Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

Environmental ergonomics: a review of principles, methods and models

K.C. Parsons*
Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK Received 1 June 2000; accepted 14 July 2000

Abstract A review of the principles, methods and models used in environmental ergonomics is provided in terms of the e!ects of heat and cold, vibration, noise and light on the health, comfort and performance of people. Environmental ergonomics is an integral part of the discipline of ergonomics and should be viewed and practised from that perspective. Humans do not respond to the environment in a way monotonically related to direct measures of the physical environment. There are human characteristics which determine human sensitivities and responses. Practical methods for assessing responses to individual environmental components are presented as well as responses to &total' environments and current and proposed International Standards concerned with the ergonomics of the physical environment. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Environment; Ergonomics; Heat; Cold; Thermal; Noise; Vibration; Light; Health; Comfort; Performance

1. Introduction Ergonomics can be de"ned as the application of knowledge of human characteristics to the design of systems. People in systems operate within an environment and environmental ergonomics is concerned with how they interact with the environment from the perspective of ergonomics. Although there have been many studies, over hundreds of years, of human responses to the environment (light, noise, heat, cold, etc.) and much is known, it is only with the development of ergonomics as a discipline that the unique features of environmental ergonomics are beginning to emerge. In principle, environmental ergonomics will encompass the social, psychological, cultural and organisational environments of systems, however to date it has been viewed as concerned with the individual components of the physical environment. Typically, ergonomists have considered the environment in a mechanistic way in terms such as the lighting or noise survey rather than as an integral part of ergonomics investigation. That is, for example, if cold distracts the worker then what are the consequences for the overall system? For a fuller description of the ergonomics

* Tel.: #44-01509-223023; fax: #44-01509-223940. E-mail address: k.c.parsons@lboro.ac.uk (K.C. Parsons).

method the reader is referred to the paper by Wilson (2000) in this special issue. Environmental Ergonomics methods are described by Howarth (1995), Haslegrave (1995), Bonney (1995), Parsons (1985) and Parsons (1995). The establishment of the study of human responses to the physical environment has paradoxically inhibited the development of environmental ergonomics as it has produced associated institutions that provide inertia to the acceptance of an ergonomics approach. Examples include learned societies and conferences on speci"c aspects of the environment, such as noise, lighting or vibration. The International Society for Environmental Ergonomics "rst met in Bristol in 1984 and has since then held successful biennial conferences around the globe. The original intention was to provide a forum for environmental ergonomists, however it very soon became speci"cally concerned with human responses to heat and cold. In fact, it could be regarded as the forum for that subject. This provided a clear demonstration that there are few researchers and institutions that consider human responses to environments as a whole, rather than in terms of its component parts. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) and more recently European Standards Organisation (CEN) have made signi"cant contributions in the area of environmental ergonomics (see Appendix A). However, the existence of established standards committees in noise, vibration, lighting and

0003-6870/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 4 - 2

582

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

others has hampered progress as they often take a product- or manufacturer-orientated perspective which is not human centred and not conducive to an integrated ergonomics approach. This position is not static however, and it has become increasingly recognised that people experience total environments and that ergonomics methods are essential for e!ective practical application. Much knowledge exists, and new approaches will allow that knowledge to contribute to environmental ergonomics as a major and essential contribution to ergonomics investigation. There is a continuous and dynamic interaction between people and their surroundings that produces physiological and psychological strain on the person. This can lead to discomfort, annoyance, subtle and direct a!ects on performance and productivity, a!ects on health and safety, and death. Discomfort in o$ces can be due to glare, noisy equipment, draughts, or smells. In the cold people experience frostbite and die from hypothermia. In the heat they collapse or die from heat stroke. People exposed to vibrating tools have damage to their hands. Performance can be dramatically a!ected by loss of manual dexterity in the cold, noise interfering with speech communication or work time lost because the environment is unacceptable or distracting. Accidents can occur due to glare on displays, missed signals in a warm environment or disorientation due to exposure to extreme environments. There are numerous factors that can make up a working environment. These include noise, vibration, light, heat and cold, particulates in the air, gases, air pressures, gravity, etc. The applied ergonomist must consider how these factors, in the integrated environment, will a!ect the human occupants. Three e!ects are usually considered; those on the health, comfort and performance of the occupants. The factors of the environment are usually considered separately. Some attempt at integration of e!ects can be made. However, there is insu$cient objective knowledge to allow an accurate quanti"cation. This paper presents a review of the e!ects of environments on the health, comfort and performance of people and of the principles upon which ergonomics assessments are made. The discussion will be con"ned to the factors of heat and cold, vibration, noise, and light. Other environmental factors and combined e!ects will also brie#y be considered.

mechanical, light, chemical, electrical). The wide diversity of environments to which people are exposed are therefore de"ned by that energy which varies in level, characteristic and form. It is the human condition to interact and survive in those environments and part of that has been the creation of &local' optimum environments (e.g. buildings). The human body is not a passive system that responds to an environmental input in a way that is monotonically related to the level of the physical stimulus. Any response depends upon a great number of factors. If viewed in engineering terms the &transducers' of the body (sensors * eyes, ears, etc.) have their own speci"cation in terms of responses to di!erent types of physical stimuli (e.g. the eyes have spectral sensitivity characteristics). In addition, the body does not behave as a passive system; for example, the body responds to a change in environmental temperature by reacting in a way consistent with maintaining internal body temperature (e.g. by sweating to lose heat by evaporation). The body therefore senses the environment with a &transducer' system that has its own characteristics and it reacts in a dynamic way to environmental stimuli. The above engineering model is simplistic. There are many other factors involved. For example, the way in which a stimulus is perceived and hence any response to it will depend upon that person's past experience, his emotional state at the time and other factors. It is with consideration of these physical, physiological and psychological factors that the environmental ergonomist must provide a practical solution to the problems of how a human occupant will respond to an environment. An additional factor that must be considered is that of individual di!erences. These can be conveniently divided into inter-individual di!erences that are di!erences between people (e.g. males and females, tall and short people) and intra-individual di!erences that are di!erences that occur in the same person over time (e.g. emotional state, menstrual cycle changes in females). There are ways in which design can be made for speci"c individuals. However, it is usual in practice to design for a population of users. It is often adequate, therefore, to describe individual di!erences in terms of statistical parameters of the population (e.g. mean and standard deviation of responses).

3. Environmental ergonomics methods 2. Environment and human response Most of the energy that makes up our environment originally comes as electromagnetic radiation from the sun. Around 1373 W m\ (the solar constant) enters the outer limits of the earth's atmosphere and this arrives on the earth in modi"ed form where it is transformed from place to place and from one form to another (heat, There are four principal methods of assessing human response to environments. These are: subjective methods; where those representative of the user population actually report on the response to the environment; objective measures, where the occupant's response is directly measured (e.g. body temperature, hearing ability, performance at a task); behavioural methods; where the

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

583

behaviour of a person or group is observed and related to responses to the environment (e.g. change posture, move away, switch on lights); and modelling methods. Modelling methods include those where predictions of human response are made from models that are based on experience of human response in previously investigated environments (empirical models) or rational models of human response to environments that attempt to simulate the underlying system and hence can be used to relate cause and e!ect. Subjective methods include the use of simple rating scales, of thermal comfort for example, and more detailed responses and questionnaires; they also include discourse analysis and focus groups. They have the advantage of being relatively easy to carry out and are particularly suited to assessing psychological responses such as comfort and annoyance. They can also usefully be used when the contributing factors to a response are not known. They have the disadvantage of being di$cult to design having a number of potential methodological biases. In addition subjective methods are often not appropriate for assessing such things as e!ects on health. For example a person cannot always detect when he or she is under a great deal of physiological strain, also an environmental stress can interfere with a person's capacity to make a reliable subjective assessment. A further disadvantage is that subjective methods often require the use of a representative sample of the user population being exposed to the environment of interest. This is cumbersome if used in initial design. Objective methods have the advantage of providing direct measures of human response. This could include measures of body temperature, transmitted acceleration to the head from vibration inputs for instance, as well as direct measures of performance at a task. The main disadvantages are that a representative sample of the user population is required to be exposed to the environment of interest (not useful for design), the measuring instruments can interfere with what they are intended to measure and objective measures cannot easily predict subjective outcomes such as comfort. Behavioural methods are probably underused in environmental ergonomics. They can have the unique advantage of not interfering with what they are attempting to measure. They can include changes in posture, changing clothing, adjusting the environment, moving away, working faster or slower, and so on. A requirement is that a &model' is needed to interpret the &reason' for any behaviour. Observer training is required. These methods are particularly suited for studying some people with disabilities, children, or other special populations, or contexts where other methods would be inappropriate. A di$culty is determining cause and e!ect. Did the person change posture because they were too hot or was the chair uncomfortable or the line of sight obscured?

Models of human response to environments have the advantage of being consistent in their response, are easy to use, give a quick response and can be used in both design and evaluation. The main disadvantages are that the models provide only approximate responses when designing for individuals and inevitably there will be factors in any real environment which the models do not consider. In most practical applications the ergonomist will use a combination of the methods as appropriate. Further discussion in this paper will focus on principles and models of human response to environments.

4. Environmental ergonomics models 4.1. Thermal environments and human response There are six main factors that should be quanti"ed in order to assess human response to thermal environments; these are air temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity, humidity, the activity of the occupants, and the clothing worn by the occupants. A thermal index integrates these values in a way that will provide a single value that is related to the e!ects on the occupants. Humans are homeotherms*that means that they attempt to maintain their internal (core) temperature within an optimum range (around 373C). If the body is subjected to thermal stress then the thermoregulatory system responds by changing its state in a way which is consistent with maintaining core temperature within this range. This response of the body has consequences for the health, comfort, and working e$ciency of a person. There are numerous indices that can be used to assess the e!ects of thermal environments on people. They can be divided into three types. Empirical indices are those which are derived from experiments. Subjects are exposed to a range of thermal environments and their response is recorded. If a large range of thermal environments is investigated a &model' can be built up of human response and this provides an index that can be used in &more realistic' environments. A &derived' index is based on the value of a simple instrument that responds to the factors in the thermal environment which also a!ect people. The reading (e.g. temperature) of the instrument provides the index value. An example of this type of index is the Wet Globe Temperature (WGT). This consists of a wet globe with a thermometer at its centre. The globe responds to thermal radiation and air temperature and, because it is wet, the rate of evaporation (and cooling) will depend upon the relative humidity and air velocity. The derived indices do not always accurately &mimic' human response to a given thermal environment; they can however provide useful simple indices. Thermal manikins are human-shaped &dummies' (some heated, moving and sweating) that are used to determine the

584

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

thermal properties of clothing and also to consider heat transfer across the body, which can be integrated into a thermal index. The equivalent temperature index integrates temperatures across a thermal manikin to evaluate thermal comfort in vehicle environments. Rational indices are derived from mathematical models that describe the behaviour of the human body in thermal environments. If the body is to remain at approximately a constant temperature then, on average, the heat outputs from the body must be equivalent to heat inputs to the body. This is known as heat balance and a usual starting point for derivation is the heat balance equation M!="E#R#C#K#S, where M is the energy produced by the metabolic processes of the body and W is the energy required for physical work; C is the heat loss by convection; R is the heat loss by radiation; K is the heat loss by conduction; E is the heat loss by evaporation; and S is the heat stored. By identifying the practical ways in which heat is exchanged between the body and its environment, equations can be derived and values of heat transfer can be calculated from the parameters measured in the physical environment (air temperature, humidity, etc.). A number of indices can then be derived, based on heat storage over time or evaporation required for thermal balance, for example. Models for the assessment of thermal environments have moved beyond the thermal index to those that represent the thermal properties of the human body (fat, muscle, skin, core, blood, covering head, trunk, arms, hands, legs, feet) with a model of human thermoregulation and heat transfer, in mathematical form. A computer simulation of the physiological responses to any environment can be made. Predicted physiological responses can then be related to the environmental e!ects on health, comfort, and performance. Such models can, of course, be used in Computer Aided Environmental Design and Assessment (Parsons, 1993). 4.2. Thermal environments * health When the body becomes &too hot' or &too cold' it reacts in a way that is consistent with maintaining core temperature at a relatively constant level. When the body is under heat stress the two main mechanisms for losing heat are controlled by the anterior hypothalamus. The initial reaction is vasodilation, where the peripheral blood vessels dilate and transfer blood, and hence heat, to the surface of the body where it can be lost to the surrounding environment. If core temperature continues to rise, sweating occurs and considerable heat loss by evaporation can occur. If these heat loss mechanisms are insu$cient to maintain heat balance then core temperature rises.

A practical approach to assessing the e!ects of a heat stress on a worker is provided by a simple model used by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 1969). Two regions are identi"ed, the prescriptive zone, where the body can maintain heat balance but is under some strain (due to sweating, etc.) and the environmentally driven zone where heat balance cannot be maintained and body core temperature rises. A simple method of assessing an environment would be to use a derived index; for example, ISO 7243 (1995) provides limiting values for thermal environments based on the wet bulb globe temperature index (WBGT). Limits are provided for a number of work rates for acclimatised and non-acclimatised persons. A more detailed assessment can be provided using heat balance equations. Within the prescriptive zone the evaporation required (calculated from the heat balance equation) to maintain heat balance is a measure of the thermal strain on the body and stress index with associated limiting values. The limiting values are usually based on the amount of sweat which can be produced by the body, the amount of water which the body can lose without dehydration, and the amount of heat stored in the body (and hence the maximum acceptable rise in body core temperature). In the environmentally driven zone heat balance cannot be maintained and allowable exposure times are calculated, usually based on a maximum allowable rise in body core temperature. If the core temperature rises above &acceptable limits' mental confusion can occur and death can rapidly follow. A maximum core temperature of 383C is often used as a limit for working environments. Death will occur in the region of 423C core temperature. It may be noted that, as well as heat stress, there are a number of heat disorders of the body which can be associated with exposure to hot environments. Heat disorders will not be discussed in this paper and for further information the reader is referred to Leithead and Lind (1964) and Hubbard and Armstrong (1986). When the body is exposed to cold the two main mechanisms for maintaining core temperature are controlled by the posterior hypothalamus. The initial reaction to cold is vasoconstriction where peripheral blood vessels constrict and hence reduce the #ow of blood to the body surface that reduces heat loss. If body core temperature continues to fall, additional heat is generated by shivering. If body temperature still continues to fall mental confusion occurs, then unconsciousness, and "nally death due to ventricular "brillation (heart failure). There are a number of cold disorders (frostbite, trench foot, etc.), however they will not be considered in this paper. For further information the reader is referred to Burton and Edholm (1955) and Hamlet (1988). A practical approach to assessing the e!ect of cold stress on a workers' health is to use, "rst of all, a simple derived index. The wind chill index (WCI) (Siple and Passel, 1945) can be used to integrate the e!ects of air

