Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

CFD study on gaseous pollutant transmission characteristics under different MARK

ventilation strategies in a typical chemical laboratory
Weidong Liu, Dong Liu∗, Naiping Gao
School of Mechanical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Indoor environments in chemical laboratories have attracted growing concerns because laboratory personnel are
Chemical laboratory faced with an increased risk of severe diseases. This study investigates gaseous pollutant transmission char-
Fume hood acteristics in a typical chemical laboratory with a fume hood under different scenarios using a Computational
Ventilation strategy Fluid Dynamic (CFD) program, which is validated by a face velocity measurement. Airflow patterns and pol-
CFD
lutant concentration distributions are analyzed while performances of the general ventilation and fume hoods
Orthogonal experiment design
are discussed. Orthogonal Experiment Design (OED) is used to analyze the order of magnitude of various factors.
It is indicated that fume hoods prevent the dispersion of pollutants and make pollutant concentration dis-
tributions different from conventional ventilation systems. It is further demonstrated that both ACH and ven-
tilation effectiveness are significant for the improvement of indoor environments and the limits to advantages of
increasing ACH result from the decline in the growth rate of ventilation effectiveness or even the reduction of
ventilation efficiency. Moreover, analysis of range and analysis of variance are adopted to analyze the simulation
results, which suggests that pollutant source location, supply location and ACH are three dominant factors for
the performances of the general ventilation. And the amount of leakage of fume hoods in DV systems is several
orders of magnitude lower than MV but breathing zone control level is not only influenced by the amount of
leakage but also airflow patterns.

1. Introduction
Chemical exposures have become a matter of great concern in oc-
cupational health. Personnel working in chemical laboratories have
potential exposures to numerous hazardous substances, which are
threatening the health of laboratory workers [1]. Epidemiologic studies
have also suggested that laboratory workers might be involved in an
increased risk of certain types of cancer [2–4] such as lymphatic cancer
[5–7], leukemia [5], brain tumors [6], pancreatic cancer [6] and breast
cancer [7]. Moreover, adverse pregnancy outcomes among female la-
boratory workers might be associated with laboratory work as well [8].
Exposures to organic solvents and radioisotopes during pregnancy even
increase the risk of spontaneous abortion [9,10] and preterm birth [11].
These potential hazards have attracted growing attention to laboratory
environments and the enforcement of safety measures is recommended
[4]. Consequently, it is quite necessary to have a profound under-
standing of gaseous pollutant transmission characteristics in chemical
laboratories.
Safety laboratory environments are closely related with the venti-
lation system, which also affects the transmission of gaseous pollutants.
During the past few decades, the effect of air change rate per hour
(ACH) has been well studied both experimentally [12–16] and nu-
merically [18]. Jin et al. [12] investigated the ventilation performance
under different ventilation rates in a chemistry laboratory mockup and
indicated that the contaminant concentration was not linearly propor-
tional to the ventilation rate. Faulkner et al. [13] studied the particulate
concentrations within a reduced-scale room and presented that the
particulate concentrations in the occupied zone did not increase line-
arly with an increase in actual ACH but increased linearly at the lower
ACH but then leveled out at the higher ACH. Klein et al. [14,15] ana-
lyzed the relationship between laboratory air quality and ACH under
controlled releases of organic solvents and suggested that ACH above
12 was generally unnecessary while the greatest relative improvement
in chemical concentration occurred between 6 and 8 ACH. It is de-
monstrated that there are limits to advantages of increasing ACH to
provide a better environment in the occupied zone [13] and ACH is
very likely not the main parameter in determining air quality, health
and safety in the laboratory [17]. Therefore some researchers empha-
size the importance of ventilation effectiveness. Memarzadeh [18]
provided a quantitative justification to support the concept that indoor

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liudong@tongji.edu.cn (D. Liu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.09.033
Received 18 August 2017; Received in revised form 28 September 2017; Accepted 29 September 2017
Available online 03 October 2017
0360-1323/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Fig. 1. Geometry of the research model, a: Configuration of

Displacement Ventilation Orthogonal Experiment Design
(DO) Group; b: Sketch of control lines; c: Configuration of
Mixing Ventilation Orthogonal Experiment Design (MO)
Group. 1-laboratory workers; 2-operator; 3-fluorescent
lamps; 4-computers; 5-incubator-1; 6-incubator-2; 7-win-
dows; 8-outer wall; 9-fume hood; 10-exhaust, d = 250 mm;
11-DO supplies, wall-mounted quarter-circular diffuser,
d = 0.5 m, H = 1.0 m; 12-DO returns, 500 mm × 500 mm;
13-DO pollutant source locations; 14-MO supplies, four-
way square diffuser, 360 mm or 420 mm; 15-MO returns,
500 mm × 500 mm; 16-MO pollutant source locations;
Vertical control lines, Line 1 (X = 1.6 m, Y = 7.0 m); Line 2
(X = 4.8 m, Y = 7.0 m); Line 3 (X = 4.8 m, Y = 4.25 m);
Line 4 (X = 4.8 m, Y = 1.5 m).

Table 1
Detailed boundary conditions of heat sources.

Object Surface Area Amount Total Heat Heat Flux (W/

(m2) Gain (W) m2 )

Laboratory worker 2.08 7 490.0 33.65

Operator 1.83 1 75.0 40.98
Fluorescent lamp 0.48 6 816.0 283.33
Computer 1.25 3 285.0 76.00
Incubator-1 1.18 2 528.0 223.73
Incubator-2 4.22 1 451.0 106.95
Window 3.24 2 253.8 39.17
Outer wall 15.92 1 132.1 8.30

Table 2
The release rates of common organic solvents.

Species Pv (Pa) M G (g/h) G (mL/min)

Benzene 10959 78.11 86.1 461.4

Toluene 3299 92.14 28.1 150.8
Ether 963 74.12 7.4 39.5
Carbon tetrachloride 13410 153.84 147.8 792.3
Fig. 2. Geometry of the test chamber.

239
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Fig. 3. Measuring arrangements and the horizontal

lines where velocity magnitude was compared.

(a) (b)

Velocity Magnitude(m/s)
0.6 0.6
Velocity Magnitude(m/s)

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 Simulation 0.1 Simulation

Measurement Z=1.285 m Measurement Z=1.15m
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
X(m) X(m)

(c)
0.6
Velocity Magnitude(m/s)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Simulation
Measurement Z=1.015m
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
X(m)
Fig. 4. Comparisons of simulated and measured velocity magnitude at three horizontal lines.

