 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00516.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Arakawa Martins, L., Soebarto, V., Williamson, T., 2022. A systematic review of personal thermal comfort models. Build. Environ. 207, 108502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108502 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Isa, K., Atim, A., 2019. Working environment: How important is it to make your employees happy. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 9, 6505–6509. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.A1269.109119 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Varianou-Mikellidou, C., Boustras, G., Dimopoulos, C., Wybo, J.L., Guldenmund, F.W., Nicolaidou, O., Anyfantis, I., 2019. Occupational health and safety management in the context of an ageing workforce. Saf. Sci. 116, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gasparrini, A., Guo, Y., Hashizume, M., Lavigne, E., Zanobetti, A., Schwartz, J., Tobias, A., Tong, S., Rocklöv, J., Forsberg, B., 2015. Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. Lancet, 386 (2015), pp. 369-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schellen, L., van Marken Lichtenbelt, W.D., Loomans, M.G.L.C., Toftum, J., de Wit, M.H., 2010. Differences between young adults and elderly in thermal comfort, productivity, and thermal physiology in response to a moderate temperature drift and a steady-state condition. Indoor Air 20, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00657.x [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. DeGroot, D.W., Kenney, W.L., 2007. Impaired defense of core temperature in aged humans during mild cold stress. Am. J. Physiol. - Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 292, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00074.2006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kjerulf-Jensen, P., Y. Nishi, H. Graichen, and R. Rascati. 1975. A test chamber design for investigating man’s thermal comfort and physiological response. ASHRAE Transactions 81(1):73–79. [Google Scholar]
  18. UNI EN ISO 7726:2002: Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Instruments for measuring physical quantities [Google Scholar]
  19. Sessler, D.I., House, J.R., Tipton, M.J., 2003. Skin-temperature gradients are a validated measure of fingertip perfusion (multiple letters). Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 89, 401-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-003-0812-8 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sessler, D. I., Olofsson, C. I., Rubinstein, E. H. & Beebe, J., 1988. The thermoregulatory threshold in humans during halothane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 68, 836–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. UNI EN ISO 10551:2019: Ergonomics of the physical environment - Subjective judgement scales for assessing physical environments [Google Scholar]
  22. UNI EN ISO 7730:2006: Ergonomics of Thermal Environments - Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal well-being by calculating PMV and PPD indices and local thermal well-being criteria [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.