Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Thermal comfort performance and energy-efficiency evaluation of six

personal heating/cooling devices
Yin Tang , Hang Yu *, Kege Zhang , Kexin Niu , Huice Mao , Maohui Luo
School of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 201804, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Personal Comfort Systems (PCS) have the potential to improve individual thermal satisfaction and reduce energy
Thermal comfort consumption in buildings, but guidance on their application is still lacking. This study aims to evaluate and
Energy conservation compare the thermal comfort effectiveness and energy consumption of six different personal heating/cooling
Personal comfort system
devices (including warm air blower, electric radiant heater, heated cushion, desk fan, floor fan, and ventilated
Local heating/cooling device
cushion). Twenty-eight college students were recruited to use the heating/cooling devices under cold (18 ◦ C) and
hot (32 ◦ C) conditions, respectively. The results showed that all three heating devices improved subjects’ average
thermal sensation from cool (− 1.96) to neutral (− 0.18 – 0.09) under cold condition, while their energy efficiency
varied greatly. The warm air blower (420.0 W) and electric radiant heater (630.1 W) consumed significantly
more energy than the heated cushion (43.0 W). 67.8% of the subjects chose the heated cushion as their most
preferred heating device. Under hot condition, the desk fan and floor fan increased subjects’ thermal accept­
ability to more than 80%, while ventilated cushion with a maximum airflow rate of 16.5 L/s cannot correct
human thermal comfort. All cooling devices based on fans were available with small electric power (3.3–29.9 W).
Most subjects (60.7%) preferred the floor fan among the three cooling devices. The advantages and disadvan­
tages of each device perceived by the subjects were also investigated through interviews. This work can help
researchers further understand the differences between different PCS devices, and guide the optimization and
application of PCS devices.

1. Introduction
The increasing concern for energy conservation and the growing
need for comfort improvement are two major challenges for today’s
building industry [1]. On the one hand, with the urbanization progress
and rapid increase of building area, huge energy consumption is
generated in the buildings [2]. Relevant data reported by International
Energy Agency (IEA) show that buildings account for approximately
30% of total global energy consumption in 2020 [3], which contributes
to significant carbon emissions and has made an impact on the envi­
ronment such as global warming [4,5]. On the other hand, one of the
main functions of buildings is to protect occupants against the outdoor
weather conditions and provide them with a comfortable indoor envi­
ronment [6,7], which would be conducive to occupants’ health and
productivity [8–10]. Therefore, energy efficiency and thermal comfort
have been the focus of building-related studies in recent years [11,12].
Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems are
nowadays the primary strategy for improving indoor environment
quality, but also the major source of building’s energy consumption.
Relevant data show that HVAC systems account for as high as 40%–60%
of total energy use in buildings in different countries [4]. The high en­
ergy consumption of conventional HVAC systems is mainly attributed to
its goal for the uniform and constant control of indoor air temperature
within a narrow range [13], which were regarded as the requirements
for human thermal comfort in the traditional thermal comfort theory [6,
7]. However, due to individual differences based on various factors such
as age, gender, clothing, activity, and thermal experience, occupants in
the same indoor environment may have different thermal sensations
[14–16]. Some surveys have also shown that the overall satisfaction of
occupants in air-conditioning buildings was under 80% [17,18], which
is the target satisfaction rate in the standard [6]. Therefore, a uniform
indoor environment and fixed temperature based on the centralized
HVAC system, which is not energy efficient, may not bring a higher
thermal comfort level for all occupants in the shared room.
The above-mentioned limitations of the conventional HVAC systems
have recently led many researchers to pay attention to developing

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yuhang@tongji.edu.cn (H. Yu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109069
Received 25 December 2021; Received in revised form 9 March 2022; Accepted 4 April 2022
Available online 7 April 2022
0360-1323/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Personal Comfort Systems (PCS) [19,20]. PCS refers to the systems or
devices that can be controlled personally and can directly improve
thermal conditions surrounding the occupant, such as various personal
fans [21–23], radiant heaters [24–26], and heating/cooling chairs
[27–30]. In contrast to the conventional HVAC systems that condition an
entire space and create a uniform indoor environment, PCS aims to in­
fluence the microclimate around a person. The building ambient tem­
perature with PCS can be expanded than the recommended setpoint
range in current standards [1]. As the accuracy of temperature control
reduces and the range of thermal regulation space narrows, PCS can
effectively save energy compared with conventional HVAC systems [26,
31,32]. In addition, as PCS allows the occupant to adjust freely by
himself, personal thermal satisfaction can be greatly improved based on
individual thermal demand [33]. The advantages of low energy con­
sumption and personal thermal comfort customization for PCS fit the
current needs of the building industry. PCS is expected to become an
important auxiliary to traditional HVAC systems to reduce energy con­
sumption and improve occupants’ thermal comfort.
Given the importance and development potential of PCS, quite a few
scholars have conducted studies on different PCS devices. Table 1 lists
typical heating and cooling PCS devices found in previous studies. These
PCS devices have been used in daily life or were designed recently by
researchers. As seen in the table, the heat transfer mechanism and target
body parts of existing PCS devices vary greatly. To promote the use of
PCS devices, researchers have investigated the thermal comfort perfor­
mance of these PCS devices. Some studies even examined the comfort
limit of certain PCS devices [23,34,35]. In addition, a few studies have
reported the usage behaviors and energy energy-saving potential of PCS
[26,31,35]. However, there are still many types of PCS devices whose
effectiveness has not been tested, and rare studies compared different
PCS devices under the same condition. It has caused that the most
effective targeted body parts and heat transfer mechanism for PCS
remain undetermined. Although some literature reviews [19,20] have
tried to conclude and analyze thermal comfort and energy performance
of PCS in the existing studies, various experimental conditions in
different studies (e.g. different experimental temperatures and subjects’
clothing insulation) prevent direct comparison between PCS devices.
The lack of research and comparison of different PCS devices would lead
to difficulties in devices selection for building designers and limit the
further development of advanced PCS devices. The thermal comfort
performance and energy efficiency of different PCS devices required
more investigation.
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the thermal comfort
performance and energy efficiency of different PCS devices with
different heat transfer mechanisms or target body parts. For the research
objectives, a series of climate chamber experiments were conducted to
collect subjective responses and measure physiological parameters when
using six different PCS devices under cold/hot conditions. This work
would help the selection of PCS devices for residents and building de­
signers and inspire the design of future PCS devices.
2. Method
2.1. PCS devices
In this study, the types of PCS devices for testing were selected based
on (1) the usage habits of PCS in China and (2) the variety of the devices’
targeted body parts and heat transfer mechanism. For heating devices,
since electric radiant heaters and heating blankets are most widely used
in China [41,49], typical electric radiant heater and heated cushion
were chosen first. Then, warm air blower was selected because it
transfers heat by convection, which is different from the mechanism
applied in above two heating devices. For cooling condition, fans are the
most typical cooling devices, and desk fans and floor fans are two of the
representatives [50]. In addition, chair cooling is a hot topic of current
research [28,30], and it has different cooling regions compared to desk
fans and floor fans. Therefore, we chose desk fan, floor fan, and venti­
lated cushion as test cooling devices. The specific information and de­
scriptions of test devices are as follows.

