随着最近的公共建筑设计和施工越来越接近“气密”，达到或超过室内空气质量（IAQ）标准变得越来越重要。这种驱动力和对节能的需求导致了在使用最少资源的同时提供高质量室内空气的目标。在设计输送可呼吸室内空气的系统时，通风率程序（VRP）是大多数行业和监管机构40年来一直遵循的标准，该程序在没有门空气的情况下稀释室内空气。然而，这种稀释并不总能确保良好的室内空气品质，在某些情况下，VRP可能会低估所需的室外气流，或者可能会高估所需的室外空气。 作为替代方案，室内空气质量程序（IAQP）要求确定/测量相关空间内的污染物水平，并结合空气清洁/过滤计算室外空气量，以满足行业和监管机构的标准。在某些情况下，VRP能以更低的成本提供室外空气，甚至比室内空气更低。IAQP的缺点是需要额外/可靠的过滤/清洁设备，并且需要定期监测IAQ，以确保污染物水平在可接受的范围内。本文使用VRP-IAQP组合模型，针对具体情况对VRP和IAQP进行了比较。建模结果表明，与VRP的要求相比，减少的室外空气进气量: 其中IAQP可能是比VRP更好的选择，而VRP可能是更好的选择。通常情况下，VRP更适用于过滤/清洁非常小且建筑物/居住者产生相当大污染水平的情况。当室外空气进气量减少到不小于VRP进气量的约50%，且过滤/清洁效率在50%以上时，IAQP更好。在某些特定情况下，过滤/清洁效率可能会低至20%，并且仍会提高VRP的污染物浓度。未来的出版物将致力于展示建模参数的广泛影响，例如改变区域类型、处理非附着区域、过滤器位置（再循环或两者都是再循环/室外空气）、再循环分数、流量减少、100%或比例流量以及变风量（VAV）。 建议包括需要现场数据，其中包括记录空气质量模型的重要输入信息。有了这些信息，这些模型就可以确定/抵消实际的污染物排放，并利用这些排放，通过增加/减少室外空气进气量，结合过滤/清洁效率变化，为改善/修改区域空气质量提供指导。引用:2018年德克萨斯州休斯顿年会，技术论文

With recent public building design and construction coming closer to being “airtight,” meeting or exceeding indoor air quality (IAQ) standards has become increasingly important. This driving influence and the demand for energy conservation have resulted in the goal of providing high- quality indoor air while using minimum resources.In designing systems to deliver breathable indoor air, the Ventilation Rate Procedure (VRP), which dilutes indoor air without door air, has been the standard most industry and regulatory agencies have followed for 40 years. However, this dilution does not always ensure good IAQ, and VRP may underestimate the needed outdoor airflow in some cases, or it may over estimate the needed outdoor air. As an alternative, the Indoor Air Quality Procedure (IAQP) requires the determination/measurement of contaminant levels within spaces of interest and computes the amount of outdoor air in conjunction with air cleaning/filtering that is needed to meet industry and regulatory agency standards. In some cases, IAQP can provide the needed breathable air with less outdoor air, and potentially at a lower cost, than VRP. IAQP’s drawbacks are the need for additional/reliable filtering/cleaning equipment and the need to monitor IAQ at regular intervals to ensure that contaminant levels are within acceptable ranges.This paper presents a comparison of VRP and IAQP for specific cases, using a combination VRP-IAQP model. Modeling results show how reduced intake of outdoor air compares to VRP’s requirements: where IAQP may be a better choice than VRP and where VRP may be the better choice. Typically, VRP is better for situations where filtration/cleaning is mini- mal and the building/occupants produce reasonably significant contaminant levels. IAQP is better when outdoor air intake is reduced to no less than ~50% of VRP’s intake and when filtration/cleaning efficiency is in the 50%+ range. For some specific cases, filtration/cleaning efficiency can be a slow as 20% and still improve on VRP’s contaminant concentrations.Future publications will work to demonstrate wide-ranging effects of modeling parameters, such as changing zone type, handling nonattainment regions, filter location (recircu- lated or both recirculated/outdoor air), recirculation fractions, flow reduction, 100% or proportional flow, and variable air volume (VAV). Recommendations include the need for field data which includes recording the important input information for air quality models. With that information, those models could then determine/back-out actual contaminant emissions and use those emissions to provide guidance in improving/ modifying zone air quality through outdoor air intake increase/ reduction combined with filtration/cleaning efficiency variation.