# Performance of Solar Control Films on Building Glazing: A Literature Review
## 4 Existing Studies on the Performance of Solar Control Films
### Thermal and Luminous Performance Assessment of Glazing Systems with Solar Control Films
After conducting experimental work, a best-case model was simulated, and a reduction of 30% of the heating energy cost was obtained, in addition to a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions due to heating energy consumption. The performance of spectrally selective and low-E SCFs, when installed in a hotel in a temperate climate, was studied by [PERSON] [54] and [PERSON] et al. [55]. Heating and cooling energy consumption was reduced by 3% and 20% in the presence of low-E films. Even though spectrally selective films are more effective in reducing cooling energy consumption, low-E films were found to be a better solution for the heating-dominated climate of the case study. Also, considering the temperate oceanic climate, the performance of double-glazing, with and without SCF, in office rooms in Italy was studied by [PERSON] et al. [43; 53]. The authors concluded that the reduction in the indoor temperature due to the application of the film resulted in the reduction in the cooling needs of between 29% and 40%. However, an increase in the heating needs of between 15% and 33% was obtained, particularly during the heating season. The energy performance of SCFs applied to glazing systems of a hospital room and office rooms under the hot-summer Mediterranean climate was evaluated by [PERSON] et al. [45] and [PERSON] and [PERSON] et al. [44; 46; 50], respectively. [PERSON] et al. [45] evaluated the performance of an external reflective film installed in a glazing system of a hospital room located in the hot-summer Mediterranean climate (Cfa [58]). The combined use of the film with shading shutters reduced artificial lighting energy consumption by 12%. The presence of the film during winter penalized energy consumption. [PERSON] et al. [44] and [PERSON] et al. [46; 50] analyzed the performance of different SCFs installed in the single- and double-glazing systems of office rooms in the hot-summer Mediterranean climate of the city of Lisbon (Csa [58]). Reflective films were found to have a better energy performance, with a significant reduction in the cooling energy consumption that surpasses energy increases with artificial lighting. The annual energy use was reduced by 68% and 38% when considering the installation of SCFs in single- and double-glazing, respectively, oriented south. Considering a whole building performance evaluation, also in the climate of Lisbon, [PERSON] et al. [56] assessed the energy, economic and environmental performance of SCFs (one reflective and two spectrally selective) against the replacement of the existing window. Higher energy savings during the use stage were obtained in the presence of the retrofitting solutions with higher light-to-solar gain ratios because of the higher reduction in solar gains compared with the reduction in the visible transmittance. The spectrally selective film with high solar transmittance was found to be the best retrofitting solution with a life cycle energy (including embodied and operational energy) and a carbon footprint of 4447 MJ and 380 kgCO\({}_{2}\)eq per square meter of floor, considering a life cycle of 40 years. The replacement of the existing window showed a life cycle energy 1.5 times higher than the average values obtained for the different SCFs. The energy performance of SCFs installed in building glazing systems under a monsoon-influenced humid subtropical climate (Cwa [58]) was evaluated by [PERSON] et al. [47; 48] and [PERSON] et al. [49]. The performance of office spaces located in Hong Kong (monsoon-influenced humid subtropical climate (Cwa [58])), with and without SCFs, was evaluated by [PERSON] et al. [47; 48]. Considering single-cell office rooms, the daily cooling energy consumption was reduced by 68 Wh per square meter of floor in the presence of the film, whereas the artificial lighting consumption increased by \(13\,\mathrm{Wh/m^{2}}\) of floor, resulting in total energy savings of \(55\,\mathrm{Wh/m^{2}}\) of floor [47].