Table 1 (1) Warm air blower (see Fig. 1 (a)) is a small machine combining an
Typical PCS devices used in previous studies.
internal electric heater and a fan to blow hot air. It is usually
PCS device Target body part Heat transfer placed on a table for use to warm the head and chest. The supply
mechanism air temperature of the warm air blower can be adjusted to meet
Heating devices the heating needs of different people in different environments.
Heated chair/cushion [27, Buttocks and back Conduction The size of the warm air blower used in this study is 181.5 * 101 *
30,35]
147.2 mm. It has two heating power gears of 300 W and 500 W.
Heated floor mat [36] Feet Conduction
Palm warmer [32] Hands Conduction The air speed of the warm air blower at a distance of 0.5 m (the
Heated wristpad [33] Wrists and hands Conduction distance between the device and the subject) is about 0.5 m/s.
Heated insole [33,37] Feet Conduction The supply air temperatures are about 32 ◦ C and 48 ◦ C for the two
Heating glove [38] Hands Conduction heating levels.
Heated clothing [24,39] Torso, wrists, and knee Conduction
Foot warmer [32,40] Feet Radiation
(2) Electric radiant heater (see Fig. 1 (b)) is a typical household
Radiant heater [24] Front of the body Radiation heating device in China [49]. It transfers heat to the human body
Warm air blower [41] Lower body Convection through radiation with high-temperature heating elements, and
Cooling devices the heat transferred can be adjusted by adjusting the temperature
Desk fan [42,43] Face and chest Convection
or the number of heating elements. It is usually placed on the
Floor fan [23] Front of the body Convection
Face and neck cooling fan Face and neck Convection ground for use. The electric heater used in the experiment has
[44] three radiant tubes, so it has three heating levels. The rated
Ceiling fan [34] Upper body Convection powers of the three heating levels are 330 W, 660 W, and 990 W,
Personalized ventilation Face, chest, arms, and hands Convection respectively. The size of the electric heater used in this study is
system [45]
Ventilated chair/cushion Buttocks and back Convection
550 * 330 * 80 mm.
[30,35,46] (3) Heated cushion (see Fig. 1 (c)) is can be used to heat the buttocks
Thermoelectric cooling Buttocks and back Conduction and back when people are seated. There are heating wires
chair [28,29] embedded in the heated cushion, and the power of the heating
Semiconductor cooling Chest, abdomen, upper back Conduction
wires can be adjusted. The size of the heated cushion used in this
plate [47] or lower back
Thermoelectric cooling Wrists and hands Conduction study is 90 * 40 mm. The rated power of the heated cushion used
wristpad [33] in this study was 52 W.
Cooling clothing [21] Torso, arms, and thighs. Conduction and (4) Desk fan (see Fig. 1 (d)) is a portable and convenient personal
convection cooling device, which is widely used in homes and offices. It used
Radiant cooling panel [48] Front of the body Radiation
to be placed on the table or held in the hand for use. Desk fan is

2
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Fig. 1. PCS devices and their placement when in use. (a) Warm air blower, (b) electric radiant heater, (c) heated cushion (d) desk fan, (e) floor fan, (f) venti­
lated cushion.

effective in cooling human’s head and face. It has low power
consumption and even can be available via USB. The desk fan
used in this study has four speed levels and its maximum power is
6 W. The air speed of the desk fan at 0.5 m away was 1.2/1.6/1.9/
2.3 m/s for the four speed levels. The size of the desk fan used in
this study is 173 * 145 * 48 mm.
(5) Floor fan (see Fig. 1 (e)) is placed on the floor to cool people’s
whole body through the wind from the bottom to the top.
Compared with the desk fan, floor fans have bigger airflow and
power. The floor fan used in this study has three speed levels and
a maximum power of 35 W. The air speed of the floor fan at 0.5 m
away was 2.0/2.4/2.9 m/s for the three speed levels. The size of
the floor fan used in this study is 340 * 175 * 335 mm.
(6) Ventilated cushion (see Fig. 1 (f)) is embedded with a plate of air
deflector, which can evenly send the airflow of the fan out from
the cushion and backrest. The size of the ventilated cushion used
in this study is 102 * 49 mm. The power of the ventilated cushion
used in this study can be adjusted between 0 and 15 W. The
maximum airflow rate of the fan in the cushion is 16.5 L/s.
All local cooling/heating devices are typical goods commonly used in
daily life and can be easily bought in markets or online in China.
2.2. Subjects
2.3. Experimental conditions and procedure
In order to avoid subjects’ adaptation to the use of certain PCS de­
vice, we performed the experiment in transition season (April to May
2021). During this period, subjects did not use heating or cooling devices
in their daily life. The experiment was conducted in a climate chamber
located at Tongji University, Shanghai, China. Fig. 2 shows the plant of
the climate chamber. The dimensions of the climate chamber are 4.2 m
(length) × 3.6 m (width) × 2.6 m (height). The precise air temperature
(±0.3 ◦ C) and relative humidity (±5%) in the climate chamber can be
controlled by the HVAC system (including a perforated ceiling air supply
system, independent fresh air handling unit, and wall radiation system)
[52].
Experimental conditions. In this study, the experiments were designed
to be conducted under a cold condition (18 ◦ C) and a hot condition
(32 ◦ C), respectively. The relative humidity in the climate chamber was
maintained at 50 ± 5%, air velocity when without PCS devices was
controlled below 0.1 m/s, and the global temperature was close to the
air temperature. Each condition consists of four scenarios, including a
reference session (control session) without heating/cooling and three
test sessions with the use of different PCS devices.
Experimental procedure. The experimental procedure was designed
with reference to the study of Luo et al. [33]. The experimental pro­
cedure for hot/cold condition is shown in Fig. 3. After subjects changed
into experimental clothes and were equipped with the wireless skin

Twenty-eight healthy college students (14 males and 14 females)

aged 18 years and over were recruited as participants in the experi­
ments. All subjects had been living in Shanghai (hot summer and cold
winter climate zone in China [51]) for more than one year. They were
free of alcohol and smoking habits and were asked to refrain from
strenuous exercise for 24 h before participating in the experiments. The
anthropometric information of subjects is presented in Table 2. In the
experiments for both cold and hot conditions, uniform clothes were
worn by subjects, including a long-sleeve shirt, underwear, trousers,
socks, and shoes, with the clothing insulation of about 0.6 clo [6]. The
possible risks were informed to all subjects before the experiments and
written informed consent was obtained. The experimental protocol was
reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Tongji University
(No. 2015-08-7882).

Table 2
Anthropometric information of subjects.
Gender Number Age (year) Height (cm) Weight (kg) BMI (kg/m2)

Male 14 22.5 ± 2.6 177.8 ± 4.7 71.7 ± 9.9 22.4 ± 2.8

Female 14 21.6 ± 2.0 165.2 ± 4.5 53.2 ± 3.6 19.5 ± 0.9
Fig. 2. Layout of climate chamber.

