4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Ventilation efficiencies and thermal comfort results of a desk-edge-mounted task ventilation system

Journal

INDOOR AIR
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages 92-97

Publisher

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00295.x

Keywords

improved IAQ practices and technologies; ventilation rates and strategies; offices; perceived air quality; thermal comfort

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In chamber experiments, we investigated the ventilation effectiveness and thermal comfort of a task ventilation system with an air supply nozzle located underneath the front edge of a desk and directing air towards a heated mannequin or a human volunteer seated at the desk. The task ventilation system provided outside air, while another ventilation system provided additional space cooling but no outside air. Test variables included the vertical angle of air supply (-15degrees to 45degrees from horizontal), and the supply flow rate of (3.5-6.5 l/s). Using the tracer gas step-up and step-down procedures, the measured air change effectiveness (i.e., exhaust air age divided by age of air in the breathing zone) in experiments with the mannequin ranged from 1.4 to 2.7 (median, 1.8), whereas with human subjects the air change effectiveness ranged from 1.3 to 2.3 (median, 1.6). The majority of the air change effectiveness values with the human subjects were less than values with the mannequin using comparable tests. Similarly, the tests run with supply air temperature equal to the room air temperature had lower air change effectiveness values than comparable tests with the supply air temperature lower (similar to5degreesC) than the room air temperature. The air change effectiveness values are higher than typically reported for commercially-available task ventilation or displacement ventilation systems. Based on surveys completed by the subjects, operation of the task ventilation system did not cause thermal discomfort.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available