Table 3 A laboratory fume hood is defined as a ventilated enclosed work

The configuration of each individual case in DV Group. space intended to capture, contain and exhaust fumes, vapors, and
particulate matter generated inside the enclosure [23]. Performances of
Case No. ACH Supply Location Return Location Source Location
fume hoods are affected by air distribution patterns in the laboratory
DV-08 8 A-B Middle 2 [23–26]. Caplan and Knutson [24,25] investigated the effect of air
DV-10 10 A-B Middle 2 supply fixtures, such as grilles, registers ceiling diffusers or perforated
DV-12 12 A-B Middle 2
ceiling panels while higher breathing zone concentrations were mea-
DV-14 14 A-B Middle 2
sured with higher terminal velocity of supply air jets and lower
breathing zone concentrations were measured with proper directions of
air quality (IAQ) depended on a combination of factors including the supply air jets [24–27]. The conclusions can be applied not only to fume
ventilation system design. Thus, it's improper to discuss ACH alone and hoods but also to local ventilated hoods [28]. Both general ventilation
the ventilation system with a higher ventilation effectiveness is pre- system and local exhaust system are indispensable for chemical la-
ferred [19–22]. boratories. However, airflow patterns in chemical laboratories with

240
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Table 4 selected to analyze the effect of various factors, including ACH, supply
The configuration of each individual case in MV Group. location, return location, source location as well as diffuser size and
determine the level of influence of each factor and then optimize per-
Case No. ACH Supply Return Source Diffuser Size
Location Location Location (mm × mm) formances of the general ventilation system. The results are expected to
be helpful in profoundly understanding of gaseous pollutant transmis-
MV-08 8 S-1 R-C #3 420 × 420 sion characteristics and providing effective advices to the design and
MV-10 10 S-1 R-C #3 420 × 420
management of chemical laboratories.
MV-12 12 S-1 R-C #3 420 × 420
MV-14 14 S-1 R-C #3 420 × 420
2. Methodology

Table 5 2.1. Physical model

Levels and factors in DO Group.

A typical chemical laboratory in Shandong (China) is selected as the

Levels Factors
research model, as shown in Fig. 1, with dimensions of width (X)
ACH Supply Location Return Location Source Location 6.4 m × length (Y) 8.5 m × height (Z) 3.5 m. A laboratory fume hood
is located in the corner near the window with dimensions of width (X)
1 8 A-B Middle 1
0.9 m × length (Y) 1.5 m × height (Z) 2.3 m. The sash is located at the
2 10 B-C Down 2
3 12 A-C Wall 3 operating opening and the dimensions of the hood face are length (Y)
1.25 m × height (Z) 0.5 m. Design face velocities for fume hoods in the
range of 0.40–0.50 m/s will provide an adequate face velocity for a
Table 6 majority of fume hoods, as they can be operated effectively with rela-
Levels and factors in MO Group. tively low risk in this range [34]. In this study, the average face velocity
is set as 0.5 m/s and the airflow rate is 1125 m3/h. The operator,
Levels Factors
standing upright in front of the fume hood, is a simplified mannequin
ACH Supply Return Source Diffuser Size with a shoulder width of 430 mm and a height of 170 cm, the surface
Location Location Location (mm × mm) area of which is 1.83 m2.
Seven laboratory workers, six fluorescent lamps, three computers
1 8 S-1 R-1 #1 360 × 360
2 10 S-2 R-2 #2 420 × 420 and three incubators are set as heat sources and the heat gains are
3 12 S-3 R-3 #3 identified in terms of ASHRAE [35]. Given that the heat gain of human
4 14 S-4 R-4 #4 beings is affected by the degree of activity, it is essential to be identi-
fied. The laboratory workers are set as seated, very light work and the
operator standing, light work, walking [35]. Therefore the heat gain of
fume hoods have not been studied. Moreover, interactions between
laboratory worker and operator is 70 W and 75 W for each respectively.
general ventilation system and local exhaust system still warrant fur-
The lighting power density of laboratories is 15 W/m2 [35] and the
ther investigations.
indoor temperature is 22 °C [36]. The heat gain through the windows
In the present study, performances of the general ventilation and
and outer wall is calculated transiently and the maximum value of the
fume hoods are investigated numerically with different ventilation
sum of these two is picked. Two of the three diffusers are selected for
strategies. A chemical laboratory in use with a fume hood is set as the
each case in DO Group while a pair of diffusers in MO Group. Pollutant
research model. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) is adopted to si-
source locations on the laboratory benchtop in both groups are set with
mulate the airflow movement. A preliminary study is carried out with
symmetry about the partition.
ACH as the only variable to analyze airflow patterns in chemical la-
boratories and have a profound understanding of the effect of ACH.
2.2. Numerical model
Airflow patterns and pollutant concentration distributions are discussed
and compared with conventional ventilation systems. In addition,
The CFD method is employed by using a commercial CFD program,
considering that Orthogonal Experiment Design (OED) is an effective
ANSYS Fluent 16.2, which solves the governing equations through a
method to study the problem with multiple factors and multiple levels
finite-volume procedure. The Realizable k-ε model provides the best
and has been widely used in many areas [29–33], in this study, it is
performance of all the k-ε model versions for several validations of

(a) (b)
0.8 Coarse 0.14
Medium Corase
0.7 0.12
Fine Medium
0.6 Fine
Velocity(m/s)

Velocity(m/s)

0.10
0.5
0.08
0.4
0.06
0.3
0.2 0.04

0.1 0.02

0.0 0.00
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Z(m) Z(m)
Fig. 5. Comparisons of velocity magnitude at two vertical lines (a: in the fume hood; b: in the laboratory).

