The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, Aug. 1998.

© Copyright 2002 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-

Conditioning Engineers, Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or
in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

A S H RA E JOURNAL

Comfort and Humidity

By Larry G. Berglund, Ph.D., P.E.
Fellow ASHRAE

H
umidity affects our comfort
in numerous ways both di-
rectly and indirectly. It is a
factor in our energy balance,
thermal sensation, skin moisture, discom-
fort, tactile sensation of fabrics, health
and perception of air quality. In 1966,
ASHRAE Standard 55-1966, Thermal En-
vironmental Conditions for Human Oc-
cupancy introduced a definition for ther-
mal comfort which has become widely
used and quoted: “Thermal comfort is
that condition of mind that expresses sat-
isfaction with the thermal environment.”
This definition implies that the judgment
of comfort is a cognitive process that in-
volves much input and is the result of
physical, physiological and psychologi-
cal processes.
A possible model of how the con-
scious mind may reach conclusions about
thermal comfort and discomfort is illus-
trated in Figure 1. In regulating body tem-
perature the brain continuously compares
body temperatures to desired levels and
makes physiological adjustments. The
diagram suggests that the effort of regu-
lating body temperature affects our per-
ception of comfort.
Thus, skin and internal temperatures,
skin moisture and physiological pro-
cesses all contribute to our satisfaction.
Comfort seems to occur when body tem-
peratures are maintained with the mini-
mum of physiological regulatory effort.
The schematic also shows that conscious
feelings of discomfort along with tempera-
ture sensations and skin moisture percep-
tions may initiate behavioral actions by
the person to improve comfort.
The role of regulatory effort and body
temperatures in comfort is highlighted by
experiments of Chatonnet and Cabanac2
and observations of Kuno et al. (in
ASHRAE Transactions 93, Volume 2). In
Chatonnet’s experiments, the sensation
of placing the hand for 30 seconds in rela-
tively hot or cold water (100 to 86°F [38 to
30°C]) were compared while the person
experienced different thermal states.
Figure 1: A representation of comfort and related sensations (modified from
Hardy1). Solid lines refer to information channels and dashed lines to interac-
tions.
When the person was over-heated or
hyperthermic, the cold water was pleas-
ant, but the hot water was very unpleas-
ant. When in a cold or hypothermic state,
the hand felt pleasant in hot water and un-
pleasant in cold water. Kuno et al. describe
similar observations during transient
whole body exposures to hot and cold en-
vironments. In a state of thermal discom-
fort any move away from the thermal stress
of the uncomfortable environment is per-
ceived as pleasant during the transition.
Thermal Sensation
A good correlation to thermal comfort
is thermal sensation.3 The word and nu-
merical scale commonly used to catego-
rize or label thermal sensation is listed in
Table 1. Thermal comfort is generally as-
sociated with a neutral or near neutral
whole body thermal sensation. Thermal
sensation depends on body temperature,
which in turn depends on thermal balance
and the effects of environmental factors
(temperature, radiation, air motion and hu-
midity), as well as personal factors (me-
tabolism and clothing).4, 5
Thermal Balance
Humidity affects the evaporation of
water from mucous and sweating surfaces
and its diffusion through the skin. In turn,
evaporation affects the energy balance
and thereby body temperatures and ther-
mal sensations. When evaporation pro-
cesses of the skin are compromised or
enhanced, skin temperatures change,
which is directly sensed by the tempera-
ture sensors of the skin. Although sed-
entary persons depend much less on per-
spiration for thermal balance than when
operating at higher activity levels, humid-
ity still has a significant direct effect.
The rate of water loss depends on va-
por pressure differences between the
About the Author
Larry G. Berglund, Ph.D., P.E., is a
professor in the architectural department
of the school of engineering at Tohoku
University in Sendai, Japan. He is the
chair of the ASHRAE Handbook Sub-
committee on Physiology and the Hu-
man Environment.

