Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599

The effects of gender, acclimation state, the opportunity to adjust clothing

and physical disability on requirements for thermal comfort
K.C. Parsons*
Human Thermal Environments Laboratory, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK

Abstract

A program of laboratory studies into thermal comfort requirements is presented. Two studies used groups of 16 subjects over a range of
conditions (warm to cool) to investigate the effects of gender over 3 h exposures in simulated living room/of®ce environments. It was found
that for identical levels of clothing and activity, there were only small differences in the thermal comfort responses of male and female subjects
for neutral and slightly warm conditions. For cool conditions, female subjects tended to be cooler than males. An experiment to investigate the
effects of heat acclimation on thermal comfort requirements involved six male subjects providing thermal comfort responses in neutral and
slightly warm environments over 2 days. They then carried out an acclimatization program over 4 days, for 2 h per day, exercising in a hot
(45 8C, 40% relative humidity) environment. Thermal comfort responses were then recorded in two sessions over 2 days in identical
conditions to the pre-acclimation session. It was found that changes in thermal comfort responses were small and likely to be of little practical
signi®cance. An investigation into the behavior of people to maintain thermal comfort by adjusting their clothing was conducted using eight
male and eight female subjects. Seated subjects reduced or increased their clothing level by using a wardrobe of clothing that was familiar to
them. It was found that subjects can adjust their clothing to maintain thermal comfort, but within limits. Upper limits (clothing off) will be
determined by modesty and acceptability. Lower limits (clothing on) will be determined by clothing design and acceptability. A low air
temperature limit of 18 8C in freely available clothing may provide a working hypothesis. A laboratory study of thermal comfort requirements
for people with physical disabilities compared responses with those of people without physical disabilities. It was found that there are few
group differences between thermal comfort requirements of people with and without physical disabilities. However, there is a greater
necessity to consider individual requirements for people with physical disability. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Thermal comfort; Gender; Acclimation; Disability

1. Introduction This paper presents the results of a series of laboratory

Extensive research programs have led to methods for
he design and assessment for thermal comfort in indoor
environments [1,2]. Thermal discomfort, however, is still
prevalent, and a major problem and challenge for architects
and building services engineers. The complexities of
environments and the people who occupy them together
with developments in building technology and speci®cation
(quality, sustainable, economic, and ef®cient environments)
provides a requirement for improved thermal comfort
knowledge and methods. It is likely that thermal comfort
methods require a `paradigm shift' to meet future require-
ments and standards, for example from a `view' of occupants
as passive recipients of their thermal environment to
one where they are active participants in controlling and
adapting to it.
*
Tel.: ‡44-1509-223023; fax: ‡44-1509-223940.
E-mail address: k.c.parsons@lboro.ac.uk (K.C. Parsons).
experiments that have been carried out over a number of
years in the Human Thermal Environments Laboratory at
Loughborough University. It summarizes the studies and
provides an overview of conclusions and trends. It is not an
attempt to review the literature but to present work that has
not, to date, been published in the scienti®c literature. Four
areas in particular are considered: three areas concerning the
`subjects' characteristicsÐgender, acclimation state and
physical disability; the fourth area is concerned with how
people can adapt to environments using clothing. A summary
of some other laboratory studies is also provided. For details
of all studies the reader is referred to the full reports [3±6].
2. A program of thermal comfort studies
It is often useful to consider a program of research activity
to provide a context for speci®c studies. It is also important
to remember that a program often employs laboratory, ®eld

0378-7788/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 7 8 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 9 - 9
594 K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599