241
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Line 1 (b) Line 2

(a)
6 4.0

Normalized Concentration
Normalized Concentration
DV-08 DV-08
DV-10 3.5 DV-10
5
DV-12 3.0 DV-12
4 DV-14 DV-14
2.5
3 2.0
1.5
2
1.0
1
0.5
0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Z(m) Z(m)

(c) Line 3 (d) Line 4

3.5 2.0
Normalized Concentration

Normalized Concentration
DV-08 DV-08
3.0 DV-10 DV-10
DV-12 1.5 DV-12
2.5
DV-14 DV-14
2.0
1.0
1.5

1.0
0.5
0.5

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Z(m) Z(m)
Fig. 6. Normalized concentration distributions at four vertical lines in DV Group.

separated flows and flows with complex secondary flow features and
the use of the model is recommended relative to other variants of the k-
ε family [37]. Compared with Standard and RNG k-ε model, the Rea-
lizable k-ε model could predict airflow and turbulence more accurately
[38]. Therefore, the Realizable k-ε model with the standard wall
function is used to simulate the turbulent effect. The discretization
scheme used for all variables except the pressure is second order up-
wind to ensure the computational accuracy and the pressure is dis-
cretized by a staggered scheme named PRESTO [39]. The SIMPLE al-
gorithm [40] is applied to couple pressure and velocity. Radiant heat
transfer between different surfaces is calculated using the Discrete Or-
dinates model. All the thermodynamic parameters are assumed to be
constant except density. The Boussinesq model approximates the den-
sity in the buoyancy term in the momentum equation, as given:
(ρ − ρref ) g ≈ −ρref β (T − Tref ) g
2.3. Boundary conditions
The air-supply fixtures are wall-mounted quarter-circular diffusers,
located in the corner, and four-way square diffusers, fixed on the
ceiling, for DV and MV respectively. The boundary condition for the
former is a uniform velocity normal to the boundary while for the latter,
a User-Defined Function (UDF) is compiled to simulate the velocity field
at the boundary, so that the geometry of diffusers is a flat surface [41].
The square surface of diffusers is divided into four equal parts by two
diagonals. For each part, the velocity vector forms an angle of 30° with
respect to the horizontal direction [41]. The velocity magnitude and
temperature of supply air vary among different cases, depending on
ACH and heat balance.
The boundary condition of returns is pressure-outlet but a velocity-
inlet condition with a negative value is imposed on the exhaust to
guarantee the same quantity of air to be exhausted through the fume
hood. The constant heat flux boundary condition is imposed on the
surfaces of heat sources, while the other surfaces are assigned with the
adiabatic boundary condition. Detailed boundary conditions of heat
sources are shown in Table 1. All the surfaces have an emissivity of 0.9
[41] except the surfaces of human beings set as 0.95 [39].
2.4. Pollutant species and release rate
Research laboratories in a university were investigated for air-borne
(1) levels of legally designated solvents and specified chemical substances
and various types of chemicals were detected [1]. Among the specified
chemicals, acrylamide was most frequently detected in laboratory air
because of the importance in biochemical analysis and benzene ranked
the second due to a common use as a solvent. Considering the great
concern of the control of benzene exposures [1] and the convenience to
obtain thermodynamic parameters, benzene is selected as the pollutant
in this study. However, as the contaminant density has negligible effects
on the concentration distribution at higher flow rates (8 ACH or higher)
because of the predominant forced convective transport [42] and si-
milar concentration profiles are also observed between tracer gas and
fine particles [43], the results obtained would be representative.
In chemical laboratories, gaseous pollutants could be emitted on the

242
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

(a) Line 1 (b) Line 2

Normalized Concentration

Normalized Concentration
3.0 2.0
MV-08 MV-08
MV-10 MV-10
2.5 1.6
MV-12 MV-12
2.0 MV-14 MV-14
1.2
1.5
0.8
1.0

0.5 0.4

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Z(m) Z(m)

(c) Line 3 (d) Line 4

Normalized Concentration
Normalized Concentration

2.0 0.8
MV-08 MV-08
MV-10 0.7 MV-10
1.6 MV-12 MV-12
0.6
MV-14 MV-14
1.2 0.5
0.4
0.8 0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Z(m) Z(m)
Fig. 7. Normalized concentration distributions at four vertical lines in MV Group.

laboratory benchtop where open air benchtop laboratory operations
and small spills occur [14,15] or on the work surface in fume hoods
where routine chemical experiments are carried out. The release rate on
the work surface is set as 4 L/min and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is se-
lected as the tracer gas [36] but the basis of that on the laboratory
benchtop cannot be found. In this study, the release rate on the la-
boratory benchtop is estimated by Mazak (B. T. M) Formula, which
calculates the release rate of organic solvents with an open surface,
pv
G = (5.38 + 4.1u) F M
133.32
where G is the release rate (g/h), u the wind speed (m/s), Pv the sa-
turated vapor pressure (Pa), F the open area (m2) and M the relative
molecular mass. The wind speed is set as 0.2 m/s and saturated vapor
pressure is calculated under 295.15 K. The open area of four 250 mL
beakers (D = 78 mm), which are commonly used in titration operation,
is selected as the open area (F = 0.0191 m2). The release rates of
common organic solvents are listed in Table 2.
200 mL/min was set as the flow rate of tracer gas by Jin et al. [12].
Although a great disparity of the release rate is observed in Table 2, the
difference between the value and release rates listed is less than one
order of magnitude. Therefore 200 mL/min is a typical value and could
be set as the release rate on the laboratory benchtop.
verify the numerical model with dimensions of length (X) 4.0 m
× width (Y) 4.0 m × height (Z) 3.5 m. The dimensions of the fume
hood are length (X) 1.5 m × width (Y) 0.95 m × height (Z) 2.6 m and
those of the hood face are length (X) 1.4 m × height (Z) 0.4 m, as
shown in Fig. 2. Two wall-mounted quarter-circular diffusers
(D = 0.4 m, H = 0.8 m) are installed to make up the exhausted air. The
face velocity was measured by a thermal anemometer and the airflow
rate was 1080 m3/h during the measurement, which was measured by a
Venturi meter. The hood face was equally divided into 15 rectangular
parts, as illustrated in Fig. 3, and the face velocity was measured at the
(2)
center of each area.
The simulated model was the same with the test chamber and was di-
vided into 620758 structured grids and 845998 unstructured grids.
Comparisons of simulated and measured velocity magnitude at different
height levels are presented in Fig. 4. It can be observed that the simulated
results have a reasonable agreement with the measurement. Despite of an
overestimate in the upper area and an underestimate in the middle zone,
but average relative errors are 6.2%, 8.7% and 2.5% for the three horizontal
lines respectively, which is acceptable because errors also exist in the
measurement. Therefore, the present numerical model is accurate enough to
predict the flow field around the fume hood.
4. Case descriptions

3. Model validation 4.1. Preliminary study

A face velocity measurement was carried out in a test chamber to Airflow movements in chemical laboratories are so complex that it is

243
W. Liu et al.
difficult to study a number of influential factors simultaneously. Thus, a
preliminary study becomes necessary. As demonstrated in previous studies,
ACH is an important factor and warrants further investigations. In order to
have a deep insight into the influence of ACH and the limits of advantages of
increasing it, two sets of cases are designed with ACH as the only variable.
Airflow patterns and pollutant concentration distributions as well as perfor-
mances of fume hoods are discussed. The configurations of each individual
case for Displacement Ventilation (DV) Group and Mixing Ventilation (MV)
Group are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.
4.2. Orthogonal Experiment Design (OED)
Orthogonal Experiment Design, which is regarded as a modern ap-
proach to optimize system performance in many research areas [44], is
selected to analyze the effect of a number of influential factors on
ventilation effectiveness (VE) and volume average mass fraction (VMF).
In DO Group, ACH, supply location, return location and source location
are selected as variables and a L9 (34) orthogonal experiment of four
factors and three levels is employed to assign the considered factors and
levels listed in Table 5. In MO Group, diffuser size is selected ad-
ditionally and a L16 (45) orthogonal array is performed with factors and
levels listed in Table 6. The simulation is designed to consider the
features of VE and VMF with varied factors and levels. Analysis of range
(ANORA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are performed after the
collection of results to reflect the order of magnitude of these factors.
This paper does not present the calculation processes, the details of
which can be found in statistics textbooks [44].
244
Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251
Fig. 8. Contours of volume fraction (ppm) of pollu-
tants at Z = 1.25 m in DV Group, (a) DV-08; (b) DV-
10; (c) DV-12; (d) DV-14.
4.3. Grid independence test
Due to the complicated geometry of the research model, un-
structured mesh is used to discretize the computational domain with
refinement around the fume hood. Three mesh systems are generated
for grid independence test. The coarse, medium and fine mesh contain
1145647, 1916573 and 2843330 cells respectively. The grid in-
dependence is tested by solving the flow field in DV-08. Comparisons of
velocity magnitude at two vertical lines are presented in Fig. 5. The
discrepancy between the three mesh systems is acceptable. Considering
the computational accuracy and cost, the coarse mesh is selected in this
study.
4.4. Evaluation index
For the analysis and comparison of different ventilation strategies,
normalized concentration and ventilation effectiveness are employed in
the result analysis. The normalized concentration is defined by the
following equation,
C − Cs C
Cn = =
Ce − Cs Ce (3)
where Ce is the mass average weighted mass fraction of pollutants at the
exhaust and returns while Cs and C are the mass fraction of pollutants at
supply and somewhere in the laboratory.
The ventilation effectiveness is defined by the following equation,
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Fig. 9. Contours of volume fraction (ppm) of pollu-

tants at Z = 1.25 m in MV Group, (a) MV-08; (b) MV-
10; (c) MV-12; (d) MV-14.

Fig. 10. Contours of mean age of air at Z = 1.25 m, (a) DV-12; (b) MV-12.

245
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Fig. 11. Contours of mean age of air at Y = 4.25 m, (a) DV-12; (b) MV-12.

Table 7 concentration is rather low, when approaching downstream, a rapid

Results of DV Group. increase appears, as shown in Fig. 8. Additionally, concentration dis-
tributions within DV Group show a similarity, as indicated in Fig. 6. It
Case No. ACH VE VMF (ppm)
can be observed that concentration profiles are similar between dif-
DV-08 8 1.13 6.6 ferent cases, especially between Fig. 6(a) and (b). Similar variation
DV-10 10 1.58 3.8 tendency of concentration profiles can also be found in Fig. 6(c) and
DV-12 12 1.99 2.5 (d). DV Group has a lower supply air velocity, which has a negligible
DV-14 14 1.95 2.2
impact to concentration distributions even if ACH increases to 14.
Compared with DV Group, pollutant concentration distributions
Table 8 within MV Group do not show a similarity but an obvious difference, as
Results of MV Group. illustrated in Figs. 7 and 9. Although concentration profiles in Fig. 7
present some similarity between different scenarios indeed, any regular
Case No. ACH VE VMF (ppm) conclusions cannot be obtained. Despite a higher ACH and supply air
MV-08 8 2.03 3.7
velocity, peak concentration values can still be observed. In horizontal
MV-10 10 1.23 4.9 direction, large amounts of pollutants still gather downstream but for-
MV-12 12 1.33 3.8 tunately, a clean upstream region is created. Compared with uniform
MV-14 14 1.29 3.3 vertical concentration distributions in conventional systems [43,47], it
is apparently the fume hood that prevents the well-mixed phenomenon
7 and dispersion of pollutants.
DV
6 MV
5.2. Airflow patterns
5
Contours of mean age of air at different cross sections are shown in
Ratio

4
3
2 section. Air age is generally defined as the time that has elapsed since
1
0 air always moves from locations with lower air ages to locations with
8 10 12 14
ACH
Fig. 12. Ratio of mass flow rate of pollutants at exhaust to that at return.
Ce − Cs C
ε= = e
C − Cs C (4)
where C is the volume average mass fraction of pollutants.
5. Results and discussions
5.1. Pollutant concentration distributions
Pollutant concentration distributions in chemical laboratories are
significantly influenced by fume hoods, which make them differ from
conventional ventilation systems. In DV Group, large amounts of pol-
lutants accumulate in the occupied zone, more precisely around the
height range of hood face, which can be seen in Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b),
and the concentration values reach a peak in the height range from
1.0 m to 2.0 m. But for conventional systems, the concentration goes up
gradually with the increase of height, without a peak concentration
value [43]. Even though that does exist, the location is also higher than
the occupied zone [46]. In horizontal direction, although the upstream
Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. Stratification phenomenon is more obvious in MV-
12 than DV-12 in horizontal section while on the contrary in vertical
air element enters the room [48]. Distributions of mean age of air could
reveal the airflow direction because it could be easily understood that
higher air ages.
In DV Group, the fresh air lake fills the room slowly from the bottom
and then displace indoor air upward because the divisions between
different levels in Fig. 10(a) are not distinct but very clear in Fig. 11(a),
which means that vertical movements dominate. The airflow pattern is
very similar with that in conventional systems. In MV Group, the fresh
air mixes well with indoor air in vertical direction but not in horizontal
direction because stratification phenomenon could be observed. The
reasons are as follows. Four-way square diffusers are used in MV Group
to supply air in four directions. In the direction towards the fume hood,
a part of the fresh air is exhausted before mixed perfectly with indoor
air. Moreover, in order to prevent the disturbance of supply air jets to
the fume hood, diffusers are not located in the center of the model, so
the fresh air is not distributed uniformly in all directions. These two
factors result in the insufficient mixing in horizontal direction.
5.3. Performance of the general ventilation
Performance of the general ventilation represents the ability to
eliminate pollutants and improve indoor environments. Considering the
limits to advantages of increasing ACH to provide a better environment,
VE should be included in the investigation as well.
Results of DV Group are given in Table 7. When ACH raises, VE

246
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Fig. 13. Velocity vector distributions around the source location,

(a) MV-08; (b) MV-12.

Table 9 formation of local vortex, as indicated in Fig. 13, near the source lo-
Performance of the fume hood in DV and MV Group. cation when ACH increases. These vortices are not observed in MV-08
but clearly in other cases. Pollutants are exhausted quickly and directly
Case No. B-Z control MPR (kg/s) Case No. B-Z control MPR (kg/s)
level (ppb) level (ppb)
through the fume hood in MV-08 but have a wider range of dispersion
in other cases, as shown in Fig. 9. However, with MV-08 ignored, the
DV-08 0.1 2.12 E−11 MV-08 148.9 2.01 E−09 improvement of VMF emerges and VE remains stable when ACH in-
DV-10 45.6 6.93 E−14 MV-10 9.1 3.60 E−10 creases.
DV-12 459.5 1.45 E−13 MV-12 38.3 3.05 E−09
The similarity between different cases in DV Group is also presented
DV-14 54.6 1.71 E−13 MV-14 4.5 1.68 E−09
in the ratio of mass flow rate of pollutants at exhaust to that at return,
as indicated in Fig. 12. Variation tendency of the ratio is almost the
increases until decreases a little from DV-12 to DV-14 but VMF declines same with that of VE, which means that exhausting through the fume
continually. ACH is like price while VE is like performance-to-price hood is more efficient and could provide a better environment.
ratio. Pursuing a high ACH means buying an expensive product while
caring about VE means purchasing a product well worth the money.
5.4. Performance of the fume hood
Performance of the general ventilation and product depends on both
factors. In DV Group, with the raise of ACH, VE goes up as well. Both
Performance of the fume hood represents its ability to capture,
factors change in a beneficial direction and indoor environments im-
contain and remove airborne contaminants generated inside [27] and is
prove remarkably. When ACH increases from 12 to 14, VE has a little
influenced by general ventilation systems. Performances of fume hoods
reduction and ACH becomes the only beneficial factor so the im-
in DV and MV Group are listed in Table 9. Breathing Zone (B-Z) control
provement from DV-12 to DV-14 is inconspicuous. The diminishing
level is the average pollutant concentration at the breathing zone,
increase or even decrease of VE with the increase of ACH could explain
which is detailed illustrated in ASHRAE [36], and mass flow rate of
the non-linear change of particulate concentrations [13] and the limits
pollutants in return air (MPR) represents the amount of pollutants
to advantages of increasing ACH [12–15,17].
leaking into the laboratory because the hood face and return are the
Results of MV Group are listed in Table 8. When ACH increases, VE
only inlet and outlet of pollutants. MPR in DV Group is several orders of
decreases rapidly at first and then levels out. However, the variation of
magnitude lower than that in MV Group, which indicates the leakage in
VMF is not as violent as VE. In MV Group, the increase of ACH is ad-
DV Group is minute and the general ventilation has a negligible impact
vantageous but the decrease of VE is disadvantageous and the com-
on the performance of the fume hood. This conclusion is consistent with
prehensive effect depends on the relative intensity of both factors.
the previous investigation [25]. With the increase of ACH, MPR remains
Comparing MV-10 and MV-12 with MV-08, the adverse effect of the
relatively stable in MV Group. The variation tendency of MPR in DV
reduction of VE dominates while comparing MV-14 with MV-08, it has
Group also remains steady with DV-08 ignored. The lowest leakage is
been counteracted. Generally speaking, the increase of ACH would al-
achieved at 10 ACH in both groups but the reason is not explicit.
ways improve indoor environments more or less. But a gradual process
In Table 9, it could be seen that B-Z control level in DV and MV
of deterioration can be seen from MV-08 to MV-10. It results from the
Group presents a different variation tendency with MPR, which

247
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Fig. 14. Conditions at Y = 7.35 m in DV-10: (a)

contour of volume fraction (ppm) of pollutants, (b)
velocity vector distribution.

Table 10 indicates B-Z control level does not depend on the leakage alone but
Results of DO Group. airflow patterns as well. Moreover, the variation tendency of B-Z con-
trol level in DV and MV Group is also not clear. As the previous in-
Case No. Factors Results
vestigations have summarized [27], B-Z control level is very complex.
ACH Supply Return Source VE VMF Fig. 14 presents the contour of volume fraction of pollutants and
Location Location Location (ppm) velocity vector distribution in the vertical section at the middle of the
fume hood in DV-10. As shown in Fig. 14(b), Region 1 is located in the
DO-1 8 A-B Middle 1 0.99 7.5
DO-2 8 B-C Down 2 1.62 4.6
height range between 1.45 m and 1.7 m while Region 2 between 0.95 m
DO-3 8 A-C Wall 3 1.04 7.2 and 1.45 m. It can be observed in Fig. 14(a) that the pollutant con-
DO-4 10 A-B Down 3 1.92 3.1 centration has an exponential change in Region 1 but remains relatively
DO-5 10 B-C Wall 1 0.73 8.2 steady in Region 2. It can be attributed to the airflow pattern and
DO-6 10 A-C Middle 2 0.93 6.4
dominant effect of convection. A diagonally upward velocity vector
DO-7 12 A-B Wall 2 2.59 1.9
DO-8 12 B-C Middle 3 2.67 1.9 with a small x-component is observed in Fig. 14(b) in front of the op-
DO-9 12 A-C Down 1 0.65 7.6 erator. Therefore, polluted air currents do not enter the fume hood
immediately but move upward along the body until meet with down-
ward air currents from Region 1, which causes a relatively stable pol-
Table 11 lutant concentration distribution in Region 2. Around the upper edge of
Results of MO Group.
the hood face, a downward fresh stream from Region 1 and an upward
Case No. Factors Results polluted stream from Region 2 combine and enter the fume hood, as
shown in Fig. 14(b). Because of the dominant effect of convection,
ACH Supply Return Source Diffuser Size VE VMF pollutants in the upward stream cannot penetrate the downward stream
Location Location Location (ppm) and then an exponential change occurs. Under the current settings, the
MO-01 8 S-1 R-1 #1 360 1.21 6.2
place of the exponential change of concentration is just located around
MO-02 8 S-2 R-2 #2 360 1.23 6.1 the breathing zone. Therefore, an exponential disparity of B-Z control
MO-03 8 S-3 R-3 #3 420 1.09 6.8 level is observed in Table 9. If the shape of the fume hood and human
MO-04 8 S-4 R-4 #4 420 0.78 9.5 body varies, the flow field and that place will have a change. That
MO-05 10 S-1 R-2 #3 420 1.06 5.7
explains the reason why B-Z control level is influenced by airflow
MO-06 10 S-2 R-1 #4 420 1.65 3.6
MO-07 10 S-3 R-4 #1 360 1.02 5.9 patterns.
MO-08 10 S-4 R-3 #2 360 0.80 7.5
MO-09 12 S-1 R-3 #4 360 1.76 2.8
5.5. Analysis of Orthogonal Experiment Design (OED)
MO-10 12 S-2 R-4 #3 360 0.99 5.1
MO-11 12 S-3 R-1 #2 420 1.06 4.7
MO-12 12 S-4 R-2 #1 420 0.68 7.4 Results of OED are listed in Tables 10 and 11.
MO-13 14 S-1 R-4 #2 420 1.11 3.9
MO-14 14 S-2 R-3 #1 420 0.77 5.6
MO-15 14 S-3 R-2 #4 360 1.48 2.9
5.5.1. ANORA of the general ventilation
MO-16 14 S-4 R-1 #3 360 0.96 4.5 ANORA is performed and the results are presented in Tables 12–15.
ANORA of VE and VMF in DO Group almost gives the same result.
Note: 360–360 mm × 360 mm, 420–420 mm × 420 mm. The most influential factor is source location (D), the second supply

248
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Table 12 location (B) the second and ACH (A) the least. The significant of supply
ANORA of VE in DO Group. location, which has been reported in the previous study [45], is verified
once again but the effect of ACH seems inconsistent with the previous
Index ACH (A) Supply Location Return Location Source Location
(B) (C) (D) discussion because ACH has a great impact to VE in MV Group. The
great impact of ACH results from the formation of local vortex in the
K1 1.22 1.83 1.53 0.79 higher ACH, which means that another factor is introduced in the dis-
K2 1.19 1.67 1.40 1.71
cussions. But with MV-08 ignored, the effect of ACH becomes unclear
K3 1.97 0.88 1.45 1.88
R 0.75 0.96 0.13 1.09
because with the increase of ACH, the variation of VE is not monotone.
Optimal solution A3-B1-C1-D3 Additionally, the first and second highest VE are achieved at 12 ACH
The prominence order of the factors: D > B > A > C and 10 ACH respectively, which also suggests that other factors are
more important than ACH. However, VMF is the collective effect of
ACH and VE. In MO Group, ACH is the most influential factor for indoor
Table 13 environments. Supply location (B) and source location (C) rank the
ANORA of VMF in DO Group.
second and the third. Although VE may be rather low, indoor en-
Index ACH (A) Supply Location Return Location Source Location vironments will not be so bad with a higher ACH provided. For ex-
(B) (C) (D) ample, MV-09 has the highest VE in MO Group, but because of a higher
ACH, VMF of MV-15 is almost the same as MV-09, despite a lower VE.
K1 6.4 4.2 5.3 7.8
K2 5.9 4.9 5.1 4.3
In addition, it is demonstrated again that return location does not make
K3 3.8 7.1 5.8 4.0 a difference for diffusers [45].
R 2.6 2.9 0.6 3.7
Optimal solution A3-B1-C2-D3
The prominence order of the factors: D > B > A > C 5.5.2. ANOVA of the general ventilation
ANOVA is performed and the results are presented in Tables 16–19.
ANOVA with F-test is used to evaluate the significance of various fac-
Table 14 tors. The significant level, a = 0.05, is selected.
ANORA of VE in MO Group. ANOVA in DO Group gives the same result with ANORA. The
rankings of significance for the four factors are source location (D),
Index ACH (A) Supply Return Source Diffuser
Location (B) Location (C) Location (D) Size (E) supply location (B), ACH (A) and return location (C) for VE and VMF.
Results of ANOVA indicate that within the current settings of variables,
K1 1.08 1.28 1.22 0.92 1.18 the effect of supply location and source location on VE and VMF is
K2 1.13 1.16 1.11 1.05 1.02
significant at 95% level while the effect of ACH on VE is significant at
K3 1.12 1.16 1.10 1.02
K4 1.08 0.80 0.97 1.42
95% level but the effect of ACH on VMF is not.
R 0.05 0.48 0.25 0.50 0.16 ANOVA in MO Group gives similar results with ANORA. The rank-
Optimal solution A2-B1-C1-D4-E1 ings of significance in terms of VE for the five factors are source location
The prominence order of the factors: D > B > C > E > A (D), supply location (B), diffuser size (E), return location (C) and ACH
(A), with a reverse order of diffuser size and return location compared
with ANORA. The rankings of significance in terms of VMF are ACH
Table 15
(A), supply location (B), diffuser size (E), source location (D) and return
ANORA of VMF in MO Group.
location (C). Compared the results of ANOVA with ANORA, the first and
Index ACH (A) Supply Return Source Diffuser second most influential factor remain consistent while the orders of the
Location (B) Location (C) Location (D) Size (E) other three differ.
K1 7.1 4.6 4.7 6.2 5.1
K2 5.7 5.1 5.5 5.5 5.9 5.6. Validation of the optimal solutions
K3 5.0 5.1 5.7 5.5
K4 4.2 7.2 6.1 4.7
R 2.9 2.6 1.3 1.5 0.8
The optimal solutions of DO and MO Group requires verification to
Optimal solution A4-B1-C1-D4-E1 check the reliability and accuracy of OED. The configuration of the best
The prominence order of the factors: A > B > D > C > E solution within the groups and optimal solution of the groups is listed in
Table 20.
As summarized in Table 20, the optimal solution of DO Group is not
location (B) and the least return location (C) for VE and VMF. The the real optimization because DO-8 is better. The difference between
optimal solutions vary only in the least influential factor. Results of DO DO-8 and DO-OPT is supply location. A tiny difference is observed
Group are also consistent with those of DV Group. A higher ACH brings between A-B and B-C in Tables 12 and 13 but both of them are much
about a higher VE and the collective effect results in a much lower VMF. better than A-C. Consequently an error exists. The optimal solution of
The first and the second highest VE are both achieved at 12 ACH. MO Group is the real optimization, with a higher VE and a lower VMF,
ANORA of VE and VMF in MO Group gives a completely different which indicates that OED is more accurate in MV systems. With regard
result. Source location (D) is the most influential factor for VE, supply to MO-09, the choices of supply location and source location are the

Table 16
ANOVA of VE in DO Group.

