NYSERDA IAQ – No. 200241

This project concerned a 650,000 sqft. office building from 1913. Below I breifly summarize the outcomes, and then discuss the comparison with a Dexwet Pure Air solution.

The Reported Solution

After our investigation, AKF concluded that the facility would benefit the most from the following IAQ

  • Installation of UVGI fixtures in the MERs, which serve as the mixed air plenum for each AHU.
    Air velocities in the MER are slow enough for UVGI to have enough contact time to improve IAQ.
  • Installation of UV lights in the upper room on each occupied floor. Most of the floor spaces have open ceiling plans, with enough ceiling height for upper room UVGI fixtures to be installed over 7’ above the floor.
  • Placement of portable HEPA + UV-C filtration units. These units would actively filter the air in the spaces that are densely occupied for most of the day.

The discussion of this solution in the paper then concludes with an estimate of the cost and energy impact of this solution, in order to achieve an¨ideal¨ IAQ, of about $600,000 installation costs, and increased energy consumption, by using electrostatic MERV 13 filters.

By implementing the recommended IAQ measures the facility can achieve:

  • An improved overall equivalent ACH rate of 6.37 placing it in the excellent range.
  • An overall improvement in IAQ from “Fair” to “Ideal” levels.
  • An increase in electricity consumption of approximately 244,000 kWh.
  • A utility cost increase Utility of approximately $46,000.
  • A net emission increase of approximately 71 tCO2e.

The Alternative (Dexwet) solution

With the information in the document it is not possible to determine with any kind of precision the amount of Dexwet Pure Air would be needed, but we can safely observe the following:

  1. Dexwet Pure Air would drastically reduce energy usage for instead of a pressure drop, it would increase the airflow compared to legacy filters. Dexwet works at as little as 0.5 to 2.0 MPH equivalent whereas a MERV 13 filter would likely need at least 15-20 MPH equivalent to overcome the pressure drop it causes.
  2. Besides the risk of accidental UVC exposure, there is always the risk of Ozone. I can personally attest to the fact that Ozone is a direct lung irritant, as I am extremely sensitive to it. With the Dexwet solution there is no need for any UVC.
  3. Besides the yearly service to wash down the filters and re-apply the absorber liquid, there is no more service, rather a decrease in energy usage, and a decrease in maintenance, also on the equipment, for the improved air pressure with the Dexwet filter means lower energy consumption, but also lower wear and tear on the equipment, and thus reduced maintenace costs.
  4. The reduction in trash is also obvious. There are no more filters to replace or UV-C bulbs to change out. But also, since the absorber fluid seals anything it captures off from the air, the filter is inert and handling it is not a potential source of contamination or infection, whereas normal filters might be.
  5. On the whole, the Dexwet Pure Air solution in the same setting would tend to reduce the PM10, PM2.5 and PM1 counts by 99% within about a half a day.

In short, the Dexwet Pure Air solution would reduce energy, maintenance and trash, while providing high quality particulate filtration for a year at a time, saving money and reducing emissions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.