Physiologically equivalent temperature (PET) is a thermal index that is widely used in the field of human biometeorology and urban bioclimate. However, it has several limitations, including its poor ability to predict thermo-physiological parameters and its weak response to both clothing insulation and humid conditions. A modified PET (mPET) was therefore developed to address these shortcomings. To determine whether the application of mPET in hot-humid regions is more appropriate than the PET, an analysis of a thermal comfort survey database, containing 2071 questionnaires collected from participants in hot-humid Taiwan, was conducted. The results indicate that the thermal comfort range is similar (26–30 °C) when the mPET and PET are applied as thermal indices to the database. The sensitivity test for vapor pressure and clothing insulation also show that the mPET responds well to the behavior and perceptions of local people in a subtropical climate.
Physiologically equivalent temperature mPET Thermal comfort Hot-humid regions
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Höppe P (1999) The physiological equivalent temperature—a universal index for the biometeorological assessment of the thermal environment. Int J Biometeorol 43:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kántor N, Unger J (2011) The most problematic variable in the course of human-biometeorological comfort assessment—the mean radiant temperature. centeurjgeo 3:90–100Google Scholar
Lin T-P, Yang S-R, Matzarakis A (2015) Customized rating assessment of climate suitability (CRACS): climate satisfaction evaluation based on subjective perception. Int J Biometeorol 59:1825–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin TP (2009) Thermal perception, adaptation and attendance in a public square in hot and humid regions. Build Environ 44:2017–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin TP, Matzarakis A (2008) Tourism climate and thermal comfort in Sun Moon Lake, Taiwan. Int J Biometeorol 52:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmoud AHA (2011) Analysis of the microclimatic and human comfort conditions in an urban park in hot and arid regions. Build Environ 46:2641–2656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira S, Andrade H (2007) An initial assessment of the bioclimatic comfort in an outdoor public space in Lisbon. Int J Biometeorol 52:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salata F, Golasi I, de Lieto Vollaro R, de Lieto Vollaro A (2016) Outdoor thermal comfort in the Mediterranean area. A transversal study in Rome, Italy. Build Environ 96:46–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VDI (1998) Methods for the human biometeorological evaluation of climate and air quality for the urban and regional planning. Part I: Climate. VDI guideline 3787. Part 2. Beuth, BerlinGoogle Scholar
Yahia MW, Johansson E (2013) Evaluating the behaviour of different thermal indices by investigating various outdoor urban environments in the hot dry city of Damascus, Syria. Int J Biometeorol 57:615–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng Y, Dong L (2015) Thermal human biometeorological conditions and subjective thermal sensation in pedestrian streets in Chengdu, China. Int J Biometeorol 59:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar