1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET
August 13, 2012
Date:
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )
A. Title
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE
H. Objective
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort
Project Duration in Months
Professional-Months: Principal
Investigator
Professional-Months: Total
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References
Responsible TC/TG:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
For
Against
Abstaining
Absent or not returning Ballot
Total Voting Members
Work Statement Authors:
Russell Robison (technical contact)
Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
WS#
1614
(To be assigned by MORTS - Same as RTAR #)
Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,
Special Publications, etc.:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TC 5.10 Kitchen Ventilation
Title:
ASHRAE Applications Handbook Chapter 33 (kitchen ventilation)
ASHRAE HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook Chapter 16 (ultraviolet
Lamp systems)
Model Codes and Standards (NFPA-96, International Building Code, etc.)
Date of Vote:
*
*
*
8
0
0
0
8
**
08-09-2012
This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
TC 2.3 Gaseous Air Contaminants and Gas Contaminant Removal
Equipment. ( vote 8-4-1-0, 08-14-2012)
Has RTAR been submitted?
Strategic Plan
Theme/Goals
Yes
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee:
Chair:
Russell Robison
Members:
Bob Ajemian
Jimmy Sandusky
Chris Thompson
Brian Krafthefer (TC 2.3)
Project Monitoring Subcommittee:
(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): **
**
Kathleen
Owen, Research Chemical Engineer, RTI International, 3040
Cornwallis Rd., RTP, NC 27709, Tel: 919-541-6941 - [email protected]
Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
Dr. Thomas Kuehn, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
111 Church St. SE, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111,
Tel: 612-625-4520 - [email protected]
Dr. Quentin Lineberry, Thermal Analysis Laboratory Coordinator, Institute for
Combustion Science and Environmental Technology, 2413 Nashville Rd.,
Bowling Green, KY 42101, Tel: 270-780-2532 - [email protected]
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder. Use additional sheet if needed.
Yes
No
x
x
x
4
How Long (weeks)
WORK STATEMENT# (1614)
SPONSORING TC/TG/SSPC:TC5.10
Title: Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
Executive Summary:
Today there exists miles of commercial cooking hoods worldwide utilizing UV filtration for the
abatement of grease and fuel potential from commercial kitchen exhaust systems. The technologies’
acceptance has come in large part due to anecdotal evidence with some select manufacturer data
available. This project’s goal is to clearly define and quantify the performance, environmental, and life
safety deliverables of new and installed commercial kitchen UV hoods and provide a publically accepted
road map for future improvements to the technology.
Research Classification:
Basic Research
Estimated Cost:
$231,255
Estimated Duration:
12 months
Work Statement Lead Author
Russell Robison
Co-sponsoring TC/TG/SSPCs and votes:
TC2.3 (Gaseous Air Contaminants and Gas Contaminant Removal Equipment) has voted in favor (8-4-10) of being a co-sponsor on this project.
Possible Co-funding Organizations:
No other groups within ASHRAE have expressed interest or support.
Current Producer(s) will donate equipment (a single UV commercial kitchen hood) to the project.
Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
This project covers:
(GOAL 9) Support the Development of improved HVAC&R components ranging from residential
through commercial to provide improved system efficiency, affordability, reliability and safety.
The project is intended to lay the foundation for a standardized method of test for commercial kitchen UV
systems and can potentially pave the way for optimization of the science delivering decreased costs of
ownership, increased safety and heat recovery efficiencies.
Application of Results:
1. ASHRAE Applications Handbook: Chapter 33 – “Kitchen Ventilation”, and Chapter 60 –
“Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment Applications”
2. ASHRAE HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook: Chapter 16 – Ultraviolet Lamp Systems.
3. Recommendations for Building and Environmental Codes Regarding Ultraviolet Light and Ozone
in Commercial Kitchens.
4. Recommendations for Development of a Standard Method of Test for UV Effectiveness in
1
Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Applications.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
Dating to 1990, ultraviolet (UV) systems have been used to disinfect room air and air streams. UV light
has a wavelength shorter than that of visible light and longer than soft x-rays and is invisible to the human
eye. UV light is categorized based on wave-length, as shown below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
UVA – Long wave (400 – 315 nm); most abundant in sunlight; causes skin to tan and wrinkle.
UVB - Medium wave (315 – 280 nm); reddens the skins and cause skin cancer.
UVC – Short wave (280 – 200 nm); most effective wavelength for germicidal applications.
VUV – Vacuum (200 – 100 nm)
UVC light has been shown to destroy biological material and has anecdotal evidence supporting its
reduction of grease deposition in commercial kitchen ventilation ducts (Livchak and Schrock, 2003; FCSI
2006, Alexandrova 2009) .
UV systems have been used in commercial kitchen ventilation systems for approximately a decade.
Typically, these systems are installed behind mechanical filters that capture the majority of large
particulate being exhausted to allow the UV system to interact as a catalyst with smaller grease particulate
and vapor. UVC radiation emitted by lamps installed in the hood induces photochemical and oxidative
processes which radicalize and break down molecular bonds present in cooking effluent. The resulting
processes may affect the emission stream by changing particle size distribution, particle reactivity, gas to
particle partitioning, VOC composition and concentrations. The UV Treatment may increase or decrease
the amount of fugitive free radicals, ozone, aldehydes, reactive organic gases, and carcinogenic PAH
concentrations. These changes may have impacts on air quality and public health.
Currently no method of test exists to evaluate the effectiveness of UV systems for use in commercial
cooking environments. This project will provide the foundation for that effort.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
There are a large number of UV systems being utilized in kitchen applications, and there is no
quantifiable means of determining how well they are working and how they should be applied in the field.
This research will provide a detailed examination of the characteristic variables associated with the UV
effect to then be applied to a range of cooking applications. While private research has investigated some
aspects of UV, there is no public data available for this specific application. The project will quantify the
effectiveness of UV for grease abatement in commercial kitchen ventilation applications and evaluate the
composition, flammability, and toxicology of the airborne and deposited byproducts and allow for
recommendations to be made on the integration of UV in commercial kitchen environments.
This project will produce a draft MOT as one of the deliverables that can be used by manufacturers or
third parties to evaluate UV system performance.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
If the photochemical and oxidative processes taking place within a UV system are proven to be effective
and safe, a UV system can offer many benefits. These benefits include: reduced duct cleaning intervals, a
decreased likelihood of a duct fire, increased CKV heat exchanger efficiencies, and possible reductions of
VOC’s and grease particulate emissions. Quantitative testing will allow for a recommendation to be made
on how effective a UV system will be when installed and quantify the benefits based on data from third
party analysis.
Additionally, the results from the research may be used in the interpretation of various building codes and
2
regulations and in the development of a draft standard method of test regarding UV applications in
commercial kitchens.
Objectives:
The principal objectives of this research are to:
1. Define and quantify the performance, environmental, and life safety deliverables of new and
installed commercial kitchen UV hoods.
2. Determine a means to quantify the effectiveness of UV when used in commercial kitchen
applications.
3. Make recommendations for a standard method of test for UV performance, if applicable.
Scope/Technical Approach:
The researcher focus for this project will be in four key areas:
1. Design and Testing of a base configuration to identify the viability of variables and their
associated statistical uncertainties to properly quantify the performance of a UV system, see
Figure 1 for an example. These variables, as they stand will be, grease deposition rates at a predetermined distance downstream of the UV hood, flammability and solubility of UV-treated
grease samples relative to un-treated samples and specific stack emissions such as ozone,
formaldehyde, PM2.5, PM10, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. See figure 2 and 3 for the
recommended number of tests, costs, and rough number of samples. Publically accepted
measurement procedures are to be used. Best methods to be determined by researcher. Setup and
measurement of variables are to be conducted on systems commercially available and operating
as intended. UV system loading of cooking products and concentrations are to resemble those
common to state-of-the-art UV hoods now commercially available. Researcher to develop
loading schedule based on known equipment emissions as illustrated in prior ASHRAE research 1
&2
. Loading to be approved by PMS.
2. Craft a peer reviewed Method of Test incorporating any necessary changes. This process will
require PMS and TC Review and acceptance prior to proceeding.
3. Apply the established UV Method of Test to reprehensive medium, (Frying potatoes) and heavy,
(Broiling Hamburger), challenges as indicated in Figure 2. The baseline for system performance
will hinge on measurements with UV effect vs. measurements without UV effect.
4. Publication of a final report detailing all findings for the equipment challenges and a
recommendation for a UV hood test standard.
3
Figure 1, Base Test Setup…
4
Test challenge Lamps Filters Sample locations # of samples*
no cooking
on/off
primary
shortly after duct
medium duty
(deep fat fryer)
on/off
primary
50ft.
heavy duty
(burgers charbroiler)
on/off
primary
secondary
3
2
1.5
3
100 ft.
number of variables
statistical validation*
number of samples
3
27
3
81
5
135
* to be determined by researcher based on
1) availability and accuracy of real time instruments
2) initial single results indicating statistical and scientific significance to PMS and researcher
Figure 2, Estimate number of tests
5
PROPOSED MEASUREMENTS / Technical Approach
DEPOSITED
MATERIAL
grab samples
MASS and
CALORIMETRY
Est. Cost
per sample
$
# of samples
Est. COST $
950.00
12
11,400.00
MEASURED IN AIRSTREAM
Integrated samples
Real time Measurements
OZONE
PM 2.5
UV absorption
is an absolute
measurement,
is indication of
ozone
concentration.
The EPA,
ASTM, NIST,
and IOA
recognize this
technique as
the reference
method for
ozone in air
measurement
PM 2.5 respirable
particulates (real-time
[SMPS/CPC]
sampling) We suggest
to characterize the
particle number and
size distribution from
cooking emissions using
a condensation particle
counter (CPC) and a
scanning mobility
particle sizer SMPS,
respectively. This is
important since
numerous
epidemiological studies
have documented that
ultrafine particles
(UFP)are associated
with adverse health
effects including
respiratory symptoms,
lung function, hospital
admissions for
cardiorespiratory
disease, and mortality.
Moreover, the number
of UFP is a more
relevant exposure and
important variable than
the mass of PM
because UFP have a
large surface area and
penetrate into the
interstitium and into the
blood stream.
na
na
FORMALDEHYDE
(listed carcinogen)
Carbonyl samples are
collected through a
heated line onto 2,4dinitrophenylhydrazine
(DNPH) coated silica
cartridges (Waters
Corp., Milford, MA).
Sampled cartridges are
extracted using 5 mL
of acetonitrile and
injected into an Agilent
1100 series high
performance liquid
chromatograph
(HPLC) equipped with
a diode array detector.
The HPLC sample
injection and operating
conditions are set up
according to the
specifications of the
SAE 930142HP
protocol.
PAH*^
know carcinogens
For gaseous- and
particle-phase PAH
analysis, samples are
collected on XAD bed
resins (polystyrene,
divinylbenzene
polymer) followed by
47 mm Teflon filters.
The extraction of the
Teflon filters and the
semi-volatile resin are
conducted by using
dichlomethane and the
extract is analyzed by
gas
chromatograph/mass
spectrometer
(GC/MS). The
analysis provides a
wide range of
compounds including
PAHs, n-alkanes, and
quinones. Quinones are
highly reactive
derivatives of PAHs
that are capable of
catalyzing redox
cycling reactions and
forming covalent bonds
with tissue
nucleophiles.
$55.00
81
$4,455.00
$750.00
36* charbroiler only
$27,000.00
REACTIVE ORGANIC GASES
Light hydrocarbons (C1-C4) are collected in Tedlar bags or polished
Summa canisters. Analysis is performed by injecting the sample into a
gas chromatograph/flame ionization detector (GC/FID). Heavier
hydrocarbons (C4-c12) are collected in adsorbent tubes (TDS tubes).