August 1998 ASHRAE Journal 35

 Thermal Numerical Thermal Numerical
Sensation Code Comfort Code

very hot +4

hot +3 intolerable 4

very
warm +2 3
uncomfortable

slightly warm +1 uncomfortable 2

slightly 1
neutral 0
uncomfortable

slightly cool –1 comfortable 0

Figure 2: Perceived ambient humidity by sedentary subjects.
cool –2

cold –3

very cold –4

Table 1: Category scale and numerical code for thermal

sensation and thermal comfort.

body and its surrounding air. An average adult resting in a 75°F

(24°C), 50% relative humidity environment while wearing trou-
sers and a long-sleeved shirt (0.6 clo) loses about 1.1 ounce per
hour (32 gph [37 mL/s]) of water to the environment.6 Of these,
0.42 oz/h (12 gph [13 mL/s]) are from the nose and respiratory
surfaces and the remaining 0.7 oz/h (20 gph [21 mL/s]) is lost
from water diffusing through dry non-sweating skin.
In terms of energy, these evaporative losses represent
73 Btu/h (21 W) or 20% of the resting person’s total heat loss of
360 Btu/h (105 W). Since the resting person is not performing
thermodynamically useful work (lifting a weight etc.), all of the
metabolic energy ends up as heat that must be dissipated to the
environment. For this example with 73 Btu/h (21 W) of waste
heat carried to the environment by water vapor flow, the re-
maining 287 Btu/h (84 W) is transferred by the dry heat transfer
mechanisms of conduction, convection and radiation.
Decreasing the relative humidity of the 75°F (24°C) environ-
ment from 50 to 20% increases the total evaporation rate to 1.3
oz/h (38 gph [40 mL/s]) and the associated energy loss to 89
Btu/h (26 W) or to 25% of the example person’s total 360 Btu/h
(105 W) energy loss. This additional passive evaporation de-
creases the needed dry heat transfer for energy balance to 270
Btu/h (79 W). Further, it results in a slight lowering of the skin’s
temperature by 0.5°F (0.3°C) to about 91.3°F (32.9°C). And as a
result the person feels a little cooler in the drier 20% rh environ-
ment than in the 50% rh environment at the same temperature.
To maintain the same skin temperature and feeling of warmth
with the 50% to 20% humidity decrease, the temperature would
need to increase about 1.8°F (1°C).
In warmer conditions or with increased activity and metabo-
lism, active perspiration is required for thermal balance. In these
cases, the effect of humidity is greater. Metabolism is often
characterized with the dimensionless met unit: the ratio of ac-
36 ASHRAE Journal
Figure 3: Perceived skin moisture correlated to measured
skin wetness.
tual to resting metabolism. A resting person with this unit sys-
tem has a metabolism of 1 met. In the earlier example, if the
person walked continuously in the 75°F (24°C) 50% rh environ-
ment the person’s metabolism would be about three times higher
(3 met) or 1075 Btu/h (315 W). The convective and radiative
losses would change little, as would the water diffusion 0.7 oz/
h (20 gph [21 mL/s]). The respiratory heat loss would increase
three times (1.3 oz/h [36 gph (38 mL/s)]) in proportion to me-
tabolism and breathing. However, active perspiration that was
absent in the resting case would now be 8.5 oz/h (240 gph [252
mL/s]) and its evaporation would carry away body heat at the
550 Btu/h (161 W) rate.
Acceptability
The ASHRAE comfort standard specifies the environmental
conditions necessary for a neutral thermal sensation and also
gives a range of parameter values that are expected to provide
an environment that is thermally acceptable to at least 80% of
the occupants. In terms of temperature, Standard 55-1992 speci-
fies a band of temperatures 6°F (about 3.5°C) wide.
As shown by Fishman7 and others,8 the clothing worn by
occupants is influenced by the season and outside weather.
August 1998
 COMFORT

Clothing worn indoors in summer is generally of lighter weight

with a lower insulating value than that worn in the winter. The
clothing worn in North America is about 0.5 clo in summer (thin
trousers and short sleeved shirt) and about 0.9 clo in winter
(heavier trousers with long-sleeved shirt and sweater or busi-
ness suit). The clo unit is a widely used and convenient mea-
sure of thermal resistance: 1 clo = 0.88 ft2 h °F/Btu (0.155 m2 K/
W). A heavy two-piece business suit with accessories has an
insulation value of about 1 clo while a pair of shorts is about
0.05 clo. The thermally acceptable temperature range for this
level of indoor winter clothing lies between effective tempera-
tures of 68 and 74°F ET* (20 and 23.5°C). For summer clothing
the range falls between 73 and 79°F ET* (23 and 26°C).
At the temperature boundaries of the comfort zone, an aver-
age person may have thermal sensations of approximately +0.5
at the warm side and -0.5 at the cooler ET* border. By definition
ET* is the temperature at 50% rh that will transfer the heat to
the environment at the same rate with the same skin tempera-
ture and skin wetness as in the actual temperature and humid- Figure 4: Coefficient of friction between fabrics and the
ity. Skin wetness is a measure of skin moisture and is the frac- skin of the forearm in terms of skin moisture measured ad-
tion of skin covered with perspiration necessary to account for jacent to the test site.
the observed rate of water loss. Further, people at the same ET*
value would be expected to have the same thermal sensation as
demonstrated by Gonzalez.9

Humidity
Though the temperature boundaries of the comfort zone are
well defined and supported by laboratory and field observa-
tions, the humidity limits are less certain, particularly at upper
humidity levels. The physiological and energy balance consid-
erations that led to ET* would indicate there is neither an upper
or lower humidity limit in terms of thermal sensation. But labo-
ratory, field and personal experiences suggest that there are
humidity limits for comfort and acceptability.
Other aspects of humidity discomfort may not be energy
related. The perception of skin moisture and the interactions of
clothing fabrics with the skin may be due to the moisture itself.
The skin’s outer layer of dead squamous cells of the stratum Figure 5: Texture and pleasantness ratings for textiles in
cornium can readily absorb or lose water. With moisture addi- Figure 4. Ratings were made during the friction measure-
tion, the cells swell and soften. With drying, they shrink and ments. The ratings were made by marking line scales. Re-
become hard. In this setting, the skin’s moisture may be better sponses (distance [mm] from a zero point) are the average
indicated or characterized by the relative humidity of the skin of all fabrics at same test condition.
(RHsk) rather than skin wetness.10
As previously mentioned, the other term for characterizing
RHsk = Pm/Ps,sk (1) skin moisture is skin wetness (w) or the size of the water film as
a fraction of total skin area that is necessary to account for the
where Pm is the average vapor pressure of the skin and Ps,sk is observed evaporative heat loss from the skin (Esk).
the saturated vapor pressure of water at skin temperature. Typi-
cally, the water content (water/dry skin) of the stratum cornium Esk= w · Adu · he · (Ps,sk – Pa) (2)
is about 10%, but it can absorb much more.
Skin moisture may be detected by mechanoreceptors of the where Adu is total skin area, he is evaporative heat transfer coef-
skin and hair follicles or some other neural mechanism that senses ficient and Pa is the ambient vapor pressure. Skin wetness cor-
the skin’s swelling and shrinking. At high levels of skin moisture relates well with warm discomfort,12 and people rarely report
the swelling is sufficient to close or reduce the lumen of sweat feeling comfortable at skin wetness levels near or above 25%.
glands and reduce sweating (called hydromeiosis).11 Hydromeiosis With intense sweating, sweat normally begins to drip from some
occurs at RHsk > 0.9. Conversely, under good drying conditions, body surfaces when the average skin wetness for the whole
the skin can shrink to the extent that lesions form. body is about 80%.13
August 1998 ASHRAE Journal 37
Figure 6: Comfort zones of Standard 55 from 1981 to present.
Skin wetness and skin relative humidity are related.
RHsk = w + (1 – w) Pa/Ps,sk (3)
From Equation 3 it is clear that RHsk will be greater than w
except when w = 1. It is also evident that with a constant w, RHsk
increases with ambient absolute humidity. Though the ET* tem-
perature boundaries have constant skin wetness levels, the
RHsk, swelling and softening of the skin increases with increas-
ing ambient absolute humidity.
Humans are sensitive to moisture and can reliably describe
the humidity of the environment using word scales as is dem-
onstrated in Figure 2.14 The points in the figure are the average
of 20 sedentary subjects. The subject’s humidity judgments
appear to be functions of the air’s dew point, a measure of
absolute humidity, and are relatively unaffected by the ambient
temperature. Further, people are also adept at perceiving skin
moisture as illustrated in Figure 3 where perceived skin wet-
ness is seen to correlate well with measured skin wetness. Each
point is the average of five subjects.
In situations of prolonged sweating, skin wetness slowly
increases with time because of accumulating salt on the skin.
The increasing salt occurs because the water in perspiration
evaporates while the dissolved materials, principally sodium
chloride, remain on the surface. The salt lowers the vapor pres-
sure of the sweat film decreasing its rate of evaporation per unit
area. The area of the film then naturally increases so that evapo-
ration will equal the rate of sweat secretion.15 It is thought that
part of the relief that bathing brings after a warm day or strenu-
ous activity is that by cleaning the skin, perspiration can evapo-
rate more efficiently with reduced skin wetness.
Clothing can impact acceptability in humid environments.
Measurements by Gwosdow16 reveal that the friction between
skin and clothing increases abruptly above skin wetness levels
of 25% (Figure 4). Further, fabrics are perceived to have a
coarser texture and to be less pleasant with increasing skin
moisture (Figure 5). This may be one of the reasons that in the
38 ASHRAE Journal
comfort studies cited earlier,16 people have rarely indicated they
were comfortable when their skin wetness levels approached
25% and above.
Following this reasoning, the stickiness and perceived fab-
ric coarseness and unpleasantness with humidity and skin mois-
ture could affect merchandising. Fabrics, clothing and textures
will be more pleasant and possibly sell more readily in a dry
environment than in a humid warm one. The skin of a potential
customer coming in from outside during the summer will be-
come drier. As a result, textiles will feel smoother and more
pleasant and be easier to try on than in a neighboring shop that
is more humid.
Low Humidity
Low humidity affects comfort and health. Comfort complaints
about dry nose, throat, eyes and skin occur in low humidity
conditions, typically when the dew point is less than 32°F (0°C).
Low humidity can lead to drying of the skin and mucous sur-
faces. On respiratory surfaces, drying can concentrate mucous
to the extent that ciliary clearance and phagocytic activities are
reduced, increasing susceptibility to respiratory disease as well
as discomfort. Green17 quantified that respiratory illness and
absenteeism increase in winter with decreasing humidity. He
found that any increase in humidity from the low winter levels
decreased absenteeism. Excessive drying of the skin can lead
to lesions, skin roughness, discomfort and impair the skin’s
protective functions. Dusty environments can further exacer-
bate low humidity dry-skin conditions.18
Liviana et al.19 found drying from low humidity can contrib-
ute to eye irritation. Eye discomfort increased with time in low
humidity environments Tdp< 36°F (2°C).
The current Standard 55 specifies that to decrease the possi-
bility of discomfort due to low humidity, dew point temperature
in occupied spaces should not be less than 37°F (3°C).
High Humidity
Elevated humidity levels reduce comfort. At lower levels of
August 1998
 COMFORT

