4.7 Article

Preferred temperatures with and without air movement during moderate exercise

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 207, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109565

Keywords

Exercise; Metabolic rate; Thermal preference; Air movement; Energy saving

Funding

  1. The 13th Five-Year National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC0704500]
  2. Innovation Chain (Group) Project of Shaanxi Province [2018ZDCXL- SF-03-05]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018T111024, 2016M600771]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During exercise, comfort requirements are different because of the elevated metabolic heat production. It is essential to know the preferable thermal environment to give environmental design suggestions to sports facilities. Experimental studies on preferred temperature were conducted on 20 healthy human subjects walking on a treadmill at 4, 5, and 6 km/h, with and without self-controlled air movement. Physiological responses (metabolic rate, skin temperature, skin wettedness, and heart rate) were monitored, while their subjective responses were collected by questionnaires. Metabolic rates were 3.0, 3.5, and 4.5 met for 4, 5, and 6 km/h walking. Preferred temperatures were significantly lower without fan (23.3, 22.8, and 22.1 degrees C without fan vs. 24.9, 24.1, and 23.6 degrees C with fan), and all subjects were satisfied with their preferred thermal environment. PMV model was found to overestimate the cooling requirements for exercising people. Our results indicate that human in exercise does not necessarily want neutral temperature but want somewhat warm sensations, with lower temperature, higher skin wettedness, and higher core temperature. Overall, the results suggest that design temperature shall be 22-24 degrees C without air movement, and 24-26 degrees C with personally controlled air movement. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available