减少飞机油漆工接触有害金属和有机物的机会，有助于在专门建造的设施中设计和运行机库通风系统。即使通风系统设计用于热舒适或一般稀释，设施也经常被重新用于飞机喷漆。对横流、天花板扩散器和混合通风配置下的污染物暴露进行了评估。职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）法规要求通过喷漆室/房间达到100 fpm（0.508 m/s），这种情况在大多数天花板扩散器安装中很难实现。交叉流设计提供了更低的污染物暴露，减少了停留时间和有效的流动路径。 CFD建模、示踪气体测试和暴露监测检查了污染物暴露与横流通风速度的关系。RANS CFD建模（RNG k-？）结果显示，五个工作地点的模拟甲基异丁基酮暴露量分别为294和83.6 ppm，空间平均值分别为0.508和0.381 m/s（100和75 fpm）。在示踪气体实验中，观察到的0.706/0.503 m/s（136/99 fpm）的供给/排气速度被称为全流，而降低的速度被称为3/4流和半流。半流比3/4流显示出更高的示踪气体浓度，3/4流具有最低的时间平均浓度，在95%的置信水平下，对数平均值差异显著。 半流量与全流量相比，3/4流量与全流量相比，无统计学显著差异。使用这些通风条件的CFD建模与全流和3/4流比较的示踪结果非常一致，但与3/4流和半流比较的结果不一致。喷漆厂的全流量条件在供气和排气位置之间产生了0.528 m/s（104 fpm）的速度，供气速度为94.4 m3/s（200000 cfm），超过了排气速度68。7立方米/秒（14.6万立方英尺）。为纠正这种不平衡而进行的通风改造产生了0.406 m/s（80.0 fpm）的中机库速度。两个工人组喷雾器和喷雾器助手（“hosemen”）的个人暴露监测——比较两种速度的过程持续时间平均值。 喷雾器的六价铬（Cr[VI]）暴露量分别为500和360μg/m3，hosemen的六价铬（Cr[VI]）暴露量分别为120和170μg/m3，分别为0.528 m/s（104 fpm）和0.406 m/s（80.0 fpm）。6.3μg/m3和6.3μg/m3的均数分别为6.3μg/m3和32μg/m3。横流速度对暴露的影响不一致，局部工作区的速度要低得多。与其他观察到的配置相比，这里介绍的单向横流通风能更好地控制飞机喷漆污染物。在这种理想状态下，超过暴露极限会加强个人防护装备的持续使用。引用:2019年年度会议，密苏里州堪萨斯城，会议论文

Reducing exposures of aircraft painters to hazardous metals and organics motivates design and operation of hangar ventilation systems in purpose-built facilities. Facilities are often repurposed for aircraft painting, even when the ventilation system has been designed for thermal comfort or general dilution. Contaminant exposures under cross-flow, ceiling diffuser, and hybrid ventilation configurations were evaluated. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require 100 fpm (0.508 m/s) through spray booths/rooms, and this condition is difficult to achieve with most ceiling diffuser installations. Cross-flow designs provided lower contaminant exposures, with decreased residence times and efficient flow paths. CFD modeling, tracer gas testing, and exposure monitoring examined contaminant exposure vs. crossflow ventilation velocity. RANS CFD modeling (RNG k-?) showed exposures to simulated methyl isobutyl ketone of 294 and 83.6 ppm, as a spatial average of five worker locations, for velocities of 0.508and 0.381 m/s (100 and 75 fpm), respectively. In tracer gas experiments, observed supply/exhaust velocities of 0.706/0.503 m/s (136/99 fpm) weretermed full-flow, and reduced velocities were termed 3/4-flow and half-flow. Half-flow showed higher tracer gas concentrations than 3/4-flow, which hadthe lowest time-averaged concentration, with difference in log means significant at the 95% confidence level. Half-flow compared to full-flow and 3/4-flowcompared to full-flow showed no statistically significant difference. CFD modeling using these ventilation conditions agreed closely with the tracer results forthe full-flow and 3/4-flow comparison, yet not for the 3/4-flow and half-flow comparison. Full-flow conditions at the painting facility produced a velocityof 0.528 m/s (104 fpm) midway between supply and exhaust locations, with the supply rate of 94.4 m3/s (200,000 cfm) exceeding the exhaust rate of68.7 m3/s (146,000 cfm). Ventilation modifications to correct this imbalance created a midhangar velocity of 0.406 m/s (80.0 fpm). Personal exposuremonitoring for two worker groups—sprayers and sprayer helpers ("hosemen")—compared process duration means for the two velocities. Hexavalentchromium (Cr[VI]) exposures were 500 vs. 360 μg/m3 for sprayers and 120 vs. 170 μg/m3 for hosemen, for 0.528 m/s (104 fpm) and 0.406 m/s(80.0 fpm), respectively. Hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) monomer means were 32.2 vs. 13.3 μg/m3 for sprayers and 3.99 vs. 8.42 μg/m3 forhosemen. Crossflow velocities affected exposures inconsistently, and local work zone velocities were much lower. Aircraft painting contaminant control isaccomplished better with the unidirectional crossflow ventilation presented here than with other observed configurations. Exposure limit exceedances forthis ideal condition reinforce continued use of personal protective equipment.