DETERMINING CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT FILTER MATERIALS TO REMOVE VOCS( MAINLY FORMALDEHYDE) IN THE BUILDING ENVIRONMENT

Rahul Tiwari

Abstract


Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are inseparable part of the building environment. As a result the health and well-being of the occupants is at risk because the concentration of these compounds is often times above the standard levels. As a result the occupants are unknowingly exposed to these harmful compounds. Recently, there have been developments on the ways of solving this problem.
The existing heating, ventilation and air conditioning(HVAC) systems offer a solution but often times have some drawbacks in operation. Some techniques are effective but not very feasible for cleaning indoor air while others are very sophisticated. One of the smart ways to reduce the levels of VOCs in the buildings is to use air filters. VOCs are almost always present indoors; however, their concentration in the ambient air can be controlled by use of air purification process and can be brought down to acceptable levels.
One of the major compounds found in buildings is formaldehyde, which is emitted by substances used daily to day life. In the long run, formaldehyde has adverse health effects on the occupants. The principal focus of this article is to determine and compare the efficiency of different filter materials like granulated carbon, carbon+ion-exchange and ion exchange in removing the major quantified compound i.e. formaldehyde. Also another important criteria in the selection of a filter material is pressure drop, hence the performance of each filter with respect to pressure drop has also been shown.

Keywords


Volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), air filter, ventilation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Destaillats, H. et al. (2008). Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment: A review of reported data and information needs. Atmospheric Environment, 42 (7), pp. 1371–1388. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.080

Fisk, W.J., Mirer, A.G., Mendell, M.J. (2009). Quantitative relationship of sick building syndrome symptoms with ventilation rates. Indoor air, 19 (2), pp. 159–165. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00575.x

Fournier, F. et al. (2017). Relative toxicity for indoor semi volatile organic compounds based on neuronal death. Toxicology Letters, 279, pp. 33–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.07.875

Frontczak, M. et al. (2012). Quantitative relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor environmental quality and building design. Indoor air, 22 (2), pp. 119–131. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00745.x

Gallego, E. et al. (2013). Experimental evaluation of VOC removal efficiency of a coconut shell activated carbon filter for indoor air quality enhancement. Building and Environment, 67, pp. 14–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.003

Gennaro, G. et al. (2014). Indoor air quality in hair salons: Screening of volatile organic compounds and indicators based on health risk assessment. Atmospheric Environment, 83, pp. 119–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.10.056

Goodman, N.B. et al. (2017). Volatile organic compounds within indoor environments in Australia. Building and Environment, 122, pp. 116–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.033

Huang, Y. et al. (2010). Improved Removal of Indoor Volatile Organic Compounds by Activated Carbon Fiber Filters Calcined with Copper Oxide Catalyst. Clean soil air water, 38 (11), pp. 993–997. DOI: 10.1002/clen.200900302

Jo, W.K., Shin, S.H. (2012). Volatile organic compound concentrations, emission rates, and source apportionment in newly-built apartments at pre-occupancy stage. Chemosphere, 89 (5), pp. 569–578. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.054

Karakitsios, S.P. et al. (2011). Exposure to major volatile organic compounds and carbonyls in European indoor environments and associated health risk. Environment International, 37 (4), pp. 743–765. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.005

Kim, M. et al. (2018). A novel electrostatic precipitator-type small air purifier with a carbon fiber ionizer and an activated carbon fiber filter. Journal of Aerosol Science, 117, pp. 63–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.12.014

Lee, Y.S., Guerin, D.A. (2009). Indoor Environmental Quality Related to Occupant Satisfaction and Performance in LEED certified Buildings. Indoor and built environment, 18 (4), pp. 293–300. DOI: 10.1177/1420326X09105455

Lefebvre, M.A. et al. (2012). Consumer inhalation exposure to formaldehyde from the use of personal care products/cosmetics. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 63 (1), pp. 171–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.02.011

Liu, Y. et al. (2008). Source profiles of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) measured in China Part I. Atmospheric Environment, 42 (25), pp. 6247–6260. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.01.070

Pershin, A.A. et al. (2017). TiO2 mediated photocatalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds: Formation of CO as a harmful by-product. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 200, pp. 503–513. DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.07.044

Salonen, H. et al. (2009). Volatile organic compounds and formaldehyde as explaining factors for sensory irritation in office environments. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6 (4), pp. 239–247. DOI: 10.1080/15459620902735892

Salthammer, T. (2017). The Air that I Breathe. Chemie, 51 (5), pp. 308–323. DOI: 10.1002/ciuz.201700779

Salthammer, T., Mentese, S., Marutzky, R. (2010). Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment. Chemical reviews, 110 (4), pp. 2536–2572. DOI: 10.1021/cr800399g

Sarkhosh, M. et al. (2012). Indoor contaminants from Hardcopy Devices: Characteristics of VOCs in photocopy centers. Atmospheric Environment, 63, pp. 307–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.09.058

Takigawa, T. et al. (2008). Symptom definitions for SBS (sick building syndrome) in residential dwellings. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211 (1-2), pp. 114–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.03.004

Wang, S., Ang, H.M., Tade, M.O. (2007). Volatile organic compounds in indoor environment and photo catalytic oxidation: State of the art. Environment International, 33 (5), pp. 694–705. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.02.011




DOI: https://doi.org/10.23968/2500-0055-2018-3-2-61-68

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




     
ISSN: 2500-0055