COLUMN  IEQ APPLICATIONS

©ASHRAE www.ashrae.org. Used with permission from ASHRAE Journal. This article may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or
digital form without ASHRAE’s permission. For more information about ASHRAE, visit www.ashrae.org.
Wei Sun

Cleanroom Airlock
Performance and Beyond
BY WEI SUN, P.E., FELLOW ASHRAE

An airlock is a transitional space that typically has two doors in series to separate a
controlled environment (such as cleanroom, lab, operating room, or isolation room)
from a corridor, or vice versa. The two doors should be interlocked to avoid being
opened at the same time. An airlock area is often ventilated with filtered supply air,
with return or exhaust air to exit. However, the relative air volume for supply, return
or exhaust could vary based on the type of airlock. Poor airlock design concepts may
cause undesired migration of chemical fumes, particles, or microbiological agents,
which can be toxic, harmful, or infectious, into protective areas, or cause contami-
nated products or processes from excessive airborne contaminants inside the
vestibule /ˈves.tə.bjuːl/ : an empty space in the body that is an
controlled environments. entrance to a passage or another space

Types of Airlocks corridor. Figure 1 shows common types of these airlocks,

The most stringent airlocks are often installed for
biosafety level 3 and 4 (BSL-3/4) labs and cleanrooms;
similar, but less stringent mechanisms can be found
in health-care facilities such as anterooms in isolation
or operating room suites and vestibules in commercial
buildings. Table 1 indicates common practices and func-
tions among vestibules, anterooms and airlocks. In the
rest of this discussion, we will use “airlock” as a general
term to include both anteroom and vestibule.
Airlocks can be categorized into “cascading,” “bubble,”
“sink” and “dual compartment” types; each type exhib-
its different airflow directions and pressure differences
between the controlled environment, airlock, and
though alternative pressure relationships can be used in
specific applications.
Door Operation and Pressure Differential Loss
As illustrated in Figure 1, airlock spaces are typically
designed to maintain certain pressure relationships
with respect to controlled environments and corridors.
However, when a door is being opened, the room’s air
leakage through the door’s opening suddenly becomes
much higher than the leakage through minor cracks
Wei Sun, P.E., is president of Engsysco with offices in Ann Arbor and Farmington Hills, Mich. He is
an ASHRAE Distinguished Lecturer and past chair of ASHRAE TC 9.11. He served as IEST society
president in 2016 – 17 and as ISO/TC 209 standards U.S. delegate.

64 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  FEBRUARY 2018

 COLUMN  IEQ APPLICATIONS

TABLE 1   Common practices and functions among vestibule, anteroom and airlocks.

CONTROLLED PARAMETERS
TYPICAL APPLICATIONS IN MAIN FUNCTIONS AIR CLEANLINESS
SPACE AIRFLOW TIME DELAY
CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS (PURPOSES) TEMP/ (PARTICLE, MICROBIAL
(MIN. ACH OR PRESSURE (BETWEEN DOOR
RH% OR CHEMICAL
VELOCITY) OPERATIONS)
CONCENTRATION)

At multistory or high-rise To reduce untreated OA entry Not Typically pressurized in large

Vestibule Optional Not Required Not Required
building’s entrance to building due to stack effect Required vestibules
Operating room, isolation To minimize human contact Various pressure arrangements
room, protective environ- with contaminated air from Optional, but
Anteroom ment. Optional Yes similar as for Cascading, Sink Optional
Sometimes in chemi- particles, microbial agents or recommended
or Bubble airlocks
cal lab, and BSL-2 lab chemicals
To minimize human, process, Various pressure arrangements
Cleanroom, BSL-3/4 lab and product contact with con-
Airlock Optional Yes as Cascading, Sink, Bubble or Yes Yes
taminated air from particles, Dual-compartment airlocks
microbial agents or chemicals