3
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Fig. 3. Experimental procedure.

temperature sensors, they were asked to sit in a thermal-neutral room
(25 ◦ C) adjacent to the climate chamber for 30-min preparation to
eliminate thermal acclimation of outdoor climate. After the preparation,
subjects entered the climate chamber for formal experiments. Each
subject participated in a reference session and three test sessions after a
20-min acclimation period. Three heating/cooling devices were used by
subjects in the three test sessions, respectively. Each session lasted 20
min and was followed by a 5-min break. The sequence of the reference
session and three PCS sessions was randomly ordered. For all conditions,
two 145-min experiments were performed. Each test involved two
subjects at the same time, located on either side of the climate chamber,
as shown in Fig. 2. During the experiments, subjects were required to
remain sedentary and were allowed to play with their mobile phones or
talk softly. At the specified time, subjects were required to complete the
questionnaire. The power of PCS devices can be regulated by subjects
based on their thermal demand in the first 15 min of test sessions.
2.4. Questionnaire and measurement
The thermal comfort questionnaires were asked to be completed at
the 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th minutes of each session, to report subjects’
thermal perception during the cold/hot exposure without and with PCS
devices. The questionnaires consisted of (1) overall and local thermal
sensation; (2) overall and local thermal comfort; (3) thermal accept­
ability; (4) thermal preference. Local thermal sensation and thermal
comfort of the head, chest, back, waist, buttocks, arms, hands, thighs,
lower legs, and feet were asked. Detailed scales of subjective response
are listed in Table 3. When answering the questionnaire, the power of
the PCS devices measured by Tecman TM16 multi-function power meter
(accuracy: ±1%) would also be recorded manually. The local skin
temperature of subjects was monitored continuously with an interval of
1 min during the tests. Wireless temperature sensors (Pyrobutton-L,
Opulus, America) with ±0.2 ◦ C accuracy were taped to 10 local body
sites (forehead, chest, abdomen, back, upper arm, forearm, dorsal hand,
thigh, lower leg, dorsal foot). After all tests were completed, subjects
were asked to select their favorite heating and cooling devices in the
experiments.
2.5. Evaluation of PCS devices
The two main targets and functions of PCS are to improve individual
thermal satisfaction and to save energy. In this study, the thermal
comfort effectiveness of PCS devices was evaluated by an index of
Corrective Power (CP) [19], which refers to the temperature correcting
capability of one personal comfort system or device in a non-neutral
thermal environment. CP is the equivalent compensation temperature
with PCS compared to without PCS at the same thermal sensation. The
unit of CP is K. Based on CP, He et al. [25] proposed Corrective Energy &
Power (CEP) to quantify the energy required for PCS devices to improve
human thermal comfort in hot or cold conditions. CEP is the ratio of
average heating/cooling electric power (Q) of a PCS device to the ab­
solute value of its CP, expressed by Eq. (1). The CEP of PCS devices in
this study was calculated to assess their energy consumption related to
thermal comfort performance.
Q
CEP = (1)
|CP|
2.6. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. The
significance of differences in subjective thermal perception between
different sessions was assessed by paired-samples t-test. The cut-off
probability value for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05. The
data of the experimental results for all subjects were presented as the
mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise specified.
3. Results

3.1. Overall thermal sensation and overall thermal comfort

Table 3
Thermal evaluation scales of the subjective questionnaires.
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 display the effects of the six PCS devices in terms of
Scale Overall/local Overall/local Thermal Thermal
subjects’ overall thermal sensation and overall thermal comfort,
thermal thermal comfort acceptability preference
sensation respectively. The labels in horizontal axis are abbreviations of reference
in cold condition (RC), warm air blower (WB), electric radiant heater
Hot Very comfortable
(EH), heated cushion (HC), reference in hot condition (RH), desk fan
+3
+2 Warm Comfortable Clearly Much
acceptable warmer (DF), floor fan (FF), and ventilated cushion (VC), respectively. The re­
+1 Slightly warm Slightly Just acceptable Slightly sults of each subject’s overall thermal sensation and overall thermal
comfortable warmer comfort in the figures were determined by the mean values of the last
0 Neutral No feeling No change
two votes in each session.
− 1 Slightly cool Slightly Just Slightly
uncomfortable unacceptable cooler As shown in Fig. 4 (a) and Fig. 5 (a), three heating devices all
− 2 Cool Uncomfortable Clearly Much cooler improved subjects’ thermal sensation and thermal comfort under the
unacceptable 18 ◦ C cold condition. In reference session without heating, subjects’
− 3 Cold Very overall thermal sensation was − 1.96 ± 1.01 (cool), which is signifi­
uncomfortable
cantly lower (p < 0.001) than 0.04 ± 1.28 (neutral) with warm air

4
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Fig. 4. Overall thermal sensation under (a) cold condition, (b) hot condition.

Fig. 5. Overall thermal comfort under (a) cold condition, (b) hot condition.

blower, − 0.18 ± 1.40 (neutral) with electric radiant heater, and − 0.09
± 1.52 (neutral) with heated cushion. Overall thermal comfort of sub­
jects was also significantly improved from − 1.13 ± 1.36 (slightly un­
comfortable) in reference session to 0.34 ± 1.46 (no feeling) with warm
air blower, 0.54 ± 1.37 (slightly comfortable) with electric radiant
heater, and 0.77 ± 1.52 (slightly comfortable) with heated cushion.
Moreover, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in subjects’
overall thermal sensation and thermal comfort among the conditions of
three personal heating devices. However, the discomfort rate (thermal
comfort vote <0) with warm air blower (32.1%) was higher than electric
radiant heater (23.2%) and heated cushion (21.4%).
Under the 32 ◦ C hot condition (see Fig. 4 (b) and Fig. 5 (b)), the desk
fan and floor fan significantly lowered (p < 0.001) subjects’ overall
thermal sensation from 2.00 ± 0.88 (warm) in reference session to 0.88
± 0.91 (slightly warm), and 0.66 ± 0.85 (slightly warm), respectively.
The overall thermal comfort was also improved from “slightly uncom­
fortable” (− 0.52 ± 1.69) to “slightly comfortable” (0.96 ± 1.50 in desk
fan session and − 0.84 ± 1.56 in floor fan session). Comparing the effects
of the desk fan and floor fan on subjects’ overall thermal sensation and
thermal comfort, no significant differences were found (P > 0.05). The

Fig. 6. (a) Local thermal sensation and (b) local thermal comfort.

