Original Paper
Indoor and Built
Environment Indoor Built Environ 2013;22;4:598607
Impact of Relative Humidity
on Thermal Comfort in a
Warm Environment
Shenglan Jinga Baizhan Lia,b Meilan Tana
a
Faculty of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing,
PR China
b
Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Regions Eco-Environment, Ministry of Education,
Chongqing University, Chongqing, PR China
Key Words
Thermal environment E Thermal sensation E Skin
temperature E Warm environment E Relative
humidity E Effective temperature
Abstract
Relative humidity is an important environmental
factor that could affect thermal comfort in a building.
The influence of relative humidity on thermal com-
fort was studied in an environment chamber. Twenty
subjects, ten males and ten females, were engaged
in the study and were exposed to nine combinations
of air temperature and relative humidity. Skin
temperatures on different parts of the body were
monitored, and their thermal sensation was evalu-
ated by questionnaire while their thermal environ-
ments were measured during the chamber tests.
These results were evaluated by statistical analyses
which indicate that for higher temperature, relative
humidity could have a significant effect on skin
temperature and thermal sensation. Higher humidity
could cause a negative effect on the subjects
thermal comfort. To avoid causing discomfort, the
relative humidity limit should be taken into consid-
eration and there should be a humidity limit
specified by the appropriate building code for the
The Author(s), 2012. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X12447614
Accessible online at http://ibe.sagepub.com
Figures 35 and 79 appear in colour online
Accepted: April 11, 2012
Hong Liua
acceptable air temperature range to allow an appro-
priate control of indoor environment.
Introduction
Relative humidity (RH) is an important thermal
environment parameter that could have a significant
effect on human physiology response and thermal sensation
[1]. The effect has long been recognised, and is included in
the effective temperature (ET) scale for evaluation of
thermal comfort zone [2]. The ET would give considerable
importance to the effect of humidity in a cooler environ-
ment where people felt slightly cool or cool, but attributed
insufficient importance to the effect of humidity in warm
environments where people felt warm (slightly warm,
warm); which was not corroborated by other studies [3].
New ET and standard effective temperature (SET*) scales
were then developed by ASHRAE [3]. These indices were
once adopted as part of ASHRAE standard 55-1992 for
evaluating humidity [4], however, have not been used in the
current version (ASHRAE 55-2010) [5].
The effect of humidity on thermal sensation is modest
when the air temperature is within the comfort range [3].
In previous studies [3,6], the relative humidity in warm
conditions was reported to have an effect on the
Baizhan Li,
Faculty of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering, Chongqing
University, Chongqing 400045, PR China. Tel. 0086 23 65127531, Fax 0086
23 65127532,
E-Mail baizhanli09@gmail.com
evaporative heat loss from the human skin, thus would
also affect thermal sensation. The influence of relative
humidity on physiology and thermal sensation has been
conducted both under steady state [7,8] and under
transient conditions [911]. In modest environments, the
effect of humidity on thermal sensation could be ignored
when the air temperature is in the comfort range [12,13]. In
warm environments, discomfort may be caused by too
much moisture on skin by high humidity levels.
Experimental studies have shown that the skin humidity
is a major reason for discomfort at high humidity [1416].
Many models [1719] have been developed to predict the
physiological conditions affected by relative humidity. For
example, Toftum et al. [17] presented the skin humidity
model which was applied for assessment of sedentary and
thermally neutral persons. And the respiratory model was
presented by Toftum et al. [18] for the prediction of the