when doors are closed.1 This is because airlock rooms dimensionless (percentage)
usually do not have sufficient surplus supply air to main- Cc = contaminant concentration inside
tain the required pressure differential needed to prevent cleanroom (counts/ft3 [counts/m3])
reverse flow due to air turbulence during door operation. Cb = initial background contaminant
Even if a room is equipped with a fast-response (1 to 3 concentration (averaged) inside the
seconds) VAV air supply system to provide extra surplus cleanroom (counts/ft3 [counts/m3])
air, it is not fast enough to prevent an airborne cross Cc – Cb = contaminant concentration gain
contamination. inside the cleanroom due to higher
concentration challenge across the
Quantitative Measure of Contaminant Migration Across Barrier door through cracks or the door open-
To identify the performance and effectiveness of vari- ing (counts/ft3 [counts/m3])
ous barriers (airlock, single door, mini-environment, or T = time duration (sec.)
isolation chamber, etc.) to contain contaminant migra- t = time variable (sec.)
tion, it is necessary to establish a quantitative measure Co = Contaminant concentration in cor-
so various “contaminant migration barriers” can be ridor (averaged) as contamination
compared or optimized for better performance. ASHRAE challenge (counts/ft3 [counts/m3])
Research Project RP-14311 established a new terminology Figure 2 illustrates an example of particle contam-
called contaminant migration rate, or contamination rate ination rate CR across a cleanroom door when the
(CR), for cleanroom applications. CR is mathematically door is in operation. In this case, CR is defined as
expressed below: airborne particle concentration gain above the ini-
tial background concentration inside a cleanroom
T
relative to the particle concentration in the cor-
∫ 0 (Cc −Cb ) dt ridor. Obviously, the lower the CR level, the better
T T
T ∫ 0 (Cc −Cb ) dt ∫ 0Cc dt (1) the performance. Similar formula can be used for
CR = T
= T
≈ T
∫ 0Co dt ∫ 0Co dt ∫ 0Co dt contaminant migration due to gases or microbials.
T
CR Value Across a Single Door During
where Door-Closed and Door-In-Operation Conditions
CR = contaminant (particle, chemical or micro- Comparing Part A and Part B of Figure 3 shows that
bial) migration rate, or contamination rate, the CR value is much higher (about 50 to 100 times
it becomes contamination ratio when the higher) during door-in-operation than that at the
initial background contaminant concen- closed condition. The magnitude of particle migra-
tration inside the cleanroom is ignored, tion from less-clean areas can also be significantly

FEBRUARY 2018  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 65

COLUMN  IEQ APPLICATIONS

reduced by maintaining an initial

FIGURE 1   Common types of airlocks. 
(before the door is opened) pres-
sure differential at 10 Pa (0.04 in.
w.g.) or higher. Airflow Corridor Airflow Corridor

Part B of Figure 3 illustrates that

humans walking through a clean- Airlock Airlock
room door could decrease the CR
value slightly when the cleanroom Cleanroom, Cleanroom,
Airflow Operating Airflow Lab, Isolation
is under negative pressure and
Room, etc. Room, etc.
increase the CR value slightly when
it is under positive pressure.
Cascading Airlock Bubble Airlock
Why Both “Static” & “Dynamic”
Contaminant Migrations Need to be
Considered in Design Corridor Airflow Corridor
Airflow
A typical door could operate
many times a day. Figure 4 indicates Airlock Airlock 1 Airlock 2
that the CR value under door- Airflow
in-operation conditions is much
higher than at door-closed condi- Airflow Cleanroom, Cleanroom with Airflow
Lab, Isolation Full Exhaust, etc.
tions, although the door-opened Room, etc.
duration is much shorter. Many
factors such as pressure differen- Sink Airlock Dual Compartment Airlock
tial, cleanliness class difference, Note: Each “+” represents 0.02 in. (5 Pa) pressure. Each “–” represents –0.02 in. (–5 Pa) pressure in respect to outdoors.
room supply air dilution rate and
leakage condition could greatly
affect the daily-accumulated Analogy Between Filter and Airlock Door Performance
contamination results. Figure 4 illustrates that the Air filters are known as effective devices to resist
impacts from both static (door-closed) and dynamic and trap particle and microbial transmissions in
(door-in-operation) conditions could be equally air-handling unit (AHU) systems. Similarly, in open
important. The daily frequency of door opera- air, airlocks can also impose barriers to reduce con-
tion is also a key element in overall accumulated taminant migrations. An interesting analogy can be
contamination.1 found between them. Figure 5 shows an example of
comparison between the air filter and airlock in terms
Barrier Effectiveness Against Contaminant Migration of efficiency (barrier effectiveness) and penetration
For cleanrooms, as an example, barrier effective- (contamination ratio).
ness (BE) is defined as a percentage of airborne con-
taminant (particle, chemical or microbial) blocked Comparison Among Types of Airlocks
from the outside corridor into the protected clean- Figure 6 indicates a typical example of test results
room. BE is a criterion to quantity the effectiveness for the four types of airlocks and their CR values after
of cleanroom containment in preventing the con- the first, second or third door, respectively. Each
taminant migration into the cleanroom through a airlock door was operated under 5 Pa, 10 Pa or 15 Pa
barrier device, such as a single door, or a double-door (0.02 in. w.g., 0.04 in. w.g. or 0.06 in. w.g.) pres-
airlock, etc. sure differential. Among cascading, sink, bubble
and dual compartment airlocks, barrier effective-
BE = 1 – CR (2) ness against airborne particle migration through
the “first door,” in order of increasing effectiveness,

