Implementing Ventilation Risk Assessment and Energy Improvements in a Renovated Academic Lab
Renovating aging academic laboratories presents a complex challenge: aligning evolving teaching pedagogy with rigorous safety requirements while meeting increasingly aggressive energy performance goals. A recent higher education teaching lab renovation demonstrates how a structured Laboratory Ventilation Risk Assessment (LVRA), paired with strategic HVAC upgrades, can reconcile these competing priorities and position a facility for long-term adaptability.
Presented in a recent webinar, Implementing Ventilation Risk Assessment and Energy Improvements for a Teaching Lab Renovation, part of the Academic Lab Design Digital Conference, the project offers a practical roadmap for institutions seeking to modernize legacy laboratory spaces without compromising safety or instructional flexibility. Through early stakeholder engagement, data-driven risk evaluation, and targeted infrastructure investments, the design team balanced open benchtop chemical use with responsible ventilation right-sizing, while also addressing deferred maintenance and future energy performance goals.
This webinar (along with the other three webinars in this event) is free to view on demand and qualifies for AIA CES credit. Click here to view the webinar, and contact aia@labdesignconference.com upon completion to claim your credit.
Reframing the relationship between safety, teaching, and energy
At the heart of the project was a fundamental mindset shift. As Laura Finuf, senior associate at Hord Coplan Macht, and Sean Convey, PE, mechanical engineering principal at Cator, Ruma & Associates, explain, “Energy efficiency and pedagogy often pull laboratory design in different directions.” Teaching labs that prioritize flexibility and hands-on learning frequently rely on open benchtop chemical use, which traditionally drives higher air change rates. At the same time, institutions are under pressure to reduce energy consumption by lowering ventilation rates where possible.
Rather than allowing one objective to dominate, the team positioned laboratory safety—and specifically the LVRA—as the bridge between these priorities. “Laboratory safety and the Ventilation Risk Assessment serves as the critical bridge between these competing priorities, aligning performance with protection,” they note. This reframing helped stakeholders understand that energy efficiency and safety are not mutually exclusive, but must be evaluated together through a shared, evidence-based process.
Using LVRA to inform, not assume, ventilation rates
Many campuses approach lab renovations with a default goal of reducing air change rates to save energy, often before fully understanding how a space will be used. In this case, the LVRA challenged early assumptions. “The project began with an ambition to reduce air change rates in support of energy efficiency,” Finuf and Convey explain. “However, the ventilation risk assessment challenged that assumption, demonstrating that higher air change rates were necessary to safely support the experiments planned for open benchtops.”
Rather than viewing this outcome as a setback, the team leveraged the LVRA as a decision-making tool, as outlined in the webinar. By grounding discussions in recognized standards—including ASHRAE, IMC, and I2SL guidance—the assessment provided a defensible rationale that aligned instructors, Environmental Health and Safety (EHS), life safety officials, and engineers around a shared understanding of risk. The result was a ventilation strategy that balanced safety, pedagogy, and operational performance, rather than optimizing one at the expense of the others.
Early engagement reveals real-world use conditions
A key factor in the success of the LVRA process was early and sustained engagement with lab users and campus stakeholders. These conversations revealed important discrepancies between perceived and actual lab use. “What was most surprising during the early stakeholder conversations was the gap between how lab users anticipated using the space and how other campus stakeholders understood that use,” the team notes.
While green chemistry principles guided much of the curriculum, instructors acknowledged that higher-hazard experiments would still occur on an occasional basis. “Although less frequent, these higher-hazard activities ultimately drove the overall risk profile of the lab,” Finuf and Convey explain. By designing for the highest credible risk rather than the most common scenario, the team ensured the lab could safely accommodate a full range of instructional needs—now and in the future.
Beyond mechanical systems, architectural decisions played a critical role in improving both safety and the student experience. The renovation shifted away from dense interior layouts toward perimeter-based exposure control devices, fundamentally changing airflow patterns and bench organization.
“By clearing and simplifying benchtop work areas, the design improved usable work surface, reduced clutter, and minimized the likelihood and severity of chemical spills,” the team explains. From a ventilation standpoint, the layout supports “clean air cascading across the benchtops toward the perimeter exposure control devices,” reinforcing effective contaminant capture.
These changes also enhanced teaching outcomes. Improved sightlines, reduced visual clutter, and more intuitive lab organization created an environment better suited to collaboration, instructor oversight, and focused learning—demonstrating how safety-driven design can also elevate pedagogy.
Designing for sustainability without over-specialization
While green chemistry was an important project goal, the team resisted designing the lab around a single pedagogical moment. “Not every experiment could fully transition, and the design needed to acknowledge that curricula evolve and teaching needs change over time,” Finuf and Convey note.
Instead, flexibility became the guiding principle. Infrastructure and exposure control strategies were designed to support lower-hazard practices when possible, while remaining robust enough to safely accommodate higher-risk chemicals if curricular needs shift. This approach allows institutions to advance sustainability goals without constraining academic freedom or introducing future safety limitations.
Strategic mechanical upgrades for long-term performance and flexibility
Like many campus labs, the project was constrained by limited floor-to-floor heights and a 1970s-era mechanical backbone. Wholesale replacement was neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, the team focused on targeted, high-impact upgrades. “One of the most effective strategies was the implementation of an intelligent, high efficiency energy recovery system,” they explain, enabling 100 percent outside air operation while achieving energy performance aligned with modern standards.
Maintaining a university standard of 20 percent excess airflow capacity further preserved flexibility without overbuilding. Coordinated project phasing—aligned with the relocation of researchers to a new building—allowed major exhaust upgrades to occur with minimal disruption, positioning the facility for future renovations without additional infrastructure changes.
With more than half of the renovation budget dedicated to mechanical systems, the project underscores a common reality of academic lab renovations. According to Finuf and Convey, the key to justifying this investment lies in early system evaluation. “By grounding budget decisions in documented performance gaps and future operational needs, institutions can clearly communicate why mechanical upgrades dominate renovation costs.”
Tools ranging from ASHRAE-level assessments to emerging frameworks like the I2SL Labs2Zero AIM report can help campuses articulate risk, opportunity, and long-term value—transforming mechanical upgrades from perceived cost drivers into strategic investments.
Across disciplines, climates, and project scales, this case study highlights the importance of early alignment among users, EHS, facilities, and leadership. Engaging stakeholders early in the process helps design teams clarify actual use conditions, account for potential program changes, and develop laboratory environments that support safety, efficiency, and long-term adaptability.
In this context, the LVRA process—combined with coordinated architectural and mechanical strategies—served as a structured tool for evaluating risk, informing design decisions, and balancing safety, pedagogy, and energy performance within the constraints of an academic laboratory renovation.
This webinar (along with the other three webinars in this event) is free to view on demand and qualifies for AIA CES credit. Click here to view the webinar, and contact aia@labdesignconference.com upon completion to claim your credit.
