Influence of Air Temperature on School Teachers’ Mood and the Perception of Students’ Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

A.   

The research results revealed a correlation between the students scores and the type of ventilation system and the ventilation rate, e.g .:

1. Wargocki P., Wyon D.P., Ten questions concerning thermal and indoor air quality effects on the performance of office work and schoolwork, November 2016, Building and Environment 112
2. Kabirikopaei A., Lau J., Nord J., Bovaird J., Identifying the K-12 classrooms’ indoor air quality factors that affect student academic performance, , May 2021,Science of The Total Environment 786:147498

In the article information about the ventilation system is  left out. This information should be completed.

 

B.  

There is no information on the values of the obtained internal temperature and relative humidity.

C.  

„The daily external temperature data were obtained by the researchers of the present 122 study from the State Agency of Meteorology (AEMET)”

Why the outside temperature and relative humidity has not been measured? External factors (e.g. water reservoirs, rivers, etc.) may cause local increases or decreases in temperature and relative humidity.

 

D.  

Figure 1 is missing from the article.

 

E.  

I think that the autors should consider an information about numer of students in class. The numer of students can involve on the teachers’ tiredness.

Author Response

1.  

The research results revealed a correlation between the students scores and the type of ventilation system and the ventilation rate, e.g :

Wargocki P., Wyon D.P., Ten questions concerning thermal and indoor air quality effects on the performance of office work and schoolwork, November 2016, Building and Environment 112

Kabirikopaei A., Lau J., Nord J., Bovaird J., Identifying the K-12 classrooms’ indoor air quality factors that affect student academic performance, , May 2021,Science of The Total Environment 786:147498

In the article information about the ventilation system is left out. This information should be completed.

RESPONSE

The information requested by the reviewer is completed with the suggested studies.

Introduction (p. 2).

Currently, the scientific evidence shows that there are associations between student academic performance and type of ventilation system, ventilation rates, fine particle counts, and ozone (O₃) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations [18]. The thermal and air quality conditions can reduce the performance by 5-10% for adults and by 15-30% for children [19]. Among strategy to improve the thermal comfort is to upgrade air ventilation systems of the classroom especially for urban school type [20].

Discusion (p.10 )

Therefore, classrooms should maintain adequate levels of indoor air quality and thermal comfort [18, 19].

Discusion (p.11 )

In view of the need for further reforms, administrations have a duty to ensure that appropriate conditions are maintained in classrooms to ensure the academic performance of students [13, 18].

Discusion (p.11 )

In short, scientific evidence point out to the need to control the temperature inside classrooms since this would facilitate a better development of the teaching-learning process that would contribute in part to reducing the current levels of school failure [18].

B.

There is no information on the values of the obtained internal temperature and relative humidity.

RESPONSE

This information can be found on page 7, table 1.

 

1.  

„The daily external temperature data were obtained by the researchers of the present 122 study from the State Agency of Meteorology (AEMET)”

Why the outside temperature and relative humidity has not been measured? External factors (e.g. water reservoirs, rivers, etc.) may cause local increases or decreases in temperature and relative humidity.

RESPONSE

Instruments (p. 4.)

The AEMET meteorological station from which the data on temperature and external relative humidity have been obtained is located very close to the school. For this reason, it has not been considered necessary to take these daily measurements.

1.  

Figure 1 is missing from the article.

RESPONSE

Instruments (p. 5).

Figure 1 was included in the text after the changes suggested by the reviewers.

1.  

I think that the autors should consider an information about numer of students in class. The numer of students can involve on the teachers’ tiredness.

RESPONSE

Participants (p. 4)

Talking about the number of students in class, this school has an average of 22.61 students. Infant classes register an average of 21.67 students, while in primary education the average number of students is 23.08.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

 your research is focused on a topic issue, especially in this pandemic period where indoor built environments as schools should be consistent with more and more pressing requirements, especially in terms of ventilation rates and IAQ.

Here below are my main observations (you will find other details in the attached pdf marked file).

I am confident you will consider my comments just addressed to a high-quality manuscript.

Best regards.