percentage of persons dissatisfied due to the insufficient
respiratory cooling. Toftum and Fanger [20] pointed out
that the humidity limit developed based on skin humidity
was less restrictive and the humidity limit based on
respiratory comfort was far more restrictive comparing
to the upper humidity limit that was specified in existing
thermal comfort standards. However, these studies could
not give a precise upper and lower limit of humidity for the
comfort zones [4].
The ISO 7730-2005 [21] standard gives a general
guidance. ASHRAE 55-2010 [5] does not specify a
minimum humidity level for thermal comfort.
Furthermore, ASHRAE 55-2010 requires a humidity
limit for determining acceptable operative temperatures
for naturally conditioned spaces. The Chinese indoor air
quality standard (GB 18883-2002) [22] specifies a relative
humidity of 40% to 80% for HVAC buildings in summer.
The provision of a range of relative humidity is so vague
and not specific enough that engineers might find problem
to make a correct choice during design and operation of
buildings. There is not sufficient explanation of the effect
of relative humidity obtained by field studies which are
being adopted by the standard [23].
The summary of previous studies of humidity and
comfort shows that conclusive results are not often found.
In addition, almost no papers reported the effects of RH
on thermal sensation of building occupants in China,
where the climate is extremely diverse and variable with a
tropical climate in the south and a sub-arctic one in the
north, including the wide ranges of relative humidity. The
Hot Summer and Cold Winter zone and Hot Summer and
Warm Winter zone in China is characterised by the moist
year-round climate in this region [24,25]. Many studies
Impact of Relative Humidity on Thermal Comfort
[2632] conducted in humidity area show that the relative
humidity may be an important factor that could affect
human thermal comfort and the choice of climatic control
strategies of indoor thermal environment in warm
environment [24].
In order to verify how the relative humidity can affect
occupants response in warm environments, experiments
were conducted in a climate chamber. The skin tempera-
ture (mean and at local sites), which is one of the
physiological indexes used by many thermal comfort
studies to reflect the thermoregulation of people [1,32
35], and was adopted by this study to evaluate physiolo-
gical condition and thermal sensation.
Experimental Design
The experiment was conducted in an artificial climate
chamber (4  3  2.5 m3, L  W  H) at Chongqing
University in Chongqing, China. The air temperature
was maintained at three different levels: 268C, 288C and
308C. These were taken to obtain the mean radiant air
temperature, which is equalled to the air temperature. The
air velocity was kept near 0.1 ms1. The relative humidity
was kept at three different levels: 40%, 60% and 80%.
Twenty subjects were recruited to participate in the
experiment. All the subjects were young, healthy and did
not suffer from any known illnesses or were not taking
medication of any type. The subjects were required to wear
uniform normal summer clothing with a clo value of about
0.3, such as short sleeve shirts, shorts and lightweight
shoes.
A comprehensive thermal environment acquisition
system was used to measure thermal environmental
parameters around subjects and was positioned at a
height of 1.1 m from the floor.
All sensor probes for measuring ambient temperature
(Ta), black-bulb temperature (Tg), relative humidity (RH)
and air velocity (V) were in conformity with the ISO 7726-
2001 standard [36]. Specifications of the sensor probes
employed in this study are shown in Table 1.
The copper-constantan thermocouples were attached to
the different local skin positions to measure the local skin
temperatures, including forehead, chest, back, upper arm
(right and left), lower arm (right and left), dorsal hand
(right and left), calf (right and left), and thigh (right and
left). All the thermocouples were calibrated using a