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

585

temperature and air velocity. The value provided can then be used as a limiting value. Experience with the WCI has, however, been mainly in extreme outdoor environments and it may not be applicable in some &cold' buildings. In refrigerated rooms it may be applicable; however, it was devised for outside (wind) conditions and a new index is required for cold stress. A more detailed assessment can be provided by use of a heat balance equation. The strain on the body can be quanti"ed and clothing required to maintain heat balance can be predicted. If clothing available is less than that required then body core temperature will fall and allowable exposure times can be calculated in terms of maximum fall in core temperature. 4.3. Thermal environments * comfort Thermal comfort can be de"ned as `that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal environmenta (ASHRAE, 1966). The reference to &mind' indicates that it is essentially a subjective term; however, there has been extensive research in this area and a number of indices exist which can be used to assess environments for thermal comfort. Although simple values of air temperature or globe temperature can be used to provide conditions for comfort in rooms a more detailed, practical approach is usually taken. Warmth discomfort has been shown to be related to the &stickiness' caused by un-evaporated sweat; for example, trapped in clothing. Cold discomfort has been shown to be related to the average skin temperature over the body. That is, heat balance can be maintained (e.g. by sweating or vasoconstriction), however this is not a su$cient condition for comfort. Fanger (1970) suggested three conditions for comfort; these are that the body is in heat balance and that the mean skin temperature and sweat rate are within limits required for comfort. Conditions required for heat balance can be derived from a heat balance equation. Mean skin temperatures and sweat rates that are acceptable for comfort have been derived from empirical investigation (Fanger, 1970). A fourth condition for comfort is that there should be no local discomfort. This could be caused by draughts, radiant asymmetry or temperature gradients. A practical approach to assessing thermal environments for the comfort of the occupants is provided by Fanger (1970). An index (Predicted Mean Vote * PMV) predicts the mean vote, on a seven-point thermal sensation scale, of a large group of occupants in the room. The scale ranges from #3 (corresponds to &hot') through 0 (corresponds to &neutral' and is the value for comfort) to !3 (corresponds to &cold'). Individual di!erences are &accounted for' by providing a method for predicting the percentage dissatis"ed (PPD) with the environment as a function of PMV values. The PMV index is a widely used method for assessing thermal

comfort. There are a number of other thermal comfort indices and the standard e!ective temperature (SET) has been developed in the USA (Nishi and Gagge, 1977). The SET is a complex index that can be used in heat and cold stress environments as well as for measuring thermal comfort. The PMV index has been adopted as the International Standard method for assessing thermal comfort (ISO 7730, 1994). 4.4. Thermal environments * performance Accurate predictions of the e!ects of environments on performance at a speci"c &real' task are di$cult to make. This is because there are many variables that relate to speci"c tasks in speci"c contexts and all cannot be accounted for. However, using task analysis, components of tasks can be determined. General guidance can then often be provided from studies of similar tasks or studies of similar task components. A simple example would be the division of a task (or job) into mental and manual components. The e!ects of a given environment on similar mental tasks could be derived from previous studies; similarly for the manual task components. A useful overall prediction can often then be made. There have been numerous studies of the e!ects of thermal environments on human performance and for detailed reviews the reader is referred to McIntyre (1980); Fox (1967); Kobrick and Fine (1983) and Parsons (1993). The "ndings are often speci"c to the particular investigation: however, a number of general conclusions can be made. When the body is exposed to heat the e!ects on performance will depend upon a large number of variables. An important consideration will be psychological parameters such as level of arousal and motivation as well as other factors that contribute to individual di!erences such as the degree of acclimatisation of the person to the environment. As heat stress increases there will be e!ects on mental performance. Wing (1965) and Ramsey (1995) investigated a wide range of mental tasks and present limits in terms of WBGT values that provide general guidance on exposure times within which there would be no signi"cant decrement in mental performance. Decrements in performance occur not only at high environmental temperatures. Performance at vigilance tasks can be lowest in slightly warm environments that can have sopori"c e!ects. An increase in environmental stress can then increase performance. In addition, as the rate of chemical reactions in the body increase with temperature, a person's speed at both physical and mental tasks can be increased (Poulton, 1976). The e!ects of cold on human performance are often ignored and can be very signi"cant. While there are few e!ects on mental performance cold can cause an increase in arousal and improve performance at visual tasks. In addition, in more extreme environments, cold can act as a &secondary task' hence increasing workload and

586

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

possibly decreasing mental performance and if body core temperature falls signi"cantly, mental confusion can occur. The e!ects of cold on manual performance can be attributed to physiological reactions to cold. The main e!ects are in slowing of speed, due to sti!ening of joints and slow muscular reaction, numbness, and a loss in strength. These reactions cause deterioration in manual dexterity and hence of performance at many manual tasks. 4.5. Vibration and human response Vibration can signi"cantly a!ect the health, comfort and performance of people, particularly in vehicles. A full review of the subject is provided in Gri$n (1990). This paper can present only a summary and concentrates on human responses to the built environment. The study of human response to building vibration can be divided into two areas: one area is concerned with the e!ects of low-frequency (often large displacement) vibration (motion) that would occur at the top of tall buildings (due to the buildings' response to wind for example); the other area is concerned with vibration transmitted to buildings from such things as road tra$c, trains, or aircraft passing nearby or the operation of heavy machinery or blasting operations, etc. This type of vibration has a relatively high-frequency content and can have a di!erent e!ect on the building occupants. The e!ect of vibration on building occupants will depend upon the characteristics of the vibration and the context in which the persons &receive' the vibration. The vibration is de"ned in terms of its level (usually acceleration) and frequency content. In addition it enters the body in a number of directions (usually resolved into fore-and-aft (x-axis), lateral (y-axis) and longitudinal (z-axis)) which are de"ned in relation to the person (e.g. the z-axis vibration is from feet-to-head; if the person is sitting or standing this is vertical vibration; if they are lying down it is fore-and-aft vibration, etc.). The vibration can occur simultaneously in these three axes, at a number of input points to the body and can be of varying duration. The environmental ergonomist requires a method of reducing this complex vibration environment to a value that is related to the e!ects on the occupants of the building who are exposed to the environment. Taking account of personal characteristics of those exposed with other contextual factors (type of building, etc.) a prediction of likely e!ects can be made. 4.6. Vibration * health There are levels of vibration that can cause physical damage to the body; for example, those found in aircraft in severe turbulence, long-term exposure of tractor operators to vibration, or vibration to the hand from some