(applied) and theoretical studies designed in a complemen-
tary way. In other words, there is no `laboratory versus ®eld'
argument, they have their complementary roles. Thermal
comfort programs at Loughborough have included labora-
tory, ®eld and theoretical studies and have considered both
vehicle and built environments. An early study [7,8] inves-
tigated the predicted mean vote (PMV) method of Fanger
[2]. Comparison of the PMV with actual mean vote (AMV)
of human subjects implied that subjects were in fact a little
warmer than actually predicted (by 0.4 PMV). However, a
more important aspect of the study was to consider the
effects of `improving' equations in the PMV formula. New
equations were introduced for estimating the surface area
and the convective heat transfer coef®cient of the human
body. An overall discussion of sensitivity concluded that the
estimation of heat produced by activity (metabolic heat)
would often `dominate' the resulting PMV value. It can be
noted that an accurate estimate of this is not often possible
[9,10].
A laboratory study into changing environments demon-
strated the complexity of predicting thermal comfort
response [11,12]. Seated subjects, performing a simple
computer control task, rated their thermal comfort when
exposed to an environment that changed linearly in air
temperature from 30 to 10 8C over a 90 min period. The
results were compared with their thermal comfort ratings
taken in a separate identical session but where air tempera-
ture rose from 10 to 30 8C over 90 min. It was found that the
mean air temperature for thermal comfort (neutral sensation)
was higher for the reducing air temperature (23.0 8C) than
for the increasing air temperature condition (20.7 8C). The
signi®cance of the result is that in the `changing environ-

Fig. 1. Mean thermal sensation responses of 16 male and 16 female subjects for three conditions (scale: 3, hot; 2, warm; 1, slightly warm; 0, neutral; 1,
slightly cool; 2, cool; 3, cold) [3].
 K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599 595

ments' thermal comfort models will need to account for

changing or `transient affects'. The study was speci®cally
concerned with thermal comfort in vehicles and was com-
plemented by a ®eld study. An interesting observation in
motorway driving was that drivers rating themselves as
`neutral' and `comfortable' quickly changed to `hot' and
`uncomfortable' when the sun came from behind a cloud.
Vehicle environments are, however, not the topic of this
paper. Further studies have been made into the use of heated
seats [13,14] and for displacement ventilation and chilled
ceiling environments [15,16]. Sensation and discomfort
caused by skin contact with materials of different tempera-
tures have also been investigated and demonstrate the
in¯uence of the properties of materials [17,18].

