卫生间排气控制异味是通风的基本实践。本文从能源角度比较了私人卫生间的几种通风方案。为单用户卫生间创建了能源需求模型，每天使用5次。每天10次，每天15次。模拟了多种美国气候。排气方案包括（a）最小空气流量为25 cfm（12.5 L/s）的连续通风，（b）6 ACH时的连续通风，（c）10 ACH时的连续通风（d）最小空气流量为50 cfm（25 L/s）的间歇通风，（e）6 ACH时的间歇通风，（f）10 ACH时的间歇通风，以及（g）15 ACH时的间歇通风。与25 cfm（12.5 L/s）连续模型相比，具有50 cfm（25 L/s）间歇系统的模型的平均能量需求减少77%。 与6 ACH或10 ACH连续模型相比，具有6 ACH或10 ACH间歇系统的模型的平均能量需求减少89%。与25 cfm（12.5升/秒）连续模式相比，15 ACH间歇模式的能源需求减少了14%。引用:佛罗里达州奥兰多2020年冬季会议论文

Restroom exhaust to control odors is a fundamental practice of ventilation. In this paper, a number of ventilation schemes for private restrooms are compared from an energy perspective. Energy demand models were created for a single-user restroom, with 5 uses per day. 10 uses per day, and 15 uses per day. Multiple US climates were modeled. Exhaust scenarios included (a) continuous ventilation with minimum air 25 cfm (12.5 L/s), (b) continuous ventilation at 6 ACH, (c) continuous ventilation at 10 ACH (d) intermittent ventilation with minimum air 50 cfm (25 L/s), (e) intermittent ventilation at 6 ACH, (f) intermittnat ventilation, at 10 ACH, and (g) intermittent ventilation at 15 ACH. The models with 50 cfm (25 L/s) intermittent systems had an average of 77% less energy demand than the 25 cfm (12.5 L/s) continuous models. The models with 6 ACH or 10 ACH intermittent system had an average of 89% less energy demand than the 6 ACH or 10 ACH continuous models. The 15 ACH intermittent models had 14% less energy demand than the 25 cfm (12.5 L/s) continuous models.