# Thermal Comfort Applied in Hospital Environments: A Literature Review
## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Reference**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Site**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Main Findings**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & **Staff** & & & **Patients** & **Visitor** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [88] & Nurses & & & Nursing workstation & The mean of the WBCT indicator, for all hospital \\  & & & & & worktations, was 20.67 \({}^{\circ}\)C (range 19 \& 60-22.20 \({}^{\circ}\)C). \\  & & & & & The maximum temperatures of the places where the patients were exceeded 29 \({}^{\circ}\)C, while the average values were around 26-27 \({}^{\circ}\)C. & \\ [PERSON] et al. [64] & Surgical Team & & & Operating rooms & PPD = 100\% for anesthesiologists and PPD = 6\% for nurses. \\  & & & & Staff rooms, nurse & \\  & & & & counters, and the working & Acceptable internal neutral temperatures are in the range of 23.3-26.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [65] & \({}^{\star}\) & & & & personnel & \\ [PERSON] et al. [17] & Doctors & & & Wards & The PMV best correlation with the AMV values among the maledial team under 65 years old. & \\ [PERSON] et al. [66] & Surgical Team & & & Operating rooms & & the mAPV index does not provide a correct and sufficient descriptive assessment of the thermal environment of the operating room. & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON]/[PERSON] and [PERSON] [67] & Surgical Team & & & Anesthesiologists wearing surgical clothing, dosage chemical comfort to be satisfactory in about 90\% of \\  & & & & Operating rooms & Operating rooms, while surgeon assistants and nurses \\  & & & & & 30\% of ORs. Suggons, see they have higher weight rate, per-probe thermal control in only 55 of ORs. & \\  & & & & The results for PMV/PVV varied from 07.7/27.6\% & \\ [PERSON] et al. [69] & \({}^{\star}\) & & & Sterilization services (SS) & (morning) to 1.08/29.8\% (afternoon) in 581 and from 12.8\% (from 10) to 11.8/34.4\% (afternoon) in 581. & \\ [PERSON] & & & & Operating rooms & The individual presentations reported by the medical team pointed to the lack of thermal comfort. & \\  & & & & 90\% of patients reported a comfortable temperature range of 24.5-26.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C. & \\ [PERSON] et al. [71] & & & & N/A & 80\% of patients reported a comfortable temperature range of 22.9-27.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C. & \\ [PERSON], [PERSON] [73] & & & & N/A & 80\% of patients reported a comfortable temperature range of 22.9-27.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C. & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: _Cont._  
RQ4: What Other Parameters of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Were Evaluated, Aside from Thermal Comfort? Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) takes into consideration visual comfort (light), sound (noise), thermal comfort (temperature), and indoor air quality (carbon dioxide concentration and volatile organic compounds) [85]. It plays an important role in influencing the comfort and productivity of occupants in buildings, as people remain indoors a significant part of their time [86]. Eleven studies went beyond thermal comfort and analyzed other environmental parameters, as shown in Table 10:  
In the studies analyzed, it was found that some studies took into account another parameter, in addition to thermal comfort. [PERSON] et al. [58] measured the relationship between thermal comfort and light intensity with the quality of sleep and eye strain. [PERSON] et al. [83] studied noise in the environment and how it affects the perception of comfort. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [80] assessed patients' perceptions of the indoor environment in terms of architectural design, thermal comfort, indoor air quality (IAQ), lighting and acoustic parameters. However, the parameter that appears most associated with thermal comfort in hospitals is indoor air quality (IAQ). [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [27], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [48], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [76], and [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [40] studied IAQ inside hospitals.