standard mercury thermometer with a precision of 0.18C;
these were linked to a multi-channel data collector which
recorded the skin temperatures automatically.
Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 599
Table 1. Specifications of sensors for measurement of indoor weighting factors; Tforehead the skin temperature of fore-
climatic parameters
head; Tchest the skin temperature of chest; Tback the skin
Parameter Sensor Accuracy temperature of back; Tupper arm the average skin tempera-
Air temperature Psychrometer 0.18C
ture of right upper arm and left one; Tlower arm the average
Global temperature Radiant temperature sensor 0.158C skin temperature of right lower arm and left one; Thand the
Relative humidity Psychrometer 1% (4070%) average skin temperature of right dorsal hand and left one;
0.5% (7098%)
Tthigh the average skin temperature of right thigh and left
Air velocity Hot wire anemometer 0.04 ms1
one; Tcalf the average skin temperature of right calf and
left one.
The maximum differences in local skin temperatures
between any two local positions (MDLST), is represented
Table 2. Thermal environment parameters by Equation (2).
Experimental Ta (8C) Tg (8C) RH (%) V (ms1)
MDLST Maxium Tforehead , Tchest , Tback , Tupperarm ,
session
Tlowerarm , Thand , Tthigh , Tcalf
1 25.9  0.2 25.70  0.14 41.6  1.5 0.1  0.05
 Minimum Tforehead , Tchest , Tback , Tupperarm ,
2 25.9  0.1 25.58  0.10 60.0  1.2 0.1  0.06
3 26.0  0.1 25.60  0.12 80.3  2.8 0.1  0.05 Tlowerarm , Thand , Tthigh , Tcalf
4 28.0  0.1 27.60  0.14 40.9  2.0 0.1  0.03
5 27.9  0.1 27.50  0.12 59.7  1.1 0.1  0.03
2
6 28.0  0.2 27.60  0.22 79.9  2.8 0.1  0.04 where MDLST is the maximum differences in local skin
7 29.9  0.2 29.40  0.17 41.9  3.5 0.1  0.02
8 29.9  0.1 29.50  0.16 59.9  2.9 0.1  0.03 temperatures between any two local positions.
9 29.9  0.2 29.40  0.15 81.3  1.6 0.1  0.05 SPSS 18.0 software was used for the statistical analysis
and multiple comparisons of the subjects responses for the
conditions exposed. Differences at p50.05 were consid-
ered significant for all statistical analysis.
Each experimental session lasted for 1.5 h. During the
first 30 min of each session, the subjects were asked to sit
quietly in the chamber to adapt to the thermal environ-
ment. Once the subjects adapted to the environmental Results
condition set for the test, the test began and lasted for 1 h.
The experimental conditions used for the study are as Objective Measurements
shown in Table 2. The experimental conditions were measured and
During exposure of the subjects to each test condition, verified for each set of exposure experiment as shown in
the subjects were asked about their perceptions on Table 2.
humidity sensation, thermal sensation, and thermal The mean radiant temperature was calculated using
perception at every 10-min interval. The questionnaire Equation (3) [36]:
thermal response is shown in Figure 1. The subjects were Tr Tg 2734 2:5  108  v0:6 Tg  Ta 1=4  273
allowed to rest or to read or undertake other sedentary 3
activity after completion of one set of questionnaire. The
subjects should be ready for the next session after their According to the ISO 7726-2001 standard [36], in
practical cases where the relative velocity is small
rest.
In this study, an 8-point weighted method [2] was (50.2 ms1) or where the difference between mean
radiant and air temperature is small (548C), the operative
adopted to calculate the mean skin temperature (MST), as
temperature can be calculated with a sufficient approx-
represented by Equation (1).
imation as the mean value of air and mean radiant
MST 0:07Tforehead 0:175Tchest 0:175Tback temperature. These results are shown in Table 3.
0:07Tupperarm 0:07Tlowerarm 1 Anthropometric data for the subjects are listed in Table 4.
0:05Thand 0:19Tthigh 0:20Tcalf
Physiological Responses
where MST is the mean skin temperature calculated The mean skin temperatures (MST) under different
according to the measuring sites and the corresponding experimental conditions are shown in Figure 2. The MST