Thermal desorption is a valuable and versatile GC sample introduction
technique for a wide variety of solid, liquid, and gaseous samples that
are not amenable to direct injection into the GC instrument. Gas-phase
samples can be collected and concentrated onto adsorbent tubes from
the atmosphere or from the headspace over liquid or solid samples, and
volatiles trapped onto the tubes are thermally desorbed and introduced
onto the GC column. Direct thermal extraction of volatiles and semi
volatiles in solid materials allows simplified trace GC analysis of
volatiles and semi volatiles in such samples as polymers, waxes,
powders, pharmaceutical formulations, foods, and cosmetics. For liquid
samples, the Gerstel Twister stir bar sorptive extraction technique
combined with thermal desorption enables trace and ultra-trace GC or
GC/MS analysis. The relative ground-level atmospheric ozone (O3)
impacts of reactive hydrocarbon emissions where speciated VOC
emissions data are compiled or measured are assessed using the ozone
reactivity values in the Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) scale
(Carter, 1994, 2009). The MIR scale gives estimates of the maximum
amount of additional ground-level ozone formed from various types of
VOCs when added to emissions in one-day urban photochemical smog
episodes where ozone is most sensitive to VOC emissions. Although
there are many ways to derive reactivity scales to quantify ozone
impacts, the MIR scale is most commonly used and has been adopted
for use in reactivity-based regulations in California (CARB 1993, 2000,
2006), and is considered acceptable by the U.S. EPA for reactivitybased assessments (EPA, 2005). The MIR scale was first developed
by Carter (1994), but has since been updated several times (Carter,
2000, 2003, 2009). MIR values are given in units of grams O3 formed
per gram of VOC emitted, but because the actual amounts of O3
formed from VOCs is highly dependent on conditions; they are most
appropriately used to quantify relative ozone impacts, i.e., how much
O3 is formed from emissions from one type of VOC source compared
to another. Ozone reactivity analysis using the MIR scale involves
multiplying the mass emissions of the various VOC species from the
source times the MIR values, to obtain an impact of the emissions on
an ozone basis. Ozone impact values using incremental reactivity
scales are additive, so impacts of mixtures are obtained by summing
the concentrations x the MIR values for the constituents. For example,
if the output of a propane-fueled source per unit of use is 0.5 grams of
propane, 0.25 grams of acetone, and 0.1 grams of formaldehyde, then
the ozone impact per unit of use is (0.5 x MIR of propane) + (0.25 x
MIR of acetone) + (0.1 x MIR of acetone). This converts the
emissions from grams VOC per unit of use to grams O3 per unit of
use.
$400.00
81
$32,400.00
Figure 3, Estimate number of Samples and estimated costs
6
Tasks:
1. Establish testing criterion to represent commercial kitchen applications over a select range of
grease loading applications.
2. Establish a baseline to represent typical medium and heavy cooking applications actual cooking
processes.
3. Define sampling criterion and locations and grease loading method.
4. Develop test method.
5. Prepare an intermediate report subjected to PMS and TC review to Presenting the proposed test
method.
6. Modify test method as necessary per technical paper PMS/TC or related input.
7. For each test condition, perform the following tests with and without UV lamps present:
a. Measure grease deposition rates at multiple locations along the length of the grease duct.
b. Quantify the grease emissions – particulate and vapor.
c. Determine fuel load of resulting compounds on select samples.
d. Quantify the following toxicological/photochemical species of concern
i.
ozone
ii.
formaldehyde, on select samples
iii.
pm 2.5
iv.
reactive organic gases
v.
PAH (Optional)
9. Determine UV effectiveness as a grease abatement strategy for each configuration.
10. Prepare and publish a final report and make recommendations, if applicable, for a standard
method of test.
Project Deliverables:
Progress, Financial and Final Reports, Research or Technical Paper(s), and Data shall constitute required
deliverables (“Deliverables”) under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a. Progress and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the Society
through its Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals; specifically on or
before each January 1, April 1, June 10, and October 1 of the contract period.
Furthermore, the Institution’s Principal Investigator, subject to the Society’s approval, shall, during
the period of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in person to the
sponsoring Technical Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and winter meetings, and be
available to answer such questions regarding the research as may arise.
b. Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, “Final Report”), in a form approved by the
Society, shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Society’s Manager of Research
and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete details of all
research carried out under this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six copies of the final report
shall be furnished for review by the Society’s Project Monitoring Subcommittee (PMS).
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the Final
Report will be furnished by the Institution as follows:
-
An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
7
-
Two bound copies
One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.
Two copies on CD-ROM; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.
c. HVAC&R Research or ASHRAE Transactions Technical Paper
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services (MORTS) and then to the “ASHRAE Manuscript Central” website-based manuscript
review system in a form and containing such information as designated by the Society suitable for
publication. Papers specified as deliverables should be submitted as either Research Papers for
HVAC&R Research or Technical Paper(s) for ASHRAE Transactions. Research papers contain
generalized results of long-term archival value, whereas technical papers are appropriate for applied
research of shorter-term value, ASHRAE Conference papers are not acceptable as deliverables
from ASHRAE research projects. The paper(s) shall conform to the instructions posted in
“Manuscript Central” for an ASHRAE Transactions Technical or HVAC&R Research paper. The
paper title shall contain the research project number (1614-RP) at the end of the title in parentheses,
e.g., (1614-RP).
Note: A research or technical paper describing the research project must be submitted after the TC
has approved the Final Report. Research or technical papers may also be prepared before the
project’s completion, if it is desired to disseminate interim results of the project. Contractor shall
submit any interim papers to MORTS and the PMS for review and approval before the papers are
submitted to ASHRAE Manuscript Central for review.
d. Data
The Institution agrees to maintain true and complete books and records, including but not limited to
notebooks, reports, charts, graphs, analyses, computer programs, visual representations etc.,
(collectively, the “Data”), generated in connection with the Services. Society representatives shall
have access to all such Data for examination and review at reasonable times. The Data shall be held
in strict confidence by the Institution and shall not be released to third parties without prior
authorization from the Society, except as provided by GENERAL CONDITION VII,
PUBLICATION. The original Data shall be kept on file by the Institution for a period of two years
after receipt of the final payment and upon request the Institution will make a copy available to the
Society upon the Society’s request.
e. Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totaling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad technical
audience, which documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings are significant, and
3. How the findings benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in general shall be submitted to the
Manager of Research and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term for publication in
ASHRAE Insights
f.
Interim Deliverables for the PMS
1. Submit a draft test plan based on the prescribed testing in this document to the PMS for review
and acceptance.
8
2. An Initial Evaluation by the PMS will be conducted at the contractor’s facility prior to testing to
evaluate equipment and methods specific to the project
3. The PMS will review the Draft MOT with recommendations for a future Commercial Kitchen
UV Test Standard.
4. Quantitative results and analysis of the Medium and Heavy Duty Challenges detailed in this work
statement to be included in the final report.
5. The draft final report shall be submitted to the PMS and discuss the following items in detail:
a. Recommendations for a standard method of test to assess UV system performance in
abating grease and removing fuel potential energy from commercial kitchen exhaust
systems
b. Photo and/or video record of the system configuration and testing process.
c. Analysis of chemical results including reduction in fuel potential added to a commercial
exhaust system due to the UV treatment.
d. Analysis of emissions results with regard to applicable EPA standards for discharge air.
e. Table of results indicating relative UV treatment performance over the standard cooking
challenges presented in this document.
f. Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, final copies of the final report will be
furnished as follows:
g. An Executive Summary suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
6. The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in the
Society’s ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a Deliverable.
7. All Deliverables under this Agreement and voluntary technical articles shall be prepared using
dual units; e.g., rational inch-pound with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall
be in accordance with IEEE/ASTM Standard SI-10.
Level of Effort
It is anticipated that the level of effort for this project will require three man-months of a principal
researcher’s time and up to nine man-months for a research engineer. The total project duration is
expected to be up to 12 months with an estimated cost of $231,255, see figure 3 for an itemized list.
Manufacturers will contribute various materials and equipment, TBD.
Project Cost Estimate
Quantity
Principle Investigator
Researcher
Total Labor, ($)
3
9
Cost/Unit
Total Cost ($)
Notes:
($)
$ 6,000.00 $ 18,000.00 Estimated Labor Rate $6000 / month
$ 3,500.00 $ 31,500.00 Estimated Labor Rate $3500 / month
Total for Researcher and Principle
$ 49,500.00 Investigator
Cost b ased on 3 samples for each set
Total Chemical Testing, ($)
Estimated Equipment Costs, ($)
Misc. Business Expenses
$ 72,255.00 up… Add $50,000 for 5 samples
Estimated Cost for Ducting, Exhaust
Blower and Variab le Frequency drives,
Cooking Equipment, and Testing
$ 45,000.00 Equipment
$ 15,000.00
$ 231,255.00
Figure 4, Itemized cost list
Other Information for Bidders
The proposal should contain company qualifications that demonstrate the ability to perform the chemical
9
testing and analysis described in this work statement. The bidder shall identify the characteristics of the
UV exhaust hood(s), appliances, and test equipment, and additionally indicate qualifications to carry out
the testing as described in this work statement.
Key References:
1. ASHRAE, HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook Chapter 16: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems,
ASHRAE, 2008.
2. ASHRAE, RP-745 – Identification and Characterization of Effluents from Various Cooking
Appliances and Processes as related to Optimum Design of Kitchen Ventilation Systems,
ASHRAE, February 1999.
3. ASHRAE, RP – 1375 – Characterization of Effluents from Additional Cooking Appliances,
ASHRAE, April 2008.
4. ASHRAE, RP – 1033 – Effects of Air Velocity on Grease Deposition in Exhaust Ductwork,
ASHRAE, February 2001.
5. Livchak, A. & Schrock, D. (2003). Ultraviolet Light – Seeking Out & Destroying Grease. The
Consultant, Third Quarter 2003, pages 111 – 117.
6. FCSI, 2006 .FCSI White Paper Commercial Kitchen Ventilation “Best Practice” Design and
Ventilation Guidelines, September, 2006.
http://www.fishnick.com/publications/ventilation/FCSI_CKV_White_Paper.pdf
7. Alevtina Alexandrova, 2009 - Extract And Cleaning of Contaminated Air in Commercial
Kitchens, Bachelor’s Thesis, Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences, December 2009.
http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/6891/alevtina_final.pdf?sequence=1
10
Response to RAC on RTAR 1614: Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
The following contains the questions from RAC on the RTAR along with the response from TC 5.10 (shown in
blue).
1. Update the Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan section to reference goals from the 2010-2015
Research Strategic Plan, if possible, in the WS draft.
 The WS has been updated to show that this project references goal 9: Support the development of
improved HVAC&R components.
2. The WS should make a stronger argument for why this research is needed. This argument should be
supported by studies from a world-wide literature search.
 Literature references have been added to the work statement. There has not been any public research
conducted on how to evaluate the performance of UV systems for kitchen application.
3. The objectives specified in the RTAR are a mixture of both objectives and tasks. Please correct this issue in
the WS draft.
 This has been clarified in the WS – a specific list of tasks and objectives have been broken into separate
sections and clarified.
4. Specify the minimum number of grease loadings (and the range) in the WS.
 The specific grease loading tests have been defined as shown in Figure 2 of the WS.
5. Is one UV system essentially the same as the next or should several systems be considered in the WS in
order to provide more general results?
 We are proposing in the WS to test a UV system that is representative of most of the systems currently
in the marketplace.
6. Co-funding from system manufacturers and restaurant operator associations should be investigated.
 The manufacturers are willing to provide in-kind funding on this project through the donation of exhaust
hoods and UV components.