5
Y. Tang et al.
discomfort rate with desk fan (14.3%) was lower than floor fan (21.4%).
When using the ventilated cushion, subjects’ overall thermal sensation
and thermal comfort were not significantly different (P > 0.05) with
those in reference session.
3.2. Local thermal sensation and local thermal comfort
The local thermal sensation and local thermal comfort of subjects in
the eight sessions are shown in Fig. 6. Each value in the figure represents
the average of the last two votes of each session for all subjects.
As shown in Fig. 6, subjects’ average local thermal sensation and
comfort of different body parts varied under 18 ◦ C cold condition
without heating. The buttocks contacted with chairs and the head with
more blood supply were warmer and less uncomfortable than other body
parts. The three heating devices significantly increased the local thermal
sensation of target body parts, which were heated directly. The warm air
blower mainly heated the head and chest, the electric radiant directly
heater heated the thighs, lower legs, and feet, and the heated cushion
warmed the back, waist, buttocks, and thighs. The local thermal
sensation of target body parts all changed to the hot side. However, the
body part with the highest thermal sensation was not the most
comfortable, indicating local thermal comfort was not linearly related to
local thermal sensation. The heating for the most uncomfortable back
and waist produced the strongest local thermal comfort. For the body
parts that were not directly heated, the local thermal sensation and
comfort also increased slightly.
Under 32 ◦ C hot condition, the distributions of thermal sensation and
comfort for all ten body parts were relatively concentrated in the
reference session without cooling. The hottest as well as the most un­
comfortable part was the feet. These convective cooling devices lowered
the thermal sensation of the target body parts close to neutral, but
cannot reach the cold side. With the use of desk fan and floor fan, the
local thermal comfort votes of all body parts were improved. Especially,
no local discomfort was observed in floor fan session. The ventilated
cushion mainly affected the thermal sensation of the buttocks, while the
local thermal comfort of all body parts did not change significantly.
3.3. Thermal acceptability
The thermal acceptability of subjects’ last two votes in each test
session is shown in Fig. 7. Without PCS devices, 64.3% of the subjects
felt unacceptable (‘just unacceptable’ and ‘clearly unacceptable’) under
18 ◦ C cold condition and 50.0% under 32 ◦ C hot condition. The use of
three types of heating devices all improved the thermal acceptability of
the subjects under cold condition, resulting in more than 80% of the
votes located on the acceptable side (‘just acceptable’ and ‘clearly
Fig. 7. Thermal acceptance under (a) cold condition, (b) hot condition.
6
Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069
acceptable’). From the acceptance votes, it is unable to find which
heating devices worked best. The highest acceptance rate was found
with the use of the warm air blower (89.3%), while there were most
votes for clearly unacceptable (7.1%). The most votes for feeling the
thermal environment clearly acceptable were reported when using the
heated cushion (35.7%), and the votes for clearly unacceptable were
also the least (1.8%) in the heated cushion session. However, subjects’
unacceptance rate in heated cushion session was higher than that in
warm air blower and electric radiant heater sessions.
Under 32 ◦ C hot condition, subjects’ acceptable voting rates were
improved to 83.7% and 87.5% with the use of desk fan and floor fan,
respectively. Compared to desk fan, the voting rates of subjects for just
unacceptable and clearly unacceptable were even lower when using
floor fan. After using the ventilated cushion, the percentage of accept­
able votes increased by 9.0% compared to the reference session, but
there was still an unacceptable rate of 41.1%. Moreover, the voting rate
of clearly acceptable reduced with the use of the ventilated cushion.
3.4. Thermal preference
The expected thermal adjustments in the eight sessions are compared
in Fig. 8. The voting results shown in the figure represent the statistics
for the last two votes in each session. As shown in the figures, the PCS
devices, which improved the thermal condition locally, cannot fully
satisfy subjects’ thermal requirements for the overall environment. With
the use of heating devices, the voting rate for ‘no change’ increased from
3.6% to 28.6%–33.9% under cold conditions. However, more than 60%
of votes still felt that the environment was not optimal and needed to be
improved. In addition, 1.8%− 10.7% voted for ‘slightly cooler’, which
may be due to local overheating caused by the attempt to improve the
overall thermal comfort. Under 32 ◦ C hot condition, the rate of the votes
for ‘no change’ when using desk fan and floor fan grew to 42.9% and
46.4%, respectively, while there were still substantial votes expecting a
slightly cooler environment. The use of the ventilated cushion reduced
the rate of ‘much warm’ vote but made the rate of ‘no change’ vote
lower.
3.5. Skin temperature
Fig. 9 shows the impact of different PCS devices on local skin tem­
perature of different body parts. The skin temperature change values in
the figure were the differences in the average skin temperature in the
last 5 min between each test session and reference session. Positive
values represent higher skin temperature after using PCS devices and
vice versa. As seen in the figure, local heating or cooling could signifi­
cantly change the local skin temperature of target body parts, while the
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Fig. 8. Thermal preference under (a) cold condition, (b) hot condition.

Fig. 9. Skin temperature changes under (a) cold condition, (b) hot condition.

magnitude of skin temperature change in different body segments varied than that of other segments. For body parts that were not directly
greatly. Under cold condition, the skin temperature of the head, hands, heated/cooled, no significant changes in skin temperature were
and feet responded more strongly to warm stimuli than the torso. Under observed.
hot condition, the change of hand skin temperature was more obvious

7
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Fig. 10. Preference of devices under (a) cold condition, (b) hot condition.

3.6. Preference of PCS devices
Fig. 10 shows the results of subjects’ votes on their preference for the
PCS devices used in the experiments. After using these PCS devices in the
experiments, the subjects were able to carefully compare the devices and
distinguish their strengths and weaknesses based on their own experi­
ences. As shown in Fig. 10, subjects’ preferences for devices were
diverse, and each type of device was voted by someone as the best de­
vice. 67.8% of the subjects chose the heated cushion as the best heating
device, followed by 28.6% of the subjects choosing radiant heaters. For
cooling devices, 60.7% of the subjects chose the floor fan as the best,
followed by 35.7% choosing the desk fan. Meanwhile, there was no
significant difference in device preference between males and females.
3.7. Electric power of PCS devices
During the tests, the electric power of each device was collected.
Table 4 shows the statistical results of the electric power of PCS devices
used by subjects. The values in the table are the power of PCS devices at
the last 5 min of each test session. The electric power of heating devices
varied greatly based on the difference in heat transfer modes and
heating range. The warm air blower and electric radiant heater, which
transferring heat by convection and radiation without contacting the
human body, had higher energy consumption, with the electric powers
of 420.0 ± 65.7 W and 630.1 ± 209.9 W, respectively. The heated
Table 4
Power of each device.
Devices Power
cushion, transferring heat directly to the body by conduction, consumed
less energy with an electric power of 43.0 ± 5.3 W. For the cooling
devices in this study, there was low energy consumption because they all
used fans to realize the cooling effect. The average electric power of the
three cooling devices ranged from 3.3 W to 29.9 W. Floor fan consumed
more energy as its high air speed and air volume.
3.8. CP and CEP of PCS devices
The CP of PCS devices in this study was calculated based on subjects’
thermal sensation results in cold/hot condition. For heating mode, the
three devices all improved subjects’ average thermal sensation to a
neutral range (− 0.5~+0.5). It can be considered that they corrected the
low temperature in cold condition (18 ◦ C) to neutral temperature
(25.5 ◦ C, calculated by predicted mean vote (PMV) model). Their CP was
7.5 K. For cooling mode, the reference temperature for desk fan and floor
fan was calculated by PMV model with the same thermal sensation. The
CP of desk fan and floor fan was 4 K and 4.5 K, respectively. As venti­
lated cushion did not significantly enhance subjects’ thermal sensation,
its CP was 0 K at 32 ◦ C.
Based on the measured electric power of each PCS device, their CEP
was obtained. The CEP of the warm air blower, electric radiant heater,
and heated cushion was 56.0 K/W, 84.0 K/W, and 5.7 K/W, respectively.
Although the same thermal comfort effectiveness for the three heating
devices, the heated cushion showed a significant energy-saving effect.
The CEP of the desk fan and floor fan was 0.8 K/W and 6.6 K/W,
respectively. It indicates the desk fan can improve human thermal
comfort with lower energy consumption than the floor fan. The CEP of
the ventilated cushion cannot be calculated in this study.

Heating devices Warm air blower Level (rated power) Percentagea

1 (200 W) 25%
4. Discussions
2 (500 W) 75%
Average: 420.0 ± 65.7 W 4.1. Why did subjects have different preferences for different PCS
Electric radiant heater Level (rated power) Percentage devices?
1 (330 W) 28.6%
2 (660 W) 50%
3 (990 W) 21.4% Although the three heating devices in this study all had remarkable
Average: 630.1 ± 209.9 W thermal comfort effects, great variations were observed in subjects’
Heated cushion 43.0 ± 5.3 W preferences for the heating devices. Similar results occurred in cooling
Cooling devices Desk fan Level (rated power) Percentage devices. It may be caused by that these devices used different heat
1 (1.2 W) 7.1%
2 (2.5 W) 60.7%
transfer mechanisms or affected different body regions. To explore the
3 (4.5 W) 17.9% reasons for individual differences in device preferences, we also inter­
4 (7.2 W) 14.3% viewed the subjects after the experiments about the perceived advan­
Average: 3.3 ± 1.8 W tages and disadvantages of each device they had used. In order not to
Floor fan Level (rated power) Percentage
steer subjects, they were left to answer freely without setting options.
1 (25 W) 3.6%
2 (30 W) 82.1% Only one person in 28 subjects preferred the warm air blower over
3 (35 W) 14.3% the other two heating devices, though there was no significant difference
Average:29.9 ± 2.6 W in thermal sensation when using them. The discomfort rate of subjects
Ventilated cushion 10.1 ± 1.6 W with warm air blower implied the subjects’ disfavor for it, which was
a
Percentage of subjects used the devices at a certain power level in last 5 min higher than the electric radiant heater and heated cushion. The post-
of test session. experimental interview revealed that although the warm air blower

8
Y. Tang et al.
improved subjects’ thermal sensation, it caused the subjects to feel a
strong sense of wind blowing, overheating of the head/face, and dizzi­
ness. Some studies [53] have also reported the uncomfortable feeling
during exposure to local warm airflow at the head/face. This explains
why most people considered warm air blower to be inferior to the other
two heating devices. In addition, heating the head/face could reduce
work efficiency [19]. Therefore, the heating of the head and face with
warm airflow should be avoided, although it has a good effect on
improving human thermal sensation.
The heated cushion was the preferred heating device for most sub­
jects and the fewest discomfort votes were received in heated cushion
session. Subjects reported that the heated cushion warmed their torso,
heated evenly, and was almost no discomfort from wind and radiation.
The heated cushion efficiently transferred heat by conduction to the
torso (back and waist), which has a large surface area and high thermal
sensitivity [54]. The thermal sensation model of Zhang et al. [55] also
demonstrated that the back and pelvis were the dominant body ports for
overall thermal sensation. However, some subjects pointed out that
when seated, the buttocks and back were not the coldest body parts and
did not need to be heated the most. Another complaint was that heated
cushion caused overheating of the buttocks and made other body parts,
such as extremities, feel colder. The lowest thermal acceptability of
heated cushion among the three heating devices could be caused by
these disadvantages. Yang et al. [27] also found that heating chair had
no significant effect on subjects’ thermal comfort and acceptability
because it did not eliminate the cold discomfort of the extremities. The
effectiveness of heated cushion in different conditions may require
further investigation.
Some of the subjects chose the electric radiant heater as the best
heating device because of its powerful heating capability and wide
heating range. The electric radiant heater directly heated the lower body
which has been found to be the most effective region for improving
overall thermal comfort in cold environment in some studies [19,41].
However, due to the shade of the table, the electric radiant heater was
not able to directly heat the upper body, especially the back and waist.
Subjects in this study wore clothing with low insulation on the upper
body and experienced the coldest discomfort on the back and arms in
cold environments. The experimental conditions in this study may have
contributed to some subjects’ bias against the electric radiant heater.
Moreover, overheating of high-temperature radiation at close range
caused some subjects to feel uncomfortable. The experiments conducted
by Wang et al. [24] also showed that radiant heater significantly
improved subjects’ thermal sensation but did not significantly improve
thermal comfort in cold environment.
For cooling devices, the desk fan and floor fan significantly enhanced
the thermal sensation and comfort of the subjects, while ventilated
cushion had no significant effect. The ineffectiveness of the ventilated
cushion could be since their air vents were blocked by the body during
use and there was no strong feeling of blowing air. It cooled the buttocks
slightly, which is insufficient to have an impact on overall thermal
sensation and thermal comfort. There still was one subject who voted for
the ventilated cushion because he did not feel uncomfortable in hot
condition and he cannot accept the sense of the air draught from the
desk fan and floor fan. The head/face cooling provided by desk fan was
considered to be the most comfortable and have the strongest effect on
improving overall thermal comfort [56,57]. However, floor fan cooled
larger body surface area and provided a more evenly thermal sensation
across the entire body. Local discomfort, which has a strong impact on
thermal comfort [55], was also reduced by floor fans. A meta-analysis
conducted by song et al. [20] has shown that cooling multiple body
regions had a larger effect on improving thermal sensation and comfort
than cooling only the head/face. This could explain why more subjects
preferred floor fan among the three cooling devices and the thermal
acceptability rate of the floor fan was higher than that of the desk fan.
9
Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069
4.2. Comparison of thermal comfort performance and energy efficiency of
typical PCS devices
The results of this study show that the three heating devices had
similar thermal comfort performance, and the heated cushion was the
most energy-efficient. The desk fan and floor fan had better cooling ef­
fects than the ventilated cushion, and both had lower energy con­
sumption. However, the above results were limited by the experimental
conditions and the specific devices. In order to further explore the laws
and characteristics of thermal comfort performance and energy effi­
ciency of similar and different types of PCS devices, Table 5 lists the
comparison of CP and CEP of several types of PCS devices in this study
and existing studies, and Fig. 11 visually displays these differences.
Fig. 11 (a) gives the distribution of PC values for various types of PCS
devices in different environments. Due to the different experimental
conditions including relative humidity, metabolic rate, and clothing
insulation in different studies, the standard effective temperature (SET)
was used to unify the effects of environmental and personnel parame­
ters. The SET values were calculated by pythermalcomfort [58]. Fig. 11
(b) shows the CEP corresponding to different CP values for each type of
PCS devices.
Comparisons between similar types of PCS devices indicate that the
thermal comfort effect and energy consumption of PCS are influenced by
device design. Among the radiant heating devices, the less energy use of
Huotong (placing radiant heater under the seat) [25] and foot warmer
[26] indicates that the energy consumption of radiant heaters can be
significantly reduced by controlling the radiation range as well as
strengthening insulation to stop the dissipation of radiant heat. For
ventilated chairs/cushions, the airflow rate of the fans has an important
impact on their thermal comfort effectiveness. Compared to convective
cooling chairs [30], thermoelectric cooling chairs consumed more en­
ergy [28,29]. In addition, the environmental conditions and subjects’
factors also play an important role in the effectiveness of PCS. For
example, the heated chair/cushion in this study and developed by Pasut
et al. [29,30] showed higher thermal comfort performance than that in
the studies of Yang et al. [27] and He et al. [59]. The discrepancy may be
explained by the difference in local thermal sensation distribution
caused by different clothing insulation of subjects. In this study and the
studies of Pasut et al. [29,30], the subjects had less clothing insulation of
0.6–0.65 clo, and the torso was the most uncomfortable body part in
cold conditions. In the latter two studies [27,59], the subjects were
dressed with higher clothing insulation of 0.95–1.1 clo, and the torso felt
neutral and warmer than the extremities. Based on the complaint-driven
thermal comfort model [55], the elimination of discomfort in the back
led to a greater improvement in overall thermal comfort.
Differences were also more pronounced in thermal comfort perfor­
mance and energy consumption between different types of devices, as
seen in Fig. 11. For heating devices, radiant heaters have the widest
operating temperature range, up to a minimum of 12 ◦ C. Warm air
blowers had good thermal comfort effects, but they consumed more
energy. At the same SET, heated chairs/cushions have lower CP values
than the other two types of PCS and often fail to correct subjects’ ther­
mal sensation to neutral. However, heated chairs/cushions are the most
energy-efficient of these types of heating PCS. Therefore, heated chairs/
cushions can be used with some auxiliary devices (e.g. leg-warmer and
heated mat) to achieve good thermal comfort effects and low energy
consumption at the same time [33,59]. For cooling devices, desk fans
and floor fans show better thermal comfort effects than cooling chair­
s/cushions. Cooling chairs/cushions consume more energy than desk
fans and floor fans. The results imply cooling the buttocks and back may
not be as effective as cooling the front of the body. To have better
effectiveness, the target body parts and air supply way of cooling
chairs/cushions may need to be changed, for example, chair ventilation
for the head [60].
Y. Tang et al. Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069

