2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.02.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comfort, perceived air quality, and work performance in a low-power task–ambient conditioning system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

8
136
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 260 publications
(146 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
8
136
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding confirmed previous findings of Zhang et al [17], Arens et al [22][23] and Melikov et. al.…”
Section: 226supporting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This finding confirmed previous findings of Zhang et al [17], Arens et al [22][23] and Melikov et. al.…”
Section: 226supporting
confidence: 83%
“…Since air movement can offset warm temperatures and maintains occupants' thermal state close to neutral, it may maintain performance close to that at neutral temperatures. This is supported by study [17] and [35], in which isothermal airflow was found to maintain performance at temperatures up to 30ºC. It is worth to note that parameters other than temperature and air movement may also affect performance, such as humidity, air movement characteristics, ventilation rates, pollution levels, further studies should be done to address this.…”
Section: 226mentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…CBE's laboratory testing confirmed that comfort was well maintained over a wide range of room temperatures and that PAQ was significantly improved (Zhang et al, 2010). The experiments also addressed the impact on task performance by giving the test subjects three tasks (Sudoku, maths and typing) that were pre-scheduled into the computers on which the subjects worked.…”
Section: From Centralized To Personal Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CBE's first-generation PCS units, shown in Figure 4, include a desktop fan and under-desk radiant foot warmer. They are low cost, have personal controls, consume little energy (the fan and controls use 1-4 W and the foot warmer approximately 30 W), and can easily be used in retrofit applications (Zhang et al, 2010). Both units have integrated occupancy sensors -turning themselves off when not in use.…”
Section: From Centralized To Personal Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%