NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Laboratory Test Report for Six 

ENERGY STAR® Dehumidifiers

Jon Winkler, Ph.D., Dane Christensen, Ph.D., and 

Jeff Tomerlin

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5500-52791

December 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Laboratory Test Report for Six 

ENERGY STAR® Dehumidifiers

Jon Winkler, Ph.D., Dane Christensen, Ph.D., 

and Jeff Tomerlin

Prepared under Task No. BE11.0201

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5500-52791

December 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iv

Executive Summary

This report documents the measured performance of six residential ENERGY STAR® vapor 

compression dehumidifiers. The performance of each was measured over a wide range of inlet 

air conditions and fit to a numerical model with an R-squared value greater than 0.995 for both 

water removal rate and energy factor (i.e. capacity and efficiency). Performance curve 

coefficients were also developed for use in EnergyPlus. Test data from all six dehumidifiers were 

fit to a generic performance curve for water removal rate and energy factor. These curves 

accurately represented all the test data with an average relative error of 5.9% in both estimated 

water removal rate and estimated energy factor. 
v

Definitions

AHAM American Home Appliance Manufacturers

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

cfm cubic feet per minute

DB dry-bulb

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DP dew point

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GE General Electric, Inc.

HVAC heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

RH relative humidity

WG water gauge
vi

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... iv

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ viii

1 Overview................................................................................................................................................ 1

2 Test Description.................................................................................................................................... 3

3 Test Results .......................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Generic Performance Curves.............................................................................................................. 9

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 11

References................................................................................................................................................. 12

Appendix A – Photographs of Experimental Setup............................................................................... 13

Appendix B – Summary of Measured and Calculated Test Data ......................................................... 17

Appendix C – Plots of Model Comparisons ........................................................................................... 23

Appendix D – Normalized Performance Curves .................................................................................... 29

Appendix E – Generic Performance Curves........................................................................................... 35
vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Dehumidifier ENERGY STAR efficiency criteria ...................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Psychrometric chart showing dehumidifier test points.......................................................... 3

Figure 3. Photograph of the Ultra-Aire 70H test setup............................................................................ 5

Figure 4. Water removal rate model comparison using the generic performance curve.................. 10

Figure 5. Energy factor model comparison using the generic performance curve ........................... 10

Figure 6. Photograph of the Ultra-Aire XT150H test setup ................................................................... 13

Figure 7. Photograph of the Ultra-Aire XT150H test setup ................................................................... 14

Figure 8. Photograph of the GE dehumidifier test setup...................................................................... 15

Figure 9. Photograph of the GE dehumidifier test setup...................................................................... 16

Figure 10. Water removal rate model comparison for the Ultra-Aire XT150H .................................... 23

Figure 11. Energy factor model comparison for the Ultra-Aire XT150H.............................................. 23

Figure 12. Water removal rate model comparison for the Ultra-Aire 70H........................................... 24

Figure 13. Energy factor model comparison for the Ultra-Aire 70H .................................................... 24

Figure 14. Water removal rate model comparison for the GE ADER65LP.......................................... 25

Figure 15. Energy factor model comparison for the GE ADER65LP ................................................... 25

Figure 16. Water removal rate model comparison for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1 ........................... 26

Figure 17. Energy factor model comparison for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1..................................... 26

Figure 18. Water removal rate model comparison for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G......................... 27

Figure 19. Energy factor model comparison for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G .................................. 27

Figure 20. Water removal rate model comparison for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD............................. 28

Figure 21. Energy factor model comparison for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD...................................... 28

Figure 22. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Ultra-Aire XT150H................ 29

Figure 23. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Ultra-Aire XT150H ......................... 29

Figure 24. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Ultra-Aire 70H....................... 30

Figure 25. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Ultra-Aire 70H................................ 30

Figure 26. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the GE ADER65LP...................... 31

Figure 27. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the GEADER65LP................................ 31

Figure 28. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1....... 32

Figure 29. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1 ................ 32

Figure 30. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G..... 33

Figure 31. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G.............. 33