7. Consider collaborating on this project with TC 2.9 – Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment
 TC 2.9 was contacted and has not shown an interest in being involved with this project. TC 2.3 is
interested and has voted to co-sponsor this project.
8. Correct the following typo the State-of-Art (Background) section: “4. Far or Vacuum UV – (200 – 30 nm).“
 This has been corrected
ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE  Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA  Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211  Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org
Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services
email: [email protected]
TO:
Gregory Duchane, TC 5.10, [email protected]
Derek Schrock, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 5.10, [email protected]
Piotr Domanski, Research Liaison Section 5.0, [email protected]
FROM:
Michael Vaughn, MORTS, [email protected]
DATE:
October 18, 2010
SUBJECT:
Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) 1614-RTAR, “Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV
Systems”
At their fall meeting, the Research Administration Committee (RAC) reviewed the subject Research Topic
Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to accept it for further development into a work statement (WS). The
following list summarizes the mandatory comments and questions that need to be fully addressed in the work
statement submission:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Update the Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan section to reference goals from the 20102015 Research Strategic Plan, if possible, in the WS draft.
The WS should make a stronger argument for why this research is needed. This argument should be
supported by studies from a world-wide literature search.
The objectives specified in the RTAR are a mixture of both objectives and tasks. Please correct this issue in
the WS draft.
Specify the minimum number of grease loadings (and the range) in the WS.
Is one UV system essentially the same as the next or should several systems be considered in the WS in
order to provide more general results?
Co-funding from system manufacturers and restaurant operator associations should be investigated.
Consider collaborating on this project with TC 2.9 – Ultraviolet Air and Surface Treatment
Correct the following typo the State-of-Art (Background) section: “4. Far or Vacuum UV – (200 – 30 nm)“
An RTAR evaluation sheet is attached as additional information and it provides a breakdown of comments and
questions from individual RAC members based on specific review criteria. This should give you an idea of how
your RTAR is being interpreted and understood by others.
Please incorporate the above information into the work statement with the help of your Research Liaison prior to
submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for further consideration by RAC. In addition, a
separate document providing a point by point response to each of these comments and questions must be
submitted with the work statement. The response to each item should explain how the work statement has been
revised to address the comment, or a justification for why the Technical Committee feels a revision is unnecessary
or inappropriate. The work statement and response to these comments and questions must be approved by the
Research Liaison prior to submitting it to RAC.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
The first draft of the work statement should be submitted to RAC no later than August 15, 2012 or it will be
dropped from display on the Society’s Research Implementation Plan. The next submission deadline for work
statements is December 15, 2010 for consideration at for consideration at the Society’s 2011 winter meeting. The
submission deadline after that for work statements is May 15, 2011 for consideration at the Society’s 2011 annual
meeting.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Project ID
1614
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
TW 2010 Meeting Review
TC 5.10, Kitchen Ventilation
$190,000 / 24 months
2nd Submission, 1st Submission returned 10.06
Applied Research
Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems”
RTAR SUMMARY SCORES & COMMENTS - Version 1
Comments & Suggestions
Check List Criteria
VOTED NO
Is there a well-established need? The RTAR should include
some level of literature review that documents the
importance/magnitude of a problem. If not, then the RTAR
should be returned for revision.
#5 - The web reference refers to European technology, however no attempt to find EU literature in this field? #4 - I do not feel the RTAR makes a
very compelling argument for the need for this research. It seems there are many potential benefits. I would feel better if these were accepted
benefits. Perhaps the need is there, but the TC should be able to make stronger arguments supported by more studies from the literature. #9 #9, #4, #10 Need references to demostrate the need for this research.
Is this appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, then the
RTAR should be rejected. Examples of projects that are not
appropriate for ASHRAE funding would include: 1) research
that is more appropriately performed by industry, 2) topics
outside the scope of ASHRAE activities.
#3 - But, I still believe that co-funding from the system manufacturers should be investigated. The results would also benefits restaurant owners and
operators. Is it possible to approach such organizations to seek partial funding?
Is there an adequate description of the approach in order
for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the
budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision.
#10
#10 - Is to limited to judge, but that is the problem with RTARS. #4 - The approach is described fairly well. I would encourage the WS authors to
specify the minimum number of grease loadings (and the range). Also, the RTAR noted there are a large number of UV systems in use today. Does
the proposed evaluation need to consider several systems in order to offer more general results, or is one system essentially the same as the next?
#5
#5 - They need to update the applicability to the 2010-2015 Research Strategic Plan when they draft the WS
Is the budget reasonable for the project scope? If not, then
RTAR could be returned for revision or conditionally accepted
with a note that the budget should be revised for the WS.
Have the proper administrative procedures been followed?
This includes recording of the TC vote, coordination with other
TCs, proper citing of the Research Strategic Plan, etc. If not,
then the RTAR could be returned for revision or possibly
conditionally accepted based on adequately resolving these
issues.
Decision Options
Initial
Decision?
ACCEPT
#11, #6, #1
COND. ACCEPT
RETURN
REJECT
Final Decision & Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
#3, #10, #5, ACCEPT 10-0-0 CNV
#3 -My only condition is to seek co-funding from relevant sources such as resturant operator associations. There is a typo in the "FAR or VACUUM
#1, #9
UV" It should be 200-300 nm. #5 - All other questions from RAC seem to have been answered. #4 - The WS should make a stronger argument for
why this research is needed. This argument should be supported by studies from the literature. #1 - The objectives specified in the RTAR are really
a mixture of objectives and tasks. However, I think this can be fixed in the work statement. #21 - Consider working with TC 2.9 - Ultraviolet Air and
Surface Treatment - on this project.
ACCEPT Vote - Topic is ready for development into a work statement (WS).
COND. ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve RTAR for development into WS without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s)
RETURN Vote - Topic is probably acceptable for ASHRAE research, but RTAR is not quite ready.