humidity, thermal sensation is a good indicator of overall ther-

mal comfort and acceptability. But at high humidity levels,
Tanabe20 found that thermal sensation alone is not a reliable
predictor of thermal comfort. Nevins21 recommended that on
the warm side of the comfort zone, the relative humidity should
not exceed 60% to prevent warm discomfort.
That the upper limit of the comfort zone is controversial and
not clearly defined is evidenced by the evolution of Standard 55
from 1974 to the present (Figure 6). The upper humidity limit was
a dew point of 63°F (17°C) in the 1974 and 1981 standards, based
not so much on comfort as on considerations of mold growth and
other moisture-related phenomena. In the 1992 edition, Standard
55 specified 60% relative humidity as the upper limit—also based
primarily on considerations of mold growth. This limit was chal-
lenged for not being based on direct human thermal comfort and
for being too restrictive for evaporative coolers.
These air coolers are cost and energy efficient and popular
in the hot, dry southwestern part of the United States. In 1994,
Addendum 55a was approved with upper humidity limits of
64°F and 68°F (18 and 20°C) wet-bulb temperatures for the win-
ter and summer comfort zones, respectively. Though based on
limited comfort data, Addendum 55a is less restrictive to evapo-
rative coolers.
An occupant’s overall satisfaction with the thermal environ-
ment is probably a cognitive result of temperature, moisture, fric-
tion and other sensations. A recent comfort study14 done at tem-
peratures of 70°F to 81°F (21°C to 27°C) with dew points of 36°F to
68°F (2°C to 20°C) at three levels of activity (sedentary, intermit-
tent walking and standing, and continuous walking) describes Figure 7: Thermal acceptability (TAC) loci in terms of envi-
extensive subjective responses of 20 subjects and measures physi- ronmental temperature (TO) and humidity ratio (HR) for
ological responses from five subjects. The subjective ratings in- sedentary persons in clothing of 0.56 clo after one hour in
clude thermal sensation, perceived skin wetness and thermal ac- still air.
ceptability. For thermal acceptability, the participants indicated if
the environment was thermally acceptable or not with the instruc- can detract from the acceptability of an environment, and hu-
tion that an unacceptable condition would be sufficient to evoke midity may stimulate or hinder odor sources and olfactory sen-
a behavioral action to improve the climate and/or reduce discom- sations. In addition, our judgments about the perceived air qual-
fort, e.g., open a window, turn on a fan, change the thermostat ity appear to be influenced by physical factors of temperature,
setting, alter clothing, complain or leave. humidity and air motion. Cooler, drier air is somehow perceived
The thermal acceptability (TAC) responses for relative hu- as being freer of contaminants and less stale. Even in a clean,
midities greater than 50% from that study correlated strongly non-odorous and well-ventilated space the perceived fresh-
with absolute humidity or humidity ratio (HR) and operative ness of the air decreases with increasing humidity and tempera-
temperature (r^2 = 0.96).22 Loci for TAC = 60%, 70%, 80% and ture. Figure 8 shows the subjects’ judgments of air freshness
90% are shown on the psychrometric chart of Figure 7. upon entering a test room.14 The odorless room was well venti-
The thermal acceptability loci shift with Ta is as expected, lated, with 30 cfm (15 L/s) per person of clean air. The responses
but now the subtle effect of humidity also can be clearly seen. indicate that humidity made the subjects feel that the air was
Superimposed on the acceptability loci of Figure 8 are the out- less fresh or staler. A person’s olfactory system adapts to odor
lines of a psychrometric chart and the boundaries of the sum- in a short time so odor intensity decreases with exposure, but in
mer comfort zone of Addendum 55a (dark lines). The shape of this case the staleness perception did not diminish with time,
the upper humidity limit of Addendum 55a conforms reason- implying that the chamber air was odorless.
ably well with the TAC loci but compliance of this data with the High occupant acceptance of a space’s thermal environment
zone’s 80% thermal acceptability requirement would be improved and air quality is very important from a designer’s or operator’s
