Journal Papers

Personalized Environmental Control Systems (PECS) can improve both comfort and energy efficiency by shifting indoor climate control toward localized, occupant-tailored comfort, unlike conventional systems that condition entire, partly unoccupied spaces uniformly. . Despite their potential, the absence of standardized assessment and reporting methods, and the diversified PECS technical specifics hinder consistent performance evaluation

practices. Conducted in the framework of IEA EBC’s Annex 87, this review, based on the PRISMA statement, provides a comprehensive overview of existing methods and indicators used to evaluate the performance of PECS, specifically targeting thermal and air quality domains. A novel three-layered classification approach was applied to categorize PECS types, and reviewed studies were grouped into four methodological categories: building simulation, CFD, chamber, and field studies. The review identifies methods’ usage trends, benefits, and limitations. Among 302 reviewed papers, more than half (61 %) adopt controlled laboratory tests, while CFD is the most used simulation method (68.6 % of simulation studies). Field studies are a minority, highlighting the limited implementation of PECS in real-world scenarios. Simulations are cost effective in rapidly prototyping and developing PECS. However, the insights they provide into PECS performance are limited by either model resolution constraints or high complexity. Comfort evaluations do not consider individual occupant differences nor behavior inherent to PECS. It is through experiments that knowledge can be gained on realistic occupant responses. However, they can be resource intensive and require careful planning. This review provides best practice guidelines to assist researchers in improving quality reporting of their methods.