vibrating tools. It is highly unlikely that the occupants of buildings would be exposed to vibration levels that would directly cause physical damage to the body. Methods by which building vibration can a!ect health are therefore indirect; causing a loss of balance in persons, for example, or simply as an additional environmental stressor that can a!ect mental health and emotional state. In practice, it is di$cult to provide a model which will predict these e!ects and subjective, objective and behavioural methods of investigation are more appropriate. 4.7. Vibration * &comfort' The term vibration discomfort is used in studies of human response to vibration. However, this relates more towards the e!ects of vibration on the occupants of vehicles and is not appropriate in the context of building vibration. In practice, the building designer or transport system operator wish to know at what level of vibration occupants will be disturbed and complain. Whether occupants complain about an environmental stress is highly context dependent and can be based on such factors as fear of building collapse or structural damage, the perceived source of vibration and the attitude of the occupant to the source. Accurate predictions are therefore di$cult to make for individuals, however general guidance can be provided for populations of occupants. A practical approach to assessing human response to building vibration is to assume that occupants will not be a!ected by vibration that they cannot detect or feel. This may not be true in all applications and subliminal e!ects may occur, however, it is a reasonable practical assumption. Predicted disturbance in buildings can then be related to &absolute' vibration perception thresholds. Studies of human response to vibration in tall buildings has been reviewed and a practical approach to assessment is provided in ISO 6897 (1984). This standard relates to typical responses of people to horizontal motion (of buildings) in the low-frequency range of 0.063}1.0 Hz. Two conditions are considered, of frequently occurring vibrations and of infrequently occurring vibration such as experienced in the peak of a storm which has a "ve-year return period. Limiting curves of root-mean-square acceleration level against vibration frequency are provided. These apply to buildings used for &general purpose' although guidance is provided, in terms of absolute perception thresholds, for buildings where an environment is required to be apparently stationary. Methods of measurement and analysis are provided to give a value (index) which is related to expected adverse comment about the vibration environment. It is important to note, however, that this method excludes perception of motion by related cues such as noise (or infra-sound) associated with the motion or visual cues obtained by looking out of windows.

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

587

A similar but more detailed approach is taken when assessing building vibration that is induced by, for example, tra$c passing near to a building, blasting operations, etc. A summary of research "ndings has led to the practical method which is described in BS 6472 (1984). This standard provides general guidance on human exposure to building vibration in the frequency range 1.0 to 80.0 Hz. Frequency weighting functions that show relative absolute perception threshold vibration levels over vibration frequency, are presented and these are used to integrate e!ects of vibration level, frequency and axis into an &index' value that can be used to determine the e!ects of impulsive vibration, intermittent vibration and continuous vibration on the occupants of buildings. The vibrations are measured at inputs to the occupants of the building. Limiting values are provided in terms of building type (e.g. hospitals, residential, o$ces, workshops, etc.) and time (day or night). The limits are provided in terms of multiplying factors above the perception threshold levels (base curves). For example, limits for continuous vibration in o$ces during the day are at four times the base curve values. If the limiting levels of vibration in a building are not exceeded then the &prediction' is that, with respect to &human response (annoyance, complaints)', they are at acceptable levels. The above methods provide only approximate assessments of building vibration environments and many possibly important variables are not included. In addition, research into absolute vibration perception thresholds has provided more extensive data (Parsons and Gri$n, 1988). However, the methods presented take some important human response to vibration variables into account and provide reasonable guidelines on which to assess human response to building environments. 4.8. Vibration * performance Vibration can have large e!ects on human performance at simple tasks (e.g. reading, writing, drinking) and many studies have shown major e!ects on manual control and vision. These e!ects occur at levels found mainly in vehicles and are unlikely to occur in buildings. Lowfrequency vibrations often create large displacements in tall buildings and can cause loss of orientation and balance in subjects. However, these e!ects have yet to be quanti"ed and their e!ects on tasks (e.g. typing) cannot be easily predicted. The method proposed in ISO 6897 (1984) provides vibration limits for o!shore "xed structures where &tasks of a critical nature' are being carried out. However, these limits are based on only a limited amount of relevant data. Building vibration may a!ect human performance, but little information exists. Vibration can act as a general environmental stressor; but this is di$cult to quantify.

4.9. Noise ~ human response The human ear detects sound pressure changes in the air and transmits a signal, which is related to the sound pressure changes, to the brain where it is perceived as sound. The signal which is &perceived' by the person is not directly proportional to the sound pressure stimulus which "rst entered the ear. There is a human perception transfer function. For a given sound pressure level, for example, a single frequency noise (pure tone) at one frequency may sound &louder' than a pure tone sound at a di!erent frequency even though they are at the same physical sound pressure levels. The relative e!ect of sound frequency on loudness (for example) has been quanti"ed in experimentation and &equal loudness contours' have been produced. Based on &equal loudness (annoyance, noisiness, etc.) contours' weighting functions have been proposed which approximate the average perceived response of a population. In practical application these allow a physical stimulus (sound pressure level) to be weighted in a way which approximates to the human &perceptual transfer function'. The weighted noise levels can then be used as the basis for an environmental index for noise. As the human ear can detect a wide range of sound pressure levels and because it was thought that a subjective scale of loudness was a logarithmic function, physical levels of noise are measured in decibels (dB(lin)). When the noise is modi"ed using a human perception weighting function then the resulting decibel level provides a value that is related to human response. For example, an A-weighting curve is often used in practical application and the resulting decibel level is called dB(A). As well as level and frequency content of any noise an important consideration is the duration of exposure. Duration must therefore be included in any environmental limits or guidelines for assessing human response to noise. A method of including noise duration in any assessment is to use the concept of equivalent continuous sound level (L ). As noise levels typically vary over  a working day L provides the level of continuous noise  which, over the time period of interest, would cause the same sound energy to be received as that due to the actual noise over the time period. If the noise is weighted with an A-weighting, for example, then an index of the noise e!ective &dose' of a person can be given by the dB(A) L value.  It must be noted that, although the principles for deriving an environmental index are as described above, there are many noise indices that are used in practice according to the situation under investigation. 4.10. Noise ~ health Noise can have direct and indirect e!ects on workers' health. Long-term exposure to noise causes noise-induced hearing loss. This is due to damage to sensors in

588

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

the inner ear. The e!ect is in terms of reduced sensitivity to certain frequencies of noise. Reduced sensitivity occurs initially, usually in the region of 4 kHz and, as the condition becomes more severe, sensitivity is further reduced and this occurs over a broader frequency band. A practical approach to assessing the noise health hazard is to use the index dB(A) L (Burns and Robinson, 1970).  Limiting values of around 85}90 dB(A) L have been  proposed for 8 h exposure in industrial environments. Indirect e!ects on workers' health could include physiological responses (change in heart rate, blood pressure, adrenalin production, etc.). However, it is di$cult to relate these changes directly to harmful e!ects on the body. Psychological responses to noise can also produce e!ects on mental health and emotional state. especially if the noise adds to an already stressful environment. In addition, noise could a!ect sleep in terms of both quality and quantity. Indirect e!ects of noise are often di$cult to demonstrate and also to quantify in practice. Guidelines on their e!ects are therefore di$cult to formulate. Subjective (or objective) methods may be more appropriate for such assessments. Infrasound (low-frequency sound) can cause whole-body vibrations of the body, however levels that would cause damage are very high and normally this noise is perceived but is not directly harmful. 4.11. Noise ~ comfort The term comfort is not usually used when assessing the e!ects of noise on the occupants of buildings. In practice, annoyance levels is the most useful criterion, although loudness, perceived noisiness, and nuisance are also terms used. There are many indices that can be used to provide a value that is related to ratings of the terms described and no one index is generally used. However dB(A) L is a widely used index. A simple practical  approach to assessing noise in o$ces, for example, would be to measure the noise throughout the o$ce and take the average dB(A) value. If a more detailed analysis is required then the noise could be analysed in the frequency domain that would also help identify the causes of the noise. A tra$c noise index (TNI) has been proposed for predicting community response to tra$c noise (Gri$ths and Langdon, 1968). This is based on the concept of L10 and L90 which are measured in dB(A) and are the noise levels exceeded for 10 and 90% of the time of interest, respectively. Other indices would include the noise number index (HMSO, 1963) for assessing the e!ects of aircraft noise and 24 h dB(A) for railway  noise (Fields and Walker, 1980). There has been a great deal of research in this area and a number of practical approaches to assessment exist. However, the lack of a common index for di!erent situations can cause di$culties. For example, if a building is exposed to road, rail, and air tra$c, there is little guidance on which index is most applicable.

