Search

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, ventilation in buildings was not always given its due importance. The World Health Organization has highlighted the important role of air exchange with the outdoors in improving the air quality in buildings; buildings should, therefore, be equipped with mechanical ventilation or adequate air conditioning systems. This paper aims to investigate different retrofit solutions for air conditioning, evaluating them in terms of energy consumption and cost and the impact of increased outdoor air exchange rates on countering the propagation of COVID-19; the latter is the main novelty of the paper. As a case study, we take an existing office building located in Central Italy that was previously not equipped with a mechanical ventilation system (a system with primary air was introduced during the study). The energy analysis was conducted using dynamic simulation software after validation through energy bills; energy and economic analyses were conducted considering different external-air exchange rates. An optimal number of outdoor air changes was found to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection, a finding in line with the international literature. The increase in air changes with outdoor air leads to a rise in energy consumption and costs. These values were evaluated for different air conditioning systems and operational schedules. These drawbacks can be made less significant by combining interventions in the system with energy-efficiency measures applied to the building envelope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the use of HVAC systems and non-HVAC control measures to reduce virus-laden bioaerosol exposure in a highly occupied indoor space is investigated. A simulation tool was used to model the fate and transport of bioaerosols in an indoor space in the hotel industry (bar or pub) with three types of HVAC system (central air handling system (CAHS), dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS), and wall unit system (WUS)). Non-HVAC control measures such as portable air cleaners (PAC) and local exhaust fans were considered. Occupant exposure was evaluated for 1 μm bioaerosols, which transport SARS-CoV-2, for 3 h/day of continuous source and exposure. The combined effects of ventilation (400 l/s of outdoor air), recirculated air filtration (90% efficacy), and a PAC with a capacity up to 900 m3/h mitigated the (normalized) integrated exposure of the occupant by 0.66 to 0.51 (CAHS) and 0.43 to 0.36 (DOAS). In the case of WUS, the normalized integrated exposure was reduced by up to 0.2 when the PAC with a capacity of up to 900 m3/h was used. The corresponding electricity consumed increased by 297.4 kWh/year (CAHS) and 482.7 kWh/year (DOAS), while for the WUS it increased by 197.1 kWh/year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]