REJECT Vote - Topic is not acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program
Unique Tracking Number Assigned by MORTS __1614___
RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) FORM
Sponsoring TC/TG/SSPC: 5.10 (Kitchen Ventilation)
Title: Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
This project covers several of the ASHRAE strategic research opportunity themes including energy and resources,
equipment, components, and materials and education and outreach as shown below:
(A7) Develop evaluation methods that allow reductions in energy, cost, and emission and improvements in
comfort, health, and productivity to be quantitatively measured.
(D1) Establish techniques to improve the energy efficiency and reliability of heating, ventilating, cooling,
and refrigeration system components.
(E1) Make the results of ASHRAE sponsored and cooperative research available to the technical
community
Research Classification:
Basic Research
TC/TG/SSPC Vote:
12-0-0-1 (yes-no-abstain-absent)
Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions:
there were no negative votes or abstentions.
1 voting member was not present at the TC 5.10 main meeting
Estimated Cost:
$ 190,000
Estimated Duration:
24 months
RTAR Lead Author
Jimmy Sandusky
Expected Work Statement Lead Author
Co-sponsoring TC/TG/SSPCs and votes:
No other groups within ASHRAE have expressed interest or support.
Possible Co-funding Organizations:
No other groups within ASHRAE have expressed interest or support.
Application of Results:
ASHRAE Applications Handbook: Chapter 31 – Kitchen Ventilation.
ASHRAE HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook: Chapter 16 – Ultraviolet Lamp Systems.
Recommendations for Building and Environmental Codes Regarding Ultraviolet Light and Ozone in Commercial
Kitchens.
Recommendations for Development of a Standard Method of Test for UV Effectiveness in Commercial Kitchen
Ventilation Applications.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
Dating to 1990, Ultraviolet (UV) systems have been used to disinfect room air and air streams. UV light has a
wavelength shorter than that of visible light and longer than soft x-rays and is invisible to the human eye. UV light
is categorized based on wave-length, as shown below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
UVA – Long wave (400 – 315 nm); most abundant in sunlight; causes skin to tan and wrinkle.
UVB - Medium wave (315 – 280 nm); reddens the skins and cause skin cancer.
UVC – Short wave (280 – 200 nm); most effective wavelength for germicidal applications.
Far or Vacuum UV – (200 – 30 nm)
UVC light has been shown to destroy biological material and appears to have applications to destroy grease.
UV systems have been used in CKV systems for approximately a decade. Typically, these systems are installed
behind mechanical filters that capture the majority of large particulate being exhausted to allow the UV system to
interact as a catalyst with smaller grease particulate and vapor. UVC radiation emitted by lamps installed in the
hood induces an oxidation process which breaks down molecular bonds present in cooking effluent. This process
could also shift the particle size distribution in the exhaust stream. The UV light also generates free radicals which
can form ozone. The ozone is transported through the ductwork, where it is thought to continue to react with grease
molecules.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
There are a large number of UV systems being utilized in kitchen applications and there is no quantifiable means of
determining how well they are working and how they should be applied in the field. This data will allow a range of
cooking applications to be examined with and without a UV system in place. While private research has investigated
some aspects of UV, there is no public data available for this specific application. The project will quantify the
effectiveness of UV for grease abatement in CKV applications and evaluate the composition and flammability of the
resulting byproducts.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
If the oxidative processes taking place with a UV system installed are deemed to be effective, a UV system can offer
many benefits. These benefits potentially include: reduced duct cleaning intervals, a decreased likelihood of a duct
fire and possible reductions in grease emissions. Quantitative testing will allow for a recommendation to be made
on how effective a UV system will be when installed and quantify the benefits based on data from third party
analysis.
Additionally, the results from the study may be used in the interpretation of various building codes and regulations
and in the development of a draft standard method of test regarding UV applications in commercial kitchens.
Objectives:
The objectives of this project include:
1. Establish testing criterion to represent commercial kitchen applications over a range of grease load
concentrations.
2. Establish a baseline to represent typical cooking applications using a repeatable source at appropriate test
conditions.
3. Research means of how to determine the effectiveness of UV.
4. Develop a test setup layout to accomplish the project objectives (e.g., define sampling criterion and
locations, grease loading method, etc.)
5. Prepare an intermediate technical paper subjected to peer review to evaluate test method.
6. Modify test method as necessary per technical paper comments.
7. For each test condition, perform the following tests with and without UV lamps present:
a. Quantify the emissions – particulate, vapor and gas.
b. Determine fuel load of resulting compounds.
8. Determine UV effectiveness for each configuration.
9. Prepare and publish a final report and make recommendations, if applicable, for a standard method of test.
Key References:
1. ASHRAE, HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook Chapter 16: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems, ASHRAE,
2008.
2. ASHRAE, RP-745 – Identification and Characterization of Effluents from Various Cooking Appliances
and Processes as related to Optimum Design of Kitchen Ventilation Systems, ASHRAE, February 1999.
3. ASHRAE, RP – 1375 – Characterization of Effluents from Additional Cooking Appliances, ASHRAE,
April 2008.
4. Carter, T. (February 17, 2009). How Does UV Light Technology in an Exhaust Hood System Work?.
Food Equipment News. Retrieved June 16, 2009 from http://www.foodequipmentnews.com/2009/02/howdoes-uv-light-technology-in-an-exhaust-hood-system-work.html.
5. Livchak, A. & Schrock, D. (2003). Ultraviolet Light – Seeking Out & Destroying Grease. theconsultant,
Third Quarter 2003, pages 111 – 117.
Response to RAC on RTAR 1614: Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
The following contains the questions from RAC on the RTAR along with the response from TC 5.10
(shown in blue).
1. Clarify the project objectives further.
Response:
TC 5.10 has modified the project objectives slightly to include more insight regarding project
scope and testing parameters. Several of the testing objectives (grease loading method,
sampling criterion and location) are to be fully defined by the subcommittee in the
development of the Work Statement for the proposed project.
2. The WS needs much more detail on the approach, what is needed to develop and validate
the methodology, which window configurations should be covered, determine the test set-up
and procedures, with a smaller trial of the test as the final tasks.