4.12. Noise ~ performance The e!ects of noise on human physical and mental performance can be divided into e!ects on non-auditory task performance and e!ects on auditory task performance (e.g. interference with speech communication, etc.). The e!ects of noise on non-auditory task performance have been inconclusive, di!erent studies indicating that noise reduces task performance, has no e!ect on task performance or increases task performance. No obvious general predictions can therefore be made. A major consideration appears to be the level of arousal of persons as compared with that required for optimum performance at tasks. Performance at vigilance tasks, for example, can be improved by increasing noise levels, hence increasing arousal to an optimum level. In practical application the variation in results has not been su$ciently explained to allow accurate predictions of the e!ects of noise on the performance of the occupants of buildings. Some general predictions can be made, however, based on models of human response to noise and previous laboratory and "eld investigations. Noise can interfere with auditory communication of information (speech, warning signals, etc.) and hence can decrease task performance. The human auditory system can detect signals within a background of noise. It is important to know the &e$ciency' of this detection within a speci"c type of background noise; for example, to be able to assess the e!ects of background noise on speech communication or to design a warning signal for that environment. The auditory system can be regarded as a set of "lters, which have bandwidths that depend upon noise frequency, called &critical bands'. The detection threshold of a signal within a background noise can be represented as a signal-to-noise ratio over noise frequency. The detectability of a signal can then be calculated from the signal-to-noise (SIN) ratio within each critical band. (One-third octave bands are usually used in practice.) Noise can mask speech and make it inaudible or it can reduce its intelligibility. Criteria exist whereby the interference e!ect on speech can be quanti"ed in terms of the distance between the speakers at which various e!ects on communication will occur (Miller, 1974). A more exact quanti"cation is provided by investigating the speech and background noise frequency content. An environmental noise speech intelligibility index can then be used. There are a number of these indices. The articulation index (Kryter, 1970) for example, uses the SIN ratio for each of 20 narrow bands, summation of e!ects within each band provides the articulation index. Values of the index are then related to e!ects on various types of speech. As with other environmental stresses, noise can add to the &overall workload' in a given task and can potentially a!ect performance in this way. In addition, if a person is exposed to high-intensity noise the human auditory

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

589

system reacts in a dynamic way and increases the threshold of the system. This temporary threshold shift can then have an e!ect on overall task performance after the relatively high-intensity noise has been reduced. 4.13. Light and human response Light is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is detected by the human eye. The eye is, however, not equally sensitive to all wavelengths of light and there is a human perception transfer function. This function depends upon the level of light present. For example, the eye is most sensitive to light at about 555 nm (green}yellow) under photopic (&high-' intensity) conditions and at about 505 nm (blue}green) in scotopic (&low-' intensity) conditions. Standard sensitivity curves are available and can be used in practical application (e.g. CIE, 1978). As light is by de"nition related to a human observer, then the basic units used to specify light are those for electromagnetic radiation weighted with the human visual system &weighting function'. This is luminous #ux. The properties of a lighting environment relevant to human response to it lead to other photometric units that are related to luminous #ux. For example, the luminous #ux falling on the unit area of a surface is called the illuminance. Luminance is the luminous #ux emitted in a given direction per unit solid angle per unit surface area. Luminance is related to the brightness of an object. The human eye does not behave passively to a light stimulus. It reacts in a dynamic way. This allows a wide range of lighting levels to be received (adaptation) and conditioned (focussing, etc.). If the environment changes relatively rapidly in lighting level then the dynamic response of the eye lags behind the change and can take from 2 min (light adaptation * cones) to 20 min (dark adaptation * rods) for it to adjust to the &new environment'. The spectral content of a light source will determine the perceived colour of that source. The basic attributes of perceived colour are hue, brightness, and colourfulness. Using concepts related to these attributes, colours can be classi"ed. There are also methods of quantifying the colour appearance (e.g. correlated coloured temperature) and colour rendering properties (colour rendering index) of light sources (see Boyce, 1981). A consequence of the dynamic response of the eye to a change in light level is that when there is a wide range of luminances within a visual "eld, glare can occur. This depends upon the luminance of a source compared with its background and its position within the angle of sight of the observer. Using these variables a glare constant can be calculated for a single glare source and, if integrated over the visual "eld, this provides a glare index. It is important to note that there are large individual di!erences in human response to light. In addition, defects occur in the visual system (colour defects, myopia, etc.).

These will not be discussed in detail in this paper but it is important to identify the user population when designing lighting environments. 4.14. Light * health Excessive exposure to light can cause direct e!ects on health. Ultra violet, infrared, and visible radiation can cause health problems in the eye. In addition, this radiation can also damage skin. Limits above which damage will occur have been quanti"ed (ACGIH, 1998). In addition to these direct e!ects on health, eyestrain can be caused by inadequate lighting conditions. Too little or too much light, veiling re#ections, disability, and discomfort glare and #icker can all cause eyestrain (Boyce, 1981). This can cause irritation in the eyes, a breakdown of vision and headaches, indigestion, giddiness, etc. There are non-visual e!ects of light on the body (e.g. light can in#uence the activity of glands, etc.); however, these are di$cult to quantify and not much is known about their e!ects. A practical approach would be to keep within the limits of physical damage, by radiation to tissue (e.g. ACGIH (1998) and design &good' lighting environments as recommended by CIBSE (1994) for example). 4.15. Light * comfort Light can cause discomfort to the occupants of an environment as well as positive sensations such as pleasure and emotional sensations (cold, warm, etc.). Lighting conditions which produce de"nite discomfort can generally be identi"ed and criteria in terms of physical lighting parameters are available for assessing lighting environments (CIBSE, 1994). The conditions that create emotional responses or pleasant environments are not as well understood and designing for these conditions remains both an art and a science. Lighting conditions that are satisfactory are context dependent, depending upon the function of the building, user population, etc. However, there are a number of measurements of lighting environments that are related to subjective responses to lighting and recommended limits can be provided in terms of these parameters. For a detailed discussion the reader is referred to Boyce (1981) and for practical recommendations to CIBSE (1994). The parameters include illuminance and illuminance ratios that are related to the acceptable light distribution arriving on surfaces in a room; Vector/scaler ratio and vector direction that a!ect the three-dimensional appearance of objects; and measures of surface re#ections, colour, glare, and daylighting can all be used to provide guidelines for good lighting practice. Human response to light is a very complex subject and, despite a great deal of research, accurate predictions of subjective impressions are still di$cult to make. However, this area of human response to the environment has

590

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

employed sophisticated psychophysical scaling techniques (e.g. multidimensional scaling) and it may be possible in the future to provide more accurate models of subjective impressions of lighting environments. 4.16. Light * performance Although light can a!ect human performance at general tasks, glare can cause a distraction e!ect; for example, the main e!ects of light are on visual performance. Visual performance is related to a combination of the e$ciency of the eye in receiving and conditioning light and the interpretation of what is seen by the person. While training can in#uence workers' interpretation of what is seen, in practice lighting guidelines are required to provide the desired visual performance at particular tasks. For a detailed discussion of visual performance the reader should refer to Hopkinson and Collins (1970), Boyce (1981), Megaw and Bellamy (1983), Megaw (1995) and Howarth (1995). Practical recommendations for working environments are provided in CIBSE (1994). There are many parameters that will in#uence visual performance and many of these are task-dependent. However, there are a number of parameters that are of general importance; these include the contrast between an object to be viewed and its background, and the size of the object. Other factors would include the luminance of the object and the time for which it is viewed. Many studies have been conducted into the relative importance of these variables on visual performance (e.g. visual acuity * ability to see "ne detail). The results of these studies can provide guidance on optimum lighting conditions for
Table 1 Summary of useful models Health Heat ISO 7243 * limits in terms of WGBT index. ISO 7933 * required sweat rate to maintain core temperature. Predicted heat strain. Wind chill index and an index based upon the required clothing insulation to maintain core temperature. No direct e!ects in buildings. Use subjective methods. Comfort

real tasks such as visual inspection. It is interesting that, as well as studies involving real tasks in external environments, an analytical approach has also been taken, by determining visual perception thresholds; lighting speci"cations for &real' tasks were then related to these thresholds. In addition to the e!ect of general illuminance levels on visual performance, e!ects can also occur due to disability glare, and veiling re#ections. Colour judgements are often also of importance in, for example, inspection. Individual di!erences in user reaction and capability are important in design; for example, an aged population may have a decreased visual e$ciency. The provision of lighting for optimum user performance is therefore complex and task speci"c. However, practical guidance is available (e.g. CIBSE, 1994) to enable a reasonable "nal approximation to these optimum conditions.

5. The &total' environment Although environments are usually assessed in terms of the e!ects of their separate component parts (see Table 1), occupants of buildings in practice are exposed to whole, &integrated' environments. The design or assessment of total environments therefore involves both &main e!ects' of environmental components as well as interactions of the components. How components of environments interact has been the subject of a number of studies but only general guidance can be provided. Nevertheless, in practice, the ergonomist must consider the total environment, whether knowledge of its e!ects is available or not. General guidance on the e!ects of &combined' envir-

Performance WGBT limits for cognitive tasks (Ramsey, 1995). Sopori"c e!ects of warmth decrease vigilance. Sweating a!ects grip.

Warmth discomfort is related to stickiness caused by sweat. ISO 7730 provides Predicted Mean Vote (PMV)

Cold

Cold discomfort is related to mean skin temperature. ISO 7730 provides Predicted Mean Vote (PMV).

Possible large e!ects on skin sensitivity, manual dexterity, and strength (Fox, 1967).

Vibration

Limits based on vibration perception Limited data available for building thresholds. ISO 6897 for low frequency vibration. vibration, BS 6472 for 1}80 Hz vibration. A number of indices for predicting annoyance etc, depending upon context. dB(A) is a useful general measure. Still art as well as science. Subjective methods useful. CIBSE (1994) for good lighting practice. Non auditory e!ects di$cult to predict.

Noise

Noise induced hearing loss in terms of dB(A) leq. Non-auditory e!ects di$cult to predict. ACGIH (1998) * radiation limits for physical damage to tissue. Eyestrain caused by many factors. CIBSE (1994) for good lighting practice.

Light

CIBSE (1994) * for good lighting practice. Size, contrast, luminance, colour, population age, visual defects etc are all important.

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

591

onmental components can be obtained from underlying models as well as results of empirical studies. Broadbent (1971) suggests that the e!ects of combined stresses on people are arithmetically additive if the &internal mechanisms' which they a!ect are independent. However if the &internal' mechanisms are not independent then the effects can be additive or synergistic (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts) or subtractive. The arousal paradigm is often used in attempts to explain combined e!ects of environmental stressors; for example, loss of sleep will reduce arousal and may decrease performance at a vigilance task, noise will increase arousal. Noise and loss of sleep combined will then maintain arousal and hence performance. Although the underlying model may be simplistic, this idea can be used in practice (e.g. play music in a factory where vigilance (inspection) tasks are being carried out). An additional model that can be used to predict the e!ects of combined environmental stresses is the psychophysical model. Stevens (1975) suggests that the sensation magnitude of a stimulus increases as a power function of the physical stimulus magnitude. The exponent of the power function depends upon the particular environmental stress. Knowing the exponent for each stress the relative sensation produced for each can be de"ned and physical levels of stimuli that produce equivalent sensations can be derived. This theoretical method, which does not take account of individual di!erences, is di$cult to apply to practical situations. There have been a number of experimental studies of combined stresses. These include the e!ects of combined noise and vibration on a cognitive task (Champion, 1981) and on tracking performance (Harris and Shoenberger, 1980), and an experiment to determine levels of noise and vibration which produce equivalent sensations (Fleming and Gri$n, 1975). Grether et al. (1971) investigated the e!ects of heat, noise, and vibration on a number of tasks and Bowman and Beckh (1979) investigated the combined e!ects of acceleration, bu!eting noise, temperature, and lighting levels on pilot performance in aircraft. The practical conclusion from these studies is that no general guidelines can be provided. Methods of combining the e!ects of stresses have been proposed, which vary from &synergistic' methods to considering the &mostsevere component' as being the best estimate of the combined e!ect. A method that can be used to assess the combined e!ects of total environments is to obtain subjective ratings of environments and use multiple regression techniques to provide a model that combines environmental components. This has been used, for example, to predict the satisfaction of aircraft passengers (Jacobson, 1980). However, although the regression equation may be useful in the context within which it was derived, it provides little understanding of the mechanisms by which combined stresses a!ect human occupants and should therefore not be used outside of this context.

6. Discussion and conclusions It is clear from the above discussions that there has been a great deal of work on the e!ects of light, noise, vibration, and thermal environments on the health, comfort, and working e$ciency of the occupants of buildings. Models exist which can provide realistic predictions of the e!ects or probable e!ects of components of environments. In addition, general guidance on interactive e!ects and the e!ects of total environments can be provided. The e!ects of &total' environments include `2the sum of the physiological, psychological and social sensations experienced by people in or around buildings which follow from their use of the buildingsa (Manning, 1968). Models of these &integrated e!ects' are not available and buildings should also still be evaluated using subjective (and also possibly objective) methods. It can be concluded that the ambitious objectives of environmental ergonomics can now partially be achieved. More fundamental knowledge is still required on environmental interactions however. Future developments in this area should lead to greater predictive power of these models. The development of computer software will allow the models to become readily available to those who wish to design and evaluate buildings. Measurements or predictions of environmental parameters will be used as inputs to computer programs of the models and the output will provide an indication of environmental e!ects. However, the apparent sophistication of the models and the ease and directness with which assessments can be made may not necessarily indicate the accuracy of any predictions. Further investigation of &total' environments will still be required. The role of future computer aided design software in overall systems design and evaluation will only be established by practical experience.

