Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO) by nazroellah


More Info
									                          Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO)

A very promising new technology for the reduction of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) in
indoor environments is Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO). This process exposes ultraviolet light to
a catalyst such as titanium dioxide to produce primarily hydroxyl radicals (OH). These hydroxyl
radicals are extremely reactive and can oxidize or "break down" typical VOC's in indoor
environments. The objective of this study conducted by A.T. Hodgson, D.P. Sullivan and W.J.
Fisk entitled "Evaluation of ultra-violet photocatalytic oxidation (UVPCO) for indoor air
applications: conversion of volatile organic compounds at low part-per-billion concentrations"
(LBNL-58936) was to determine if this process could be used to reduce indoor VOC's to the
extent that "acceptable indoor air quality in office buildings could be achieved with less energy
by combining effective air cleaning systems for VOC's with particle filtration than by relying
solely on ventilation."

The researchers point out that most of the studies of this technology have been conducted in
laboratory settings. The large majority of these investigations have employed relatively large
concentrations of just a few VOC's primarily to better understand the PCO process. This study
was designed to simulate low VOC concentrations that would be found in real indoor

Theoretically all VOC's will be broken down into carbon dioxide and water. However, in many
cases the reactions to receive this end state have numerous stages, can be complex and can
produce relatively stable intermediary byproducts. The question is whether or not the
Photocatalytic Oxidation process can react quickly enough and completely enough with VOC's
to neutralize them and not create harmful VOC's as unintended byproducts.

To test this the researchers created three challenge VOC mixtures. One was a combination of
27 VOC's commonly found in office buildings. The second was a mixture of three commonly
used cleaning products - a pine-oil based cleaner, a cleaner using 2-butoxyethanol, and an
orange-oil (ie. d-limonene) based cleaner. The third consisted of a mixture of VOC's commonly
emitted from building products such as painted wallboard, composite woods, carpeting and vinyl
flooring. Air flow speeds and VOC concentrations were varied with each mixture to create a total
of nine experiments. Measurements of the intake VOC's and single pass outflow VOC's were
taken. Other experiments were also conducted with just a formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
mixture and the PCO device.

Generally, the efficiencies of the conversions of the challenge VOC's varied by the type of VOC
and the speed of the airflow. Interestingly, the concentration of the challenge VOC's did not
have much of an effect. Despite increasing concentrations by two or three times the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR) remained about the same. For the cleaning product VOC's the reaction
efficiencies varied between 20% and 80%. For the building product VOC mixture the reaction
efficiencies varied between non-significant and up to 80%. The aldehyde mixture conversion
efficiencies ranged between 18% and 49%. Generally the efficiency of the conversions broke
down in the following order with the most effective being alcohols and glycol ethers; then
aldehydes, ketones and terpene hydrocarbons; then aromatic and alkane hydrocarbons; and
finally halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons. In general, the conversion rates were determined to
be very encouraging and the authors of the study point out that this was achieved at a very low
pressure drop thus supporting the proposition that PCO's could lead to energy conservation.

However, there was a negative coming out of these experiments. The researchers found that
because of incomplete decomposition of the VOC's in the inlet air stream there was a net
production of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, formic acid and acetic acid. Of particular concern
was that the outlet concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were 3.4 and 4.6 times
the inlet concentrations, respectively. Both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are recognized as
important indoor toxicants. Formaldehyde is classified as a human carcinogen. Governmental
guidelines suggest keeping indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde at very
low levels.

While the VOC exposure to PCO devices creates formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, the PCO
device also decomposes these compounds. The question then becomes whether or not this
results in a net increase of these compounds in an indoor environment. Using modeling based
on the results of the study the authors conclude that there would be roughly a three-fold
increase in indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations with a PCO operating in an
office buiding (depending on concentrations and types of VOC's).

In conclusion, the researchers state that while the VOC conversion efficiencies with the PCO
device may be beneficial for the large-scale treatment of air in occupied buildings, the increases
in formaldehyde and acetaldehyde need to be researched futher and better quantified. Work
needs to be done to either reduce the production of the formaldehyde and acetaldehyde or to
combine the technology with some sort of scrubber to pull out the toxic byproducts before they
are brought back into the occupied space.

This reseach continues as can be seen by the minutes of the February 7, 2007 meeting of the
Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality. The Department of Energy (who is the
biggest sponsor of this research) representative summarized the above results and stated that
experiments are being conducted using several types of sorbent media scrubbers downstream
of the PCO device. Initial results show that a sodium permanganate chemisorbent has
considerable potential.

Another approach is to improve the productivity of the reactions of the VOC's and the hydroxyl
radicals and other ROS. The difficulty with this is that it is unlikely that the reactions will ever be
total and produce no byproducts. In those same CIAQ minutes the point was made that all 10 of
the VOC's tested produced formaldehyde. Another issue is the air speed and exposure time
near the PCO. The tests that were conducted at LBNL were done at two speeds. Significant
decreases were seen in the percentages of VOC's that were broken down as the the speed was
increased. This stands to reason since the VOC's would be in the presence of the ROS's for a
shorter period of time. What makes this troublesome was that the "high" speed was only 340
cfm. Most residential systems produce at least 1,000 cfm while commercial systems are
generally rated at 2,000 cfm. At these higher speeds one would have to assume even lower
percentages of reactions and higher levels of byproducts though further research would have to
be done to confirm this.

Further work also needs to be done on the use of Photocatalytic Oxidation (PCO) in areas
where you have smokers. The reduction in discernable odors for houses with smokers or places
like bars and casinos is very appealing. However, cigarette smoke has over 1,000 different
chemicals. There is a lack of good research to determine what is coming from the reactions with
these 1,000 plus chemicals and the hydroxyl radicals and other reactive oxygen species (ROS)
from the PCO devices. Given results we have seen with cigarette smoke and ozone (another
ROS) and the results of the above detailed study, it is a pretty safe assumption to make that
formaldehyde is one of the byproducts. What other byproducts, the levels of those byproducts,
and the possible production of ultrafine particles are all unanswered questions.
What this illustrates to me is the complexity of indoor air and the dangers of making
assumptions about the outcomes of chemical reactions. What you want is often what you do not
get. While the PCO technology is very promising, in my mind, the "jury is still out" on whether or
not it should be universally recommended for indoor occupied spaces.

To top