## 3 Results
### Indoor Environmental Quality  
Table 2 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the measured IEQ parameters, including the PMV values calculated using the data collected by the Testo 400 instrument. To calculate the PMV, four environmental parameters were considered: air temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity, and relative humidity. In addition to other factors, personal factors, including metabolic rate (set at 1.0 met for a seated activity) and clothing insulation, were considered. The clothing insulation values varied depending on the season in which the experimental campaign was conducted: 0.5 clo (in summer), 0.7 clo (in autumn and spring), and 1.0 clo (in winter). All of these data were inputted into the Testo 400 instrument, which then calculated the PMV accordingly.  
The values shown in the table represent the averages derived from the complete set of measurements taken during the data collection period.  
The monthly average values of key indoor thermal comfort variables--including air temperature, radiant temperature, relative humidity, and air velocity--exhibited seasonal variations throughout the academic year. Specifically, the indoor air temperature ranged from a minimum of 22.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C during cooler months to a maximum of 33 \({}^{\circ}\)C during warmer periods, demonstrating a significant temperature swing. The relative humidity levels fluctuated between 27.5% and 49.2%, indicating variations in the moisture content in the air. Air velocity, a crucial factor in convective heat transfer and perceived comfort, remained relatively low, ranging from 0.04 m/s to 0.1 m/s. The PMV, a widely used index for assessing thermal comfort based on the previous parameters, varied considerably from \(--\)0.7 to 2.2 throughout the year. A PMV value of -0.7 suggests a slightly cool environment,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Statistics** & \(\mathbf{T_{a}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{r}}\) & \(\mathbf{H}\) & \(\mathbf{V_{a}}\) & \(\mathbf{PMV}\) & \(\mathbf{CO_{2}}\) & **Illumination** & **Sound Level** \\ \cline{2-9}  & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & [\%] & [m/s] & [-] & [ppm] & [lx] & [dB] \\ \hline Mean & 26.49 & 26.32 & 38.97 & 0.07 & 0.42 & 805.83 & 335.83 & 51.03 \\ SD & 3.52 & 3.37 & 6.88 & 0.02 & 0.98 & 349.73 & 69.1 & 0.85 \\ Min & 22.6 & 22.6 & 27.5 & 0.04 & \(-\)0.7 & 409 & 254 & 49.8 \\ Max & 33.0 & 32.3 & 49.2 & 0.1 & 2.2 & 1372 & 480 & 52.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive statistics on indoor thermal environment and PMV.  
while a value of 2.2 indicates a warm environment. This range highlights potential periods of thermal discomfort for the building's occupants.  
The CO\({}_{2}\) concentration, the primary indicator of IAQ related to the effectiveness of ventilation, fluctuated significantly between 409 ppm and 1372 ppm. The higher end of this range suggests periods of inadequate ventilation, which could impact occupants' health and productivity.  
The sound levels remained relatively consistent throughout the recorded period, suggesting a stable acoustic environment. However, the lighting levels, another crucial aspect of IEQ, showed variations from 254 k to 480 k, which could impact visual comfort and task performance. These fluctuations in lighting levels may be due to factors such as the availability of natural daylight, the use of artificial lighting, and the use of window blinds.  
For a more detailed visualization of the monthly variations in these IEQ parameters, graphical representations are provided in Figures 4 and 5. These figures offer a clearer picture of the dynamic changes in the indoor environment over the course of the academic year and facilitate a more in-depth analysis of potential challenges in terms of IEQ and opportunities for improvement.