Appendix A. International Standardization * Ergonomics of the Physical Environment The following describes the current standards and activity concerned with ergonomics of the physical environment (for more detail the reader is referred to a Special Issue of Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 26, No. 4, August 1995). International Standards in Ergonomics have been developed since 1974 when ISO TC 159 was established at the request of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA). Sub-committee ISO TC 159 SC5 &Ergonomics of the Physical Environment' was established at the same time and is responsible for over 30 work items which are requests, by international voting, to produce a standard. The sub-committee has three working groups that develop the standards. These are concerned with thermal environments, lighting and danger signals and communication in noisy environments. Standards are produced

592

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

according to established rules that involve single representation of each member country. ISO has over 120 member countries and those involved with SC5 are Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Australia, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Thailand, UK, USA. Some countries are more active than others, with some taking an observer role. There is a democratic system of voting on draft standards through to "nal acceptance or otherwise. People who produce the standards are representatives from national bodies (BSI for UK, ANSI for USA, etc.), appointed chairs and convenors or co-opted experts. User involvement in standardisation therefore requires involvement in that process. A.1. Users of standards The users of a standard are not easily de"ned. Standards are used for many reasons and by a number of people. In the context of the ergonomics of the physical environment, users could be o$ce workers who experience the environments, building services engineers who design and monitor the environments, manufacturers of equipment, ergonomists who design jobs, health and safety o$cers who assess environments, other standards makers and more. A discussion of who the users of a standard will be and what will be the scope of the standard, is the usual starting point in standard development. How to make it useable, however, is not, and the formal structure of standards does not encourage the production of useable standards. Standards for the ergonomics of the physical environment are generally produced by experts in their "eld and are often considered limited in their usability. It is recognised that this must be addressed. Users are presently involved in standardisation through national bodies mainly by commenting on proposed standards. More active consumer groups will have representation on national and international committees. Most standards concerned with the ergonomics of the physical environment are developed by subject experts. In some cases, manufacturers and consumer groups have been involved, in particular in European standardization (EN standards can become ISO standards and vice versa, via the Vienna agreement). A standard concerned with skin burns caused by contact with hot surfaces has had representation from consumer groups, concerned that temperatures for burn may be set too high and manufacturers of cookers and chain saws concerned that they will increase costs of production if they are too low. A standard for working practices for cold environments had trade union representation and so on. Representation of user groups will provide an important perspective but will not necessarily create useable standards. Usability is the domain of the ergonomist and would have to be

explicitly considered in the standardisation process. ISO rules and usability testing must become part of that process. The question &is the standards useable?' could be added to a voting form with a positive vote required. A.2. ISO TC 159 SC5 * Ergonomics of the physical environment: summary of work ISO TC159 SC5 produces international standards in the ergonomics of the physical environment. As this has a wide scope and standards are produced in other areas (e.g. vibration) within ergonomics TC 159 SC5 has been con"ned to thermal environments (WG1), lighting (WG2) and danger signals and communication in noisy environments (WG3). Working Group 1 produces standards concerned with heat stress, cold stress and thermal comfort as well as supporting standards concerned with the thermal properties of clothing and metabolic heat production due to activity. It also considers physiological measures, skin reaction to contact with hot, moderate and cold surfaces and thermal comfort requirements for people with special requirements. Working Group 2 is concerned with the ergonomics of lighting and is strongly guided by the international lighting commission (CIE). Working Group 3 considers communication in noisy environments including warning and danger signals and speech. Recent new work items have included the e!ects of combined stress environments and also the performance of glazing in terms of visual and thermal comfort. A.3. Published standards and standards in development E ISO 7243: 1995 Hot environments * estimation of the heat stress on working man, based on the WBGTindex (wet bulb globe temperature). E ISO 7726: 1998, Thermal environments * instruments and methods for measuring physical quantities. E ISO 7730: 1994, Moderate thermal environments * determination of the PMV and PPD indices and speci"cation of the conditions for thermal comfort. E ISO 7731: 1986, Danger signals for workplaces * auditory danger signals. E ISO 7933: 1989, Hot environments * analytical determination and interpretation of thermal stress using calculation of required sweat rate. E ISO 8995: 1989, Principles of visual ergonomics * the lighting of indoor work systems. E ISO 8996: 1990, Ergonomics * determination of metabolic heat production. E ISO 9886: 1992, Evaluation of thermal strain by physiological measurements. E ISO 9920: 1995, Ergonomics of the thermal environment * estimation of the thermal insulation and evaporative resistance of a clothing ensemble.

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594

593

E ISO 9921-1: 1996, Ergonomic assessment of speech communication. Part 1: Speech interference level and communication distances for persons with normal hearing capacity in direct communication (SIL method). E ISO 10551: 1995, Ergonomics of the thermal environment * assessment of the in#uence of the thermal environment using subjective judgement scales. E ISO 11399: 1995, Ergonomics of the thermal environment * principles and application of international standards. E ISO 11428: 1994, Ergonomics * visual danger signals * general requirements, design and testing. E ISO 11429: 1994, Ergonomics * system of danger and non-danger signals with sound and light. A.3.1. Technical reports E ISO TR 11079 (Technical Report): 1993, Evaluation of cold environments * determination of required clothing insulation, IREQ. A.4. Current work programme ~ ISO TC 159 SC5 E ISO 15742 Ergonomics of the Physical Environment * combined e!ects of thermal environment, air pollution, acoustics and illumination.

E ISO CD 13732 Part 2. Ergonomics of the thermal environment * methods for the assessment of human responses to contact with surfaces. Part 2: Moderate surfaces. E ISO/NP 13732 Part 3. Ergonomics of the thermal environment * methods for the assessment of human responses to contact with surfaces. Part 3: Cold surfaces. E ISO NP 14405: Ergonomics of the thermal environment * evaluation of the thermal environment in vehicles. E ISO NP 14415: Ergonomics of the thermal environment * application of international standards to the disabled, the aged and other handicapped persons. E ISO NP 15265: Ergonomics of the thermal environment * risk of stress or discomfort. E ISO NP 15743: Ergonomics of the thermal environment * working practices for cold indoor environments. A.4.2. Lighting * ISO TC 159 SC5 WG2 E Revision of ISO 8995, 1989: Principles of Visual ergonomics* the lighting of indoor work systems. A.4.3. Danger signals and communication in noisy environments * ISO TC 159 SC5 WG3 E ISO 9921: Ergonomic assessment of speech communication in noisy environments * revision of Part 1 and to include Parts 0, 2 and 3. Principles, criteria, prediction and assessment. E Revision of ISO 7731: 1986, Danger signals for workplaces * auditory danger signals.

