[Evaluation of thermal environment and human thermal comfort in 8 types of public places from 2019 to 2021].

Objective: To evaluate the thermal environment of different types of public places and the thermal comfort of employees, so as to provide scientific basis for the establishment of microclimate standards and health supervision requirements. Methods: From June 2019 to December 2021, 50 public places (178 times) of 8 categories in Wuxi were selected, including hotels, swimming pools (gymnasiums), bathing places, shopping malls (supermarkets), barber shops, beauty shops, waiting rooms (bus station) and gyms. In summer and winter, microclimate indicators such as temperature and wind speed were measured in all kinds of places, combined with the work attire and physical activity of employees in the places. Fanger thermal comfort equation and center for the built environment (CBE) thermal comfort calculation tool were used to evaluate the predicted mean vote (PMV), predicted percent dissatisfied (PPD) and standard effective temperature (SET) according to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 55-2020. The modification effects of seasonal and temperature control conditions on thermal comfort were analyzed. The consistency of GB 37488-2019 "Hygienic Indicators and Limits in Public Places" and ASHRAE 55-2020 evaluation results on thermal environment was compared. Results: The thermal sensation of hotel, barber shop staff and the gym front-desk staff were moderate, while the thermal sensation of swimming place lifeguard, bathing place cleaning staff and gym trainer were slightly warm in summer and winter. Waiting room (bus station) cleaning and working staff, shopping mall staff felt slightly warm in summer and moderate in winter. Service staff in bathing places felt slightly warm in winter, while staff in beauty salons felt slightly cool in winter. The thermal comfort compliance of hotel cleaning staff and shopping mall staff in summer was lower than that in winter (χ(2)=7.01, 7.22, P=0.008, 0.007). The thermal comfort compliance of shopping mall staff in the condition of air conditioning off was higher than that in the condition of air conditioning on (χ(2)=7.01, P=0.008). The SET values of front-desk staff in hotels with different health supervision levels were significantly different (F=3.30, P=0.024). The PPD value and SET value of the front-desk staff, and the PPD value of cleaning staff of hotels above three stars were lower than those of hotels below three stars (P<0.05). The thermal comfort compliance of front-desk staff and cleaning staff in hotels above three stars was higher than that in hotels below three stars (χ(2)=8.33, 8.09, P=0.016, 0.018). The consistency of the two criteria was highest among waiting room (bus station) staff (100.0%, 1/1) and lowest among gym front-desk staff (0%, 0/2) and waiting room (bus station) cleaning staff (0%, 0/1) . Conclusion: There are different degrees of thermal discomfort in different seasons, under the condition of air conditioning and health supervision, and the microclimate indicators can not fully reflect the thermal comfort of human body. The health supervision of microclimate should be strengthened, the applicability of health standard limit value should be evaluated in many aspects, and the thermal comfort of occupational group should be improved.目的： 评价不同类别公共场所热环境以及从业人员的热舒适度，为微小气候的标准制定和卫生监督要求提供科学依据。 方法： 于2019年6月至2021年12月，选取无锡市8大类公共场所共50家（178家次），包括宾馆（酒店）、游泳场（馆）、沐浴场所、商场（超市）、理发店、美容店、候车室、健身房。分别在夏季和冬季测定各类场所温度、风速等微小气候指标，结合场所从业人员工作着装和体力活动情况。应用Fanger热舒适方程和CBE热舒适计算工具，按照美国采暖制冷和空调工程师协会（ASHRAE）55-2020标准，评价预期平均评价指标（PMV）、预测不满意百分数（PPD）和标准有效温度（SET）等热舒适指标，并分析季节、调温状态等因素对热舒适度的修饰效应。比较GB 37488-2019《公共场所卫生指标及限值要求》与ASHRAE 55-2020对热环境评价结果的一致性情况。 结果： 宾馆、理发场所工作人员和健身房前台工作人员热感觉适中，而游泳场所救生员、沐浴场所保洁人员和健身房教练等夏冬季热感觉均为稍暖。候车室保洁和工作人员、商场工作人员在夏季热感觉稍暖，冬季热感觉适中；沐浴场所服务人员在冬季感觉稍暖，美容场所工作人员在冬季感觉稍凉。夏季宾馆保洁人员和商场工作人员的热舒适符合度均低于冬季（χ(2)=7.01、7.22，P=0.008、0.007）。空调关闭状态下商场工作人员的热舒适符合度高于空调开启状态（χ(2)=7.01，P=0.008）。不同卫生监督量化分级等级宾馆前台工作人员SET值差异有统计学意义（F=3.30，P=0.024）。三星级及以上宾馆前台工作人员的PPD值、SET值，以及宾馆保洁人员的PPD值均低于三星级以下宾馆（P<0.05）；三星级及以上宾馆前台工作人员和保洁人员的热舒适符合度均高于三星级以下宾馆（χ(2)=8.33、8.09，P=0.016、0.018）。两项标准评价各类场所热环境的一致性在候车室工作人员（100.0%，1/1）中最高，而健身房前台（0%，0/2）和候车室保洁人员（0%，0/1）中最低。 结论： 各类公共场所从业人员在不同季节、空调调温状态和卫生监督量化分级等级下存在不同程度的热不舒适情况，而微小气候指标不能完全反映人体的热舒适度情况。应加强对微小气候的卫生监督，多方面评估卫生标准限值的适用性，提高职业人群的热舒适度。.