66 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  FEBRUARY 2018

 COLUMN  IEQ APPLICATIONS

is sink, dual, cascad-

FIGURE 2   Example of contamination rate of a cleanroom during door-in-operation condition.
ing and bubble. Barrier
effectiveness through the Sensors Sensors
“second door,” in order of DP
Near Door DP
Near Door
increasing effectiveness, Non-Cleanroom Cleanroom Non-Cleanroom Cleanroom
Po Pc Po Pc
is sink, dual compart- Door is Opened,
Door Closed, Cleanroom Cleanroom Gains a Surge
ment, cascading and Has Initial Concentration Of Particles Migrated
bubble. (Background) from Non-Cleanroom
Dual compartment has
the most effective overall T t T t
T T T T
performance. Therefore,
a) The partition door that separates corridor and cleanroom is b) When the door opens, the cleanroom side’s particle concentration
in the selection of a good closed. Particle concentrations (Po and Pc ) are measured across the (Pc ) near the door quickly surges within seconds. After the door is
barrier effectiveness door, 12 in. away from door, 12 in. away from doorframe, at door closed, its concentration gradually decays to the initial level under
mid-height as the standard testing protocol. room supply/return air circulation/dilution.
among airlocks, the order Sensors
DP
is the dual compartment, Near Door
T
∫0 ( PC − PB ) ⋅ dt
bubble, cascading and Non-Cleanroom Cleanroom T
Po Pc CR = T ∫ ( P − PB ) ⋅ dt
= 0 TC =
T
∫0 O
P ⋅ dt ∫0 PO ⋅ dt
sink. An increase of pres- After Corrected for T
sure differential across Background, This is
Actual Particles Gained
each door does not seem Due to Door Operation
to impose a significant
benefit in barrier effec- T t
T T
tiveness. Therefore, 5 Pa
c) The only action to cause the cleanroom side’s particle d) The Contamination Rate is defined as the ratio of the net particle
(0.02 in. w.g.) is adequate concentration to rise and fall is solely due to the door operation; concentration gain in the cleanroom over the corridor’s concentration
to use as a pressure dif- other HVAC conditions remain the same. challenge during the same period.

