## 3 Results  
Table 3 summarized the statistical description of the environmental conditions of the inlet air for each pad tested. These presented small changes during the test (below that 0.9 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 7.9%), according to the standard deviation values. The alternative pads were tested in similar dry-bulb temperatures of the inlet air (\(T_{db_{i}}\)) with mean values between 25.4 and 27.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C and relative humidity (\(\phi_{i}\)) between 41.0 and 48.7%. \(T_{db_{i}}\) and \(\phi_{i}\) presented their maximum and minimum values during the cellulose pad tests, respectively. Statistical description of the \(\eta\) and THI of the outlet air are summarized in Table 4. Although the cellulose pad cooling was tested in low \(T_{db_{i}}\) and high \(\phi_{i}\), it presented the highest average cooling efficiency, followed by the \(CS_{2}\) pad. The \(CS_{1}\), \(PS_{1}\) and \(PS_{2}\) pads presented the lowest cooling efficiency considering that they were tested in the highest \(T_{db_{i}}\) and lowest \(\phi_{i}\). The lowest average THI value was for the \(CS_{2}\) and \(BC\) pads. The efficiency of the \(CL\) pad was slightly above, because it was tested with higher \(\phi_{i}\) conditions. Through \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Temperature**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Relative Humidity**} \\
**Pad** & \(\mathbf{T_{db_{i}}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{db_{i}}}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma}\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma^{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{\tilde{\phi}_{i}}\) & \(\mathbf{\tilde{\phi}_{i}}\) & \(\sigma\) & \(\mathbf{\sigma^{2}}\) \\  & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & [\({}^{\circ}\)C2] & [\%] & [\%] & [\%] & [\%] \\ \hline \(CL\) & 24.6 & 24.6 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 62.1 & 62.5 & 4.1 & 16.4 \\ \(CS_{1}\) & 26.2 & 26.4 & 0.9 & 0.8 & 46.5 & 47.6 & 7.9 & 61.6 \\ \(CS_{2}\) & 25.4 & 25.4 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 46.0 & 46.0 & 1.3 & 1.8 \\ \(BC\) & 25.7 & 25.7 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 41.7 & 41.5 & 1.5 & 2.3 \\ \(PS_{1}\) & 26.9 & 26.9 & 0.4 & 0.2 & 41.0 & 41.0 & 5.3 & 28.2 \\ \(PS_{2}\) & 27.1 & 27.0 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 48.5 & 48.7 & 2.4 & 5.9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Statistical descriptions of the inlet air dry-bulb temperature (\(T_{db_{i}}\)) and relative humidity (\(\phi_{i}\)) for the wind tunnel tests. \(T_{db_{i}}\) and \(\phi_{i}\) are the means, \(T_{db_{i}}\) and \(\phi_{i}\) are the medians, \(\sigma\) is the standard deviation and \(\sigma^{2}\) is the variance. all experimental tests, \(\phi_{i}\) had a dispersion up to 7.9%, being significantly lower for \(CS_{2}\), \(BC\) and \(PS_{1}\) pads. The dispersion of THI was up to 1.6 units for the \(CS_{1}\) pad and significantly lower for the other pads. Table 5 summarizes the statistical description of the change in the dry-bulb temperature (\(\Delta T=T_{db_{i}}-T_{db_{p}}\)) and relative humidity (\(\Delta\phi=\phi_{i}-\phi_{o}\)) of the air across the pads. The mean and median of \(\Delta T\) follow the same behaviour of the \(\phi_{i}\), with the highest value for the \(CS_{2}\) and \(BC\) pads. These also present the highest \(\Delta\phi\). The lowest \(\Delta\phi\) was obtained for the \(CL\) pad. In general, the average dry-bulb temperature drop was up to 5.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C with a standard deviation of \(\pm 1\)\({}^{\circ}\)C and the increment in \(\phi_{i}\) was between 21.2% and 35.5% with a standard deviation of \(\pm 3.7\)%. Statistical descriptions of the water temperature entering and leaving the cooling pads are shown in Table 6. The water that entered the pad had an average temperature below 21.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with a high variability (1.7 \({}^{\circ}\)C). The differences between the temperature of the water when entering and leaving the pad were caused by the pump heating. This was more noticeable when low water flows were used in the tests. This also explains the high variability of the water temperature entering the pad.