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

net/publication/324579260

Indoor environment quality assessment in classrooms: An integrated

approach

Article  in  Journal of Building Physics · April 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1744259118759687

CITATIONS READS

32 2,383

2 authors:

Mohammad Tahsildoost Mahsa Zomorodian

Shahid Beheshti University Shahid Beheshti University
43 PUBLICATIONS   828 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   827 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

investigating the effect of architectural form on the structural behavior of tall buildings with exo-skeleton structure View project

Indoor lighting requirements and energy consumption-Iranian National Standard View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahsa Zomorodian on 13 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Building Physics

Indoor environment Ó The Author(s) 2018

1–27

quality assessment in Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1744259118759687
classrooms: An integrated journals.sagepub.com/home/jen

approach

Mohammad Tahsildoost and Zahra S Zomorodian

Abstract
Indoor Environmental Quality is an important issue in educational buildings since it is
directly related to students’ well-being and learning activities. Indoor Environmental
Quality parameters have been assessed in three representative campus building typolo-
gies (old, new, and retrofitted), in Tehran, Iran, by measurements and questionnaire
(n = 842) from July 2016 to April 2017. Results have been compared to the students’
overall satisfaction level and recommended standards. According to results, minimum
attention to local standards with regard to Indoor Air Quality, acoustic, and lighting,
especially in the old and retrofitted buildings, seems the main reason of low environ-
mental quality in the studied cases. Fitting a multiple regression model to the question-
naire data, a mathematical model is developed to predict the overall comfort (Indoor
Environmental Quality index). Studied buildings have been ranked based on the Indoor
Environmental Quality index from high quality: I (building C) to out of the comfort
range: IV (building A). Moreover, results reveal that the acceptable range of each Indoor
Environmental Quality parameters, especially with regard to thermal and acoustic com-
fort, is broader in real condition in comparison with the standards. Finally, the buildings’
annual energy consumption is used to propose a Retrofit Potential Index in order to
assess the impact of comfort parameters on energy consumption by integrated
analyses.

Keywords
Overall comfort, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, energy consumption

Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Corresponding author:
Zahra S Zomorodian, Faculty of Architecture and Urban planning, Shahid Beheshti University, 1983963113
Evin, Tehran, Iran.
Email: Z_Zomorodian@sbu.ac.ir
2 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Introduction
Four basic criteria, namely, thermal comfort (TC), indoor air quality, acoustic, and
visual comforts (VCs), are identified for determining an acceptable indoor environ-
mental quality (Lee et al., 2012). The amount of time students spend in school
shows the importance of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in educational build-
ings, which has been the topic of many researches (Krüger and Zannin, 2004;
Ramprasad and Subbaiyan, 2017; Vilčeková et al., 2017) with a growing body of
literature, focusing on how physical environmental conditions (temperature, illumi-
nance levels, ambient noise, and ventilation rates) influence occupants’ overall satis-
faction (Frontczak and Wargocki, 2011; Haverinen-Shaughnessy et al., 2015). The
effect of thermal conditions and indoor air quality on school works (Gao et al.,
2014; Pereira et al., 2014; Sarbu and Pacurar, 2015; Wargocki and Wyon, 2017)
and also the impact of background noise levels, visual distractions, overheating,
and under heating on students’ concentration and motivation (Ramprasad and
Subbaiyan, 2017) are well documented. A group of studies on IEQ in educational
buildings assess the thermal, visual, acoustical comfort, and air quality by physical
measurements and compared to standards (Mumovic et al., 2009). While others
also included subjective surveys in order to find the acceptable range of the physical
parameters, occupants are often not satisfied with indoor conditions, even when
IEQ standards are met (Lee et al., 2012; Sarbu and Pacurar, 2015). Some studies
considered all four comfort aspects (Sarbu and Pacurar, 2015), while others focused
merely on two or three of them. Mumovic et al. (2009) assessed air quality, TC, and
acoustic performance, Pereira et al. (2015) considered indoor air quality and TC
(Madureira et al., 2016), and Krüger and Zannin (2004) focused on thermal, illumi-
nous, and acoustic comfort (AC) in classrooms (Krüger and Zannin, 2004).
TC is ranked by building occupants to be of greater importance compared to
visual and AC and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ; Heinzerling et al., 2013; Sadick and
Issa, 2017). It also seems to influence to a higher degree the overall satisfaction
with indoor environmental quality compared with other IEQ criteria (Frontczak
and Wargocki, 2011) and the most IEQ parameter studied in classrooms. The ther-
mal environment is assessed by PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Predicted
Percentage of Dissatisfied) indices based on environmental variables (temperature,
relative humidity, air velocity, and radiant mean temperature) (Wargocki and
Wyon, 2017) in most cases. The correlation between measurements and subjective
responses has been the objective of many researches in educational buildings
(Zomorodian et al., 2016). However, TC alone is not sufficient to provide a good
learning environment. Acoustical comfort, VC, and indoor air quality are also vital
aspects of the indoor environment.
The term AC is not commonly used and providing a good acoustic environment
is mainly associated with preventing the occurrence of discomfort (annoyance)
(Pellerin and Candas, 2003). The quality of the sound environment is linked to
numerous physical parameters, which include both the physical properties of
sound and space. The acoustic environment is influenced by physical room
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 3

