## 4 Questionnaire Results and Analysis
### Temperature and Humidity Expectation Votes  
Figure 15 shows the voting chart of participants' expectations of ambient temperature with the increase in heat exposure time. It can be seen from the figure that under the four different working conditions, the expected value of external environment heating is 0, and the expected value of personnel temperature is above 0.2. As the level of thermal stress increased, the degree of expected external environment cooling increased. The average expected vote of personnel temperature was 0.63, 0.72, 0.72 and 0.85 \({}^{\circ}\)C for each of the four working conditions, respectively. As the duration of heat exposure increased, the proportion of people expecting to become cooler also increased. When WBGT was 27-29 \({}^{\circ}\)C, almost all participants expected the temperature to become cooler, and as the exposure time increased, 100% of the participants finally expected the outside temperature to become colder with expected values of 0.5-1. At this time, the temperature expected average vote was 0.85. This suggests that under the thermal intensity of this environment, a control method must be adopted to improve the thermal sensation and comfort of the participants.  
Figure 16 shows the voting chart of participants' expectations of ambient humidity with the increase in exposure time under the four different experimental conditions. When WBGT rose from 21-23 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 27-29 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the proportion of expected humidity drying increased, with the average voting value increasing from 0.61 to 0.84, which indicates that the high heat intensity environment led to the aggravation of human discomfort. At 27-29 \({}^{\circ}\)C, up to 92% of the participants had a strong desire to reduce the humidity. As the experiment progressed, 100% of the participants finally expected the humidity to decrease. This indicates that for medical staff who work for a long time in a high-heat and humid environment, it is urgent to take measures to reduce the dampness of the human skin in order to improve the comfort of the human body.  
Figure 14: Voting of participants’ sweating and uncomfortable position under four different working conditions (i.e., 21–23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 23–25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 25–27 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 27–29 \({}^{\circ}\)C). (**a**) Sweating position voting, (**b**) Uncomfortable position voting.  
Figure 16: The variation of the humidity expectation vote with time under four different working conditions (i.e., 21–23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 23–25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 25–27 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 27–29 \({}^{\circ}\)C). (**a**) Working condition: 21–23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**b**) Working condition: 23–25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**c**) Working condition: 25–27 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**d**) Working condition: 27–29 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
Figure 15: The variation of the temperature expectation vote with time under four different working conditions (i.e., 21–23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 23–25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 25–27 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 27–29 \({}^{\circ}\)C). (**a**) Working condition: 21–23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**b**) Working condition: 23–25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**c**) Working condition: 25–27 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**d**) Working condition: 27–29 \({}^{\circ}\)C.