Table 5
Comparison of corrective power of typical PCS devices.
Devices Researches Air temperature (◦ C) Relative Clothing Thermal Thermal |CP| Power CEP (W/
humidity (%) insulation sensation comfort vote (K) (W) K)
(clo) vote

Radiant This study 18 50 0.6 − 0.2a 0.5a 7.5 630.1 84.0

heater Wang et al. (2020) 13 (1.2 met) 40 1.25 − 0.7a 1.3c >2 450 <250
13 (1.45 met) − 0.2a 1.0c >2 450 <250
13 (1.69 met) − 0.1a 1.4c >2 450 <250
He et al. (2017) [25] 9 50 1.0 − 0.4a 0.7a 13 165 12.7
12 − 0.1a 0.5a 10 140 14.0
15 − 0.3a 0.4a 7 104 14.9
18 − 0.1a 1.1a 4 50 12.6
Zhang et al. (2015) [26] 20 / / − 0.3b 1.7b 1.1 11 10.0
(Foot warmer) 18.9 / / − 0.9b 1.5b <2.2 21 >9.5
Heating This study 18 50 0.6 0.0a 0.8a 7.5 43.0 5.7
chair/ He et al. (2018) 14 60 1.1 − 0.6a 0.4a 4 34.1 8.5
cushion 16 − 0.5a 0.8a 2 25.3 12.7
18 0a 1.5a / 19.4 /
Yang et al. (2018) [27] 14 50 0.95 − 0.8a − 1.0d 2 <90 <45.0
16 − 0.4a − 0.7d / <90 /
18 − 0.1a − 0.2d / <90 /
Pasut et al. (2015) [30] 16 (cover) 50 0.8 − 0.8b 0.9b 2 <16 <8
16 (no cover) − 0.5b 0.7b 2 <16 <8
18 (cover) 0.2b 2.0b 6 <16 <2.7
18 (no cover) 0b 1.8b 6 <16 <2.7
Pasut et al. (2013) [29] 16 50 0.65 0b 1.5b 8.5 27.5 3.2
18 0b 2.2b 6.5 23.5 3.6
Warm air This study 18 50 0.6 − 0.1a 0.3a 7.5 420.0 56.0
blower Du et al. (2020) [41] 12 60 1.29 − 0.4a / 6 <5090 <848.3
14 0.2a / 4 <5090 <1272.5
Desk fan This study 32 50 0.6 0.9a 1.0a 4 3.3 0.8
He et al. (2018) [42] 28 50 0.5 0.2a 0.8a 2 <7 <3.5
30 0.7a 0.1a 2 <7 <3.5
He et al. (2017) [43] 28 80 0.5 0a 0.8a >2 1.5 <0.8
30 0.5a 0.3a 4 1.9 0.5
Floor fan This study 32 50 0.6 0.7a 0.8a 4.5 29.9 6.6
Zhai et al. (2013) [23] 28 60 0.5 0.4b 2.0b 2.2f 5.0 2.3
28 80 0.6b 1.5b 2.7f 5.6 2.1
30 60 0.5b 1.6b 3.7f 8.0 2.2
30 80 1.1b 0.4b 2.9f 10.5 3.6
Cooling This study (ventilated 32 50 0.6 1.8a − 0.4a 0 10.1 /
chair/ cushion)
cushion Pasut et al. (2015) [30] 29 (cover) 50 0.5 0.5b 1.0b / <3.6 /
(Ventilated chair) 29 (no cover) 0.2b 1.5b 4 <3.6 <0.9
Watanabe et al. (2009) [46] 30 (maximum airflow 50 0.63 0.5a 0e 2 / /
(Ventilated chair) rate of two fans: 31.9 L/
s)
30 (maximum airflow 1.5a − 0.2e / / /
rate of two fans: 31.9 L/
s)
32 (maximum airflow 2.1a − 1.4e 2 / /
rate of two fans: 4.8 L/s)
a e
32 (maximum airflow 2.7 − 1.6 0 / /
rate of two fans: 4.8 L/s)
a d
Yang et al. (2020) [28] Exceeding neutral / 0.4 0 − 0.2 2 66.2 33.1
(thermoelectric cooling environment
chair) temperature by 2 ◦ C
Exceeding neutral / 0.2a − 0.3d 4 83.2 20.8
environment
temperature by 4 ◦ C
Exceeding neutral / 0.5a − 0.7d >4 97.7 <24.4
environment
temperature by 6 ◦ C
Pasut et al. (2013) [29] 29 50 0.5 0.4b 0.7b 4 45.5 11.4
(thermoelectric cooling
chair)
a
7-scale thermal sensation or thermal comfort.
b
9-scale thermal sensation or thermal comfort.
c
4-scale thermal comfort (0 comfortable, − 1 slightly uncomfortable, − 2 uncomfortable, − 3 very uncomfortable).
d
5-scale thermal comfort (+1 very comfortable, 0 comfortable, − 1 slightly uncomfortable, − 2 uncomfortable, − 3 very uncomfortable).
e
5-scale thermal comfort (+2 comfortable, +1 slightly comfortable, 0 neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, − 1 slightly uncomfortable, − 2 uncomfortable).
f
CP was calculated using ET* because relative humidity is a variable.