1. Restricting the microclimatic analysis only to air temperature and humidity is not a good practice in 2020. A more significant investigation should be extended also to mean radiant or (better) the operative temperature. This is why HVAC optimal values for heating and cooling seasons in the most international standard are expressed in terms of operative temperature.
2. The authors should report (in the introduction and in conclusion as the purpose of future work/limitation of the current study) that they cannot exclude the effect of lighting, acoustic and indoor air quality on the mood, mental load and teaching ability. This is becoming a crucial issue in all studies addressed to IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality). In principle, the subjective response should be analysed in terms of a multisensorial perspective as in most studies on thermal comfort issues (e.g. http://dx.doi.org/10.2114/jpa.24.33 and 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110570) 
3. Section 4 contains a lot of interesting information but this information should be moved to section 1 (state of the art). 
4. The description of investigated classrooms is poor: there is no mention of the presence of HVAC systems, ventilation rates, whether HVAC systems operate or not during the measurement campaign and so on.
5. The procedure of subjective investigation is described in a superficial manner with no description of the principles on which it is based. Moreover, no thermal comfort analysis has been carried out (this kind of analysis could provide even more interesting results). Finally, it is necessary to report the used questionnaire in a figure.
6. Conclusions should include all limitations of the present investigation (e.g., lack in mean radiant temperature measurement and thermal comfort investigation) and possible influences of other physical factors on the obtained results.
7. The manuscript requires a certain revision of the English wording.
8. The authors are invited to use SI symbols (e.g., °C and not ºC).
9. The authors should respect the format of the journal citations within the manuscript (e.g. using numbers under square brackets as reported in the MDPI template https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot)
10. Suggested references:

• REHVA guideline no 13. Indoor Environment And Energy Efficiency In Schools.
• http://dx.doi.org/10.2114/jpa.24.33
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110570
• 1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.013
• 1016/j.rser.2016.01.033
• EN 16798-1
• EN 16798-2

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we thank the reviewer for their comments and suggestions that have helped us to improve the manuscript. Below you will find all the reviewers' comments and the response to each of them. In addition, changes made to the manuscript as a result of suggestions and comments have been highlighted in blue in the new manuscript

 

1. Here below are my main observations (you will find other details in the attached pdf marked file).

RESPONSE: All the issues marked in the pdf has been modified and explained in the current manuscript.

1. Restricting the microclimatic analysis only to air temperature and humidity is not a good practice in 2020. A more significant investigation should be extended also to mean radiant or (better) the operative temperature. This is why HVAC optimal values for heating and cooling seasons in the most international standard are expressed in terms of operative temperature.

RESPONSE: This manuscript has not measured the variables that are usually used in the bibliography 2020. This work was designed in 2016. Therefore, this comment has been considered important and it has been included as a limitation of the study.

2. The authors should report (in the introduction and in conclusion as the purpose of future work/limitation of the current study) that they cannot exclude the effect of lighting, acoustic and indoor air quality on the mood, mental load and teaching ability.. This is becoming a crucial issue in all studies addressed to IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality). In principle, the subjective response should be in terms of a multisensorial perspective as in most studies on thermal comfort issues (e.g. http://dx.doi.org/10.2114/jpa.24.33 and 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110570) 

RESPONSE: It is included throughout the manuscript that not all the variables proposed by the reviewer have been taken into account. Moreover, it is considered as limitations and as a future intervention proposal the need to propose studies on thermal comfort from a multisensory perspective.  In addition, the references suggested by the reviewer are used in the manuscript.

 

1. Section 4 contains a lot of interesting information but this information should be moved to section 1 (state of the art). 

RESPONSE: As suggested, part of the information present in point 4 are, in the present manuscript in the introduction.

 

1. The description of investigated classrooms is poor: there is no mention of the presence of HVAC systems, ventilation rates, whether HVAC systems operate or not during the measurement campaign and so on.

RESPONSE: The current manuscript has explained in more detail what the classrooms where the measurements were taken were like, including the type of apparatus used to modify the classroom temperature.

 

1. The procedure of subjective investigation is described in a superficial manner with no description of the principles on which it is based. Moreover, no thermal comfort analysis has been carried out (this kind of analysis could provide even more interesting results).

RESPONSE: As it suggests, both the objective and the method have described in more detail the principles on which we have based our research in order to avoid confusing the reader about the objectives and the extent of the results. In addition, in the discussion we have also tried to be clearer about the type of study that has been carried out and the limitations that this entails.

 

1. Finally, it is necessary to report the used questionnaire in a figure.

RESPONSE. Figure 1 has been added.

 

1. Conclusions should include all limitations of the present investigation (e.g., lack in mean radiant temperature measurement and thermal comfort investigation) and possible influences of other physical factors on the obtained results.