ferential gap across each

airlock door.
“Required Time Delay” Between Doors
Two quantified approaches are available to reduce
contaminant migration into a cleanroom through an
airlock area. One is to increase the air changes per hour
(ach) rate inside the airlock to achieve a faster dilution
effect. Another is to wait for a longer time to accomplish
more replacement of contaminated air inside the air-
lock. It is very important to specify a required time delay
(RTD) between the sequential operations of two doors in
any type of airlock.
The selection of the RTD could be based on a goal,
which is to theoretically fully replace the entire airlock
room air volume by the HEPA-filtered clean supply
air “at least once” before the second door is allowed to
open. For example, a 60 ach filtered clean supply air
will require a one-minute RTD to let the old room air
be replaced; a 150 ach airlock will require a RTD of 24
seconds. The higher the air change rate, the shorter the
needed RTD. However, design engineers also need to
consider a human factor—that a longer waiting period
could be perceived as a time waster. In any case, doors
should be allowed to open anytime during emergency
egress.
A higher ach in the airlock does not necessary mean
using more energy at all times. In fact, an airlock can be
equipped with a fan-filter unit that runs at a high ach
only when the first door is closed, which triggers the
door contact sensor for the self-cleaning action. At other
times, low ach air supply can be provided via a central
AHU system. The RP-1431 report1 provides more detail
and CFD simulation to quantify the impact of the time
delay.
Walk-In/Walk-Out, Push-Door-In/Pull-Door-Out
Through research, it is found there is no consistent
difference in terms of particle gain between walk-in and
walk-out scenarios.1 In addition, the difference in parti-
cle migration between push-door-in and pull-door–out
scenarios is not significant unless the cleanroom is very
small or the cleanroom enclosure is relatively airtight,
creating a piston effect.

FEBRUARY 2018  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 67

COLUMN  IEQ APPLICATIONS

FIGURE 3   Contamination rate value during door-closed and door-in-operation under initial pressure differentials.

Airborne Particle Contamination Rate

Pressure Differential Across Separation Door (in.) Under Various Pressure Differentials Across Cleanroom Door
(Note: 5 Pa = 0.02 in., Particle Measured at 0.5 µm)
100.000% –0.04 –0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
25%
Contamination Rate – Particle Migrated

Door in Operation Without People Traffic

10.000% Particle at 0.5 µm DoorininOperation
Door OperationWith
Without People
People Traffic
Traffic
From Corridor to Cleanroom

20%

Contamination Rate (CR, %)

Particle at 1.0 µm Door in Operation With People Traffic
1.000% 15%

0.100% 10%

0.010% 5%

0.001% 0%
–10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 –15 –10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Pressure Differential Across Separation Door (Pa) Initial Pressure Differential Across Door (Pa)
a) When door is closed, a pressure differential at 5 Pa (0.02 in.) or higher is desired to b) Particles migration is much higher at door-in-operation than at door-closed condition.
minimize particle migration through minor leakage cracks. An initial pressure differential at 10 Pa (0.04 in.) or higher is required to reduce particle
migration. However, if the door is opened frequently daily, an airlock is required.

Swing Door vs. Sliding Door

FIGURE 4   Daily accumulated contamination during door-closed and door-in-
Airlock doors typically can be equipped with an auto- operation conditions.
matic or pneumatic door closer that can be reset for
a range of time. Based on the orifice equation,2,3 the Door in Closed Position: Door in Operation: CR Value
longer the door operates and the larger the opening, CR Value is Low, But Long is High, But Short Duration
Duration
the more contaminant migration could occur. A sliding
door typically provides a shorter operation cycle than a
swinging door of the same size opening. Among sliding
CR Value

doors, double-leaf doors (like elevator doors) can cut

operation time in half compared to single-leaf doors.
Designers can evaluate the cost of airlock system design
and performance to obtain a balanced and optimized
outcome.
Time of Day (24 Hours)

Conclusion
Airlocks perform as particle, microbial or chemical effectiveness, in sequence from the best performer to
fume migration barriers by minimizing the contami- the worst, is dual-compartment, bubble, cascading,
nated air that flows into a protective area. A new term, then sink, although each type has its own application
“contaminant migration rate” or “contamination rate,” restraints.
was defined to quantify a contaminant migration level
from a contaminated area into a protective area across Acknowledgments
a barrier such as a single door or an airlock. It can be Key elements of this article were the findings from
used to analyze not only static (door-closed) conditions, ASHRAE RP-1341, for which the author served as the
but also dynamic (door-in-operation) conditions. It principal investigator. The author would like express
has been found that particle migration during door-in- his deep appreciation to Keith Flyzik who contributed
operation conditions is about 50 to 100 times more than significantly to this research. He was a training manager
that in door-closed conditions. Pressure differential, of Micro-Clean in Bethlehem, Pa. The author would also
air change rate, and time delay between two doors can like to extend his appreciation to other technical experts
also affect the CR value. It was further found that airlock and graduate students from Engsysco, University of

68 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  FEBRUARY 2018

 COLUMN  IEQ APPLICATIONS

FIGURE 5   Analogy between filter layers and airlock multiple-door performance.

Filter Efficiency Impact on Particle Concentration in AHU or Ductwork (Example) Door/Airlock Barrier Effectiveness Impact on Particle Concentration in Cleanroom
(Example)
Filter 1 Single Door
Upstream Downstream Corridor Cleanroom

100% 10% 100% 20%

Efficiency: 90% Barrier Effectiveness: 80%

Penetration: 10% Contamination Ratio: 20%
Airlock
Filter 1 Filter 2 Door 1 Door 2
Upstream Midstream Downstream Corridor Airlock Cleanroom

100% 10% 0.1% 100% 20% 4%

Efficiency: 90% Efficiency: 99% Barrier Effectiveness: 80% Barrier Effectiveness: 80%
Penetration: 10% Penetration: 1% Contamination Ratio: 20% Contamination Ratio: 20%
Airlock
Filter 1 Filter 2 Filter 3 Door 1 Door 2 Door 3
Upstream Midstream 1 Midstream 2 Downstream Corridor Airlock 1 Airlock 2 Cleanroom

100% 10% 0.1% 0.0001% 100% 20% 4% 0.8%

Efficiency: 90% Efficiency: 99% Efficiency: 99.9% Barrier Effectiveness: 80% Barrier Effectiveness: 80% Barrier Effectiveness: 80%
Penetration: 10% Penetration: 1% Penetration: 0.1% Contamination Ratio: 20% Contamination Ratio: 20% Contamination Ratio: 20%

Michigan, Particle Measuring Systems and Micro-Clean,

FIGURE 6   Performance comparison of among airlocks. (Each airlock door under 5,
who were involved in this project.
10 or 15 Pa [0.02, 0.04 or 0.06 in.] pressure differential).

References 45%
1. Sun, W. et al. 2013. “Analysis of Transient Characteristics, 40% 5 Pa
Effectiveness, and Optimization of Cleanroom Airlocks.” ASHRAE 35% 10 Pa
Contamination Rate (%)

Research Report RP-1431, Final Report. 15 Pa

2. Sun, W. 2003. “Development of pressurization airflow design 30%
criteria for spaces under required pressure differentials.” ASHRAE 25%
Transactions 109. 20%
3. ASHRAE. 2017. ASHRAE Design Guide for Cleanrooms: Fundamen-
15%
tals, Systems, and Performance. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
10%
5%
Bibliography
ACGIH. 2001. Air Sampling Instruments, 9th Edition. American Con- 0%
1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 3rd
ference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Door Door Door Door Door Door Door Door Door
Bennett et al, 2005. “Development of particle tracer techniques Cascading Sink Bubble Dual Compartment
to measure the effectiveness of high containment laboratories.”
Applied Biosafety 10(3).
ISO 14644 Standards, Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled
Environments: Part 3, Test Methods and Part 4, Design, Construc- environments.” ASHRAE Transactions 111.
tion and Start-up. Sun, W. 2008. “Conserving fan energy in cleanrooms.” ASHRAE
Sun, W. 2003. “Development of pressurization airflow design Journal (7).
criteria for spaces under required pressure differentials.” ASHRAE Sun, W., et al. 2011. “Cleanroom Pressurization Strategy Update:
Transactions 109. Quantification and Validation of Minimum Pressure Differentials
Sun, W. 2005. “Automatic room pressurization test technique for Basic Configurations and Applications.” ASHRAE Research Proj-
and adaptive flow control strategy in cleanrooms and controlled ect RP-1344, Final Report.

FEBRUARY 2018  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 69