3. Gender and thermal comfort requirements

It is sometimes noted that males and females have dif-

ferent thermal comfort responses and this is naturally con-
founded with the clothing that they wear. A laboratory study
by Breslin [3] compared the responses of 16 male and 16
female subjects (18±25 years) over a 3 h period in a thermal
chamber. Three conditions were investigated, predicted to
be `slightly warm' to `warm' (PMV ˆ 1:4; air temperature
ta ˆ 29 8C), `neutral' to `slightly cool' (PMV ˆ 0:4;
ta ˆ 23 8C) and `cool' (PMV ˆ 2:0; ta ˆ 18:5 8C). For
all conditions subjects sat relaxed in an of®ce chair watching
television (non-related video). Males and females wore
identical light clothing (shirt and long trousers) and their
own underwear, socks and shoes (an estimated clothing
insulation value of 0.8 Clo, including the insulation of the Fig. 2. Mean thermal sensation responses of eight male and eight female
chair). Radiant temperature was equal to air temperature, subjects for three conditions (scale: 3, hot; 2, warm; 1, slightly warm; 0,
there was no forced air movement and relative humidity was neutral; 1, slightly cool; 2, cool; 3, cold) [19].
50% for sessions at 18.5 and 29 8C and 70% for 23 8C.
Subjective impressions were provided every 15 min on the Local sensation responses from the study of Breslin [3]
ASHRAE/ISO seven point thermal sensation scale (hot, suggested that this was due to females reporting signi®cantly
warm, slightly warm, neutral, slightly cool, cool and cold) cooler hands than males. Overall it appears that there are few
overall, and for areas of the body. Thermal comfort and gender differences for neutral and warm conditions, but that
other subjective measures were also taken. The results are females tend to be cooler than males in cool conditions, this
presented in Fig. 1. was found in young college age students by Breslin [3].
A similar experiment conducted on a different set of eight
male and eight female subjects was conducted by Webb and
Parsons [19]. Similar conditions were employed but the 4. The effects of acclimation state on thermal
subjects also wore a sweatshirt. This raised the estimated comfort requirements
clothing insulation value to 1.0 Clo and, hence, modi®ed the
PMV values (‡1.5, slightly warm to warm; 0, neutral; and When human subjects are systematically exposed to hot
1.5, slightly cool to cool). The results are shown in Fig. 2. environments, over a number of days, their physiological
Comparison of the AMVs and PMVs showed that the responses to heat change and, in particular, they sweat
PMV values [1] predicted AMVs within 0.5 of a scale value earlier and more in response to a given heat stimulus. This
for neutral and warm conditions. However, in slightly cool to is termed `acclimatization' and if conducted in a laboratory,
cool conditions (PMV ˆ 1:5) both male and female sub- `acclimation' [20]. It is often thought that people living in
jects were between neutral and slightly cool and, hence, hot environments would have different comfort require-
warmer than predicted. For cool conditions (PMV ˆ 2:0) ments from those living in more temperate climates. Either
females tended to be signi®cantly cooler (P < 0:05) than (for a given set of conditions, clothing and activity) they
males and their responses were close to the PMV values. require higher air temperatures because they have adapted to
596 K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599
Fig. 3. Mean thermal sensation responses of six male subjects over a 3 h exposure to 23 8C air temperature, PMV ˆ 0, neutral conditions and 29 8C air
temperature, PMV ˆ 1:5, slightly warm to warm conditionsÐbefore and after undergoing an acclimation program.
the conditions or lower air temperatures as they compensate
for (or demonstrate control over) the hot, external condi-
tions. Brierley [4] investigated whether subjects who had
undergone an acclimation program required different com-
fort conditions than those before they were acclimated. This
was part of a larger project which also involved acclimation
and heat familiarization programs for athletes going to the
Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996. Six male college age
subjects were exposed for 3 h in a thermal chamber in
conditions identical to those used by Webb and Parsons
[19] (1.0 Clo, etc.Ðas mentioned above). On day 1 condi-
tions were neutral (PMV ˆ 0, 23 8C, 70% rh) and on day 2
they were between slightly warm and warm (PMV ˆ 1:5,
29 8C, 50% rh). Following a 5 day break the subjects were
exposed over 4 days to an acclimation program in 45 8C and
40% rh, for 2 h per day. The subjects performed stepping
exercises and cycled on a cycle ergometer. On completion of
the acclimation period the thermal comfort sessions were
repeated in reverse order to limit the loss of acclimation.
All subjects showed acclimation responses (increased
sweat rate, reduced heart rate, small changes in `core'
temperature and greater tolerance to heat stress). Fig. 3
shows the mean thermal sensation responses of subjects
pre- and post-acclimation. It can be seen that there were only
small changes in thermal comfort responses for both con-
ditions. It was concluded that these changes were unlikely to
be of practical signi®cance in terms of thermal comfort
requirements.
5. Clothing adaptation and comfort
Williams [5] investigated the behavior of of®ce workers
and preferred methods of adapting to thermal environments
(fans, clothing adjustment, etc.). She also conducted a
laboratory experiment to investigate, in particular, the ability
of subjects to use clothing to adapt to their thermal condi-
tions and maintain comfort. Eight male and eight female
subjects were each exposed (in groups of two) to two, 3 h
experimental sessions. The sessions were in balanced order
and at the same time on consecutive days. In both sessions
subjects began wearing a standard clothing ensemble (esti-
mated 1.0 Clo) and at 21 8C air temperature (ta ˆ tr , still
air). In the cold (reducing temperature) session, 21 8C was
maintained for 1 h then the temperature was changed to
18 8C for 1 h, then 15 8C for 1 h. The warm (increasing
temperature) session was similar to the cold: however, after
each 1 h period, air temperature increased by 3 8C to 27 8C.
A clothing wardrobe, familiar to the subject, was available
throughout the experiment. The subjects were instructed to
use the wardrobe to add or remove clothing in an attempt to
maintain thermal comfort.
The thermal sensation ratings, integrated over both ses-
sions, are presented in Fig. 4. If `acceptable' thermal com-
fort is considered to be between ratings of ‡1, slightly warm
to 1, slightly cool, then it was found that in the warm
session subjects reduced their clothing value to achieve
thermal comfort. For the cold session, thermal comfort
 K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599 597

