Reflections on terminologies used to define human thermal comfort

Abstract

Literature reviews are justified by the periodic need to present to the scientific community synthesis of state of the art in a specific field of knowledge. Subtle differences between definitions and methods increase the likelihood of misconceptions and inconsistencies in the analysis and interpretation of research results, thus highlighting the importance of clarifying commonly used parameters and terms, clearly establishing meanings and differences. Based on the considerations presented, the purpose of this article is, through a literary narrative review, to analyze preferably in high impact journals, norms, and books, definitions relevant to the study of human thermal comfort and their implications in the design of the research. The study begins with an overview of human thermal comfort, followed by revisions of published materials focusing on thermal comfort, thermal neutrality, thermal adaptation, and non-homogeneous environments with an approach to alliesthesia theory. As a result of the literature review, having as filter the keywords “thermal comfort,” “thermal neutrality” and “alliesthesia,” 55 publications were evaluated, composing the analyzes that integrate the body of this work. It is not the purpose of this review to judge the terms for their relevance but to express the differences and possible implications of their uses. It was observed that different approaches in the discipline of human thermal comfort compromise the comparison between researches and may induce errors of interpretation. Noteworthy is the inadequate use of thermal comfort as a synonym of thermal neutrality; the association of thermal asymmetries solely with thermal discomfort, ignoring its hedonic potential; or not understanding thermal adaptation and its relevance to thermal comfort.