The effect of temperature differences on the distribution of an airborne contaminant in an experimental room.

Estimating exposure to contaminants emitted into workroom air is essential for worker protection. Although contaminant concentrations are often not spatially uniform within workrooms, many methods for estimating exposure do not adequately account for this variability. Here the impact of temperature differences within a room on spatial contaminant distribution was studied. Tracer gas (99.5% propylene) concentrations were monitored automatically at 144 sampling points with a photoionization detector. One wall was chosen to represent a building's external wall and was heated or cooled to simulate summer or winter conditions. Experiments were preformed at two flow rates (5.5 and 3.3 m(3) min(-1)) and six thermal conditions (isothermal, three summer conditions and two winter conditions). For 5.5 m(3) min(-1) and all thermal conditions, the coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 0.34 to 0.45 and the normalized average concentrations were similar. For 3.3 m(3) min(-1), winter conditions produced greater spatial variability of concentration (CV = 0.72 and 1.10) than isothermal or summer conditions (CV range = 0.29-0.34). Tests simulating winter conditions suggest that the resulting stable temperature structure inhibited the dilution of the tracer and enhanced its segregation in the lower portion of the room, especially for the lower flow rate (3.3 m(3) min(-1)). Therefore, not explicitly addressing thermal effect in exposure modeling may impact the estimated accuracy and precision when used for rooms that are non-isothermal and not well mixed. These findings also have implications for air monitoring. Dispersion patterns for different thermal conditions were found to be substantially different, even when the mean concentrations were nearly the same. Thus, monitoring data from a single season should not be taken as representative of the entire year, when summer and winter conditions create temperature gradients in a room.

[1]  M Luoma,et al.  Autocorrelation and variability of indoor air quality measurements. , 2000, AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety.

[2]  P V Nielsen,et al.  Dispersal of exhaled air and personal exposure in displacement ventilated rooms. , 2002, Indoor air.

[3]  Magnus Mattsson,et al.  Displacement Ventilation: effects of movement and exhalation , 1997 .

[4]  June Richther Nielsen.  The Influence of Office Furniture on the Air Movement in a Mixing Ventilated Room , 1998 .

[5]  Chang Shu,et al.  MIXING CHARACTERISTICS IN A VENTILATED ROOM WITH NON-ISOTHERMAL CEILING AIR SUPPLY , 1998 .

[6]  Charles E Feigley,et al.  Improving the use of mixing factors for dilution ventilation design. , 2002, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[7]  C B Keil,et al.  A tiered approach to deterministic models for indoor air exposures. , 2000, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[8]  H. Awbi.  Ventilation of buildings , 1873 .

[9]  Henrik Brohus,et al.  Personal Exposure in Displacement Ventilated Rooms , 1996 .

[10]  Kodak.  Ergonomic Design for People at Work , 1989 .

[11]  Subhransu Roy,et al.  Numerical simulation of two-dimensional room air flow with and without buoyancy , 2000 .

[12]  Dafydd Gibbon,et al.  1 User’s guide , 1998 .

[13]  K Teschke,et al.  Studying the determinants of exposure: a review of methods. , 1999, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[14]  C E Feigley,et al.  Comparison of mathematical models for exposure assessment with computational fluid dynamic simulation. , 2000, Applied occupational and environmental hygiene.

[15]  Magnus Mattsson,et al.  Simulating People Moving in Displacement Ventilated Rooms , 1997 .

[16]  M. Nicas,et al.  Estimating exposure intensity in an imperfectly mixed room. , 1996, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.