Determination of core and mean skin temperatures for the evaluation of thermal comfort: A comparative study

• Published in: Building and environment Vol. 271; p. 112605
• Main Authors: Hou, Siqi, Gao, Shan, Jin, Yumeng, Feng, Chi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2025
• Subjects: Core temperature; Mean skin temperature; Thermal comfort; Thermal sensation; Thermal comfort; Mean skin temperature; Core temperature; Thermal sensation
• ISSN: 0360-1323
• DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112605

•Comparison of methods for determining core and mean skin temperatures.•CORE sensor: the most accurate of non-invasive core temperature measurement methods.•Mean skin temperature measured by 4 and 10 points methods was the most accurate.•Relationships of standard and other methods for core and skin temperatures found.•Mean skin temp (r = 0.677) better correlates with TSV than core temp (r = −0.047). Core temperature (CT) and mean skin temperature (MST) are key indicators of thermal sensation. However, methods for measuring CT and calculating MST based on ISO 9886 have certain limitations. Moreover, relationships between thermal sensation vote, CT, and MST remain controversial. In this study, at an air temperature of 22.7 °C, cool, neutral, and warm conditions were created by changing the clothing insulation Icl of the subjects to 0.53 clo, 0.83 clo, and 2.53 clo, respectively. The core and local skin temperatures of 20 subjects were measured, and their thermal sensations were inquired. For the measurement of CT, this study compared the intra-abdominal temperature (tab), the recommended gold standard for CT, with CORE sensor (tco), tympanic (tty), auditory canal (tac), oral (tor), and axillary (tar) temperatures. The results showed that tco had the least difference with tab (0.21 °C) and demonstrated great sensitivity, consistency, and correlation (0.448), making it the optimal non-invasive method for CT measurement. In cool and neutral conditions, MST (4c) had the least difference with MST (14) (−0.01 °C and 0.00 °C, respectively). In warm conditions, MST (10) had the least difference with MST (14) (0.01 °C). Both MST (4c) and MST (10) exhibited strong sensitivity, consistency, and correlation (0.902 and 0.982, respectively) with MST (14). Therefore, MST (4c) was the best calculation method in cool and neutral conditions, whereas MST (10) was optimal for warm conditions. Moreover, the MST reflected changes in human thermoregulation and thermal perception more sensitively than the CT.