4.7 Article

Evaluation of various activated carbons for air cleaning - Towards design of immune and sustainable buildings

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 42, 期 35, 页码 8176-8184

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.07.061

关键词

Filter; Ventilation; Activated carbon; Removal efficiency; Mechanical ventilation

资金

  1. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are increased demands for security, sustainability and indoor air quality in today's building design, construction, operation and maintenance. Installation of air cleaning systems can improve the indoor air quality by reducing the air pollution levels, and enhance the building security against sudden release of chemical and/or biological agents. At the same time, air cleaning techniques may reduce the building energy consumption by reducing the outdoor air supply rate, hence lowering the needs for conditioning of outdoor air. While the air filtration of particulate matter is well standardized, the standards against which the performance of air cleaning for gaseous contaminants is measured or classified are still under development. This study examined the performance of various granular activated carbons (GACs) for the removal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from mechanically ventilated buildings. Eight different GACs (three virgin and five impregnated) were tested against toluene using a dynamic test system. The virgin GACs showed better performance than impregnated ones, the percentage and the type of impregnation affected the removal efficiencies. Tests were also conducted with selected GACs against toluene, cyclohexane and ethyl acetate at relative humidity (RH) values of 30%, 50% and 70%. The effect of humidity was dependant on the VOC used. Both for toluene and cyclohexane, the removal efficiency decreased as RH increased. However, higher humidity showed a positive impact on the removal of ethyl acetate. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据