Factors Sum of squares of deviations Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value Critical F Significance

A 1.2 2 5.9 E−1 43.6 F0.05(2,2) = 19 ※

B 1.6 2 7.9 E−1 58.7 ※
C 0.0 2 1.3 E−2
D 2.1 2 1.0 E0 76.3 ※

Note: Factor C is selected as the error item because the orthogonal array is fully occupied.

249
W. Liu et al. Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251

Table 17
ANOVA of VMF in DO Group.

Factors Sum of squares of deviations Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value Critical F Significance

A 11.5 2 5.8 17.7 F0.05(2,2) = 19

B 13.6 2 6.8 20.9 ※
C 0.7 2 0.3
D 25.9 2 13.0 39.8 ※

Note: Factor C is selected as the error item because the orthogonal array is fully occupied.

Table 18
ANOVA of VE in MO Group.

Factors Sum of squares of deviations Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value Critical F Significance

B 0.51 3 0.17 6.4 F0.05(3,5) = 5.41 ※

C 0.12 3 0.04 1.5 F0.05(1,5) = 6.61
D 0.57 3 0.19 7.2 ※
E 0.10 1 0.10 3.6
Error 0.13 5 0.03

Note: Factor A is included in the error item because the sum of squares of deviations of it is tiny.

Table 19
ANOVA of VMF in MO Group.

Factors Sum of squares of deviations Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value Critical F Significance

A 18.6 3 6.2 5.0 F0.05(3,2) = 19.16

B 16.2 3 5.4 4.3 F0.05(1,2) = 18.51
C 3.8 3 1.3 1.0
D 4.7 3 1.6 1.2
E 5.0 1 5.0 4.0
Error 2.5 2 1.3

Table 20 then displaces indoor air upward. But in MV Group, the mixing in
The configuration of the best and optimal solution of DO and MO Group. horizontal direction is not as sufficient as vertical direction because
of the existence of fume hoods and uneven distribution of diffusers.
Case No. Factors Results
● Performance of the general ventilation depends on both ACH and
ACH Supply Return Source Diffuser Size VE VMF VE. The increase of ACH is beneficial while the decrease of VE is
Location Location Location (ppm) adverse and the total effect is determined by the relative intensity.
With the raise of ACH, VE grows in DV Group but remains steady in
DO-8 12 B-C Middle 3 / 2.67 1.9
DO-OPT 12 A-B Middle 3 / 1.94 2.6
MV Group. Diminishing marginal efficiency of increasing ACH re-
MO-09 12 S-1 R-3 #4 360 × 360 1.76 2.8 sults from the decline in the growth rate of VE or even the reduction
MO-OPT 14 S-1 R-1 #4 360 × 360 2.55 1.7 of VE.
● The amount of leakage of fume hoods in DV systems is several orders
of magnitude lower than MV but remains stable in both systems.
first best and ACH is the second best. That is the reason why MO-09 is However, the variation tendency of B-Z control level is different
the best solution in MO Group. from the leakage rate, which means B-Z control level is influenced
not only by the amount of leakage but also airflow patterns.
6. Conclusions ● Results of ANORA and ANOVA indicate that pollutant source loca-
tion and supply location are two dominant factors for VE and VMF
In the present study, the gaseous pollutant transmission character- in DV systems as well as for VE in MV systems but ACH and supply
istics in chemical laboratories with fume hoods are explored numeri- location dominate VMF in MV systems.
cally under different ventilation strategies. CFD is used to simulate the ● OED is an effective method to improve the performance of the
airflow movement and OED is adopted to analyze the effect of various general ventilation but the optimal solutions obtained require vali-
factors. The dominant factors are found out and the optimum parameter dation. Under the current settings, it is more accurate in MV sys-
combination is obtained. The main conclusions are as follows: tems.

● Pollutant concentration distributions in chemical laboratories are References

strongly affected by fume hoods, which make them differ from
conventional ventilation systems. Fume hoods prevent the well-
mixed phenomenon as well as dispersion of pollutants and make
them concentrated near fume hoods and trapped in occupied zones
but fortunately, the upstream region is clean. Pollutant concentra-
tion distributions have a similarity in DV Group but do not in MV
Group.
● The airflow pattern in DV Group is very similar with that in con-
ventional systems. The fresh air fills the bottom of the room and
[1] S. Takada, S. Okamoto, C. Yamada, et al., Chemical exposures in research labora-
tories in a university, Ind. Health 46 (2) (2008) 166–173.
[2] J. Shaham, R. Gurvich, Y. Kneshet, Cancer incidence among laboratory workers in
biomedical research and routine laboratories in Israel: Part I-the cohort study, Am.
J. Ind. Med. 44 (44) (2003) 600–610.
[3] J. Shaham, R. Gurvich, Y. Kneshet, Cancer incidence among laboratory workers in
biomedical research and routine laboratories in Israel: Part II-nested case-control
study, Am. J. Ind. Med. 44 (6) (2003) 611–626.
[4] S. Cordier, M.L. Mousel, G.C. Le, et al., Cancer risk among workers in biomedical
research, Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 21 (6) (1996) 450–459.