Response:
We agree. RTAR 1614 is intended to define the scope of the project and summarize the
testing necessary to determine the effectiveness of installing ultraviolet lamps in commercial
kitchen applications. A Work Statement for the proposed project will be compiled and
include all details of the proposed testing configuration.
3. Is this project the first step to a Standard of test? Comprehensive industry review on the test
set-up is needed, to make sure there is concurrence on the procedure. TC should consider
having the PI prepare an intermediate technical paper - subject to wide peer review on the test
set up and procedures.
Response:
Yes, TC 5.10 has modified the objectives of the RTAR to include recommendations for a Draft
Standard Method of Test and a peer reviewed technical paper describing the proposed
testing method outlined in the Work Statement. Modifying the setup as necessary following
comments from the review process is also included.
4. The level of effort is very high for a 12 months study. There are no justifications for the high
budget and not detailed enough.
Response:
The duration of the project has been increased to 24 months to accommodate all of the
testing. The Thermal Analysis Lab at Western Kentucky University was contacted regarding
pricing estimates for the required testing. Estimates on cost were $40,000 for setup and
calibration and $10,000 per test. These values do not include the overhead of utilizing
undergraduate research assistants and would need to be re-evaluated following completion
of the Work Statement to reflect the outlined test methods. The budget of the project has
been reduced from $225,000 to $190,000 per the estimate.
5. Co-funding should be investigated.
Response:
Given that this project does not directly address energy conservation or sustainability, we are
not aware of a source for co-funding.
ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE  Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA  Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211  Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org
Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services
email: [email protected]
TO:
Gregory Duchane, Chair TC 5.10, [email protected]
Derek Schrock, TC 5.10 Research Subcommittee Chair, [email protected]
Piotr Domanski, Research Liaison Section 5.0, [email protected]
FROM:
Michael Vaughn, MORTS, [email protected]
DATE:
August 2, 2010
SUBJECT:
Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) 1614-RTAR, “Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV
Systems”
At their annual meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Research Administration Committee (RAC) reviewed
the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to return. The following list summarizes the
mandatory comments and questions that need to be fully addressed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Clarify the project objectives further.
The WS needs much more detail on the approach, what is needed to develop and validate the methodology,
which window configurations should be covered, determine the test set-up and procedures, with a
smaller trial of the test as the final tasks.
Is this project the first step to a Standard of test? Comprehensive industry review on the test set-up is
needed, to make sure there is concurrence on the procedure. TC should consider having the PI
prepare an intermediate technical paper - subject to wide peer review on the test set up and
procedures.
The level of effort is very high for a 12 months study. There are no justifications for the high budget
and not detailed enough.
Co-funding should be investigated.
An RTAR evaluation sheet is attached as additional information and it provides a breakdown of comments and
questions from individual RAC members based on specific review criteria. This should give you an idea of how
your RTAR is being interpreted and understood by others.
Please incorporate the above information into the RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison prior to submitting
it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for further consideration by RAC. In addition, a separate
document providing a point by point response to each of these comments and questions must be submitted with the
RTAR. The response to each item should explain how the RTAR has been revised to address the comment, or a
justification for why the Technical Committee feels a revision is unnecessary or inappropriate. The RTAR and
response to these comments and questions must be approved by the Research Liaison prior to submitting it to RAC.
The next submission deadline for RTARs is August 15th for consideration at the Society’s 2010 Tech weekend
meeting. The submission deadline after that is December 15, 2010 for consideration at the Society’s 2011 winter
meeting.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Project ID
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
Annual 2010 Meeting Review
Check List Criteria
Is there a well-established need? The RTAR should include
some level of literature review that documents the
importance/magnitude of a problem. If not, then the RTAR
should be returned for revision.
Is this appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, then the
RTAR should be rejected. Examples of projects that are not
appropriate for ASHRAE funding would include: 1) research
that is more appropriately performed by industry, 2) topics
outside the scope of ASHRAE activities.
1614
Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
TC 5.10, Kitchen Ventilation
$225,000 / 12 months
1st Submission
Applied Research
RTAR SUMMARY SCORES & COMMENTS
VOTED NO
Comments & Suggestions
#1
#1 - there is indeed a need to determine UV system effectiveness, as well as independently establish
installation guidelines. #2 - I am not aware of any request to do such work. My answer is "May be" #3 yes in the food industry. #4 - If they imply a standard test procedure, some testing may be acceptable but
real product testing should be a market issue.
#7
#4- The budget seems a little excessive for the period of work of 12 months. #6 - EXPAND BEYOND
KITCHEN APPLICATIONS. #3 -with co-funding. #4 - I expect some co-funding to show at least the
interest of the stakeholders (producers, and users )
#1 - The WS needs to be very detailed here. I think this project should focus mostly on determining the
test set-up and procedures, with a smaller trial of the test as the final tasks. Comprehensive industry
review on the test set-up is needed, to make sure there is concurrence on the procedure. TC should
consider having the PI prepare an intermediate technical paper - subject to wide peer review -on the test
Is there an adequate description of the approach in order
set up and procedures. #2- The objectives are open ended. It seems that this project is a new topic
for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the
and the authors wants the contractor to do all the thinking about every item of the objectives. #3budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision. #2, #5, #6, #4 Speaks to a specific industry. #4 - Not yet.
Is the budget reasonable for the project scope? If not, then
RTAR could be returned for revision or conditionally accepted
with a note that the budget should be revised for the WS.
#2, #5, #6
#2 - The level of effort is very high for a 12 months study. #5- THERE ARE NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR
THE HIGH BUDGET REQUIRED. #6- TOO HIGH #3 - with co-funding
Have the proper administrative procedures been followed?
This includes recording of the TC vote, coordination with other
TCs, proper citing of the Research Strategic Plan, etc. If not,
then the RTAR could be returned for revision or possibly
conditionally accepted based on adequately resolving these
issues.