600 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 Jing et al.

Fig. 1. Thermal response questionnaire.

Table 3. Mean radiant temperature and could be affected both by air temperature and relive
operative temperature humidity.
Experimental Tr (8C) Top (8C) The multiple comparisons of MST under different
session relative humidity were listed in Table 5. Results of the
statistical analyses, multiple comparisons reveal that the
1 25.44  0.23 25.70  0.10
2 25.36  0.19 25.64  0.10 mean skin temperature at 80% RH/308C was significantly
3 25.30  0.22 25.70  0.12 the highest among all the experimental conditions.
4 27.40  0.18 27.70  0.14 The MDLST could indicate a range of skin tempera-
5 27.30  0.13 27.60  0.11
6 27.40  0.20 27.70  0.20
tures of different human positions [31,33], are shown in
7 29.20  0.23 29.50  0.16 Figure 3. The MDLST could be markedly reduced as the
8 29.20  0.22 29.60  0.15 air temperature become warmer. At 80% RH, the
9 29.20  0.20 29.60  0.12
MDLST was the lowest among the three air temperature
levels.

Thermal Sensation
The mean value of thermal sensation votes (MTSV)
versus air temperature for each relative humidity con-
Table 4. Anthropometric data of the subjects
ditions are shown in Figure 4. From the curve, the MTSV
Gender Number of Age (years)* Height (m)* Weight (kg)* value was shown to increase with a rise in air temperature.
subjects
At 80% RH, the MTSV value would increase more
Females 10 23.9  1.0 1.59  0.05 47.8  5.8 quickly than at 60% RH and 40% RH. Moreover,
Males 10 23.5  1.3 1.75  0.05 67.1  8.8 multiple comparisons reveal that there was a significant
*Mean  SD.
difference in thermal sensation that was reported between
the three RH conditions at 308C (Table 5). Furthermore,

Impact of Relative Humidity on Thermal Comfort Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 601
 36

35

Mean skin temperature

34

(C) 33

32

31
26C/40% RH

26C/60% RH

26C/80% RH

28C/40% RH

28C/60% RH

28C/80% RH

30C/40% RH

30C/60% RH

30C/80% RH
Experimental conditions
Fig. 2. Mean skin temperature among experimental conditions.

40% RH 60% RH 80% RH

Table 5. Multiple comparisons of mean skin temperature under 4.0
different ambient temperatures and relative humidity The maximum differences of local skin
3.8
temperatures among body (C)
Air Relative Relative Mean TSV TCV HSV 3.6
temperature humidity humidity skin 3.4
(8C) (%) (%) temperature 3.2
3.0
26 40 60 * 0.498 0.186 *
80 * * * * 2.8
60 40 * 0.498 0.186 * 2.6
80 0.831 * * * 2.4
80 40 * * * * 2.2
60 0.831 * * *
2.0
28 40 60 * * * * 26 28 30
80 0.801 * * * Air temperature (C)
60 40 * * * * Fig. 3. Mean maximum differences in local skin temperatures
80 * * * * between any two local positions with different air temperatures and
80 40 0.801 * * * relative humidity.
60 * * * *
30 40 60 0.642 * * 0.184
80 * * * *
60 40 0.642 * * 0.184
80 * * * * humidity of the environment was felt at neutral, except at
80 40 * * * * the condition of 80% RH and 308C. Furthermore, MHSV
60 * * * *
at 308C/80% RH was significantly higher than in any
*denotes significant difference (p 5 0.05), values are post other conditions and near to 2 (Table 5), indicating that
hoc tests, which indicate non-significant influence. the humid environment was felt by the subjects and was
having an impact on thermal sensation of the persons
the higher relative humidity could cause participants to ( p50.05).
feel significantly warmer in warm environments.
Humidity Preference
Humidity Sensation The humidity preference provides an indication of
As shown in Figure 5, the mean humidity sensation subjects requirements for their indoor environment.
votes (MHSV) at 80% RH were significantly higher than Figure 6 shows the results of humidity preference votes.
at 40% RH and 60% RH among all air temperature The highest percentages of subjects indicated that they
conditions. The MHSV was near 0, which means that the would like to reduce the humidity level were consistently

602 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 Jing et al.

 40% RH 60% RH 80% RH 40% RH 60% RH 80% RH
2.5 2

Mean humiditiy sensation vote

2
Mean thermal sensation vote

1.5

1.5
1

1
0.5
0.5
0
0

-0.5
-0.5 26 28 30
26 28 30
Air temperature (C)
Air temperature (C) Fig. 5. Mean humidity sensation vote with different levels of air
Fig. 4. Mean thermal sensation vote with different air temperatures temperature and relative humidity.
and relative humidity.