Figure 32. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD ........ 34

Figure 33. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD ................. 34

Figure 34. Generic water removal rate performance curve .................................................................. 35

Figure 35. Generic energy factor performance curve ........................................................................... 35
viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Dehumidifier Manufacturer Specifications ................................................................................ 1

Table 2. Finalized Test Matrix .................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3. Measured Airflow Rates............................................................................................................... 4

Table 4. Comparison of Rated Performance Values ............................................................................... 6

Table 5. Curve Fit Coefficients for the Ultra-Aire XT150H and Ultra-Aire 70H...................................... 7

Table 6. Curve Fit Coefficients for the GE ADER65LP and Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1............................ 7

Table 7. Curve Fit Coefficients for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G and Frigidaire FAD251NTD............ 7

Table 8. Normalized Water Removal Rate Coefficients for the EnergyPlus Component Model......... 8

Table 9. Normalized Energy Factor Coefficients for the EnergyPlus Dehumidifier Model ................. 8

Table 10. Normalized Water Removal Rate and Energy Factor Coefficients for the Generic Model.. 9

Table 11. Summary of Test Data for the Ultra-Aire XT150H.................................................................. 17

Table 12. Summary of Test Data for the Ultra-Aire 70H ........................................................................ 18

Table 13. Summary of Test Data for the GE ADER65LP ....................................................................... 19

Table 14. Summary of Test Data for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1 ........................................................ 20

Table 15. Summary of Test Data for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G ...................................................... 21

Table 16. Summary of Test Data for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD.......................................................... 22
1

1 Overview

Six residential vapor compression cycle dehumidifiers spanning the available range of capacities 

and efficiencies were tested in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Heating, 

Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Systems Laboratory. Each was tested under a wide 

range of indoor air conditions to facilitate the development of performance curves for use in 

whole-building simulation tools. Table 1 lists the manufacturer specifications. The energy factor 

for a dehumidifier is defined as the amount of energy required to remove a specified volume of 

water from the incoming air. The two ducted Ultra-Aire dehumidifiers can be used in a 

standalone system with unique ductwork or the ductwork can be incorporated into a HVAC 

system. The remaining dehumidifiers are standalone units. 

Table 1. Dehumidifier Manufacturer Specifications

Brand Name Model # Capacity1

(pints/day)

Energy Factor1

(L/kWh)

Airflow Rate

(cfm)

Ultra-Aire XT150H 150 3.7 4152

Ultra-Aire 70H 70 2.32 1602

Santa Fe3 Compact 70 2.37 1702

General Electric (GE) ADER65LP 65 1.8 195/175/155

Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1 45 1.5 103/91/81

Comfort Aire BHD-301-G 30 1.4 N/A

Frigidaire FAD251NTD 25 1.2 N/A

1 Performance at the rated inlet condition of 80°F, 60% relative humidity (RH)

2 Flow rate specified at 0 in. water gauge (WG) 3 Unit was not tested under all operating conditions due to nearly identical performance with the 

Ultra-Aire 70H

Sources: Therma-Stor 2007, Therma-Stor 2010, Therma-Stor 2011, GE 2011, Soluesair 2011, EPA 2011 

Table 1 lists seven dehumidifiers. The Santa Fe Compact and Ultra-Aire 70H are manufactured 

by Therma-Stor, LLC. During setup these two units were observed to have nearly identical 

designs. The Santa Fe Compact dehumidifier was tested under a limited number of operating 

conditions and the results were compared to the Ultra-Aire 70H performance model. The UltraAire 70H model predicted the Santa Fe Compact performance with an average 3.2% error. Thus, 

testing of the Santa Fe Compact was discontinued and the results are not included in this report. 

Test results for the six remaining dehumidifiers are reported.