if the zone were shifted slightly—about 2.7°F (1.5°C)—to cooler point of view. For this laboratory study, the subjects judged
temperatures (dashed lines). whether the air quality was acceptable or not, under the in-
structions that an unacceptable condition would evoke a be-
Perceived Air Quality havioral action to improve the environment and/or reduce dis-
Humidity also affects our perceptions of air quality and that comfort. The acceptability of the perceived air quality (Figure
aspect of comfort and satisfaction with the environment. Odors 9) was affected strongly by humidity in this clean-air environ-
August 1998 ASHRAE Journal 39
Figure 8: Transient perceptions of clean air by sedentary
persons after entering a test chamber.
ment. The 68°F (20°C) dew point condition (RH>65%) was par-
ticularly associated with the perception of unacceptable air
quality.
Recently, Fang et al.23 at the Technical University of Den-
mark found similar results from air contaminated with emissions
for common building materials. That is, for a particular pollution
concentration, the air quality was perceived to be more accept-
able with decreasing temperature and/or humidity. The accept-
ability correlates strongly with enthalpy. Further, the study
found that temperature and humidity had minimal or no effect
on the emission rate of the materials tested.
Conclusion
Humidity affects comfort in a number of ways both directly
and indirectly. At a given temperature, decreased humidity re-
sults in occupants feeling cooler, drier and more comfortable;
furthermore, fabrics feel smoother and more pleasant, and the
air is perceived to be fresher, less stale and more acceptable.
For the sedentary person, a 30% change in relative humidity
has the same effect on thermal balance and thermal sensation
as a 2°F (1°C) change in temperature.
In warm conditions thermal discomfort increases with hu-
midity. The discomfort appears linked with skin moisture, as
persons rarely judge themselves comfortable in situations where
skin wetness is above 25%. The discomfort associated with
skin moisture could be due, in part, to friction between skin and
clothing. When fabrics ranging from rough burlap to wool, cot-
ton, polyester and smooth silk are pulled across the skin, the
measured pull force increases with humidity and perspiration,
as does the fabric’s perceived texture or roughness.
The effect of humidity on thermal balance, and in turn on
skin temperature and thermal sensation, has a clear mechanism.
But other effects of humidity on human sensation and health,
including humidity’s effect on microorganisms, have less clear
mechanisms. Further study (as in the current ASHRAE-spon-
40 ASHRAE Journal
Figure 9: Occupant acceptance of perceived air quality of
clean air in a well-ventilated space.
sored investigation) is warranted to better understand and quan-
tify how humidity affects building occupants and HVAC sys-
tem users.
References
1. Hardy, J. D., J. A. J. Stolwijk and A. P. Gagge. 1971. “Man.”
Comparative Physiology of Thermoregulation, Chapter 5. Springfield,
Ill: Charles C. Thomas.
2. Chatonnet, J. and M. Cabanac. 1965. “The perception of thermal
comfort.” Int. J. Biometeorology 9:183–193.
3. Gagge, A. P. 1977. “Introduction to thermal comfort.” Les Editions
de l’INSERM, INSERM 75:11–24.
4. Gagge, A. P., J. Stolwijk and Y. Nishi. 1971. “An effective tempera-
ture scale based on a simple model of human physiological regulatory
response” ASHRAE Transactions 77(1):247–262.
5. Fanger, P. O. 1972. Thermal Comfort, New York: McGraw-Hill.
6. Gagge, A. P., A. P. Fobelets and L. G. Berglund. 1986. “A standard
predictive index of human response to the thermal environment,”
ASHRAE Transactions 86(2B):709–731.
7. Fishman, D. S. and S. L. Pimbert. 1979. “Survey of subjective
responses to the thermal environment in offices.” Indoor Climate.
Copenhagen: Danish Building Research Institute.
8. Gagge, A. P. and R. G. Nevins. 1976. Effect of Energy Conservation
Guidelines on Comfort, Acceptability and Health. Final Report of Con-
tract # CO-04-51891-00 of Federal Energy Administration.
9. Gonzalez, R. R., L. Berglund and A. P. Gagge. 1978. “Indices of
thermoregulatory strain for moderate exercise in the heat.” Journal of
Applied Physiology: Respiration Environment Exercise Physiology
44(6):889–899.
10. Mole, R. H. 1948. “The relative humidity of the skin.” Journal of
Physiology 107: 399–411.
11. Kerslake, D. McK. 1972. The Stress of Hot Environments. Cam-
August 1998