40% RH 60% RH 80% RH 40% RH 60% RH 80% RH

(a) 100% (b) 100%
83% 82%
80% 77%
80%
65% 66%
Frequency

60% Frequency
60% 51% 49%
40% 35%
40%
24%
20% 10% 12% 18%
5% 8% 20% 10%
5%
0%
1 0 1 0%
Vote 1 0 1
26C Vote
28C
40% RH 60% RH 80% RH
(C) 100%
84%
80%
59%
Frequency

60%
47% 48%

40%
23%
16% 17%
20%
5%
0%
1 0 1
Vote
30C
Fig. 6. Distribution of humidity preference in relation to air temperature and relative humidity.

shown when the subjects were exposed at 80% RH with all among all three air temperature levels. In addition, MTSV
three air temperature conditions. The results with highest at 308C/80% RH was near to 2, i.e. uncomfortable, the
mean MHSV are shown in Figure 5. Moreover, at 308C/ worst among all the conditions. Therefore high relative
80%RH, over 80% of votes (the highest percentage) of the humidity in warm environment could cause discomfort
subjects wanted to reduce the humidity level, which sensation for the subjects.
indicated that the high relative humidity would cause
discomfort to people in indoor environment.
Thermal Acceptability
Figure 8 shows the percentages of subjects who voted
Thermal Comfort using the ASHRAE scale (1, 0, 1) based on thermally
Figure 7 shows the results of mean thermal comfort acceptability of the environments [4]. At 80% RH, the
votes (MTCV). The MTCV at 80% RH was the lowest lowest percentage of subjects felt the thermal environment

Impact of Relative Humidity on Thermal Comfort Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 603
 Acceptable temperature
Air temperature (C)

limits at 80% RH (8C)

26 28 30
0

27.1 29.3 (To)

14.729.8 (Top)
15.928.2 (Ta)

21.531.0 (Ta)
Mean thermal comfort vote

Not given
Not given
0.5

40% RH

27.0 (Top) in
July 28.1 (Top)
1.5
60% RH

temperature
80% RH

28.8 (Top)
29.2 (Top)
28.6 (Ta)
23.2 (Ta)

23.7 (Ta)
Neutral
2

in Aug
Fig. 7. Mean thermal comfort vote with different levels of air

(8C)
temperature and relative humidity.

0.22 (mean in summer)

Less than 0.5 (95% of

Less than 0.25 (94% of

40% RH 60% RH 80% RH

0.07 (mean in winter)

100%

Air velocity (m/s)

0.010.14 (mean)
90%
80%

0.1 (mean)
Not given
70%

surveys)

surveys)
60%
Frequency

50%
40%
30%

range during
20% Indoor RH

survey (%)

Not given

38.681.2
10%

50.887
44.390
4986

6090
0%
26 28 30
Air temperature (C)
Fig. 8. Acceptability of thermal environment among all conditions.

Changsha Shenzhen,
Chongqing, China

was acceptable among all the experimental conditions.

Shanghai, China

Harbin, China
Moreover, at air temperature of 308C and 80% RH, only
about 20% of the subjects would feel the thermal
Singapore
Indonesia
Location

environment acceptable, in accordance with the results

China
Table 6. Results of field studies for free-running buildings

of MTSV and MTCV.

university apartments
University dormitory

Residential buildings
Residential building,
Residential building
Residential building

Discussion

Relative humidity is an important factor that could

Classroom
buildings

affect thermal comfort. The above results obtained by this

Building

study, has inferred that a higher relative humidity in a

warm environment could have a significant effect on
physiological response of the subjects, and could affect the
acceptance of the thermal environment.
Feriadi and Wong [39]
Wong and Khoo [38]

In a warm environment, the heat loss by conduction

and radiation is small. Instead, evaporation would be the
Wang et al. [42]
Han et. al. [40]

Ye et al. [41]

main source of heat loss from the human body to its

Li et al. [1]
Researcher

surrounding environment. Heat loss by evaporation is the

vapour pressure difference between the body and its
surrounding air. If the relative humidity is high, the

604 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 Jing et al.