Fig. 4. Mean sensation of six male and six female subjects attempting to adjust clothing to maintain thermal comfort (scale value: neutral ˆ 0). Ratings were
made on the scale: 3, hot; 2, warm; 1, slightly warm; 0, neutral; 1, slightly cool; 2, cool; 3, cold.

was maintained by increasing clothing levels, but less variation in responses was greater in people with physical
successfully than in the heat. Female subjects made more disabilities for slightly cool to cool and neutral conditions
changes than males and males maintained thermal comfort but was less for slightly warm to warm conditions. Although
down to 18 8C as did females, although less successfully. no differences were found on average it was concluded that
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn in thermal comfort requirements for people with physical
terms of a behavioral model. The ®rst is that subjects can disabilities should be considered on an individual basis.
adjust their clothing to maintain thermal comfort but within
limits. Clearly clothing levels can be reduced only to levels
of modesty and acceptability. The success of increasing
clothing levels will be related to clothing design but a limit
of between 15 and 18 8C would appear to provide a working
hypothesis.

6. Thermal comfort requirements for people

with physical disabilities

People with physical disabilities may have different ther-

mal requirements from those without physical disability for
a number of reasons. These include mobility, postural and
anthropometric differences as well as effects on thermo-
regulatory responses caused by the disability itself (blood
¯ow, sweating, shivering, etc.) or methods to cope with the
disability such as the use of drugs. Technological aids will
also affect thermal requirements such as the materials used
in the construction of wheel chairs. Webb and Parsons [19]
compared the responses of two groups of sixteen subjects
(eight male and eight female) with and without physical
disabilities in three, 3 h experimental sessions (PMV ˆ 1:5;
0; 1.5: as mentioned above in the section on gender) in a
simulated living room. Subjective ratings of thermal sensa-
tion, comfort, preference, stickiness, dryness and draught
were recorded every 15 min throughout the experiment. The
physical disabilities of subjects included: cerebral palsy,
spina bi®da, stroke, Friedrich's ataxia, blindness, paralysis,
heart condition, encephalitis, Guillain±Barre syndrome,
missing limbs and metal in legs.
The results are presented in Figs. 5 and 6 and showed no Fig. 5. The Actual Mean Vote (AMV) of overall thermal sensation for
people with physical disabilities compared with those of people without
signi®cant differences (P > 0:05) between mean responses physical disabilities and the PMV for the three experimental conditions.
of subjects with physical disabilities and those without. Sensation rating scale where 7, hot; 6, warm; 5, slightly warm; 4, neutral;
There were also no interactions with gender. However, 3, slightly cool; 2, cool; 1, cold.
598 K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599

