File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Can commonly-used fan-driven air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality? A literature review

TitleCan commonly-used fan-driven air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality? A literature review
Authors
KeywordsAir cleaner
By-product
Clean air delivery rate (CADR)
Electrostatic precipitator
High efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
Indoor air quality (IAQ)
Ion generator
Ozone
Photocatalytic oxidation (PCO)
Plasma
Sorption
Thermal catalytic oxidation (TCO)
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI)
Issue Date2011
PublisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv
Citation
Atmospheric Environment, 2011, v. 45 n. 26, p. 4329-4343 How to Cite?
AbstractAir cleaning techniques have been applied worldwide with the goal of improving indoor air quality. The effectiveness of applying these techniques varies widely, and pollutant removal efficiency is usually determined in controlled laboratory environments which may not be realized in practice. Some air cleaners are largely ineffective, and some produce harmful by-products. To summarize what is known regarding the effectiveness of fan-driven air cleaning technologies, a state-of-the-art review of the scientific literature was undertaken by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from Europe, North America, and Asia with expertise in air cleaning, aerosol science, medicine, chemistry and ventilation. The effects on health were not examined. Over 26,000 articles were identified in major literature databases; 400 were selected as being relevant based on their titles and abstracts by the first two authors, who further reduced the number of articles to 160 based on the full texts. These articles were reviewed by the panel using predefined inclusion criteria during their first meeting. Additions were also made by the panel. Of these, 133 articles were finally selected for detailed review. Each article was assessed independently by two members of the panel and then judged by the entire panel during a consensus meeting. During this process 59 articles were deemed conclusive and their results were used for final reporting at their second meeting. The conclusions are that: (1) None of the reviewed technologies was able to effectively remove all indoor pollutants and many were found to generate undesirable by-products during operation. (2) Particle filtration and sorption of gaseous pollutants were among the most effective air cleaning technologies, but there is insufficient information regarding long-term performance and proper maintenance. (3) The existing data make it difficult to extract information such as Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), which represents a common benchmark for comparing the performance of different air cleaning technologies. (4) To compare and select suitable indoor air cleaning devices, a labeling system accounting for characteristics such as CADR, energy consumption, volume, harmful by-products, and life span is necessary. For that purpose, a standard test room and condition should be built and studied. (5) Although there is evidence that some air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality, further research is needed before any of them can be confidently recommended for use in indoor environments. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/139359
ISSN
2014 Impact Factor: 3.281
2014 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.431
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
National Natural Science Foundation of China50725620
51006057
Funding Information:

This literature review was financially supported by a research project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Number: 50725620, 51006057). Thanks to Prof. J. Zhang, Syracuse University, for providing the space and on-site support for the 2nd expert meeting, Dr. Jeffery Siegel for the additional paper-selection, and thanks to Ph. D candidates J. Pei of Syracuse University and Z. Liu of Virginia Tech for their assistance.

References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yen_HK
dc.contributor.authorMo, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLi, Yen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSundell, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWargocki, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLittle, JCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCorsi, Ren_HK
dc.contributor.authorDeng, Qen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLeung, MHKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFang, Len_HK
dc.contributor.authorChen, Wen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLi, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSun, Yen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-23T05:48:48Z-
dc.date.available2011-09-23T05:48:48Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationAtmospheric Environment, 2011, v. 45 n. 26, p. 4329-4343en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1352-2310en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/139359-
dc.description.abstractAir cleaning techniques have been applied worldwide with the goal of improving indoor air quality. The effectiveness of applying these techniques varies widely, and pollutant removal efficiency is usually determined in controlled laboratory environments which may not be realized in practice. Some air cleaners are largely ineffective, and some produce harmful by-products. To summarize what is known regarding the effectiveness of fan-driven air cleaning technologies, a state-of-the-art review of the scientific literature was undertaken by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from Europe, North America, and Asia with expertise in air cleaning, aerosol science, medicine, chemistry and ventilation. The effects on health were not examined. Over 26,000 articles were identified in major literature databases; 400 were selected as being relevant based on their titles and abstracts by the first two authors, who further reduced the number of articles to 160 based on the full texts. These articles were reviewed by the panel using predefined inclusion criteria during their first meeting. Additions were also made by the panel. Of these, 133 articles were finally selected for detailed review. Each article was assessed independently by two members of the panel and then judged by the entire panel during a consensus meeting. During this process 59 articles were deemed conclusive and their results were used for final reporting at their second meeting. The conclusions are that: (1) None of the reviewed technologies was able to effectively remove all indoor pollutants and many were found to generate undesirable by-products during operation. (2) Particle filtration and sorption of gaseous pollutants were among the most effective air cleaning technologies, but there is insufficient information regarding long-term performance and proper maintenance. (3) The existing data make it difficult to extract information such as Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), which represents a common benchmark for comparing the performance of different air cleaning technologies. (4) To compare and select suitable indoor air cleaning devices, a labeling system accounting for characteristics such as CADR, energy consumption, volume, harmful by-products, and life span is necessary. For that purpose, a standard test room and condition should be built and studied. (5) Although there is evidence that some air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality, further research is needed before any of them can be confidently recommended for use in indoor environments. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenven_HK
dc.relation.ispartofAtmospheric Environmenten_HK
dc.subjectAir cleaneren_HK
dc.subjectBy-producten_HK
dc.subjectClean air delivery rate (CADR)en_HK
dc.subjectElectrostatic precipitatoren_HK
dc.subjectHigh efficiency particulate air (HEPA)en_HK
dc.subjectIndoor air quality (IAQ)en_HK
dc.subjectIon generatoren_HK
dc.subjectOzoneen_HK
dc.subjectPhotocatalytic oxidation (PCO)en_HK
dc.subjectPlasmaen_HK
dc.subjectSorptionen_HK
dc.subjectThermal catalytic oxidation (TCO)en_HK
dc.subjectUltraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI)en_HK
dc.titleCan commonly-used fan-driven air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality? A literature reviewen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1352-2310&volume=45&issue=26&spage=4329&epage=4343&date=2011&atitle=Can+commonly-used+fan-driven+air+cleaning+technologies+improve+indoor+air+quality?+A+literature+review-
dc.identifier.emailLi, Y:liyg@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLi, Y=rp00151en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.041en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79959869554en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros192421en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-79959869554&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume45en_HK
dc.identifier.issue26en_HK
dc.identifier.spage4329en_HK
dc.identifier.epage4343en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000293680100001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZhang, Y=35328715500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMo, J=15755746100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLi, Y=7502094052en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSundell, J=7006095411en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWargocki, P=35575541700en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZhang, J=16231938600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLittle, JC=7402508439en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCorsi, R=7005527001en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDeng, Q=36436783200en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, MHK=44161245100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFang, L=44160980900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChen, W=37083129100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLi, J=44161235900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSun, Y=22235688000en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike9376722-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats