Background
The operating room (OR) department is one of the most energy-intensive departments of a hospital. The majority of ORs in the Netherlands have an air-handling installation with an ultra-clean ventilation system. However, not all surgeries require an ultra-clean OR.

Aim
To determine the effect of reducing the air change rate on the ventilation effectiveness in ultra-clean ORs.

Methods
Lower air volume ventilation effectiveness (VELv) of conventional ventilation (CV), controlled dilution ventilation (cDV), temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF) and unidirectional airflow (UDAF) systems were evaluated within a 4 × 4 m measuring grid of 1 × 1 m. The VELv was defined as the recovery degree (RD), cleanliness recovery rate (CRR) and air change effectiveness (ACE).

Findings
The CV, cDVLv and TcAFLv ventilation systems showed a comparable mixing character in all areas (A, B and AB) when reducing the air change rate to 20/h. Ventilation effectiveness decreased when the air change rate was reduced, with the exception of the ACE.
At all points for the UDAF-2Lv and at the centre point (C3) of the TcAFLv, higher RD10Lv and CRRLv were measured when compared with the other examined ventilation systems.

Conclusions
The ventilation effectiveness decreased when an ultra-clean OR with an ultra-clean ventilation air-supply system was switched to an air change rate of 20/h. Reducing the air change rate in the OR from an ultra-clean OR to a generic OR will reduce the recovery degree (RD10) by a factor of 10–100 and the local air change rate (CRR) by between 42% and 81%.

Background: Entrainment test methods are described in most European standards and guidelines to determine the protected area for ultra-clean ventilation (UCV) systems. New UCV systems, such as temperature-controlled airflow (TcAF) and controlled dilution ventilation (cDV) systems, claim the whole operating room (OR) to be ultra-clean. However, current test standards were not developed to assess ventilation effectiveness outside the standard protected area. Aim: To assess and compare the ventilation effectiveness of four types of OR ventilation systems in the ultra-clean area using a uniform test grid.
Methods: Ventilation effectiveness of four ventilation systems was evaluated for three different ultra-clean (protected) areas: the standard protected area (A); the area outside the standard protected area (B); and a large protected area (AB). Ventilation effectiveness was assessed using recovery degree (RD), cleanliness recovery rate (CRR) and air change effectiveness (ACE). Findings: RD, CRR and ACE were significantly higher for the unidirectional air flow (UDAF) system compared with the other systems in area A. In area B, the UDAF and cDV systems were comparable for RD and CRR, and the UDAF and conventional ventilation (CV) systems were comparable for ACE. In area AB, the UDAF and cDV systems were comparable for CRR and ACE, but significant differences were found in RD.
Conclusion: In area A, the ventilation effectiveness of the UDAF system outperformed other ventilation systems. In area B, the cDV system was best, followed by the UDAF, TcAF and CV systems. In area AB, the UDAF system was best, followed by the cDV, TcAF and CV systems.