RESPONSE: As suggested, the discussion and conclusions have been qualified by the limitations of the study. In this way, we hope that the message is clearer and more in line with the characteristics of the research.

 

1. The manuscript requires a certain revision of the English wording.

RESPONSE: English wording has been revised.

 

1. The authors are invited to use SI symbols (e.g., °C and not ºC).

RESPONSE: In the present manuscritp symbols resepect SI.

 

1. The authors should respect the format of the journal citations within the manuscript (e.g. using numbers under square brackets as reported in the MDPI template https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot)

RESPONSE: Citations has been revised and changed to MDPI style

 

1. Suggested references:

• REHVA guideline no 13. Indoor Environment And Energy Efficiency In Schools.
• http://dx.doi.org/10.2114/jpa.24.33
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110570
• 1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.013
• 1016/j.rser.2016.01.033
• EN 16798-1
• EN 16798-2

RESPONSE: We appreciate the suggestion to add these references to improve this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
I believe your research topic is very worthy of interest but I found some gaps that you must improve it.

Scientific literature need an update with 2019 - 2021 research, articles and books about indoor thermal comfort perception especialle focused with a questionnaire approach in case of children. The children understandement of questionnaire is central in this kind of research: how are you shure that children understand your questionnaire?

Your paper don't show "Figure 1. Scales of mental fatigue, teaching quality, mood and students’ behavior used." Figure is missed, so it is not possible to understand your questionnaire, questions etc. Furthermore, it is not possible to understand how do you evaluated fatigue and correlation between mental fatigue and indoor temperature and humidity.
You don't consider effect of indoor air quality and CO2 to mental fatigue. Moreover, you cited Fanger and ISO 7730, but you don't adopt thermal comfort sensation beacuse you d'ont consider mean radiant temperature, air velocity and predicted mean vote. 
Thats should be correct but you to must explain of you exlude that fatigue depend only by temperature and humidity and not other factor.

I suggest to improve your research/article: 
- to correct mistake (figure 1);
- to explain how exclude other effect except temperature and comfort to evalute mental fatigue;
- and, to be sure that children (age?) understand your questions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank for your comments and suggestions that have helped us to improve the manuscript. Below you will find all the reviewers' comments and the response to each of them. In addition, changes made to the manuscript as a result of suggestions and comments have been highlighted in blue in the new manuscript. 

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER

Scientific literature need an update with 2019 - 2021 research, articles and books about indoor thermal comfort perception especialle focused with a questionnaire approach in case of children. The children understandement of questionnaire is central in this kind of research: how are you shure that children understand your questionnaire?

RESPONSE: We have updated the references according to the objective of the work. However, we believe that the manuscript was initially unclear in how the methodology was explained because the reviewer implies that we measured students' perceptions. Our study focused on objective variables (temperature and humidity) and teachers' perception of their mood, teaching quality, mental workload and their perception of student behaviour. Thus, taking into account that we considered it to be confusing, we have tried to be clearer in our objectives and methodology. We hope that the current version of the study is not misleading.

Your paper don't show "Figure 1. Scales of mental fatigue, teaching quality, mood and students’ behavior used." Figure is missed, so it is not possible to understand your questionnaire, questions etc. Furthermore, it is not possible to understand how do you evaluated fatigue and correlation between mental fatigue and indoor temperature and humidity.

RESPONSE: Figure 1 has been added. We apologize for this omisión.  

You don't consider effect of indoor air quality and CO2 to mental fatigue. Moreover, you cited Fanger and ISO 7730, but you don't adopt thermal comfort sensation beacuse you d'ont consider mean radiant temperature, air velocity and predicted mean vote. 
Thats should be correct but you to must explain of you exlude that fatigue depend only by temperature and humidity and not other factor.

RESPONSE: We have tried to be more explicit and clearer in the concepts used and to better explain that we have not directly studied thermal comfort, but how objective measures of temperature and humidity influence teachers' perception of their mental workload, quality of teaching and students' behaviour.

In addition, we have corrected and qualified the issue that fatigue is not only dependent on temperature and humidity but that there are multiple other factors that can be responsible for fatigue.

 

I suggest to improve your research/article: 
- to correct mistake (figure 1);
- to explain how exclude other effect except temperature and comfort to evalute mental fatigue;
- and, to be sure that children (age?) understand your questions.