Fig. 9. Regression curve based on de Dear s model using different relative humidity.
Table 7. Thermal neutrality temperature under different relative humidity conditions
Researcher Regression model
de Dear [43] TSV 0.27 Top  6.65
This study (308C/80% RH) TSV 0.342 Top  8.166
This study (308C/60% RH) TSV 0.22 Top  5.6
This study (308C/40% RH) TSV 0.175 Top  4.666
vapour pressure difference would become small and
evaporation of water is slow [37]. Thereby sufficient
evaporation heat losses are not maintained. The tempera-
ture gradient between the body core temperature and skin
temperature would become small [35]. The results of the
present study have indicated that the MST would become
higher and the MDLST would become lower as relative
humidity was raised in the warm environment of the
chamber study which supported this physiological
response.
Moreover, the multiple comparisons of physiological
response with different levels of air temperature and
relative humidity have indicated that the higher humidity
could provoke a higher sensation of warm sensation and a
lower perception of humidity in warm environment.
Hence, in warm environment, the relative humidity
should be an important parameter for the determination
of acceptable thermal environment criteria. However, in
ASHRAE standard 55-2010 [5], the allowable indoor
operative temperature limit (80% acceptability) could be
Impact of Relative Humidity on Thermal Comfort
Neutrality operative 80% Acceptability
temperature (8C) criterion (8C)
24.6 6.3
23.9 4.9
25.5 7.7
26.7 9.7
over 308C without any requirement for humidity. In many
field studies in free-running buildings, there was insuffi-
cient consideration of the relative humidity effect on
thermal sensation. If pooling all data given under different
relative humidity to determine neutral temperature, the
acceptable limit could show some discrepancy between
theoretical results and real sensation.
The neutral temperature and allowable indoor opera-
tive temperature limits based on these field studies for
naturally ventilated buildings around the world are
summarised in Table 6. As in some studies [38,41,42], an
acceptable air temperature at 80% RH based on field
surveys can rise to about 308C while the air velocity was
not too high. However, the acceptance of thermal
environment at 308C was demonstrated by our experi-
ments to decrease with an increase in relative humidity and
at 80% RH, the acceptance was only about 20%.
Furthermore, regression analysis was used to establish a
model between TSV and indoor air temperature, and
neutral temperature and the acceptable limit of
Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 605
temperature could be calculated by solving the regression
model. Hence, the different thermal sensation reported
under various relative humidity in warm environment
could affect the accuracy of neutral temperature and the
acceptance for air temperature.
In this study, the difference between the MTSV of 40%
RH and 80% RH at 308C was 1.5 units based on the
ASHRAE scale, and the difference between 60% RH and
80% RH was 1.1 units as shown in Figure 4. In the
ASHRAE scale, there are only 6 units in the entire
ASHRAE scale, the discrepancy of 1.5 units accounted for
25% of the entire ASHRAE scale, giving a huge deviation
in the gradient of the regression line. Consequently, the
huge deviation of the gradient could produce a chain
reaction on the calculation of the neutral temperature and
limits.
Furthermore, the de Dear regression model of the TSV
versus indoor operative temperature [43] adopted by
ASHRAE 55-2010 [5] would be taken as an example to
analyse the impact. This regression curve and model are
shown in Figure 9 and Table 7. If using TSV results under
different relative humidity at 308C in this study to replace
the results based on this model, an obvious variation in the
gradient would be obtained. Thus, both the neutral indoor
temperature and acceptability criteria at 80% RH would
change respectively (Figure 9). The maximum difference in
the acceptability criterion could be up to 58C and could
cause a higher acceptance air temperature. Hence, the
influence of high relative humidity on thermal sensation
should be given sufficient consideration when determining
the comfort range for both air conditioned and free-
running buildings.
Conclusions
This study investigated the effect of relative humidity
on human physiology and human thermal response of skin
temperature in a warm environment in climatic chamber.
The physiological results showed that high relative
humidity could cause an increase in the mean skin
temperature, but would reduce the MDLST. The findings
indicate that sufficient evaporation heat losses from the
body surfaces are not maintained at higher humidity.
Subjective experiments showed that subjects were
uncomfortable at higher humidity. About 80% of subjects
could not accept the thermal environment of 308C and
80% RH, and 84% expressed a desire to reduce the
humidity in the climatic chamber, illustrating the negative
effect of higher humidity that could cause thermal
discomfort on human subjects. To avoid negative effects,
there should be a humidity limit set by the standards for
the acceptable air temperature range for different indoor
environments.
This study investigated a limited number of environ-
mental conditions. Further studies are needed to investi-
gate how relative humidity would quantitatively affect
the thermal sensation of human occupants in warm
environments.
Acknowledgments
This research study was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under the research contract no.
50838009. The authors would like to thank all the subjects who
participated in the experiments.

References

1 Li B, Tan M, Liu H, Ma X, Zhang W:
Occupants perception and preference of ther-
mal environment in free-running buildings
in China: Indoor Built Environ
2010;19(4):405412.
2 Houghten F, Yaglou C: ASHVE Research
Report No. 673: Determination of the comfort
zone: ASHVE Trans 1923; 29:361.
3 McIntyre DA: Indoor Climate. London,
Applied Science Publishers, 1980.
4 ASHRAE: Fundamentals Handbook.
Atlanta, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
1997.
5 ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010:
Thermal Environment Conditions for Human
Occupancy. Atlanta, GA, American Society of
Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc., 2012.
6 Fanger PO: Thermal Comfort. Malabar,
Krieger, 1970.
7 Berglund LG: Comfort and humidity:
ASHRAE J 1998; 40 (8):3541.
8 Tanabe K, Kimura HT: Thermal comfort
requirements during the summer season in
Japan: ASHRAE Trans 1987;93:564.
9 Nevins RG, Gonzalez RR, Nishi Y, Gagge
AP: Effects of changes in ambient temperature
and level of humidity on comfort and thermal
sensations: ASHRAE Trans 1975;81:169.
10 de Dear RJ: Impact of air humidity on thermal
comfort during step changes: ASHRAE Trans
1989;95:336350.
11 Tsutsumia H, Tanabea S, Harigayaa J, Iguchib
Y, Nakamura Y: Effect of humidity on human
comfort and productivity after step changes
from warm and humid environment: Build
Environ 2007;42:40344042.
12 Parsons KC: Human Thermal Environment,
the Principles and the Practice. London,
Taylor & Francis, 1993.
13 Fountain E, Arens, Xu T, Bauman FS Oguru
M: An investigation of thermal comfort at high
humidities: ASHRAE Trans 1999;94:94103.
14 Berglund LG: Comfort and humidity:
ASHRAE J 1998; 40 (8):3541.
15 Gagge AP, Stolwijk J, Nishi Y: An effective
temperature scale based on a simple model of
human physiological regulatory response:
ASHRAE Trans 1971;77:24762.
16 Berglund LG, Cunningham DJ: Parameters of
human discomfort in warm environments:
ASHRAE Trans 1986;92:732.
17 Toftum J, Jorgensen AS, Fanger PO: Upper
limits for indoor air humidity to avoid
uncomfortably humid skin: Energy Build
1998;28:113.

606 Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607 Jing et al.

18 Toftum J, Jorgensen AS, Fanger PO: Upper
limits for air humidity to preventing warm
respiratory discomfort: Energy Build
1998;28:1523.
19 Atmaca I, Yigit A: Predicting the effect of
relative humidity on skin temperature and skin
wittedness: J Therm Biol 2006;31:442452.
20 Toftum J, Fanger PO: Air humidity require-
ments for human comfort: ASHRAE Trans
1999;105:641647.
21 ISO 7730-2005: Ergonomics of the Thermal
EnvironmentAnalytical Determination and
Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using
Calculation of the PMV and PPD Indices
and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria. Geneva,
International Organization for
Standardization, 2005.
22 GB 18883-2002: Indoor air quality standard.
Beijing, General Administration of Quality
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of
the Peoples Republic of China, 2002.
23 Nicol J: Adaptive thermal comfort standards
in the hothumid tropics: Energy Build
2004;36:628637.
24 Li B, Yu W, Liu M, Li N: Climatic strategies
of indoor thermal environment for residential
buildings in Yangtze River Region, China:
Indoor Built Environ 2011; 20(1): 101111.
25 Li B, Yao R: Urbanization and its impact on
building energy consumption and efficiency in
China: Int J Renew Energy 2009;34:19941998.
26 Li B, Li W, Liu H, Yao R, Tan M, Jing S, Ma
X: Physiological expression of human thermal
comfort to indoor operative temperature in the
non-HVAC environment: Indoor Built
Environ 2010;19(2):221229.
Impact of Relative Humidity on Thermal Comfort
27 Kwong Q, Mariah A: Perception of thermal
comfort in the enclosed transitional space of
tropical buildings: Indoor Built Environ
2011;20(5):524533.
28 Zhang G, Zheng C, Yang W, Zhang Q,
Moschandreasa D: Thermal comfort investiga-
tion of naturally ventilated classrooms in a
subtropical region: Indoor Built Environ
2007;16(2): 148158.
29 Cheng M, Hwang R, Lin T: Field experiments
on thermal comfort requirements for campus
dormitories in Taiwan: Indoor Built Environ
2008; 17 (3): 191202.
30 Dahlan N, Jones P, Alexander D, Salleh E,
Dixon D: Field measurement and subjects
votes assessment on thermal comfort in high-
rise hostels in Malaysia: Indoor Built Environ
2008;17(4): 334345.
31 Yao Y, Lian Z, Liu W, Shen Q: Experimental
study on skin temperature and thermal com-
fort of the human body in a recumbent posture
under uniform thermal environments: Indoor
Built Environ 2007;16:505518.
32 Daghigh R, Adam NM, Sahari BB:
Ventilation parameters and thermal comfort
of naturally and mechanically ventilated
offices: Indoor Built Environ
2009;18(2):113122.
33 Liu W, Lian Z, Deng Q: Evaluation model of
individual thermal comfort based on mean
skin temperature: J Cent South Univ T
2010;26:254257.
34 Atmaca I, Yigit A: Predicting the effect of
relative humidity on skin temperature and skin
wittedness: J Therm Biol 2006;31:442452.
Indoor Built Environ 2013;22:598607
35 Zhu D: Physiology, 7th edn. Beijing, Peoples
Medical Publishing House, 2007 (in Chinese).
36 ISO7726-2001: Thermal Environments -
Specifications Relating to Appliances and
Methods for Measuring Physical
Characteristics of the Environment. Geneva,
International Standard Organization, 2002.
37 Guyton AC, Hall JE: Textbook of Medical
Physiology, 10th edn. Singapore, Health
Sciences Asia, 2002.
38 Wong NH, Khoo S: Thermal comfort in
classrooms in the tropics: Energy Build
2003;35:337351.
39 Feriadi H, Wong NH: Thermal comfort for
naturally ventilated houses in Indonesia:
Energy Build 2004;36:614626.
40 Han J, Zhang G, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Liu J, Tan
L, Zheng C, Hao J, Lin J, Liu Y,
Moschandreas D: Field study on occupants
thermal comfort and residential thermal envir-
onment in a hot-humid climate of China: Build
and Environ 2007;42:40434050.
41 Ye X, Zhou Z, Lian Z, Liu H, Li C, Liu Y:
Field study of thermal environment and
adaptive model in Shanghai: Indoor Air
2006;16:320326.
42 Wang Z, Zhang L, Zhao J, He Y: Thermal
comfort for naturally ventilated residential
buildings in Harbin: Energy Build
2010;42:24062415.
43 de Dear RJ, Brager GS: Developing an
adaptive model of thermal comfort and pre-
ference: ASHRAE Tech Data Bull
1998;14:2749.
607