properties as sound insulation, absorption, and reverberation time (RT) (Zannin,

2009). According to studies, the academic performance of students is negatively
affected by high background noise (Ramprasad and Subbaiyan, 2017). Supporting
the learning process, there are two requirements for students to listen well; first is a
silent neighborhood without noise from the traffic, the activities around the school,
next classes, and the air conditioning system or the occupants, and second is a low
RT, which is a parameter that indicates how fast the noise will disappear (Gramez
and Boubenider, 2017; Rabiyanti et al., 2017).
Based on ASHRAE 62.1 (ASHRAE, 2013), acceptable indoor air quality is
defined as ‘‘air in which there are no known contaminants at harmful concentra-
tions as determined by cognizant authorities and with which a substantial majority
(80% or more) of the people exposed do not express dissatisfaction.’’ Indoor air
quality in classroom is a global issue. Various studies developed in many countries
remarked poor indoor ventilation rates and high CO2 levels (Cornaro et al., 2013;
Mohammadyan et al., 2017; Wargocki and Da Silva, 2015). However, the evidence
of the problem is not followed by satisfactory solutions, especially for natural ven-
tilated buildings that cannot benefit from mechanical ventilation to enhance the
IAQ (Madureira et al., 2016; Stazi et al., 2017; Toyinbo et al., 2016). Good air
quality influenced by the number of inhabitants, activities conducted inside the
classrooms and rate of ventilation, aggravated by the poor construction and main-
tenance of many school buildings (Ekren et al., 2017; Frontczak and Wargocki,
2011). CO2 concentration has been chosen as the key performance indicator for
the assessment of indoor air quality and ventilation in classrooms (Daniels, 2016;
Wargocki and Wyon, 2017).
VC is defined as ‘‘a subjective condition of visual well-being induced by the
visual environment’’ (BS-EN-12665, 2011). Visual conditions are characterized by
parameters such as luminance distribution, illuminance, light uniformity, and glare.
Most IEQ studies in classrooms evaluated the VC based on the illuminance levels.
All of them found positive correlations between lighting levels and student satisfac-
tion from field survey (Dorizas et al., 2015; Lim et al., 2017).
Overall, physical environmental parameters are all interrelated, and the feeling
of comfort is a composite state involving an occupant’s sensations of all these fac-
tors (Huang et al., 2012; Ricciardi and Buratti, 2018). Moreover, the balance
between all the above-mentioned parameters should be assessed. Acknowledging
that the energy consumption of buildings depends significantly on the criteria used
to evaluate indoor environmental conditions (Marino et al., 2012), it is necessary
to assess the energy consumption of buildings with respect to indoor environmen-
tal conditions (Dascalaki and Sermpetzoglou, 2011). It cannot be neglected that
the true purpose of a building is to provide the occupants with a comfortable and
healthy indoor environment despite running the risk of higher energy consump-
tion. An integrated analysis is needed to ensure that the energy efficiency measures
do not decrease the IEQ, and IEQ improvements do not increase the energy con-
sumption (Dorizas et al., 2015; Ghita and Catalina, 2015; Pereira et al., 2017;
Quang et al., 2014; Ricciardi and Buratti, 2018). Despite the vast literature on IEQ
4 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

criteria in educational spaces, only a few have considered all four together in class-
room settings. Moreover, there is a lack of investigating the relationship of the
above-mentioned four parameters with overall comfort and energy consumption
levels.
Three main objectives of the study are as follow: first is to compare IEQ levels in
three building typologies (old, new, and retrofitted) with each other and standards.
Second is to define the relationship between overall satisfaction and the environ-
mental parameters based on the subjective responses and physical measurements.
Third to develop an index to assess the buildings retrofit potential to improve build-
ings performance based on IEQ and energy consumption levels.

Methodology
A combination of increased time spent indoor and energy efficiency building prac-
tices has created the need to assess the impact of design and renovations on indoor
environmental quality in educational buildings. Consequently, post-occupancy
evaluations are required and followed in this study to give building designers and
operators’ useful feedbacks. The research process is presented in Figure 1.

Site and buildings

Nine classrooms located in three buildings of the Shahid Beheshti University (SBU)
main campus, in a suburb in the north of Tehran, Iran, have been investigated dur-
ing July 2016 to April 2017. The properties of the studied cases have been presented
in Table 1.
Tehran weather is mild in the spring and autumn, hot and dry in the summer
(average high temperatures are between 32°C and 37°C, and mean minimum and
maximum temperatures of July are 26°C and 34°C), and cold and wet in the winter
(with the mean minimum and maximum temperatures of January are 25°C and
1°C). Most of the time, lower temperature is recorded in the studied context in
comparison with the city, according to the higher elevation of the campus, which is
about 1650–1750 m (in comparison with 1167 m in the middle of the city), con-
densed vegetation, and close northern mountains. Moreover, higher wind speed
potential due to lower surface roughness is expected. Finally, according to the vehi-
cle access limitation in the campus, and the considerable distance to the roads, fol-
lowed by site expanse, few urban noises disturb the buildings, although in
accordance with low quality of sound insulation, high sound levels (SLs) are
unavoidable.
Three types of buildings, a new building (constructed 10 years ago), an old
building (over 40 years old), and a recently retrofitted building, were selected for
the study as provides an interesting comparison possibility, to see how the retrofit
impacted the energy efficiency and comfort conditions. In each building,
three classrooms facing toward north (N), south (S), and east (E) were studied for
a week in the heating (January), cooling (July), and the free running season
 Tahsildoost and Zomorodian
5

Figure 1. Research process flowchart.

 6
Table 1. Case study characteristics.

Building Age (year) Ventilation Heating/ Glass/ window Envelope External Internal wall Walls Reverberation Total no. of
system cooling thermal wall sound finishing time (T60 respondents
resistance sound reduction 250 Hz)
(w/m2 K) reduction (dB)
(dB)
Ext. wall Roof Windows Unoccupied Occupied

Architecture Old (more than Natural Radiator/ Single 6 mm, St. 2.8 1.6 5.6 55 40 Gypsum plaster + 1.82 1.03 278
(A) 40) ventilation evaporative Frame foam board
cooling
Computer New (less than Fresh air + Fan coil DGU 6.8 mm, 0.98 2.8 1.2 55 40 Gypsum plaster 1.14 0.81 275
(C) 10) fan coil UPVC
Physic Old (more than Natural Radiator/ DGU 6.6 mm, 0.84 2.8 0.97 43 35 Gypsum plaster 1.06 0.78 289
(Ph) 40) and ventilation evaporative UPVC
retrofitted cooling

UPVC: un-plasticized polyvinyl chloride.

Journal of Building Physics 00(0)
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 7

(November and April) during the normal operation. Buildings are usually full
occupied from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday to Wednesday, from September to
June and partially occupied in July and August. The selected classroom areas range
from 56 to 84 m2.