RESPONSE: All these issues has been fixed and explained in the manuscript and in the response to the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your cooperation. I just need to specify that your response (see below) to my first observation is not correct. The mean radiant temperature (or the operative temperature) is a variable included since the first edition of ISO standard 7730 (1984) and in Fanger's theory (1967).

Best regards.  

1. Restricting the microclimatic analysis only to air temperature and humidity is not a good practice in 2020. A more significant investigation should be extended also to mean radiant or (better) the operative temperature. This is why HVAC optimal values for heating and cooling seasons in the most international standard are expressed in terms of operative temperature.

RESPONSE: This manuscript has not measured the variables that are usually used in the bibliography 2020. This work was designed in 2016. Therefore, this comment has been considered important and it has been included as a limitation of the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Authors,

thank you for your cooperation. I just need to specify that your response (see below) to my first observation is not correct. The mean radiant temperature (or the operative temperature) is a variable included since the first edition of ISO standard 7730 (1984) and in Fanger's theory (1967).

Best regards.  

1. Restricting the microclimatic analysis only to air temperature and humidity is not a good practice in 2020. A more significant investigation should be extended also to mean radiant or (better) the operative temperature. This is why HVAC optimal values for heating and cooling seasons in the most international standard are expressed in terms of operative temperature.

RESPONSE: This manuscript has not measured the variables that are usually used in the bibliography 2020. This work was designed in 2016. Therefore, this comment has been considered important and it has been included as a limitation of the study.

RESPONSE 2:

Thanks for the comment. We understand that the answer offered to the reviewer does not fully comply with the provisions of ISO 7730 (1984) and Fanger theory (1967). The reviewer's answer is a very important assessment that will be taken into account in future studies. In the present study, these variables have not been taken into consideration, therefore it remains an important limitation of this study, as is noted in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I (now) understand you research focused to teacher ar not to childre, but you homewhere you must explain correlation between how teacher understand your questionnaire and indoor physics variables (T and HR) measured. 
I suggest to find in literature a book about indoor thermal comfort perception or article where this issues is focused. 
In other words, you have two kind of data measured:
(a) physics data (T and HR);
(b) survery data (scale 1 - 4) that include teacher opinion about their sensation.
BUT teacher response depend on several parameters: physics (e.g. CO2, mean radiant temperatura, PMV, dust, etc.) ; physiological (e.g. age, metabolism, ex, etc.); psychological (e.g. tired, annoying, entusiastic, etc.). 
I understand that your research intend to simplify all these parameter in order to connect relation between mental fatigue and T & HR data BUT, at any rate in your opinion, if your research adopted an overall approach your results will be different than this research.

I suggest to check literature.

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I (now) understand you research focused to teacher ar not to childre, but you homewhere you must explain correlation between how teacher understand your questionnaire and indoor physics variables (T and HR) measured. 
I suggest to find in literature a book about indoor thermal comfort perception or article where this issues is focused. 
In other words, you have two kind of data measured:
(a) physics data (T and HR);
(b) survery data (scale 1 - 4) that include teacher opinion about their sensation.
BUT teacher response depend on several parameters: physics (e.g. CO2, mean radiant temperatura, PMV, dust, etc.) ; physiological (e.g. age, metabolism, ex, etc.); psychological (e.g. tired, annoying, entusiastic, etc.). 
I understand that your research intend to simplify all these parameter in order to connect relation between mental fatigue and T & HR data BUT, at any rate in your opinion, if your research adopted an overall approach your results will be different than this research.

I suggest to check literature.

 

RESPONSE:

Thanks again for your comments. We check again the literature and include new references about indoor thermal comfort.

Introduction (p. 2)

Questionnaires are a widely used tool to evaluate the sensation of thermal comfort [20]. The answers of the participants are conditioned by physical parameters (e.g., mean radiant temperature, levels of CO₂, etc.); physiological parameters (e.g., age, metabolism, etc.); psychological parameters (e.g., tiredness, enthusiasm, etc.) [34, 35]. Moreover, the answers are conditioned by individual and subjective perception [34].

 

Discussion (p. 10)

If the present study had included other physical, physiological or psychological variables in the analysis, the results obtained could be different. Moreover, the scientific literature shows the difficulty that exists in this type of study since the physical and physiological parameters of thermal comfort analyzed have not coincided with the exchange of energy body-environment, because the responses are conditioned by a subjective perception [34].

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted