Better Buildings Alliance - Laboratories Project Team

Getting Below Six Air Changes:

Highlights from BBA members who optimized air change rates in labs
Updated 1-4-13

1 Introduction
Laboratories are highly energy intensive, often using four to six times more energy per square
foot than a typical office building. One of the key factors affecting energy use in labs is the
minimum air change rate (ACR) requirement. Existing standards and guidelines provide wide
latitude in determining minimum ACR in labs (see appendix A). For example, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration specifies a room ventilation rate of 4 to 12 air changes per hour
(ACH), which “is normally adequate general ventilation if local exhaust systems such as hoods
are used as the primary method of control.” The ASHRAE lab design guide has similar
recommendations. Other standards recommend greater than 8 ACH. This range is very broad
and provides stakeholders with little guidance on how to select an appropriate ACR. As a result,
the highest value from the range is often chosen, with the implicit assumption that “more is
better”. Standard practice also entails the blanket adoption of ventilation guidelines as constant
values, with the ACR rarely being dynamically controlled or otherwise tailored to the occupancy or
conditions of the site, or optimized for energy efficiency or safety. The result can be excessive (or
inadequate) ventilation for the lab in question, causing unnecessary energy expenditures.
The purpose of this document is to provide highlights from Better Buildings Alliance (BBA)
members that have optimized minimum ACR to reduce energy use while maintaining or
1
improving safety – especially cases where the ACR has been reduced below 6 ACH .

2 Cornell University
2.1 Approach
Cornell University has a multi-phase plan for energy conservation, with a goal is to reduce their
annual energy use by 20% compared to that of year 2000. A significant portion of the savings can
come from reducing laboratory ventilation system energy use (fan power, cooling and heating of
outside air). They retrofitted and reduced the lab ACR from 8/4 ACH (occupied/unoccupied) to 6/3
ACH in one of their biotechnology laboratories. Cornell modified the general exhaust ductwork
and relocated the registers for more effective exhaust and lower decay time. They used
occupancy sensors to reduce the ACR during unoccupied times. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the
pre- and post-retrofit configurations of the air distribution system in the lab. Computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) modeling showed that after retrofit of the lab exhaust system, spills were cleared
well enough at 6/3 ACH to avoid exceeding the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL). Before
the implementation of new ACR and retrofit, the CFD modeling had shown that 8/4 ACH was not
clearing the spills effectively.

1
Note that the focus of this document is on minimum requirements for general exhaust. In some
laboratories, fume hoods or thermal conditioning are the primary driver for air change rates. In such cases,
the minimum ACR for general exhaust is less relevant for reducing energy use.

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 1

 Figure 1: Air distribution layout before retrofit

Figure 2: Air distribution layout after retrofit

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 2

2.2 Results
The retrofit included renovation of 90 fume hood zones. Annual energy costs were reduced from
$1.2 million to $900,000 – a savings of $300,000 per year, and equivalent to the CO2 emissions
of 100 homes. The simple payback was less than a 2 years.
Based on these results, Cornell reviewed the ACR for about 600 labs across its campus and
determined that the majority can run at 6/3 ACH (occupied/unoccupied).

2.3 Additional information

Cornell also looked at open lab concept and concluded that it increases ventilation effectiveness
by providing more room for chemicals to diffuse. They caution about specific areas such as edges
of the room, windows, and doorways. A CO2 fire extinguisher was used to measure chemical
concentration decay patterns and evaluate ventilation effectiveness at various locations in the
laboratory, as figure 3 illustrates.
See the supporting documentation package for additional information.

Figure 3: CO2 decay analysis

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 3

3 University of California, Irvine
3.1 Approach
UC Irvine recognized that laboratories have the potential to be far more efficient without
sacrificing occupant safety if the laboratory’s variable air volume features and digital controls can
2
be integrated with advanced air quality and occupancy sensors driving smarter control logic .
They use real-time air quality sensing and vary ventilation rates on a zone-by-zone basis, from 2
ACH unoccupied to 4 ACH under normal occupied conditions, and peaking to 12 ACH when
threshold levels of particulates, volatile organic compounds, or CO2 are sensed. This feature was
part of their integrated “Smart Labs” package of measures to reduce laboratory energy use.

3.2 Results
UC Irvine's Smart Labs program, of which reducing air change rates by utilizing centralized
demand controlled ventilation and exhaust stack discharge velocity reduction are key attributes,
has resulted in average savings of savings of 58% across several laboratory buildings (see figure
4). The electrical savings average is 55% while the thermal savings averages 78%. UCI attributes
the large thermal savings component to more closely matching the air change rate to the actual
load of the space, eliminating almost all reheat.
More information and resources about UC Irvine’s Smart Lab program is available at:
http://www.ehs.uci.edu/programs/energy/index.html.