Decision Options
Initial
Decision
ACCEPT
#1, #9, #8
COND. ACCEPT
#7, #3, #4
RETURN
#2, #5, #6
Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
#1 - Is this project the first step to a Standard for test? It will be important to be consistent with whatever
procedures Tech Council may come up with for this type of research in reaction to RP-1361. #7 - The
RTAR seems very well written for the scope and justification for the work to be conducted. #2- I am
voting to return, but inclined to REJECT. The RTAR is not detailed enough and is very expensive. Cofunding should be investigated.
REJECT
ACCEPT Vote - Topic is ready for development into a work statement (WS).
COND. ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve RTAR for development into WS without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s)
RETURN Vote - Topic is probably acceptable for ASHRAE research, but RTAR is not quite ready.
REJECT Vote - Topic is not acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program
Unique Tracking Number Assigned by MORTS _______1614-RTAR_____________________
RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) FORM
Sponsoring TC/TG/SSPC: 5.10 (Kitchen Ventilation)
Title: Evaluation of Effectiveness of UV Systems
Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
This project covers several of the ASHRAE strategic research opportunity themes including energy and resources,
equipment, components, and materials and education and outreach as shown below:
(A7) Develop evaluation methods that allow reductions in energy, cost, and emission and improvements in
comfort, health, and productivity to be quantitatively measured.
(D1) Establish techniques to improve the energy efficiency and reliability of heating, ventilating, cooling,
and refrigeration system components.
(E1) Make the results of ASHRAE sponsored and cooperative research available to the technical
community
Research Classification:
Basic Research
TC/TG/SSPC Vote:
12-0-0-1 (yes-no-abstain-absent)
Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions:
there were no negative votes or abstentions.
1 voting member was not present at the TC 5.10 main meeting
Estimated Cost:
$225,000
Estimated Duration:
12 months
RTAR Lead Author
Jimmy Sandusky
Expected Work Statement Lead Author
Co-sponsoring TC/TG/SSPCs and votes:
No other groups within ASHRAE have expressed interest or support.
Possible Co-funding Organizations:
No other groups within ASHRAE have expressed interest or support.
Application of Results:
ASHRAE Applications Handbook: Chapter 31 – Kitchen Ventilation.
ASHRAE HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook: Chapter 16 – Ultraviolet Lamp Systems.
Recommendations for Building and Environmental Codes Regarding Ultraviolet Light and Ozone in Commercial
Kitchens.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
Dating to 1990, Ultraviolet (UV) systems have been used to disinfect room air and air streams. UV light has a
wavelength shorter than that of visible light and longer than soft x-rays and is invisible to the human eye. UV light
is categorized based on wave-length, as shown below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
UVA – Long wave (400 – 315 nm); most abundant in sunlight; causes skin to tan and wrinkle.
UVB - Medium wave (315 – 280 nm); reddens the skins and cause skin cancer.
UVC – Short wave (280 – 200 nm); most effective wavelength for germicidal applications.
Far or Vacuum UV – (200 – 30 nm)
UVC light has been shown to destroy biological material and appears to have applications to destroy grease.
UV systems have been used in CKV systems for approximately a decade. Typically, these systems are installed
behind mechanical filters that capture the majority of large particulate being exhausted to allow the UV system to
interact as a catalyst with smaller grease particulate and vapor. Typically UV is installed with filtration so that the
UV is exposed to small particulate and vapor. UVC radiation emitted by lamps installed in the hood induces an
oxidation process which breaks down molecular bonds present in cooking effluent. This process could also shift the
particle size distribution in the exhaust stream. The UV light also generates free radicals which can form ozone. The
ozone is transported through the ductwork, where it is thought to continue to react with grease molecules.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
There are a large number of UV systems being utilized in kitchen applications and there is no quantifiable means of
determining how well they are working and how they should be applied in the field. This data will allow a range of
cooking applications to be examined with and without a UV system in place. While private research has investigated
some aspects of UV, there is no public data available for this specific application. The project will quantify the
effectiveness of UV for grease abatement in CKV applications and evaluate the composition and flammability of the
resulting byproducts.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
If the oxidative processes taking place with a UV system installed are deemed to be effective, a UV system can offer
many benefits. These benefits potentially include: reduced duct cleaning intervals, a decreased likelihood of a duct
fire and possible reductions in grease emissions. Quantitative testing will allow for a recommendation to be made
on how effective a UV system will be when installed and quantify the benefits based on data from analysis.
Additionally, the results from the study may be used in the interpretation of various building codes and regulations
regarding UV applications.
Objectives:
The objectives of this project include:
1. Establish testing criterion to represent commercial kitchen applications.
2. Establish a baseline to represent a typical cooking application using a repeatable source at appropriate test
conditions
3. Research means of how to determine the effectiveness of UV.
4. Develop a test setup layout to accomplish the project objectives (e.g., define sampling criterion and
locations, grease loading method, etc.)
5. For each test condition, perform the following tests with and without UV lamps present:
a. Quantify the emissions – particulate, vapor and gas.
b. Determine fuel load of resulting compounds.
6. Prepare and publish a final report.
Key References:
1. ASHRAE, HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook Chapter 16: Ultraviolet Lamp Systems, ASHRAE,
2008.
2. ASHRAE, RP-745 – Identification and Characterization of Effluents from Various Cooking Appliances
and Processes as related to Optimum Design of Kitchen Ventilation Systems, ASHRAE, February 1999.
3. ASHRAE, RP – 1375 – Characterization of Effluents from Additional Cooking Appliances, ASHRAE,
April 2008.
4. Carter, T. (February 17, 2009). How Does UV Light Technology in an Exhaust Hood System Work?.
Food Equipment News. Retrieved June 16, 2009 from http://www.foodequipmentnews.com/2009/02/howdoes-uv-light-technology-in-an-exhaust-hood-system-work.html.
5. Livchak, A. & Schrock, D. (2003). Ultraviolet Light – Seeking Out & Destroying Grease. theconsultant,
Third Quarter 2003, pages 111 – 117.