A.4.1. Ergonomics of the thermal environment * ISO TC 159 SC5 WG1 E Revision of ISO 7933: 1989, Hot environments * analytical determination and interpretation of thermal stress using calculation of required sweat rate. E Revision of ISO 8996: 1990, Ergonomics * determination of metabolic heat production. E Revision of ISO 9886: 1992, Evaluation of thermal strain by physiological measurements. E Revision of ISO 7730: 1993, Moderate thermal environments * determination of the PMV and PPD indices and speci"cation of the conditions for thermal comfort. E Revision of ISO TR 11079 (Technical Report): 1993 to an International Standard. Evaluation of cold environments * determination of required clothing insulation, IREQ. E ISO DIS 11371 Ergonomics of the thermal environment * vocabulary and symbols. E ISO DIS 12894: 1993, Ergonomics of the thermal environment * medical supervision of individuals exposed to hot or cold environments. E ISO/ NP 13732 Part 1. Ergonomics of the thermal environment * methods for the assessment of human responses to contact with surfaces. Part 1: Hot surfaces.

References
ACGIH, 1998. TLVs and BEIs: threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents biological exposure indices. American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, USA. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1966. Thermal Comfort Conditions, ASHRAE Standard 55-66, New York. BS 6472, 1984. Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz), British Standards Institution. Bonney, R.A., 1995. Human responses to vibration. Principles and methods. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor & Francis, London, ISBN 07484 0084-2. Bowman, J.S., Beckh, J. von, 1979. Physiologic and performance measurements in simulated airborne combined stress environments. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 50 (6), 604}608. Boyce, P.R., 1981. Human Factors in Lighting. Applied Science Publishers, London. Broadbent, D.E., 1971. Decision and Stress. Academic Press, London. Burns, W., Robinson, A.W., 1970. Hearing and Noise in Industry. HMSO, London.

594

K.C. Parsons / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 581 } 594 ISO 7730, 1994. Moderate thermal environments * determination of the PMV and PPD indices and speci"cation of the conditions for thermal comfort. International Standards Organisation. Jacobson, I.D., Richards, L.G., Kahlthan, A.R., 1980. Models of human comfort in vehicle environments. In: Oborne, D.J., Levis, J.A. (Eds.), Human Factors in Transport Research, Vol. 2. Academie Press, New York. Kobrick, J.L., Fine, B.J., 1983. Climate and human performance. In: Oborne, D.J., Gruneberg, M.M. (Eds.), The Physical Environment at Work. Wiley, New York. Kryter, K.D., 1970. The E!ects of Noise on Man. Academic, New York. Leithead, C.S., Lind, A.R., 1964. Heat Stress and Heat Disorders. Cassell, London. Manning, P., 1968. Lighting in relation to other omponents of the total environment. IES National Lighting Conference, Churchill College, Cambridge. McIntyre, D.A., 1980. Indoor Climate. Applied Science Publishers, London. Megaw, E.D., 1995. The de"nition and measurement of visual fatigue. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), The Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor & Francis, London. Megaw, E.D., Bellamy, L.J., 1983. Illumination at work. In: Oborne, D.J., Gruneberg, M.M. (Eds.), The Physical Environment at Work. Wiley, New York. Miller, J.O., 1974. E!ects of noise on people. J. Acostic Soc. Am. 56, 729}764. Nishi, Y., Gagge, A.P., 1977. E!ective temperature scale useful for hypo- and hyper-baric environments. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 48, 97}107. Parsons, K. C., 1985. Ergonomics assessment of environments in buildings. Proceedings of the CIBS Technical Conference, Birmingham. CIBS, London. Parsons, K.C., 1993. Human Thermal Environments. Taylor & Francis, London, ISBN 0-7484-0041-9. Parsons, K.C., 1995. Ergonomics assessment of thermal environments. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor & Francis, London, ISBN 07484 0084-2. Parsons, K.C., Gri$n, M.J., 1988. Whole-body vibration perception thresholds. J. Sound Vib. 121, 237}258. Poulton, E.C., 1976. Arousing environmental stresses can improve performance, whatever people say. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 47, 1193}1204. Ramsey, J.D., 1995. Task performance in heat: a review. Ergonomics 38 (1), 154}165. Siple, P.A., Passel, C.F., 1945. Measurements of dry atmosphere cooling in subfreezing temperatures. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 89, 177}199. Stevens, S.S., 1975. Psychophysics. Wiley, New York. WHO, 1969. Health factors involved in working under conditions of heat stress. World Health Organisation Technical Report 412, Geneva. Wilson, J.R., 2000. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl. Ergonomics 31(6), 557}567. Wing, J.F., 1965. A review of the e!ects of high ambient temperature on mental performance. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, AMRL-TR-65 102 (NTIS AD 624144).

Burton, A.C., Edholm, Otto, G., 1955. Man in a Cold Environment. Edward Arnold, London. Champion, A., 1981. E!ects of noise and vibration on cognitive performance. M.Sc. Thesis, Loughborough University of Technology, UK. CIBSE, 1994. Code for Interior Lighting. Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, London. CIE, 1978. Light as a true visual quantity: principles of measurement. CIE Publication 41, 1978. Fanger, P.O., 1970. Thermal Comfort. Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen. Fields, J.M., Walker, J.G., 1980. Reactions to railway noise: a survey near railway lines in Great Britain. ISVR Technical Report No. 102. Fleming, D.B., Gri$n, M.J., 1975. A study of the subjective equivalence of noise and whole-body vibration. J. Sound Vib. 42 (4), 453}461. Fox, W.F., 1967. Human performance in the cold. Human Factors 9 (3), 203}220. Grether, W.F., Harris, C.S., Mohr, G.C., Nixon, C.W., Ohlbaum, M., Sommer, H.C., Thaler, V.H., Veghte, J.H., 1971. E!ects of combined heat, noise and vibration stress on human performance and physiological functions. Aerospace Med. 42 (10), 1092}1097. Gri$n, M.J., 1990. Handbook of Human Vibration. Academic Press, London, ISBN 0-12-303040-4. Gri$ths, I.S., Langdon, F.J., 1968. Subjective response to tra$c noise. J. Sound Vib. 8, 16. Hamlet, P.M., 1988. Human cold injuries. In: Pandolf, K.B., Sawka, M.N., Gonzalez, R.R. (Eds.), Human Performance, Physiology and Environmental Medicine at Terrestrial Extremes. Brown and Benchmark, USA, ISBN 0-697-14823-8. Harris, C.S., Shoenberger, R.W., 1980. Combined e!ects of broadband noise and complex waveform vibration on cognitive performance. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 51 (1), 1980. Haslegrave, C.M., 1995. Auditory environment and noise assessment. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor & Francis, London, ISBN 07484 0084-2. Hopkinson, R.G., Collins, J.B., 1970. The Ergonomics of Lighting. MacDonald Technical and Scienti"c, London. Howarth, P.A., 1995. Assessment of the visual environment. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work. Taylor & Francis, London, ISBN 07484 0084-2. Hubbard, R.W., Armstrong, L.E., 1986. The heat illness: Biochemical, ultrastructural and #uid electrolyte considerations. In: Pandolf, K.B., Sawka, M.N., Gonzalez, R.R. (Eds.), Performance, Physiology and Environmental Medicine at Terrestrial Extremes. Brown and Benchmark, USA, ISBN 0-697-14823-8. ISO 6897, 1984. Guide to the evaluation of the responses of occupants of "xed structures especially buildings and o!-shore structures, to low-frequency horizontal motion (0.063 to 1 Hz), International Standards Organisation. ISO 7243, 1995. Hot environments * estimation of the heat stress on working man, based on the WBGT * index (Wet bulb globe temperature), International Standards Organisation.