In practice this may not be the case, further confounding the

Fig. 6. The range of the Actual Mean Vote (AMV) of overall thermal
sensation for people with physical disabilities compared with those of
people without physical disabilities (the shaded boxes show 50% of
responses; T-bars are the ranges; solid line is the median; with * being
outliers). Sensation rating scale where 7, hot; 6, warm; 5, slightly warm; 4,
neutral; 3, slightly cool; 2, cool; 1, cold.
result. The reasons why females report cooler sensations
than males in cool environments are not established. They
may include smaller dimensions (larger surface area to mass
ratio) of the hands, greater sensitivity (physiological and
psychological) to cold stimuli, less tolerance of cold dis-
comfort and combinations of these. There may be cultural
differences where females are less willing than males to be
compromised by cold discomfort, more aware of the role of
clothing and, as indicated in the experiments presented in
Fig. 4, less able to adjust clothing to maintain comfort in
cold environments.
The results presented in Fig. 3 shows clear evidence that
within the comfort range of neutral to slightly warm to warm
environments, the requirements for comfort do not depend
upon the state of heat acclimatization of the occupants of the
environment. There is, therefore, a clear indication that if
people who live in hot climates require higher temperatures
for thermal comfort it is not due to their physiological state
of heat acclimatization. This is particularly relevant as,
although people in hot countries have acclimatized or
adapted over long periods, they will be unlikely to have
achieved the level of physiological acclimatization that will
have been achieved in the extreme conditions of the labora-
tory experiment.
The results presented in Fig. 4 (means and standard
deviations (S.D.) shown in Table 1 for clarity) show that
people can reduce their clothing in warm environments to
achieve comfort (slightly cool to slightly warm) but that for a
`normal' wardrobe, it was increasingly dif®cult to maintain
comfort in cool environments. For warm conditions, mod-
esty and social acceptability will limit the achievement of
thermal comfort at higher temperatures as well as a limita-
tion caused by sweating to maintain the body in heat
balance. An upper limit of 27 8C may, therefore, be appro-
priate in practice. In cool environments, subjects found it
more dif®cult to maintain comfort through `normal' cloth-
ing. A lower limit of 18 8C, therefore, may be appropriate
providing a suggested range of 18±27 8C as appropriate to
maintain thermal comfort with clothing adjustment.
Table 1
Mean and S.D. of the overall thermal sensation ratings for male and female
subjects attempting to adjust clothing to maintain comfort

7. Discussion Temperature (8C) Males (nˆ 7) Females (n ˆ 8)

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

The results of this program of research have a number of
Cooling session
important consequences for the design of environments for
15 1.19 1.10 1.66 1.16
thermal comfort. Figs. 1 and 2 demonstrate that there is no 18 0.34 0.62 0.97 0.89
signi®cant difference between thermal comfort require- 21 0.01 0.38 0.02 0.46
ments of males and females over the PMV range slightly Warming session
warm to warm 1.5 to slightly cool and to cool 1.5. At a 21 0.06a 0.42 0.46 0.51
PMV value of 2.0 (cool), however, females were signi®- 24 0.21 0.39 0.25 0.50
cantly cooler than males overall and reported signi®cantly 27 0.56 0.55 0.61 0.60
cooler sensations of the hand. For this laboratory experi- Neutral rating ˆ 0.
ment, male and female subjects wore identical clothing. a
n ˆ 8.
 K.C. Parsons / Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 593±599
Figs. 5 and 6 show the ®rst direct comparison between
people with a range of physical disabilities exposed in a
laboratory to a range of thermal comfort conditions, and
people without physical disabilities. The results show that
there is little difference, on average, between the groups and
that existing thermal comfort standards can be used as a ®rst
stage in designing for people with physical disabilities. The
results also demonstrate the wide variation in responses of
people with physical disabilities and the need to consider the
responses and requirements of an individual. Of particular
importance will be adaptive or behavioral approaches to
thermal comfort. The ability to behave appropriately (e.g.
move out of a hot or cold environment, adjust clothing) may
be severely restricted and, in good design, the thermal
comfort requirements and adaptive capability should be
assessed.
8. Conclusions
1. For identical clothing and activity, there are few gender
differences in thermal comfort responses for neutral and
slightly warm conditions but females tend to be cooler
than males in cool conditions.
2. Changes in thermal comfort responses in neutral and
slightly warm environments, due to acclimation to heat,
are small and unlikely to be of practical significance.
3. Subjects can adjust their clothing to maintain thermal
comfort, but within limits. Upper limits (clothing off)
will be determined by modesty and acceptability. Lower
limits (clothing on) will be determined by clothing
design and acceptability. A lower air temperature of
18 8C in freely available clothing may provide a
working hypothesis.
4. There are few group differences between thermal
comfort requirements of people with and without
physical disabilities. However, there is a greater
necessity to consider individual requirements for people
with physical disability.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the contribution of Dr. Lynda
Webb, Roisin Breslin, Sybelle Williams, Charlotte Brierley,
Trevor Cole and other members of the Human Thermal
Environments Laboratory at Loughborough.
References
[1] BS EN ISO 7730, Moderate Thermal EnvironmentsÐDetermination
of the PMV and PPD Indices and Specification of the Conditions for
Thermal Comfort, BSI, London, UK, 1995.
599
[2] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 1970.
[3] R. Breslin, Gender differences and thermal comfort requirements,
Final year undergraduate report, Department of Human Sciences,
Loughborough University, UK, 1995.
[4] C. Brierley, Acclimation: familiarization to hot humid environments,
and its effects on thermal comfort requirements, M.Sc. thesis,
Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, UK,
1996.
[5] S. Williams, Behavioral responses to maintain thermal comfort in
office environments, M.Sc. thesis, Department of Human Sciences,
Loughborough University, UK, 1996.
[6] K.C. Parsons, L.H. Webb, Thermal comfort design conditions for
indoor environments occupied by people with physical disabilities
Final report, EPSRC Research Contract GR/K71295, UK, 1999.
[7] N.J. Clark, A laboratory investigation of the PMV thermal comfort
index, Final year undergraduate report, Department of Human
Sciences, Loughborough University, UK, 1983.
[8] K.C. Parsons, N.J. Clark, A laboratory investigation of the PMV
thermal comfort index, in: E.D. Megaw (Ed.), Contemporary
Ergonomics 1984, Ergonomics, Vol. 27 (Suppl. 1), Taylor & Francis,
London, UK, 1984.
[9] K.C. Parsons, E.J. Hamley, Practical methods for the estimation of
human metabolic heat production, in: J.B. Mercer (Ed.), Thermal
Physiology, Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989,
pp. 777±781.
[10] G. Havenith, I. HolmeÂr, K.C. Parsons, Personal factors in thermal
comfort assessment: the estimation of clothing properties and
metabolic heat production, Energy and Buildings, 2002 (special issue).
[11] D. Entwistle, An investigation into the thermal comfort of motor car
drivers, M.Sc. thesis, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough
University, UK, 1982.
[12] K.C. Parsons, D. Entwistle, An investigation into the thermal comfort
of motor car drivers, in: K. Coombes (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Ergonomics Society's Conference, Taylor & Francis, London, UK,
1983.
[13] J. Brooks, An ergonomics investigation into human thermal comfort
using an automobile seat heated with encapsulated carbonised fabric
(ECF), M.Sc. thesis, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough
University, UK, 1995.
[14] J. Brooks, K.C. Parsons, An ergonomics investigation into human
thermal comfort using an automobile seat heated with encapsulated
carbonised fabric (ECF), Ergonomics 42 (5) (1999) 661±673.
[15] A.H. Taki, D.L. Loveday, K.C. Parsons, The effects of chilled ceiling
temperatures on displacement flow and thermal comfortÐexperi-
mental and simulation studies, in: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, Room-
vent'96, Vol. 3, Yokohama, Japan, July 1996, pp. 307±314.
[16] D.L. Loveday, K.C. Parsons, S.G. Hodder, A.H. Taki, Chilled ceiling
and displacement ventilation environments: air flow, radiant
asymmetry and thermal comfort effects, sustainable building, in:
Proceedings of the BEPAC and EPSRC Mini Conference, Oxford,
UK, February 1997.
[17] L. Halabi, Surface temperatures and the thermal sensation and
discomfort of handrails, Final year undergraduate report, Department
of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, UK, 1994.
[18] L. Halabi, K.C. Parsons, Surface temperatures and the thermal
sensation and discomfort of handrails, in: S.A. Robertson (Ed.),
Contemporary Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 1995.
[19] L.H. Webb, K.C. Parsons, Thermal comfort requirements for people
with physical disabilities, sustainable building, in: Proceedings of the
BEPAC and EPSRC Mini Conference, Oxford, UK, February 1997.
[20] K.C. Parsons, Human Thermal Environments, Taylor & Francis,
London, UK, 1993.