Abstract
Dedicated ducted air return per zone for heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems is sometimes claimed to be a superior technique over plenum return strategy from the viewpoint of exposure reduction to airborne pathogens. While both the return strategies have advantages, there is limited evidence in the literature as to which strategy is superior merely from a standpoint of building vulnerability to airborne contaminants. We performed multizonal airborne contaminant dispersion modelling using CONTAM to simulate the overall building vulnerability to airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols when released in an office building and evaluated the two air return strategies. Results showed that for ducted returns, maintaining negative pressure in the release zone coupled with 100% outdoor air supply can greatly reduce overall building vulnerability. However, for a building maintained under a slight positive pressure and a recirculated air percentage as low as 31%, ducted returns do not necessarily outperform plenum returns in terms of overall building vulnerability to airborne pathogens. Building-specific details and factors that are not easily represented with multizone modelling are important, making general preferential statements for either strategy difficult to make. Insights from this study can guide new construction and retrofits of buildings both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of safe re-occupancy of buildings while keeping the buildings resilient against potential future epidemics spread by airborne agents.
