## 3 Results
### Comfort Evaluation
#### 3.1.2 Thermal Evaluation  
The mean indoor air temperature of the wards during the heating period was approximately 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the temperature was kept between 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 31 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the wards, and the relative humidity was kept between 20% relative humidity (RH) and 50% RH. Taking the measurement results and subjective evaluation of the temperature and humidity, as shown in Figure 1, it should be noted that the temperature in the wards was satisfactory, with a measured value of 26-30 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and highly acceptable at 27-29 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The patients had a preference for temperatures that are higher than the standard value in ISO 7730 and ASHRAE 55-2004 [31; 32]. Apart from the environmental parameters, two personal variables, i.e., activity and clothing level of the occupants are also very important [33]. Usually, in the ward, the patient is less active and lies in bed for a long time. In addition, the clothing is thinner, so their thermal sensation will be significantly higher than the standard comfort values. The relative humidity was unsatisfactory, and participants mainly reported dissatisfied (37.7%) and moderate (28.2%); 12.3% of the participants even claimed that they were very unsatisfied. With mean ambient temperatures around 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the relative humidity is low, and heating exacerbates this phenomenon.  
The measurement results of the dominant thermal parameters indicated that they may have different influences on thermal satisfaction and thermal perception. The relationship between the measured temperature and relative humidity with thermal satisfaction are also compared, where the linear regressions and coefficient of determination R\({}^{2}\) are also presented. It should be noted that, unlike in previous studies, in China's heating region, patients felt satisfied with an indoor temperature of 26-28 \({}^{\circ}\)C and a relative humidity of over 40%. With the increase of the measured temperature, the thermal satisfaction is first increased, and then drops rapidly after 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The measured temperature and thermal satisfaction constituted a polynomial linear regression, and the coefficient of determination R\({}^{2}\) was 0.958. However, the thermal environment satisfaction increased as the relative humidity rose.  
Figure 1: The relationship between the measured temperature and relative humidity with thermal satisfaction. (**a**) Temperature, (**b**) relative humidity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **A** & **B** \\
**Type of Physical** & **Mean and Standard Deviation SD** & **Correlation Coefficient between** \\
**Environment Factors** & **of Physical Environment** & **the Factors and Overall Comfort** \\  & **Satisfaction** & \\ \hline Temperature & 4.04/0.911 & 0.686 ** \\ Humidity & 4.10/0.661 & 0.302 \\ Acoustic & 4.40/0.637 & 0.618 ** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  
\end{table}
Table 3: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the satisfaction with the physical environment and a Spearman correlation analysis of the physical environment factors and the overall comfort evaluation.  
The measured relative humidity and thermal satisfaction constituted an exponential linear regression, and the coefficient of determination R\({}^{2}\) was 0.97.