!"#$%"&$%'()*+,-+./( )01230(45"%&(!"#(36&%$7&( 81B03(45"%&(!"#(36&%$7&(

)*+#",$-% 4.4% 650$%
ST;% &;$0#% &5,">%
!"#$% &'($% ./$0"1$% 50% $789$:,%
M"/9:1*% M"/9:1*% M"/9:1*%
.23% 24% ,;":%85-$<%
205=>%3">>% ?% @A@% 4.4% B%CDE% IKE% @DE% UUE%
68F"=1;%3">>% G% HAI% 24% !5% IDE% @@E% IPE%
J$9:$*%3">>% ?% KKAL% 24% !5% PDE% P@E% PCE%
!",=0">%M89$:8$*%C% ?NG% HAK% 4.4% BCDE% IOE% @CE% UDE%
G95>5198">%M89$:8$*%L% G% HAD% 4.4% BLDE% IUE% OKE% @DE%
2">9,C% )% @AD% 4.4% BCDE% I@E% POE% @CE%
F9>>$*(9$%
6% @AO% 24% BCDE% UOE% OKE% @KE%
!$=05*89$:8$*%
M(0"1=$%3">>% 6% PAC% 4.4% BCDE% UOE% OCE% PKE%
3$Q9R%3">>% 6% OAP% 4.4% BCDE% UOE% PPE% @HE%
):19:$$09:1%3">>% )% OAD% 4.4% BLDE% UHE% POE% @KE%

896%"/6:( ;<=( >8>( ?=@A( CCA( DEA( C;A(

Type: P = Physical Sciences, B = Biological Sciences, E = Engineering, M = Medical Sciences

Figure 4: Savings from Smart Lab retrofit, which includes reducing ACR to 4/2 ACH
(occupied/unoccupied)

2
Wendell Brase. “Smart Laboratories Cut Energy Consumption by Half”. University of California Irvine. April
2012. Available at http://www.ehs.uci.edu/programs/energy/index.html. Accessed January 4, 2013.

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 4

4 University of Colorado, Boulder
4.1 Approach
The University of Colorado Boulder (CU) conducted a review of applicable codes and standards
and determined that there is no prescribed ACH that determines a safe lab, except for ‘H’
occupancies. CU was able to establish a comfort level in lab safety with a performance-based
approach incorporating lab safety protocol, spill risk analysis, and lab hazard classification. Using
this approach they were able to use 4 ACH in low hazard labs and 6 ACH in high hazard labs.
CU evaluated the lab hazard assumptions in the event of a spill with two approaches: modeling
using mathematical calculations, and real time monitoring with mock spill scenario using acetone
(figure 5). The acetone concentration over time was compared to occupational exposure limits to
evaluate the hazard level. These tests were performed in different labs with current and revised
air change rates.

Figure 5: Acetone spill test

4.2 Results
The pilot study to reduce ACR was performed in a 137,000 sf laboratory building. The estimated
annual energy savings was 38% including heating and cooling. The project cost was $125,000.
Annual energy savings were estimated to be $60,000, which results in an estimated simple
payback of 2 years. CU estimates an average of 15-19% if the reduced ACR are applied for all
labs on campus.

4.3 Additional information and documentation:

For the spill analysis, modeled data are more conservative (figure 6). Lower ACR shows elevated
concentrations over time, however they never exceed current OSHA occupational exposure limits
(OELs). While the higher ACR maintains a lower acetone concentration, the lower ACR had a
comparable amount of time to evacuate the space to < 10 ppm.
See the supporting documentation package for additional information.

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 5

 600.0  

Modeled Data 4 ACH

Acetone Concentra2on (ppm)

500.0  
Modeled Data 19 ACH
Monitored Dat 4 ACH
400.0   Monitored Dat 1 ACH

300.0   Occupa2onal  
Exposure  
200.0   Limits  
OSHA  PEL  –  
100.0  

0.0  

1 20 39 58 77 96 115 134

Time (Minutes)
Figure 6: Comparison of modeled and monitored spill test data.