Field survey
The methodological process focused on a field survey which collected data by ques-
tionnaire and environmental measurements at the same time, in classrooms in order
to investigate the quality of the indoor air and monitor the acoustic, thermal, and
lighting performance of the building and occupants’ comfort levels.
IEQ measurements. Physical parameters were measured in three occupation periods
(8:00–10:00, 10:30–12:30, and 14:00–16:00) every day for a school week in mid-
July, mid-November, mid-January, and mid-April, as representative periods in
order to cover major occupation periods and avoid excessive data recording.
TC is assessed by measuring air temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, and
globe temperature, using MIC-98583 data logger, TES-1340 hot-wire anemometer,
and an 8778-heat-stress-meter. The measured data are used to calculate the PMV
as an index to assess the TC in classrooms in line with international standards,
ASHRAE 55 (2013). The metabolic rate and clothing was estimated 1.2 MET cor-
responding to sedentary activity and 1.0 clo in January and 0.75 for other months
based on ASHRAE 55. A 0.1-clo value is also added to account for chair insula-
tion (ANSI/ASHRAE, 2010).
To measure the AC, the background noise level was recorded by a TES-1352 S
SL meter, based on ISO 3382-3:2012 (2012). CO2 concentration was measured by
TES-1370 CO2 meter taking continuous readings every 15 min. The illuminance
levels were measured using a TES 1339R at students’ desk level (0.85 m) in five dif-
ferent points in each classroom, which are used to calculate the average illuminance
and daylight factor (DF) as an index to assess the daylight performance in the
spaces (BS-EN-12665, 2011). In the pilot study, all parameters were measured and
logged in five different points in a classroom with 5-min intervals. Despite illumi-
nance measurements, other parameters did not show tangible differences across the
classroom. Therefore, in the experimental campaign, all parameters, except illumi-
nance, were measured merely in the middle point at the height of 1.1 m. Moreover,
almost no variations were recorded in the 5-min time interval. Therefore, it was
decided to extend the interval of automatic loggings and manual readings to 15 min
in order to avoid excessive data recording. All measurements were done in class-
rooms during occupied periods based on the ASHRAE/CIBSE/USGBC (2010)
Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings (PMP). The mea-
sured values were monitored and averaged during the period in which the question-
naires were collected.
Questionnaire survey. Students’ personal information (age, gender, and clothing
level); the level of satisfaction with the thermal, visual, acoustical comfort, and
8 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Gender % Education % Age (years) %

Female 58 Undergraduate 63 18–25 79

Male 42 Graduate 37 25\ 21

indoor air quality; and also the overall comfort level were assessed based on the
questionnaire. Students were asked to rate their thermal sensation (Actual Mean
Vote (AMV)) on the 5-point numerical scale: 22 (cool), 21 (slightly cool), 0 (neu-
tral), +1 (slightly warm), and +2 (warm). In addition, they were asked to express
a vote about the quality of the environment with reference to each comfort aspect
(thermal satisfaction (TS), visual satisfaction (VS), acoustic satisfaction (AS), and
IAQ Satisfaction) and the overall comfort based on a 5-point scale (very dissatis-
fied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, and very satisfied), weighted from 21 to +1, to
quantify the votes. A total of 842 students filled out the above-mentioned question-
naire during the study. Demographic characteristics of the respondents are
described in Table 2.
Statistical methods are utilized to ascertain the précised interpretation of the col-
lected data. The survey results are first used to develop a model to predict the over-
all comfort in buildings. The questionnaire results regarding each parameter and
was averaged, sorted, and statically tested, to ascertain that there are not any other
interfering factors affecting the results and to calculate the correlation among these
results and the overall comfort indices. Physical measurements and questionnaire
data are depicted in graphs using scatter charts, to show the relationship among the
respondents’ point of view to each parameter, affecting their satisfaction, that is,
TS versus PMV, AS versus averaged SL, IAQ satisfaction versus CO2 level, and VS
versus illumination. The scattering points provide a trend prediction curve, which
were presented with a set of interpreter equation, in which the most appropriate
has been selected to be used in next step. As mentioned before, the correlation
between each parameter and the overall comfort which is calculated in each case
are used as an impact factor of parameters in a cumulative equation presented in
equation (1). On the contrary, the overall comfort and energy consumption classifi-
cation are done in the next step, which help to define a suggestive Retrofit Potential
Index (RPI).

Field study result

Physical IEQ parameters were logged during occupation periods each day for a
week in each season, as mentioned above. The minimum, maximum, and standard
deviation (SD) of each parameter are presented in Table 3. In addition, question-
naires were filled simultaneously in three occupation periods a day, by different stu-
dents; during the measurement week, some students filled the questionnaire more
Table 3. IEQ parameters during different seasons in the three buildings.

IEQ Statics New (C) Old (A) Retrofitted (Ph) IEQ Statics New (C) Old (A) Retrofitted (Ph)
parameter parameter
C-N C-S C-E A-N A-S A-E Ph-N Ph-S Ph-E C-N C-S C-E A-N A-S A-E Ph-N Ph-S Ph-E

PMV Avg. November 0.01 0.43 0.34 −0.17 0.47 0.42 0.26 0.49 0.39 CO2 Avg. November 626 577 673 526 584 542 827 750 821
January 0.25 0.68 0.58 0.23 0.61 0.42 0.60 0.76 0.55 January 1148 1241 1489 1152 903 912 904 894 916
April 0.26 0.55 0.47 0.48 0.61 0.49 0.28 0.52 0.49 April 608 565 647 521 590 536 861 812 846
July 0.06 0.33 0.35 0.63 1.19 0.85 0.03 0.47 0.40 July 994 1163 1229 643 506 629 809 801 803
Min. November −0.14 0.17 0.20 −0.67 0.20 0.10 0.12 0.30 0.12 Min. November 439 467 473 442 427 492 528 523 764
January −0.04 0.34 0.46 −0.23 −0.28 −0.04 0.44 0.46 0.33 January 848 904 861 938 462 475 540 685 673
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian

April 0.04 0.32 0.20 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.35 0.05 April 486 420 437 421 417 442 554 508 706
July −0.10 0.12 0.12 0.30 0.40 0.33 −0.12 0.10 0.14 July 737 757 804 510 470 536 461 620 666
Max. November 0.10 0.56 0.42 0.30 0.64 0.58 0.34 0.55 0.54 Max. November 790 732 820 650 708 806 1054 938 967
January 0.45 0.94 0.64 0.50 1.34 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.70 January 1309 1537 2052 1736 1307 1388 1254 1020 1129
April 0.34 0.67 0.56 0.65 0.78 0.62 0.34 0.55 0.54 April 768 754 804 644 759 848 1044 909 902
July 0.12 0.50 0.45 0.90 1.94 1.31 0.10 0.80 0.60 July 1187 1420 1630 708 534 729 989 937 1017
SD November 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.02 SD November 25 15 12 45 57 90 79 55 18
January 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 January 34 45 22 26 36 27 13 44 22
April 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 April 25 15 12 45 55 23 80 57 17
July 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 July 12 25 16 15 24 22 44 22 27

SL Avg. November 50 43 46 63 57 67 54 53 56 Illuminance Avg. November 341 473 398 399 466 377 354 428 391
January 43 39 33 57 64 48 62 51 59 January 322 441 384 361 328 306 325 395 370
April 50 43 46 61 53 67 64 53 56 April 392 464 404 385 409 321 373 392 358
July 41 41 44 58 64 63 57 59 63 July 480 473 447 410 463 433 444 452 434
Min. November 37 35 40 61 48 54 48 35 49 Min. November 307 317 318 298 305 312 284 293 310
January 31 29 26 39 35 35 47 41 34 January 299 306 302 276 299 301 308 294 300
April 37 35 40 54 48 54 55 42 49 April 318 329 315 306 317 315 320 336 327
July 37 36 33 47 42 45 41 47 42 July 406 431 356 369 320 338 402 441 388
Max. November 53 51 52 74 63 67 59 54 59 Max. November 391 583 552 498 639 578 402 558 519
January 50 55 52 55 51 57 69 65 62 January 364 565 542 532 570 493 328 516 501
April 55 48 54 74 54 67 64 61 67 April 462 571 569 550 653 580 433 499 481
July 56 44 47 67 72 69 71 68 66 July 549 544 526 598 522 605 507 489 493
SD November 2 2 1 6 3 5 3 6 2 DF November 1.6 5.8 3.3 2.2 4.5 3.6 1.5 3.8 2.4
January 2 2 1 4 5 4 3 3 2 January
April 4 3 3 5 7 5 4 5 4 April
July 1 2 2 6 5 4 2 4 3 July
9

IEQ: Indoor Environmental Quality; C: computer; A: architecture; Ph: physics; S: south; E: east; N: north; PMV: Predicted Mean Vote; SD: standard deviation.
10 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

than once. Analyzing and comparing the judgments, the impact of every singular
aspect on the overall comfort perception was highlighted. Results of measurements
and questionnaires survey are presented and discussed in the following sections.

TC
According to the result, in the heating and cooling periods, the lowest and highest
PMV levels (20.67, 1.94) were recorded in January and July in the north and south
facing classroom of building ‘‘A,’’ where the dry bulb temperature reached 19.6°C
and 31.7°C, respectively. The relative humidity was almost the same in all class-
rooms, ranging between 39% in July and 68% in January.
All three measured classrooms in the old building ‘‘A’’ have average PMV
values higher than ASHRAE standard requirements (category II—normal level
of expectations: 20.5\PMV\0.5) in the cooling season. High PMV are due to
the uninsulated building envelope, single layer windows, and insufficient ventila-
tion rates. However, the new (C) and retrofitted (Ph) buildings are in the TC
range. Besides the temperature control, the thermal discomfort of the classrooms
in the cooling season was related to draughts caused by cooling system (air velo-
city . 0.8 m/s).
In the heating season, the average PMV values range from +0.23 to +0.76,
the minimum calculated in building ‘‘A’’ and the maximum in ‘‘Ph.’’ The
maximum PMV value in the heating season exceeds the acceptable value in
almost all classrooms as a result of the highly sealed windows and inadequate
control of the heating system. During the mid-seasons, no mechanical heating
and cooling systems were working. The highest and lowest outdoor and indoor
temperature, recorded in April and November, were 26°C–28°C and 9°C–18°C,
respectively.
The average PMV values are all in comfort range (between 20.5 and +0.5,
based on ASHRAE 55.1) in November. However, in April, warm sensations are
predicted in the south faced classrooms in all three buildings. In the free running
seasons, windows were open during class times, but sufficient fresh air was not pro-
vided through natural ventilation especially in April. The SD is very small (less
than 0.1) in all cases. However, higher SD in building A shows the temperature
fluctuation during the measurement period.
With regard to TC, students’ thermal sensation vote (TSV) and the level of satis-
factions with the thermal environment (TS) was extracted from the questionnaires.
According to the results, students were mostly satisfied and very satisfied (6270%)
with the thermal environment in building C during the year (Figure 2). The satisfac-
tion level was minimum in building A (21%–23%).
Figure 3 shows the relation between the mean PMV and the mean TSV during
the year in all three buildings. According to results, there is a good correlation
(R2 = 0.78) between PMV and TSV that confirms the accuracy of Fanger’s model
for predicting university students’ thermal sensations in the studied context. As
reported in previous studies (Zomorodian et al., 2016), the PMV model is more
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 11

Figure 2. Students’ thermal satisfactions during the whole year.

E: east; S: south; N: north.

Figure 3. Relation between the mean PMV and the mean TSV.

convenient for TC studies in universities in comparison with other educational lev-

els. Satisfaction levels did not differ much in different classrooms in each building.
However, difference is observed between the three buildings.
According to results (Figure 4), there is a high correlation (R2 = 0.82) between
the PMV and the TS level. Each point in the graph represents the mean PMV in
each classroom in different seasons (a total of 36 points). Therefore, it could be
concluded that the PMV is a valid index for assessing students’ TS. It was con-
cluded that students are most satisfied when the PMV is higher than 20.08 and less
than 0.4.
12 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Figure 4. Relation between PMV and students’ thermal satisfaction.

Acoustic performance
According to measurements, the maximum averaged SL recorded (74 dB) in the
north classroom of the old building is much bigger than national standards for
classrooms (40 dB; Management and Planning Organization, 2006). The average
SL in the studied classrooms ranged from 33 to 67 dB with the minimum in building
C and maximum in A. Measured data show high SLs in A, during all the seasons,
mostly caused by external sound sources and low sound insulation performance of
the building fabric; especially north classes experienced higher SLs during the year,
due to the northern street, while in July, the average prevail SL ranging from 41-
64 dB is caused mainly by the mechanical cooling system. In addition, the low qual-
ity of class doors allows the internal sound sources from the corridor transfer into
the room. Not only the average SL but also the average level of minimum data
gathered during measurement (42 dB) is higher than admissible SLs in classroom.
As a general result, in free running periods, classrooms faced higher SLs, due to
open windows in average values; however, higher SLs of maximum values are
related to mechanical equipment and also outdoor construction activities in the
campus, in July. The minimum and maximum SD were in buildings C and A,
respectively.
Students reported the highest level of satisfactions (50%–59%) with the acoustic
environment in the building C and the lowest (22%–26%) in Ph (Figure 5). When
the averaged noise level was below 45 dB, subjects felt satisfied with the acoustic
environment. When the noise level increased above this threshold, subjects felt
increasingly uncomfortable (Figure 6). Despite the importance of acoustic perfor-
mance in educational building, measured data and questionnaire results affirmed
that no attention was paid to acoustic performance in the renovation procedure,
and sound insulation is prepared as an implied result of airtightness implementa-
tion. Measured data, questionnaire result, and observation comparison show that
not all the occupants completely noticed the background noise; however, most of
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 13

Figure 5. Students’ acoustic satisfactions during the whole year.