10
Y. Tang et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison of (a) CP and (b) CEP of different PCS devices.
4.3. Limitations and future studies
As discussed in Section 4.2, the results of this study depended on the
experimental conditions and specific devices. Especially, the clothing
insulation of subjects has an important impact on their local thermal
comfort, and further influences their assessment of the thermal comfort
effect of each device. The clothing insulation of subjects under cold
condition in this study (0.6 clo) may be lower than that of the actual
clothing worn by occupants in winter, which may lead to different
thermal comfort perceptions for the heating devices. The influence of
environmental and personal parameters on the use of PCS devices
should be further investigated in future studies.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the thermal comfort performance and energy
consumption of six different PCS devices through a series of climate
chamber experiments with 28 subjects. The main conclusions of this
study are summarized as follows.
(1) The use of the three heating devices (warm air blower, electric
radiant heater, and heated cushion) could improve subjects’
average overall thermal sensation from − 1.96 (cool) to − 0.18 –
0.09 (neutral) in the cold condition of 18 ◦ C without significant
differences. Meanwhile, the discomfort rate decreased from
11
Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069
71.4% to 21.4%–32.1%. The discomfort rate when using the
warm air blower was 8.9%–10.7% higher than the other two
devices. 67.8% of the subjects preferred the heated cushion
among the heating devices, followed by 28.6% of the subjects
choosing the electric radiant heater.
(2) The energy consumption of the heating devices differed due to
the difference in heat transfer mechanism and heating range. The
warm air blower and electric radiant heater worked with high
power of 420.0 ± 65.7 W and 630.1 ± 209.9 W, respectively,
while the heated cushion consumed less energy with 43.0 ± 5.3
W.
(3) The cooling of the desk fan and floor fan increased the comfort
rate and thermal acceptance of the subjects to more than 80% in
the 32 ◦ C hot condition, while the average overall thermal
sensation was higher than +0.5. When using the ventilated
cushion, subjects’ thermal comfort perception did not signifi­
cantly change. 60.7% of the subjects preferred the floor fan
among the cooling devices, and 32.1% chose the desk fan.
(4) The cooling devices based on fans had good energy efficiency.
The desk fan had the lowest electrical power of 3.3 ± 1.8 W and
the floor fan had the highest electrical power of 29.9 ± 2.6 W.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yin Tang: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Data
curation, Conceptualization. Hang Yu: Supervision, Project adminis­
tration, Funding acquisition. Kege Zhang: Writing – review & editing.
Kexin Niu: Investigation. Huice Mao: Investigation. Maohui Luo:
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Project of National Natural Sci­
ence Foundation of China (No. 52078355, No. 51578386 and No.
52108086), and special fund of Beijing Key Laboratory of Indoor Air
Quality Evaluation and Control (grant award number BZ0344KF20-08).
References
[1] M. Veselý, W. Zeiler, Personalized conditioning and its impact on thermal comfort
and energy performance – a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 34 (2014)
401–408.
[2] Tracking Buildings 2021, International Energy Agency, 2021.
[3] World Energy Outlook 2021, International Energy Agency, 2021.
[4] L. Pérez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, C. Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption
information, Energy Build. 40 (3) (2008) 394–398.
[5] State of Climate in 2020, World Meteorological Organization, 2021.
[6] ASHRAE Standard 55, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy,
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers,
Atlanta, GA, 2021.
[7] ISO 7730, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment — Analytical Determination
and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the Pmv and Ppd
Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, 2005.
[8] J.A. Porras-Salazar, S. Schiavon, P. Wargocki, T. Cheung, K.W. Tham, Meta-
analysis of 35 studies examining the effect of indoor temperature on office work
performance, Build. Environ. (2021), 108037.
[9] X. Shan, J. Zhou, V.W.C. Chang, E.-H. Yang, Comparing mixing and displacement
ventilation in tutorial rooms: students’ thermal comfort, sick building syndromes,
and short-term performance, Build. Environ. 102 (2016) 128–137.
[10] K.L. Ebi, A. Capon, P. Berry, C. Broderick, R. de Dear, G. Havenith, Y. Honda, R.
S. Kovats, W. Ma, A. Malik, N.B. Morris, L. Nybo, S.I. Seneviratne, J. Vanos, O. Jay,
Hot weather and heat extremes: health risks, Lancet 398 (10301) (2021) 698–708.
[11] A. Martínez-Molina, I. Tort-Ausina, S. Cho, J.-L. Vivancos, Energy efficiency and
thermal comfort in historic buildings: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61
(2016) 70–85.
Y. Tang et al.
[12] G. Halhoul Merabet, M. Essaaidi, M. Ben Haddou, B. Qolomany, J. Qadir, M. Anan,
A. Al-Fuqaha, M.R. Abid, D. Benhaddou, Intelligent building control systems for
thermal comfort and energy-efficiency: a systematic review of artificial
intelligence-assisted techniques, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 144 (2021), 110969.
[13] T. Hoyt, E. Arens, H. Zhang, Extending air temperature setpoints: simulated energy
savings and design considerations for new and retrofit buildings, Build. Environ. 88
(2015) 89–96.
[14] Z. Wang, R. de Dear, M. Luo, B. Lin, Y. He, A. Ghahramani, Y. Zhu, Individual
difference in thermal comfort: a literature review, Build. Environ. 138 (2018)
181–193.
[15] S. Karjalainen, Thermal comfort and gender: a literature review, Indoor Air 22 (2)
(2012) 96–109.
[16] L. Lan, Z. Lian, W. Liu, Y. Liu, Investigation of gender difference in thermal comfort
for Chinese people, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 102 (4) (2008) 471–480.
[17] E. Arens, M.A. Humphreys, R. de Dear, H. Zhang, Are ‘class A’ temperature
requirements realistic or desirable? Build. Environ. 45 (1) (2010) 4–10.
[18] C. Karmann, S. Schiavon, L.T. Graham, P. Raftery, F. Bauman, Comparing
temperature and acoustic satisfaction in 60 radiant and all-air buildings, Build.
Environ. 126 (2017) 431–441.
[19] H. Zhang, E. Arens, Y. Zhai, A review of the corrective power of personal comfort
systems in non-neutral ambient environments, Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 15–41.
[20] W. Song, Z. Zhang, Z. Chen, F. Wang, B. Yang, Thermal comfort and energy
performance of personal comfort systems (PCS): a systematic review and meta-
analysis, Energy Build. (2021), 111747.
[21] F. Wang, Y. Ke, Udayraj, B. Yang, P. Xu, N. Noor, Effect of cooling strategies on
overall performance of a hybrid personal cooling system incorporated with phase
change materials (PCMs) and electric fans, J. Therm. Biol. 92 (2020) 102655.
[22] S. Atthajariyakul, C. Lertsatittanakorn, Small fan assisted air conditioner for
thermal comfort and energy saving in Thailand, Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (10)