bridge: University Press.
12. Berglund, L. G. and D. J. Cunningham. 1986. “Parameters of
human discomfort in warm environments.” ASHRAE Transactions,
vol. 92(2):732–746.
13. Berglund, L. G. and R. R. Gonzalez. 1977. “Evaporation of sweat
from sedentary humans in humid environments.” Journal of Applied
Physiology: Respiration Environment Exercise Physiology 42:767–
772.
14. Berglund, L. G. and W. S. Cain. 1989. “Perceived air quality and
the thermal environment.” The Human Equation: Health and Comfort.
Proceedings of ASHRAE/SOEH Conference IAQ ’89 Atlanta: ASHRAE,
pp. 93–99.
15. Berglund, L. G. and P. E. McNall. 1973. “Human sweat film and
composition during prolonged sweating.” Journal of Applied Physiol-
ogy 35:714–718.
16. Gwosdow, A. R., J. C. Stevens, L. G. Berglund and J. A. J. Stolwijk.
1986. “Skin friction and fabric sensations in neutral and warm envi-
ronments.” Textile Research Journal 56:574–580.
17. Green, G. H. 1982. “Positive and negative effects of building
humidification.” ASHRAE Transactions 88(1):1049–1061.
18. White, I. R. and R. J. G. Rycroft. 1982. “Low humidity occupa-
tional dermatosis.” Contact Dermatology 8:287–290.
This space contained an
advertisment
August 1998
COMFORT
19. Liviana, J. E., F. H. Rohles and O. D. Bullock. 1988. “Humidity,
comfort and contact lenses.” ASHRAE Transactions 94(1):3-11.
20. Tanabe, S., K. Kimura and T. Hara. 1987. “Thermal comfort re-
quirements during the summer season in Japan,” ASHRAE Transac-
tions 93(1):564–577.
21. Nevins, R., et al. 1975. “Effect of changes in ambient temperature
and level of humidity on comfort and thermal sensations.” ASHRAE
Transactions 81(2).
22. Berglund, L. G. 1995. “Comfort criteria—humidity and standards.”
Proceedings of Pan Pacific Symposium on Buildings and Urban Envi-
ronment Conditioning in Asia 2:369–382.
23. Fang, L., G. Clausen and P. O. Fanger. 1996. “The impact of
temperature and humidity on perception and emissions of indoor air
pollutants.” Indoor Air ’96 4:349–354. Tokyo: Institute of Public
Health. n
Please circle the appropriate number on the Reader Service
Card at the back of the publication.
Extremely Helpful ....................................................... 450
Helpful ..................................................................... 451
Somewhat Helpful ..................................................... 452
Not Helpful ............................................................... 453
This space contained an
advertisment
ASHRAE Journal 41