250
W. Liu et al.
[5] John M. Dement, John R. Cromer, Cancer and reproductive risks among chemists
and laboratory workers: a review, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 7 (2) (1992)
120–126.
[6] B. Rachet, T. Partanen, T. Kauppinen, et al., Cancer risk in laboratory workers: an
emphasis on biological research, Am. J. Ind. Med. 38 (6) (2000) 651–665.
[7] P. Gustavsson, C. Reuterwall, J. Sadigh, et al., Mortality and cancer incidence
among laboratory technicians in medical research and routine laboratories
(Sweden), Cancer Causes Control 10 (1) (1999) 59–64.
[8] J.A. Hallidaybell, R. Quansah, M. Gissler, et al., Laboratory work and adverse
pregnancy outcomes, Occup. Med. 60 (4) (2010) 310.
[9] M.L. Lindbohm, H. Taskinen, M. Sallmén, et al., Spontaneous abortions among
women exposed to organic solvents, Am. J. Ind. Med. 17 (17) (1990) 449–463.
[10] H. Wennborg, L. Bodin, H. Vainio, et al., Pregnancy outcome of personnel in
Swedish biomedical research laboratories, J. Occup. Environ. Med. 42 (4) (2000)
438.
[11] J.L. Zhu, L.E. Knudsen, A.N. Andersen, et al., Laboratory work and pregnancy
outcomes: a study within the National Birth Cohort in Denmark, Occup. Environ.
Med. 63 (1) (2006) 53–58.
[12] M. Jin, F. Memarzadeh, K. Lee, et al., Experimental study of ventilation perfor-
mance in laboratories with chemical spills, Build. Environ. 57 (57) (2012) 327–335.
[13] W.B. Faulkner, F. Memarzadeh, G. Riskowski, et al., Particulate concentrations
within a reduced-scale room operated at various air exchange rates, Build. Environ.
65 (7) (2013) 71–80.
[14] R.C. Klein, C. King, A. Kosior, Laboratory air quality and room ventilation rates, J.
Chem. Health Saf. 16 (5) (2009) 36–42.
[15] R.C. Klein, C. King, A. Kosior, Laboratory air quality and room ventilation rates: an
update, J. Chem. Health Saf. 18 (2) (2011) 21–24.
[16] T.C. Smith, S.Y. Smith, Specification of airflow rates in laboratories, J. Chem.
Health Saf. 16 (16) (2009) 27–35.
[17] D.B. Lou, P. Greenley, M. Labosky, Laboratory air changes: what is all the hot air
about? J. Chem. Health Saf. 16 (5) (2009) 7–13.
[18] F. Memarzadeh, Effect of reducing ventilation rate on indoor air quality and energy
cost in laboratories, J. Chem. Health Saf. 16 (5) (2009) 20–26.
[19] G.C. Bell, Optimizing laboratory ventilation rates: process and strategies, J. Chem.
Health Saf. 16 (5) (2009) 14–19.
[20] F. Memarzadeh, Ventilation strategy for laboratories, Heating/Piping/Air cond.
Eng. 79 (8) (2007).
[21] A.A. Shaaban, S.M. Morcos, E.E. Khalil, et al., Effect of wall exhaust and spill lo-
cations on indoor air quality in a chemical laboratory, ASHRAE Trans. (2) (2014)
120.
[22] G.F. Deluga, Achieving maximum laboratory ventilation effectiveness at lowest
cost, Chem. Health Saf. 7 (2) (2000) 37–40.
[23] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
conditioning Engineers, Fundamentals (SI), Atlanta, GA, 2011 (Chapter 16.3).
[24] W.G. Mikell, L.R. Hobbs, Laboratory hood studies, J. Chem. Educ. 58 (5) (1981)
165–169.
[25] K.J. Caplan, G.W. Knutson, Laboratory fume hoods: influence of room air supply,
ASHRAE Trans. 1 (Part 2) (1978) 522–537.
[26] K.J. Caplan, G.W. Knutson, Influence of room air supply on laboratory hoods, Am.
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 43 (10) (1982) 738–746.
[27] K. Ahn, S. Woskie, L. DiBerardinis, et al., A review of published quantitative ex-
perimental studies on factors affecting laboratory fume hood performance, J.
251
Building and Environment 126 (2017) 238–251
Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5 (11) (2008) 735–753.
[28] C. Kee-Chiang, T. Kuo-Pao, W. You-Hsuan, Performance of local ventilated hood in
a general ventilation working environment, ASHRAE Trans. 114 (1) (2008)
424–430.
[29] D. Liu, H. Tang, Y. Zhao, et al., Characterization of the adsorption behavior of
aqueous cadmium on nanozero-valent iron based on orthogonal experiment and
surface complexation modeling, Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 24 (9) (2016) 1270–1274.
[30] G. Zou, J. Xu, C. Wu, Evaluation of factors that affect rutting resistance of asphalt
mixes by orthogonal experiment design, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 10 (3)
(2017).
[31] Z.K. Feng, W.J. Niu, C.T. Cheng, et al., Hydropower system operation optimization
by discrete differential dynamic programming based on orthogonal experiment
design, Energy 126 (2017) 720–732.
[32] Y. Qu, S. Chen, Orthogonal experimental research on the structural parameters of a
self-excited pulsed cavitation nozzle, Eur. J. Mech. - B/Fluids 65 (2017) 179–183.
[33] J. Tang, G. Gong, H. Su, et al., Performance evaluation of a novel method of frost
prevention and retardation for air source heat pumps using the orthogonal ex-
periment design method, Appl. Energy 169 (2016) 696–708.
[34] American Society of Safety Engineers. ANSI/AIHA Z9.5–2012: Laboratory
Ventilation, (2012) Park Ridge, IL.
[35] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
conditioning Engineers, Fundamentals (SI), Atlanta, GA, 2009 (Chapter 18).
[36] ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE 110-2016: Methods of Testing Performance of Laboratory
Fume Hoods, (2016) Atlanta, GA.
[37] FLUENT, Fluent 16.2 User's Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, 2015.
[38] S. Gilani, H. Montazeri, B. Blocken, CFD simulation of stratified indoor environment
in displacement ventilation: validation and sensitivity analysis, Build. Environ. 95
(2) (2016) 299–313.
[39] Y. Cheng, J. Niu, N. Gao, Stratified air distribution systems in a large lecture
theatre: a numerical method to optimize thermal comfort and maximize energy
saving, Energy Build. 55 (10) (2012) 515–525.
[40] S. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, CRC Press,, 1980.
[41] J.M. Villafruela, I. Olmedo, M.R.D. Adana, et al., CFD analysis of the human ex-
halation flow using different boundary conditions and ventilation strategies, Build.
Environ. 62 (4) (2013) 191–200.
[42] B.J. Winer, D.R. Brown, K.M. Michels, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.
[43] J.A. Khan, C.E. Feigley, E. Lee, et al., Effects of inlet and exhaust locations and
emitted gas density on indoor air contaminant concentrations, Build. Environ. 41
(7) (2006) 851–863.
[44] Q. He, J. Niu, N. Gao, et al., CFD study of exhaled droplet transmission between
occupants under different ventilation strategies in a typical office room, Build.
Environ. 46 (2) (2011) 397–408.
[45] K.C. Chung, S.P. Hsu, Effect of ventilation pattern on room air and contaminant
distribution, Build. Environ. 36 (9) (2001) 989–998.
[46] C. Shen, N. Gao, T. Wang, CFD study on the transmission of indoor pollutants under
personalized ventilation, Build. Environ. 63 (5) (2013) 69–78.
[47] N. Kobayashi, Q. Chen, R.W. Herrick, et al., Floor-supply displacement ventilation
in a small office, Indoor Built Environ. 12 (4) (2003) 281–291.
[48] M. Sandberg, M. Sjöberg, The use of moments for assessing air quality in ventilated
rooms, Build. Environ. 18 (4) (1983) 181–197.