5 Key takeaways to optimize ACR in your laboratories

The following are a few key takeaways based on the above examples and other Labs21
resources:
1. Conduct a careful risk analysis of lab hazards in each lab and set the ACR for each lab
based on these analyses, rather than a general blanket assumption about risks.
2. Ensure that the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is fully engaged with efforts to
optimize ACR.
3. Consider CFD modeling and/or real-time monitoring to evaluate whether lower ACR will
provide adequate decay times for normal operations and/or for spill scenarios.
4. Install occupancy sensors to control occupied /unoccupied air flows. This is a simple
retrofit with major impact on energy use.
5. If needed, modify the location and type of supply diffusers and exhaust registers for more
efficient air flows and velocities.
6. Re-balance the system and re-commission control systems periodically. Even if initial
commissioning was done properly, changes in systems, layout of the room, and hazard
conditions can make the current operation inefficient.
7. Implement major infrastructure retrofit such as converting all of the air systems to VAV
and convert the control system to DDC controls with more monitoring capabilities, tighter
control, and faster reaction times.
8. In fume hood-driven labs, ACR is normally higher than the level required for general
exhaust. To reduce ACR, reduce face velocity on hoods that can maintain containment at
lower flow rates, either through VAV or low flow hoods. Modify or replace hoods with low
flow hoods. Identify hoods that can be removed or hibernated.
Standard ACR practice optimizes neither safety nor energy efficiency. While predefined code- or
standards-based approaches are the most straightforward, they do not optimize a laboratory’s
ACR rate, or verify whether the intended levels of safety and comfort have been achieved. Good
ventilation design practices, which involve in-depth analyses of users’ tasks, the location of tasks
within a laboratory, and careful risk analysis, translate into higher energy efficiency, lower life-
cycle cost, and, most importantly, enhanced safety.

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 6

6 Acknowledgements
The BBA Laboratories Team would like to thank the following team members for presenting and
sharing the information presented in this document:
Cornell University: Ralph Stuart, Lanny Joyce
University of California Irvine: Wendell Brase, Matt Gudorf, Scott Jackson, David Kang, Lisa
Mahar
University of Colorado Boulder: Shannon Horn, Timothy Lockhart, Kathryn Ramirez-Aguillar

For more information, contact the Laboratories Project Team:

Paul Mathew, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
[email protected] (510) 486 5116

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 7

Appendix A: Codes and Standards
Table 1: Design codes with air change rate requirements
Code Ventilation Rate Comment
IBC -2004 1 CFM/ft2 for H-5 Section 415.9.2.6
IMC - 2004 1 CFM/ft2 Rate required for storage areas that exceed
maximum allowable quantities of hazardous
materials. (Section 502.8.1.1.2)
UBC - 1997 1 CFM/ft2 for H-6 Uniform codes have been replaced by international
codes beginning in 2000. (Section 1202.2.5)

Table 2: Common design standards with air change rate guidelines

Standard Ventilation Rate Comment
ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 The specific room The latest version of the American National
ventilation rate shall be Standards Institute and the American Industrial
established or agreed Hygiene Association standard (ANSI/AIHA Z9.5-
upon by the owner or 2003, Section 2.1.2) states that a method based on
his/her designee. “air changes per hour is not the appropriate concept
for designing containment control systems.
Contaminants should be controlled at the source.”
ANSI/AIHA also states that the air changes per hour
do not “reflect actual mixing factors” of a particular
room.
NFPA-45-2004 Minimum 4 ACH According to the National Fire Protection
unoccupied; occupied Association’s Standard NFPA 45, Appendix A: A 8-
“typically greater than 8 3.5 (NFPA 45 2004), room air cur rents in the vicinity
ACH” of fume hoods should be as low as possible, ideally
less than 30% of the face velocity of the fume hood.
Air supply diffusion devices should be as far away as
possible from fume hoods and have low exit
velocities.
ACGIH–Ind. Vent.– The required ventilation This standard from the American Conference of
24th Ed.–2001 depends on the Governmental Industrial Hygienists states that “’Air
generation rate and changes per hour’ or ‘air changes per minute’ is a
toxicity of the poor basis for ventilation criteria where environmental
contaminant, not on the control of hazards, heat, and/or odors is required.”
size of the room in which The impact of the laboratory’s ceiling height is
it occurs. identified as one reason why an air change approach
does not adequately address the required
contamination control (Section 7.5.1, Air Changes).
ASHRAE Lab 4-12 ACH The ASHRAE Laboratory Design Guide includes
Guide–2001 suggestions relating to the following: • Minimum
supply air changes • Minimum exhaust air changes •
Minimum outdoor air changes • Recirculation
considerations
OSHA 29 CFR Part 4-12 ACH The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
1910.1450 specifies a room ventilation rate of 4 to 12 air
changes per hour, which “is normally adequate
general ventilation if local exhaust systems such as
hoods are used as the primary method of control.”
This range is extremely broad and provides a
designer with little guidance.

Optimizing Minimum Air Change Rates in Labs 8