All six dehumidifiers satisfied the ENERGY STAR® efficiency criteria (see Figure 1). The two 

Ultra-Aire dehumidifiers well exceeded ENERGY STAR requirements; the remaining four 

barely met the necessary efficiency level. All dehumidifiers listed in the ENERGY STAR 

product directory are included in Figure 1. We intended to test a dehumidifier below ENERGY 

STAR efficiency requirements, but could not find such a unit available for purchase at the time 

of testing. However, the performances of several non-ENERGY STAR dehumidifiers were 

found in the literature and are included in Figure 1 for reference.
2

Figure 1. Dehumidifier ENERGY STAR efficiency criteria

Sources: Therma-Stor 2007, Therma-Stor 2010, GE 2011, Soluesair 2011, EPA 2011 

1

2

3

4

0 30 60 90 120 150

Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Dehumidifier Capacity (pints/day)

ENERGY STAR Efficiency Criteria Dehumidifiers Tested

ENERGY STAR Products Non ENERGY STAR Products
3

2 Test Description

All six dehumidifiers were tested in NREL’s HVAC Systems Laboratory with funding from the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the Building America program. The test method followed 

ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, except as described below (ANSI/AHAM 2008). Air was supplied at 

tightly controlled psychrometric states and the performance was measured over approximately 

5–10 minutes of steady-state operation. Steady-state operation was determined by observing the 

unit’s power consumption and outlet air temperature and humidity. Tightly sealed, insulated 

plenums were constructed around the supply and return grilles of the four standalone 

dehumidifiers. The supply and return ducts for the two Ultra-Aire dehumidifiers were directly 

connected to the laboratory’s inlet and outlet ducts.

The test matrix evolved over time. The Ultra-Aire XT150 was tested in summer 2009 and 

reported by Christensen and Winkler (2009). The unit was tested at 12 test conditions, which 

were chosen to represent typical operating conditions and to bracket those conditions for more 

accurate interpolation modeling. The Comfort Aire dehumidifier was tested in summer 2010 

under 21 operating conditions. The laboratory test data were used to create the test matrix for the 

four remaining dehumidifiers tested in summer 2011. The final test matrix was created to 

minimize testing time and still test enough points to create accurate performance-based models. 

The dehumidifiers with multiple fan speeds were tested at the high fan speed only. A summary 

of the test matrices is shown on the psychrometric diagram in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Psychrometric chart showing dehumidifier test points

Winter and Summer Comfort Regions from ASHRAE (2004)

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

ω (kg/kg)

Dry Bulb Temperature (oC)

UltraAire XT150H Test Points

Comfort Aire Test Points

Remaining Dehumidifier Test Points

Winter Comfort Region

Summer Comfort Region

RH = 10%

50%

70%

30%

90%
4

The final version of the test matrix used in testing the last four dehumidifiers is listed in 

Table 2.

Table 2. Finalized Test Matrix

Dry-Bulb Humidity Ratio Dew Point Relative 

Humidity 

(°C) (°F) (kg/kg) (grains) (°C) (°F) (%)

20 68.6 0.01229 86 17.2 63.0 82.1

21 69.9 0.00777 54 10.3 50.5 50.0

20 67.9 0.01025 72 14.5 58.0 70.5

23 72.8 0.01542 108 20.8 69.4 89.1

27 80.1 0.00767 54 10.1 50.2 35.1

26.7 80.0 0.01319 92 18.3 65.0 60.1

26 79.2 0.01062 74 15.0 59.0 49.9

27 80.1 0.01914 134 24.2 75.6 86.2

31 87.1 0.01883 132 24.0 75.1 67.8

33 91.0 0.01222 86 17.1 62.8 39.2

33 91.1 0.01520 106 20.5 69.0 48.5

33 91.9 0.01882 132 23.9 75.1 58.1

35 95.0 0.01702 119 22.3 72.2 48.0

Laminar flow elements were used to measure inlet and outlet airflow rates (see Table 3). Each 

dehumidifier was initially tested at a set static pressure to determine the blower volumetric flow 

rate. For subsequent tests, the laboratory’s inlet fan provided the appropriate air mass flow rate 

that would be encountered at sea level to the dehumidifier’s return duct or return grille. The 

dehumidifier’s outlet pressure was controlled to ambient pressure by the laboratory’s outlet fan 

to minimize air leakage from the experimental apparatus. Air mass balance (εMass) was defined as 

the ratio of instantaneous inlet air mass flow rate to instantaneous outlet air mass flow rate. All 

dehumidifiers were tested at a single airflow rate. Thus, the effect of airflow rate on the 

performance was not captured.

Table 3. Measured Airflow Rates

Dehumidifier

Manufacturer 

Reported 

Capacity

(pints/day)

Airflow Rate

Measured Value

(cfm)

Manufacturer Reported

(cfm)

Ultra-Aire XT150H 150 330 415

Ultra-Aire 70H 70 165 160

General Electric 65 193 195

Soleusair 45 107 103

Comfort Aire 30 179 N/A

Frigidaire 25 88 N/A

Sources: Therma-Stor 2007, Therma-Stor 2010, GE 2011, Soluesair 2011, EPA 2011 
5

Chilled mirror hygrometers, with an accuracy of 0.15°C, were used to measure inlet and outlet 

dew point temperatures; a coriolis flow meter was used to measure condensate drain mass flow 

rate. A moisture mass balance (εWater) was defined as the ratio of instantaneous inlet air moisture 

mass flow rate to the sum of outlet air moisture mass flow rate and condensate flow rate.

A thermocouple array in the ductwork near the unit was used to measure well-mixed inlet and 

outlet temperatures. Static pressure was measured at the inlet and outlet. Standard American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) formulas were 

used to calculate enthalpy for each air stream. Total unit power and fan power were individually 

measured using two power meters. An energy balance (εEnergy) was defined as the ratio of the 

sum of inlet air energy rate and electric power to the outlet air energy rate.

Two photographs of the Ultra-Aire 70H are included in Figure 3. A stand was constructed to 

elevate the unit so condensate flow could be measured and collected. The gray box atop the 

dehumidifier houses power meters measuring the fan power and the total unit power. The photo 

on the lower left shows the condensate coriolis mass flow meter and the outlet dew point 

hygrometer. Appendix A contains additional photographs of the experimental setups. 

Figure 3. Photograph of the Ultra-Aire 70H test setup

NREL/PIX 19737 (top, right), 19738 (bottom, left)Credit: Bethany Sparn, NREL
6

3 Test Results

Appendix B includes detailed test results for the dehumidifiers tested. The test data in Appendix 

B were adjusted to sea level using appropriate coil bypass factors.

Experimental mass, water, and energy balances are also listed in Appendix B. A balance value of 

1 is achieved by inlet and outlet parameters being equal. Energy balances for the ducted units 

were better than for nonducted units because the nonducted units lost compressor heat through 

the walls of dehumidifier casing that was unaccounted for in the air-side measurements. This 

heat loss resulted in cooler outlet air temperatures but did not affect the performance parameters 

of interest; namely, water removal rate and energy factor because the compressor energy was 

directly measured. Water balances were better for the larger capacity dehumidifiers because a 

more continuous water stream flowed through the condensate coriolis flow meter.

Table 4 compares the manufacturer reported and experimentally determined performance values 

for the standard rated operating condition of 80°F, 60% RH return air (ANSI/AHAM 2008). 

Generally, manufacturers report performance only at the standard rating point. Thus, a direct 

comparison to manufacturer-provided data can be conducted only at this specific point of 

operation. The capacities of all units met or exceeded manufacturer-reported values and, in 

general, the units operated more efficiently than reported. 

Table 4. Comparison of Rated Performance Values

Dehumidifier

Manufacturer Rated 

Performance Measured Performance

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Ultra-Aire - XT150H1 150 3.7 150 3.8

Ultra-Aire - 70H 70 2.3 77.1 2.6

General Electric 65 1.8 70.4 1.9

Soleusair 45 1.5 48.3 1.6

Comfort Aire1 30 1.4 43.1 1.7

Frigidaire 25 1.2 26.9 1.1

1 Performance at the rated inlet condition of 80°F, 60% RH was not directly tested. Results 

were determined from the corresponding regression model (minimum R2 of 0.996).

The primary objective of the experimental testing was to develop a library of performance curves 

for a broad range of dehumidifiers. Biquadratic equations are commonly used to simulate HVAC 

equipment. Equation 1 shows that the entering dry-bulb temperature (Tin ,°C) and relative 

humidity (RHin, 0-100%) are used to estimate the water removal rate and energy factor.

in in in in Tin RHin Parameter = a + b ⋅T + c ⋅T + d ⋅ RH + e ⋅ RH + f ⋅ ⋅ 2 2 (1)

The experimental data were fit to Equation 1 for water removal rate and energy factor. Tables 5

through 7 contain curve fit coefficients for each dehumidifier tested. Nearly all variables of 
7

interest (outlet temperature, outlet humidity, power consumption, etc.) can be calculated using 

curve outputs for capacity and energy factor at the provided inlet condition and the 

corresponding dehumidifier air mass flow rate.

Table 5. Curve Fit Coefficients for the Ultra-Aire XT150H and Ultra-Aire 70H

Ultra-Aire XT150H Ultra-Aire 70H

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

a –159.67 –5.7925 a –214.02 –7.6527

b 3.0539 0.20741 b 7.2025 0.26475

c –0.17396 –0.002560 c –0.076992 –0.0026446

d 3.6126 0.13525 d 2.9293 0.14117

e –0.017796 –0.00056207 e –0.0098773 –0.00048381

f 0.054811 –0.00016617 f 0.0078233 –0.0010876

r

2 0.998 0.998 r2 0.999 0.999

Table 6. Curve Fit Coefficients for the GE ADER65LP and Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1

General Electric Soluesair

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

a –204.85 –6.6341 a –55.879 –3.4599

b 8.0645 0.28560 b 1.9880 0.15364

c –0.088482 –0.0032936 c –0.021802 –0.0019053

d 3.1486 0.12026 d 0.92351 0.063237

e –0.011160 –0.00041373 e –0.0028202 –0.00020780

f –0.015386 –0.0015161 f 0.013010 –0.00043861

r

2 0.999 0.997 r2 0.999 0.997

Table 7. Curve Fit Coefficients for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G and Frigidaire FAD251NTD

Comfort Aire Frigidaire

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

a –76.137 –3.9653 a –49.473 –3.1461

b 1.9674 0.12833 b 1.4527 0.11619

c –0.019527 –0.0013985 c –0.018538 –0.0014438

d 1.1442 0.074793 d 0.63326 0.048822

e –0.0044646 –0.00026754 e –0.0020335 –0.00015523

f 0.017640 –0.00017376 f 0.012741 –0.00010357

r

2 0.998 0.995 r2 0.999 0.999
8

Appendix C shows plots that compare the predicted and experimental water removal rates and 

energy factors. All models accurately predicted the experimental results, as indicated by all 

points being in close proximity to the line of ideal fit (represented by the line y = x). 

EnergyPlus, an annual whole-building simulation tool, uses Equation 1 to simulate the thermal 

performance and electric power of a direct-expansion dehumidifier (DOE 2010). The EnergyPlus 

dehumidifier component model uses two biquadratic curves to scale the rated performance. The 

user must enter the water removal rate (L/day), energy factor (L/kWh), and volumetric airflow 

rate (m3

/s) at the AHAM rated operating point. The normalized performance curves entered into 

EnergyPlus scale the rated performance to determine the performance at off-rated conditions. 

Thus, the curves must equal a value of 1 at the rated operating condition (80°F DB, 60% RH). 