Figure 6. Relation between acoustic comfort satisfaction and sound level.

the time the related equivalent SL is more than acceptable values. Comparing the
questionnaire, measurement, and observations shows that the more the average SL
exceeds 56 dB during class period, the more discomfort expressed, while prompt
objection recorded in case of maximum SL more than 67 dB even for a few second.
This means that high SL has a more intensive impression on disturbance in class-
rooms. Based on measurements of SL in A and Ph building, with both internal
and external sources, sound limits are often exceeded, while subjects are more sen-
sitive to short-term external noise with high SL (more than 65 dB) than internal
long-term noise with lower SL (less than 65), despite the fact that latter is not
acceptable to be heard during the class hours. Although replaced double glazed
UPVC (un-plasticized polyvinyl chloride) windows work better than old steel
14 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

frames, overheat and lack of fresh air are more experienced in the retrofitted
building.
According to results (Figure 6), there is a relatively high correlation (R2 = 0.76)
between the averaged SL and the AS level. Therefore, it could be concluded that
the averaged SL is a valid index for assessing students’ AS. It was concluded that
students would feel neutral with regard to the acoustic environment when the SL is
lower than 50.8 and would be satisfied when the SL is lower than 41.7 dB.
On the contrary, AC in educational spaces is highly influenced by RT, which, as
reported in Table 1, is in compliance with standards, in that the highest RT was cal-
culated in building A and the lowest in building Ph; however, both are beyond local
standard limits (Management and Planning Organization, 2006).

Indoor air quality

CO2 concentration was measured as an index of indoor air quality. High CO2 lev-
els (ppm . 1000) were recorded during the heating season in the new and retro-
fitted building and during the cooling season in the old building. The average CO2
level in classrooms ranged from 521 to 861 ppm in the free running season while
windows were kept open during class hours, and from 506 to 1489 ppm in the cool-
ing and heating seasons. The highest value was recorded in the east classroom
(2052 ppm) of the new building during January, while the lowest (417 ppm) was
recorded in April in the old building (A). According to the CEN Report CR 1752
Ventilation for buildings, if sedentary occupants are assumed to be the only source
of pollution, the CO2 concentration above the outdoor level should be for category
B: less than 660 ppm. The classrooms were shown to have adequate available ven-
tilation in compliance with the current building regulations (ASHRAE, 2013).
However, the maximum value of CO2 levels raised to more than 1200 ppm in the
most cases in heating season, which induced overheat from the beginning hours,
and odor complaining was intensified with high occupant density, making forced
ventilation a mandatory requirement. However, considering the high values of
pm2.5 in winter in Tehran, it is not recommended to provide more ventilation, as
far as IAQ is not objected.
Student’s satisfactions toward air quality were asked by the questionnaire survey.
According to the result, the highest level of satisfaction (satisfied and very satisfied)
with the indoor air (over a year) was in the old building (55%261%) and the lowest
in the retrofitted building (29%–36%). The maximum percentage of dissatisfaction
is observed in building Ph. However, the percentage of people just satisfied is high
in comparison with other cases (Figure 7). No tangible difference was observed
between IAQ in different classrooms in the same building under similar occupation.
Minimum ventilation rate is not continuously supplied, in which high SD is depicted
in Table 3. It should be noted that occupants’ perception about the level of CO2 is
not autonomic enough to be paid attention, and most of the occupants do not dis-
criminate high CO2 concentration and age of air and stale (Figure 8).
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 15

Figure 7. Students’ IAQ satisfactions during the whole year.

Figure 8. Relation between indoor air quality satisfaction and CO2 level.

According to results (Figure 8), there is a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.63)

between the CO2 concentration and the indoor air quality satisfaction level.
Therefore, students’ votes could not be completely predicted via CO2 concentra-
tion. However, when CO2 level exceeds 1000 ppm, students reported dissatisfaction
and felt more satisfied when CO2 levels were lower than 660 ppm.

Visual performance
The average light levels (lower limit (LL)) measured in classroom ranged between
321 and 480 lux—the minimum and the maximum recorded in north and south
faced classrooms, respectively. The minimum illuminance value was below require-
ments in north classrooms during winter, sometimes even with lights partially on.
16 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Figure 9. Students’ visual satisfactions during the whole year.

It should be noted that measurements were done in real conditions (lights on and
curtains drawn when excessive daylight entering). The average illuminance levels
were in line with standard requirements (300 lux) in classrooms during the year
(EN 12464-1: 2011, 2011). However, high illuminance levels near the windows
caused students to draw the curtains and turn on the lights, most of the time. In
addition to illuminance, the DF is calculated in each space with clear sky condi-
tions in order to evaluate the classrooms daylight performance. According to
results, the DF ranges from 1.5% in the north faced classroom in the retrofitted
building to 5.8% in the south facing classroom of the old building. Large window
areas result in higher DF levels in the old building (A).
With regard to VC, students judged the visual environment acceptable, since over
65% in the building C and 47% in A were satisfied and very satisfied with the VC
in classrooms. The lowest satisfaction level was observed in the retrofitted building
(Ph), which could be the result of lower window area, and low window to wall ratio
(Figure 9). Since students are used to artificial light, they did not report any discom-
fort resulting from insufficient daylight. In other words, despite high daylight levels
provided in the classrooms as the result of large window areas, students turned on
the light after entering the classrooms at the beginning of the day and left them on.
Students were more satisfied in east than in south and north classrooms.
According to results (Figure 10), there is a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.63)
between the lighting level and the VC satisfaction level. Students felt neutral when
light level reaches 256 lux and feel most satisfied when reaches 646 lux.

Overall Comfort Prediction Model and IEQ classification

The correlation among comfort factors and the perceived overall comfort
sensation has been studied in different buildings and reported as correlation
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 17

Figure 10. Relation between visual satisfaction and lighting level.

coefficients or weights (Cao et al., 2012; Heinzerling et al., 2013; Marino et al.,
2012; Wong et al., 2008). It is obvious that devising a universal weighting scheme
that applies to all buildings is not possible. The weighing scheme developed in pre-
vious studies and in this study is presented in Table 4. The measurements and ques-
tionnaire data of each question/parameters have been classified and weighted using
the 21 to +1 coefficients to transform the Likert-type spectrum to a single num-
ber in each class. Calculating the average of the above-mentioned numbers, the
average satisfaction of each parameter in each building is reported. Dividing the
average satisfaction to the sum of the scored calculated for each parameter in each
building, the weight of that parameter in the final result of overall comfort assess-
ment could be found, which once again to be averaged to calculate the weighing
scheme in the studied cases. According to results, TC has the maximum weight fol-
lowed by AC. The main reason of differences in weights in studies could be due to
the building type and context. IEQ in buildings could be predicted based on the
numerical values for each IEQ parameter from on-site measurements or simulation
outputs along with the importance of each parameter in the overall comfort which
occupants have highlighted. In this study, Pearson correlation analysis was carried
out to get a better image of the relative importance of each of the parameters con-
tributing to the perceived IEQ in the studied buildings.
Comparing the questionnaire data, occupant gets used to high equivalent SL as
there is a few complaints about acoustic quality. High minimum level of the sound,
and its unacceptable average, on one side, and sound disturbance neglecting in
questionnaire, on the other side, shows that acoustic performance is not the first
priority in occupants’ point of view; however, it shows the maximum deviation
from the codes (in comparison with TC, lighting, and IAQ).
According to the correlation analysis, TC is the most important environmental
parameters, followed by VC and illuminance efficiency with a high and strong
18 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Table 4. IEQ parameter weight in different studies.

No. Building type Ref. NOC Thermal Visual IAQ Acoustic

1 Offices Wong et al. (2008) 293 0.31 0.19 0.25 0.24

2 Public buildings Cao et al. (2012) 500 0.38 0.21 0.14 0.27
3 Office and residential Chiang and Lai (2002) - 0.208 0.164 0.209 0.203
4 Educational Ghita and Catalina (2015) 790 0.27 0.24 0.3 0.19
5 Current study 842 0.34 0. 31 0.08 0.26

IEQ: Indoor Environmental Quality; IAQ: Indoor Air Quality; NOC: Number of Cases.

positive linear relation to overall comfort, since the correlation coefficient is above
0.8 in both case. The correlation of AC, however, is not as high as those factors,
but is over 0.6 which is enough in statistical point of view for acceptable prediction
of comfort, while the last surveyed factor, IAQ, is between 0.4 and 0.6 which shows
a lower linear relationship. According to results, a model has been proposed to
predict the overall IEQ satisfaction in classrooms by knowing the environmental
parameters (PMV, SL, illuminance level, and CO2 level). The correlation between
each parameter and the related satisfaction level is presented in Figures 4, 6, 8 and
10, and parameters are weighted in the equation, using the correlation coefficients
of each comfort aspect and the overall satisfaction (equation (1))

Overall IEQ satisfaction = ( 0:9848 PMV2 + 0:2999 PMV + 0:0322) 0:948

+ ( 0:0016 SL2 + 0:0936 SL  0:6235) 0:7249
+ (6E  07 CO2 2  0:0025 CO2 + 1:9416) 0:483
+ (0:0013 LL  0:0409) 0:8685
ð1Þ

An important feature of EN 15251 is the breakdown of IEQ categories as shown

in Table 5. The categories are intended to express levels of expectation from occu-
pants (category I being the highest expectation). In addition, the proposed accepta-
ble ranges of parameters in each category have been revised based on field survey
results. The categorization is based on the IEQ index breakdown, where values
higher than 1 are considered high quality and lower than 0 are out of range. These
performance categories could be used for evaluation purposes.
Sensitivity analysis has been done by the one-at-a-time (OAT/OFAT) method,
changing one-factor-at-a-time (environmental parameter), to see what effect this
produces on the model output (IEQ index). According to results, the sensitivity of
the illuminance is 25.75%, SL 38.79% PMV level 51.38%, and IAQ 20.85%.
According to the proposed classification, the studied classrooms are assessed by
the physical measurements. As visible in Table 5, the SLs in the classrooms are the
most annoying IEQ parameters while occupants experienced comfort thermal
Table 5. IEQ categories and range of parameters, based on EN 15251 (2007), and proposed values.

Quality categories Overall IEQ index PMV SP CO2 above outdoor DF

Proposed Standard Proposed Standard Proposed Standard Proposed Standard

I ˜1 0.62< 20.2\ <35 \30 \300 \150 4%< 6%<

High level of expectation 20.32< 0.2\
II ˜0.5 20.45< 20.5\ 35\ \34 300< \450 3%< 4%\
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian

Normal level of \1 0.75< \0.5 \40 \500 \4% \6%

expectation
III ˜0 20.67< 20.7\ 40< \38 500< \1000 2.5%< 2%\
Acceptable, moderate \0.5 0.97< \0.7 \45 800\ \3% \4%
level of expectation
IV \0 \20.67 0.7\ 45< 38\ 800\ 1000\ \2.5% \2%
Values outside the criteria \0.97
for the above categories.

IEQ: Indoor Environmental Quality; PMV: Predicted Mean Vote; DF: daylight factor; SP: Sound Pressure.
19
20 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Figure 11. Overall comfort levels in studied classrooms over the year.

condition during the year. CO2 concentration and visual performance of the build-
ing is reported acceptable, however higher satisfaction levels are reported toward
the visual environment. On average, free running seasons experienced no serious
thermal discomfort, and recorded discomfort in cold seasons is due to overheating,
one in level II and III (respectively, normal and acceptable, moderate) level of
expectation. In hot season, one of the nine is out of the criteria. However, all the
latter situation occurred in the old building, which could be compensated in a ret-
rofitting procedure as no summertime discomfort recorded in building Ph. Other
parameters are much more related to buildings, as SLs are totally out of range,
except in building C, which is in normal and accepted grade in summer and winter
seasons. Although opening the windows in the free running seasons leads to acous-
tic discomfort even in building C, lower CO2 concentration is visible in Table 3,
especially in comparison with those classes with mechanical ventilation during the
summer. Finally, the summertime daylight known always in the high level of expec-
tation, and the lower levels are in other seasons. However, little fluctuation light
assessments could be due to near buildings and outside trees and also other factors
which reduce the glare probability.
In addition, the annual IEQ index is calculated in each classroom and classified
based on the proposed classification scheme (Figure 11).