(2008) 2499–2504.
[23] Y. Zhai, H. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. Pasut, E. Arens, Q. Meng, Comfort under
personally controlled air movement in warm and humid environments, Build.
Environ. 65 (2013) 109–117.
[24] H. Wang, M. Xu, C. Bian, Experimental comparison of local direct heating to
improve thermal comfort of workers, Build. Environ. 177 (2020), 106884.
[25] Y. He, N. Li, L. Zhou, K. Wang, W. Zhang, Thermal comfort and energy
consumption in cold environment with retrofitted Huotong (warm-barrel), Build.
Environ. 112 (2017) 285–295.
[26] H. Zhang, E. Arens, M. Taub, D. Dickerhoff, F. Bauman, M. Fountain, W. Pasut,
D. Fannon, Y. Zhai, M. Pigman, Using footwarmers in offices for thermal comfort
and energy savings, Energy Build. 104 (2015) 233–243.
[27] H. Yang, B. Cao, Y. Zhu, Study on the effects of chair heating in cold indoor
environments from the perspective of local thermal sensation, Energy Build. 180
(2018) 16–28.
[28] H. Yang, Y. Deng, B. Cao, Y. Zhu, Study on the local and overall thermal
perceptions under nonuniform thermal exposure using a cooling chair, Build.
Environ. 176 (2020), 106864.
[29] W. Pasut, H. Zhang, E. Arens, S. Kaam, Y. Zhai, Effect of a heated and cooled office
chair on thermal comfort, HVAC R Res. 19 (5) (2013) 574–583.
[30] W. Pasut, H. Zhang, E. Arens, Y. Zhai, Energy-efficient comfort with a heated/
cooled chair: results from human subject tests, Build. Environ. 84 (2015) 10–21.
[31] R. Rugani, M. Picco, M. Marengo, F. Fantozzi, Can PCS help us save energy? Initial
assessment using dynamic energy and CFD analyses, in: 2021 IEEE International
Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2021 IEEE Industrial
and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), 2021, pp. 1–6.
[32] H. Zhang, E. Arens, D. Kim, E. Buchberger, F. Bauman, C. Huizenga, Comfort,
perceived air quality, and work performance in a low-power task–ambient
conditioning system, Build. Environ. 45 (1) (2010) 29–39.
[33] M. Luo, E. Arens, H. Zhang, A. Ghahramani, Z. Wang, Thermal comfort evaluated
for combinations of energy-efficient personal heating and cooling devices, Build.
Environ. 143 (2018) 206–216.
[34] Y. Zhai, Y. Zhang, H. Zhang, W. Pasut, E. Arens, Q. Meng, Human comfort and
perceived air quality in warm and humid environments with ceiling fans, Build.
Environ. 90 (2015) 178–185.
[35] J. Zhang, X. Zhou, S. Lei, M. Luo, Energy and Comfort Performance of Occupant-
Centric Air Conditioning Strategy in Office Buildings with Personal Comfort
Devices, Building Simulation, 2021.
12
Building and Environment 217 (2022) 109069
[36] H. Wang, W. Li, J. Wang, M. Xu, B. Ge, Experimental study on local floor heating
mats to improve thermal comfort of workers in cold environments, Build. Environ.
205 (2021), 108227.
[37] Y. Deng, B. Cao, B. Liu, Y. Zhu, Effects of local heating on thermal comfort of
standing people in extremely cold environments, Build. Environ. 185 (2020),
107256.
[38] Y. Deng, B. Cao, H. Yang, B. Liu, Effects of local body heating on thermal comfort
for audiences in open-air venues in 2022 Winter Olympics, Build. Environ. 165
(2019), 106363.
[39] W. Song, F. Wang, C. Zhang, D. Lai, On the improvement of thermal comfort of
university students by using electrically and chemically heated clothing in a cold
classroom environment, Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 704–713.
[40] H. Oi, K. Yanagi, K. Tabata, Y. Tochihara, Effects of heated seat and foot heater on
thermal comfort and heater energy consumption in vehicle, Ergonomics 54 (8)
(2011) 690–699.
[41] C. Du, H. Liu, C. Li, J. Xiong, B. Li, G. Li, Z. Xi, Demand and efficiency evaluations
of local convective heating to human feet and low body parts in cold environments,
Build. Environ. 171 (2020), 106662.
[42] Y. He, N. Li, N. Li, J. Li, J. Yan, C. Tan, Control behaviors and thermal comfort in a
shared room with desk fans and adjustable thermostat, Build. Environ. 136 (2018)
213–226.
[43] M. He, N. Li, Y. He, D. He, C. Song, The influence of personally controlled desk fan
on comfort and energy consumption in hot and humid environments, Build.
Environ. 123 (2017) 378–389.
[44] B. Yang, T.-H. Lei, P. Yang, K. Liu, F. Wang, On the use of wearable face and neck
cooling fans to improve occupant thermal comfort in warm indoor environments,
Energies 14 (23) (2021) 8077.
[45] J. Verhaart, R. Li, W. Zeiler, User interaction patterns of a personal cooling system:
a measurement study, Sci. Technol. Built Eng. 24 (1) (2018) 57–72.
[46] S. Watanabe, T. Shimomura, H. Miyazaki, Thermal evaluation of a chair with fans
as an individually controlled system, Build. Environ. 44 (7) (2009) 1392–1398.
[47] H. Yang, B. Cao, Y. Ju, Y. Zhu, The effects of local cooling at different torso parts in
improving body thermal comfort in hot indoor environments, Energy Build. 198
(2019) 528–541.
[48] Y. He, N. Li, M. He, D. He, Using radiant cooling desk for maintaining comfort in
hot environment, Energy Build. 145 (2017) 144–154.
[49] D. Liu, Z. Ren, S. Wei, Z. Song, P. Li, X. Chen, Investigations on the winter thermal
environment of bedrooms in Zhongxiang: a case study in rural areas in hot summer
and cold winter region of China, Sustainability 11 (17) (2019) 4720.
[50] L. Huang, Q. Ouyang, Y. Zhu, L. Jiang, A study about the demand for air movement
in warm environment, Build. Environ. 61 (2013) 27–33.
[51] M.o.H.a.U.-R.D.o.t.P.s.R.o. China, GB50176-2016, Code for Thermal Design of
Civil Building, China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, 2016.
[52] X. Zhou, Y. Liu, M. Luo, S. Zheng, R. Yang, X. Zhang, Overall and thermal comfort
under different temperature, noise, and vibration exposures, Indoor Air 32 (1)
(2022), e12915.
[53] J. Dong, L. Zhang, S. Deng, B. Yang, S. Huang, An experimental study on a novel
radiant-convective heating system based on air source heat pump, Energy Build.
158 (2018) 812–821.
[54] M. Luo, Z. Wang, H. Zhang, E. Arens, D. Filingeri, L. Jin, A. Ghahramani, W. Chen,
Y. He, B. Si, High-density thermal sensitivity maps of the human body, Build.
Environ. 167 (2020), 106435.
[55] H. Zhang, E. Arens, C. Huizenga, T. Han, Thermal sensation and comfort models for
non-uniform and transient environments, part III: whole-body sensation and
comfort, Build. Environ. 45 (2) (2010) 399–410.
[56] M. Nakamura, T. Yoda, L.I. Crawshaw, S. Yasuhara, Y. Saito, M. Kasuga,
K. Nagashima, K. Kanosue, Regional differences in temperature sensation and
thermal comfort in humans, J. Appl. Physiol. 105 (6) (2008) 1897–1906.
[57] J.D. Cotter, N.A.S. Taylor, The distribution of cutaneous sudomotor and
alliesthesial thermosensitivity in mildly heat-stressed humans: an open-loop
approach, J. Physiol. 565 (1) (2005) 335–345.
[58] F. Tartarini, S. Schiavon, pythermalcomfort: a Python package for thermal comfort
research, SoftwareX 12 (2020), 100578.
[59] Y. He, X. Wang, N. Li, M. He, D. He, Heating chair assisted by leg-warmer: a
potential way to achieve better thermal comfort and greater energy conservation in
winter, Energy Build. 158 (2018) 1106–1116.
[60] E. Katramiz, N. Ghaddar, K. Ghali, Novel personalized chair-ventilation design
integrated with displacement ventilation for cross-contamination mitigation in
classrooms, Build. Environ. 213 (2022), 108885.