Kaczmarczyk J, Melikov A, Fanger P O
International Center for Indoor Environment and Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.
Indoor Air. 2004;14 Suppl 8:17-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00300.x.
The response of 60 human subjects to a personalized ventilation system (PVS), providing control of positioning of the air terminal device and the airflow rate, was compared with the response to mixing ventilation (MV). Perceived air quality, thermal comfort, intensity of Sick Building Syndrome symptoms and performance of subjects were studied during 3 h 45 min exposures. In case of MV alone the room air temperature was 23 degrees C and 26 degrees C. The PVS supplied outdoor air at 23 degrees C or 20 degrees C or recirculated room air at 23 degrees C when the room temperature was 23 degrees C, and outdoor air at 20 degrees C when the room temperature was 26 degrees C. The PVS providing outdoor air improved perceived air quality and decreased SBS symptoms compared to MV alone and when the room air was re-circulated through the PVS. The percentage dissatisfied with air quality, 3 min after initial occupancy, decreased from 22% with MV to 7% with PVS; and from 49% to 20%, at room temperatures 23 degrees C and 26 degrees C, respectively. Over time, these differences in percentage dissatisfied decreased markedly. Headache and decreased ability to think clearly were reported as least intense when the PVS supplied outdoor air at 20 degrees C, while the most intense symptoms occurred with MV. PVS increased self-estimated performance.
Personalized ventilation can improve occupants' thermal comfort, perceived air quality and decrease the intensity of SBS symptoms compared to mixing ventilation. Occupants will use the provided individual control of airflow rate and positioning of the air terminal device to obtain preferred microenvironment in rooms where the air temperature is within the range recommended by indoor climate standards. Development of more efficient air terminal devices is recommended.
将60名受试者对个性化通风系统(PVS)的反应与对混合通风(MV)的反应进行了比较,该个性化通风系统可控制末端空气装置的位置和气流速率。在3小时45分钟的暴露期间,研究了受试者对空气质量的感知、热舒适度、病态建筑综合症症状的强度以及表现。仅采用混合通风时,室内空气温度为23摄氏度和26摄氏度。当室温为23摄氏度时,个性化通风系统供应23摄氏度的室外空气或20摄氏度的室外空气,或再循环23摄氏度的室内空气;当室温为26摄氏度时,供应20摄氏度的室外空气。与仅采用混合通风以及当室内空气通过个性化通风系统再循环时相比,提供室外空气的个性化通风系统改善了空气质量感知并减轻了病态建筑综合症症状。初始入住3分钟后,对空气质量不满意的百分比从混合通风时的22%降至个性化通风系统时的7%;在室温分别为23摄氏度和26摄氏度时,从49%降至20%。随着时间推移,这些不满意百分比的差异显著减小。当个性化通风系统供应20摄氏度的室外空气时,头痛和思维清晰度下降的报告强度最低,而混合通风时症状最强烈。个性化通风系统提高了自我估计的表现。
与混合通风相比,个性化通风可改善居住者的热舒适度、空气质量感知并减轻病态建筑综合症症状的强度。居住者将利用所提供的气流速率和末端空气装置位置的个人控制,在室内空气温度符合室内气候标准推荐范围的房间中获得理想的微环境。建议开发更高效的末端空气装置。