IEQ versus energy consumption

The retrofitting of existing buildings is one of the most important types of building
energy efficiency projects. Reducing existing building energy consumption while
improving environmental aspects of the buildings through implementation of
energy efficiency measures is a great challenge. Moreover, studying the improve-
ment potential of the different strategies, diagnosing parameters to be focused, and
prioritizing buildings for retrofitting are critical issues to be considered through
integrated analysis methods. In this study, the energy consumption is compared
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 21

against the IEQ index in order to define the retrofit necessity in the surveyed build-
ings. Energy utilization data are derived from the gas and electricity utility bills
over the previous 3 years and is used to calculate the primary energy index in accor-
dance with ISIRI 14254 (20120) and rated based on the Iranian energy certification
label. According to results (Figure 12), building A has the highest energy consump-
tion level (grade C) along with the minimum IEQ index (level III) and building C
has the lowest energy consumption (D) and highest IEQ index (level II).
According to data, about 34%–41% of the total energy consumption corre-
sponds to the heating and cooling in the studied buildings, highlighting the impor-
tance of TC in the overall IEQ index.
Moreover, the RPI is proposed as a decision-making tool for buildings retrofit
process, providing the retrofitting priority based on the energy consumption and
comfort improvement potential. This index is calculated as the ratio of the energy
consumption to the IEQ index. The IEQ index was calculated for each category
based on the proposed parameter ranges, using equation (1). In order to ovoid zero
in the division, in minimum situations, the minimum IEQ index is considered 1.
Although researches show that high energy consumption does not necessarily
provide comfortable environment, it is not out of mind if a lot of energy is con-
sumed to prepare comfort indices. On the other side, it is necessary to find which
of the IEQ parameters have the most potential to be improved. Therefore, the
above-mentioned domain of each parameter is replaced in equation (1), and the
new RPI is calculated. In other words, the RPI graph shows the priority of retrofit-
ting among different cases, simply using the energy consumption of each case and
the respective IEQ index (Figure 13).
Obviously, some improvements are related to energy and the others are not, which
could be shown in the RPI graph and the limited number of studied buildings is not
sufficient to provide a determining tool. However, this study is just the start point of
the index introduction based on a limited number of cases studied thoughtfully.

Conclusion
In this study IEQ assessments by simultaneous measurements and questionnaire
survey along with considering buildings’ energy consumption provided the ability
of studying the effect of each IEQ factor independently while determining its
impact in the buildings’ overall comfort and energy consumption. The main con-
clusions derived from this study are as follows.
First, results reveal that TC is the most important environmental parameters,
followed by VC, and illuminance efficiency with a high and strong positive linear
relation to overall comfort. IEQ has not been considered thoroughly in design and
renovation practices of educational building in Iran. However, energy consump-
tion depends significantly on the IEQ criteria. This research shows that Iranian
building codes are not suitable for retrofitting, nor effective in visual, IAQ, and
AC requirements in new constructions. As a result, low AC in studied buildings is
 22

Figure 12. Energy versus IEQ in case study buildings.

Journal of Building Physics 00(0)
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 23

Figure 13. Retrofit Potential Index (RPI).

mostly due to the weak performance of windows and background noise caused by
indoor mechanical equipment. Low TC is generally due to overheat, and also local
discomfort, and low DF, plus high range of glare in north classes in winter, and
south classes respectively, is the main reason of visual discomfort. The main com-
pliance of thermal discomfort observed in the old building, mostly because of over-
heat or asymmetric radiation near the one glass pane old windows, which also
permitted the air leakage to bring in the sound while reducing CO2 in the class.
The main discomfort in retrofitted building is caused by high SL of ventilation sys-
tems, and lower level of light, especially in winter, while airtight windows and inef-
ficient ventilation system were the main parameters in reducing the total IEQ in
building C.
Second, results show that there is a considerable gap among the students’ satis-
faction levels and standards in some cases. Students perceived the indoor environ-
ment acceptable even though some comfort indices show values which do not meet
standard requirements. A problem of reliability of some indices is highlighted.
Especially with regard to acoustic and IAQ, which the acceptance ranges showed
maximum significant deviation from standards. It is clear that a wide range of
buildings should be studied in order to define the acceptable ranges of each
24 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

parameter and provide a clear instruction or revisions for retrofitting and new con-
struction, and common criteria.
Third, IEQ prediction model is developed based on the field survey results and
utilized to calculate the IEQ index that could be useful for designers to predict the
overall comfort during different design stages. However, further investigation on
proposed equation can increase the precision of the model to predict the real condi-
tion more accurate. Repeating the procedure in different climate, and different
building construction, not only tests the equation among a bigger population but
also provides a wider range of occupant addressed in different clothing and climate.
More studies should be done in order to decrease the effect of interfering para-
meters. It is clear that high dissatisfaction on one parameter could cause respon-
dents inattention about other comfort aspects.
Moreover, considering the IEQ index along with energy consumption could
draw a general perspective of main forgotten parameters in the new construction
and energy retrofitting procedures. The RPI is proposed to estimate the efficiency
of retrofit procedures on IEQ and energy consumption in a given building.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

References
ANSI/ASHRAE (2010) Standard 55 —thermal environmental conditions for human
occupancy (ANSI approved).
ASHRAE (2013) ASHRAE 62.1.
ASHRAE/CIBSE/USGBC (2010) Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial
Buildings. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers.
ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard (2013) Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.
Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc.
BS-EN-12665 (2011) Light and lighting. Basic terms and criteria for specifying lighting
requirements. Available at: https://www.document-center.com/standards/show/BS-EN-
12665 (accessed 4 January 2018).
Cao B, Ouyang Q, Zhu Y, et al. (2012) Development of a multivariate regression model for
overall satisfaction in public buildings based on field studies in Beijing and Shanghai.
Building and Environment 47: 394–399.
Chiang C-M and Lai C-M (2002) A study on the comprehensive indicator of indoor
environment assessment for occupants’ health in Taiwan. Building and Environment
37(4): 387–392.
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 25

