The results show a reduction in average temperatures before and after installation. The system achieved better performance than both control rooms even with the AC installed. The geography classroom, despite its lower heat loading, experienced temperatures above 25°C for 59% of the time while Cool-Phase reduced the time in its IT classroom to just 2%.
With the AC system turned on in the second control room some areas were overcooled and the AC was turned off as a result; temperatures then rose until it needed to be turned on again. Also, since opening windows provided the only ventilation source, they contributed to higher temperatures because the AC’s cooling effect was lost.
A similar pattern emerged with CO2 levels where data showed that the control IT classroom fitted with AC was not as well-ventilated as the Cool-Phase IT classroom. To some extent this was expected because the control IT classroom had windows only on one side, whereas the Cool-Phase classroom had windows on opposite sides, allowing cross ventilation.
However, the Cool-Phase system resulted in a marked reduction in the number of hours when high CO2 levels were recorded; the 44% of hours recorded above 1500ppm in the control IT classroom was reduced to just 2% in the Cool-Phase IT classroom.