Cornaro C, Paravicini A and Cimini A (2013) Monitoring indoor carbon dioxide

concentration and effectiveness of natural trickle ventilation in a middle school in Rome.
Indoor and Built Environment 22(2): 445–455.
Daniels R (2016) BB101: ventilation, thermal comfort and air quality in schools.
Daniels R (2017) Guidelines on Ventilation, Thermal Comfort and Indoor Air Quality in
Schools. London, UK: Department of Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications
Dascalaki EG and Sermpetzoglou VG (2011) Energy performance and indoor
environmental quality in Hellenic schools. Energy and Buildings 43(2–3): 718–727.
Dorizas PV, Assimakopoulos M-N and Santamouris M (2015) A holistic approach for the
assessment of the indoor environmental quality, student productivity, and energy
consumption in primary schools. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187(5): 259.
Ekren O, Karadeniz ZH, Atmaca I, et al. (2017) Assessment and improvement of indoor
environmental quality in a primary school. Science and Technology for the Built
Environment 23(2): 391–402.
EN 12464-1: 2011 (2011) Light and lighting—lighting of workplaces, part 1: indoor work
places.
EN 15251 (2007) Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of
energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment,
lighting and acoustics.
Frontczak M and Wargocki P (2011) Literature survey on how different factors influence
human comfort in indoor environments. Building and Environment 46(4): 922–937.
Gao J, Wargocki P and Wang Y (2014) Ventilation system type, classroom environmental
quality and pupils’ perceptions and symptoms. Building and Environment 75: 46–57.
Ghita SA and Catalina T (2015) Energy efficiency versus indoor environmental quality in
different Romanian countryside schools. Energy and Buildings 92: 140–154.
Gramez A and Boubenider F (2017) Acoustic comfort evaluation for a conference room: a
case study. Applied Acoustics 118: 39–49.
Haverinen-Shaughnessy U, Shaughnessy RJ, Cole EC, et al. (2015) An assessment of indoor
environmental quality in schools and its association with health and performance.
Building and Environment 93(Pt 1): 35–40.
Heinzerling D, Schiavon S, Webster T, et al. (2013) Indoor environmental quality assessment
models: a literature review and a proposed weighting and classification scheme. Building
and Environment 70: 210–222.
Huang L, Zhu Y, Ouyang Q, et al. (2012) A study on the effects of thermal, luminous, and
acoustic environments on indoor environmental comfort in offices. Building and
Environment 49(1): 304–309.
ISIRI 14254 (20120) Non-residential buildings —criteria for energy consumption and energy
labeling instruction.
ISO 3382-3:2012 (2012) Acoustics—measurement of room acoustic parameters. Available at:
https://www.iso.org/standard/46520.html (accessed 5 January 2018).
Krüger EL and Zannin PHT (2004) Acoustic, thermal and luminous comfort in classrooms.
Building and Environment 39(9): 1055–1063.
Lee MC, Mui KW, Wong LT, et al. (2012) Student learning performance and indoor
environmental quality (IEQ) in air-conditioned university teaching rooms. Building and
Environment 49: 238–244.
26 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)

Lim GH, Hirning MB, Keumala N, et al. (2017) Daylight performance and users’ visual
appraisal for green building offices in Malaysia. Energy and Buildings 141: 175–185.
Madureira J, Paciencia I, Pereira C, et al. (2016) Indoor air quality in Portuguese schools:
levels and sources of pollutants. Indoor Air 26(4): 526–537.
Management and Planning Organization (2006) Acoustical Guide Lines for Educational
Buildings (no. 343). Tehran, Iran: Criteria Codification and Earthquake Risk Reduction
Affairs Bureau.
Marino C, Nucara A and Pietrafesa M (2012) Proposal of comfort classification indexes
suitable for both single environments and whole buildings. Building and Environment 57:
58–67.
Mohammadyan M, Alizadeh-Larimi A, Etemadinejad S, et al. (2017) Particulate air
pollution at schools: indoor-outdoor relationship and determinants of indoor
concentrations. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 17(3): 857–864.
Mumovic D, Palmer J, Davies M, et al. (2009) Winter indoor air quality, thermal comfort
and acoustic performance of newly built secondary schools in England. Building and
Environment 44(7): 1466–1477.
Pellerin N and Candas V (2003) Combined effects of temperature and noise on human
discomfort. Physiology & Behavior 78: 99–106.
Pereira LD, Edna C and Gameiro da Silva M (2015) Indoor air quality audit and evaluation
on thermal comfort in a school in Portugal. Indoor and Built Environment 24(2): 256–268.
doi:10.1177/1420326x13508966.
Pereira LD, Neto L, Bernardo H, et al. (2017) An integrated approach on energy
consumption and indoor environmental quality performance in six Portuguese secondary
schools. Energy Research & Social Science 32: 23–43.
Pereira LD, Raimondo D, Corgnati SP, et al. (2014) Assessment of indoor air quality and
thermal comfort in Portuguese secondary classrooms: methodology and results. Building
and Environment 81: 69–80.
Quang TN, He C, Knibbs LD, et al. (2014) Co-optimisation of indoor environmental quality
and energy consumption within urban office buildings. Energy and Buildings 85: 225–234.
Rahmaniar I and Putra JCP (2017) Effect of acoustic and thermal comfort to support
learning process in a University. Procedia Engineering 170: 280–285.
Ramprasad V and Subbaiyan G (2017) Perceived indoor environmental quality of
classrooms and outcomes: a study of a higher education institution in India. Architectural
Engineering and Design Management 13(3): 202–222.
Ricciardi P and Buratti C (2018) Environmental quality of university classrooms: subjective
and objective evaluation of the thermal, acoustic, and lighting comfort conditions.
Building and Environment 127: 23–36.
Sadick A-M and Issa MH (2017) Occupants’ indoor environmental quality satisfaction
factors as measures of school teachers’ well-being. Building and Environment 119: 99–109.
Sarbu I and Pacurar C (2015) Experimental and numerical research to assess indoor
environment quality and schoolwork performance in university classrooms. Building and
Environment 93: 141–154.
Stazi F, Naspi F, Ulpiani G, et al. (2017) Indoor air quality and thermal comfort
optimization in classrooms developing an automatic system for windows opening and
closing. Energy and Buildings 139: 732–746.
Tahsildoost and Zomorodian 27

Toyinbo O, Shaughnessy R, Turunen M, et al. (2016) Building characteristics, indoor

environmental quality, and mathematics achievement in Finnish elementary schools.
Building and Environment 104: 114–121.
Vilčeková S, Kapalo P, Mečiarová L’, et al. (2017) Investigation of indoor environment
quality in classroom—case study. Procedia Engineering 190: 496–503.
Wargocki P and Da Silva NA (2015) Use of visual CO2 feedback as a retrofit solution for
improving classroom air quality. Indoor Air 25(1): 105–114.
Wargocki P and Wyon DP (2017) Ten questions concerning thermal and indoor air quality
effects on the performance of office work and schoolwork. Building and Environment 112:
359–366.
Wong LT, Mui KW and Hui PS (2008) A multivariate-logistic model for acceptance of
indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in offices. Building and Environment 43(1): 1–6.
Zannin PHT (2009) Field measurements of acoustic quality in university classrooms. Journal
of Scientific and Industrial Research 68: 1053–1057.
Zomorodian ZS, Tahsildoost M and Hafezi M (2016) Thermal comfort in educational
buildings: a review article. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59: 895–906.

View publication stats