Tables 8 and 9 contain the normalized water removal rate and energy factor performance curve 

coefficients for use in EnergyPlus. The R-squared values indicate the performance curves have 

accurately captured the experimental performance. Plots comparing the normalized model 

predictions to the experimental values have not been provided, because normalizing the data 

does not change the model’s accuracy. The comparison plots in Appendix C apply to the 

normalized model as well. Appendix D includes graphical representations of the normalized 

performance curves using the coefficients in Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8. Normalized Water Removal Rate Coefficients for the EnergyPlus Component Model

Ultra-Aire

XT150H

Ultra-Aire

70H

General

Electric Soleusair ComfortAire Frigidaire

a –1.0648 –2.0900 –2.6382 –1.3583 –1.3222 –1.82260

b 0.020365 0.056838 0.10122 0.052320 0.02384779 0.053677265

c –0.00011600 –0.00051779 –0.0010888 –0.00062497 –0.00022928 –0.00068640

d 0.024090 0.031944 0.041806 0.021215 0.021240 0.023268

e –0.00011867 –0.00011318 –0.00014986 –6.9291E-05 –9.1570E-05 –7.4699E-05

f 0.00036551 0.00026988 –0.00016050 0.00023933 0.000564439 0.00046914

r

2 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.999

Table 9. Normalized Energy Factor Coefficients for the EnergyPlus Dehumidifier Model

Ultra-Aire

XT150H

Ultra-Aire

70H

General

Electric Soleusair ComfortAire Frigidaire

a –1.5464 –3.0402 –3.4183 –2.1259 –2.3185 –2.7804

b 0.055372 0.10518 0.14716 0.094404 0.075036 0.10268

c –0.00068342 –0.0010506 –0.0016970 –0.0011707 –0.00081771 –0.0012760

d 0.036107 0.056083 0.061965 0.038855 0.043732 0.043147

e –0.00015005 –0.00019220 –0.00021318 –0.00012768 –0.00015643 –0.00013718

f –4.43616E–05 –0.00043206 –0.00078120 –0.00026950 –0.00010160 –9.1532E-05

r

2 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.995 0.999
9

4 Generic Performance Curves

A generic set of normalized performance curves to simulate other dehumidifiers would be useful. 

Generic performance curves could be used in building optimization software to simulate a 

variety of dehumidifier sizes and efficiency levels. The coefficients in Equation 1 were 

determined through a linear regression with normalized experimental data from all six 

dehumidifiers. Nine experimental test points were removed from the Comfort Aire dataset to be 

consistent with the test matrix from the five other dehumidifiers. Thus, 77 test points were 

included in the regression. 

Coefficients for the generic performance curves are listed in Table 10. These will provide a 

normalized result (at a given operating condition) that must be scaled by the corresponding rated 

performance metric for the specific dehumidifier being modeled. The entire experimental dataset 

was accurately fit to the generic performance curves, as indicated by the R-squared values. The 

average relative errors in capacity and energy factor predictions were both less than 5.9%. The 

generic model was able to predict the water removal rate and energy factor of the nine Comfort 

Aire test points removed from the regression with average relative errors of 2.4% and 2.6%, 

respectively. Despite subtle differences in the individual performance curves (see Appendix D), a 

single set of performance curves can accurately predict the performance of all the dehumidifiers 

tested. 

Table 10. Normalized Water Removal Rate and Energy Factor Coefficients for the Generic Model

Capacity

(pints/day)

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

a –1.1625 –1.9022

b 0.022715 0.063467

c –0.00011321 –0.00062284

d 0.021111 0.039540

e –6.9303E-05 –0.00012564

f 0.00037884 –0.00017672

r

2 0.977 0.969

Plots comparing the generic performance curve output to the experimental results are shown in 

Figure 4 and Figure 5. The dataset used for the regression and the nine points removed from the 

Comfort Aire dataset used for validation are included in the comparison plots. Appendix E 

includes graphical representations of the generic curves, which can be visually compared to the 

curves for the individual performances in Appendix D. 
10

Figure 4. Water removal rate model comparison using the generic performance curve

Figure 5. Energy factor model comparison using the generic performance curve

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Predicted Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

Test Points Used for Regression

Validation Points (Not Used in Regression)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Test Points Used for Regression

Validation Points (Not Used in Regression)
11

5 Conclusions

Six residential ENERGY STAR vapor compression dehumidifiers were tested in the laboratory 

over a wide range of operating conditions. The performance of all units met or exceeded 

manufacturer reported values. The experimental test data were fit to biquadratic performance 

curves for water removal rate and energy factor. All numerical models accurately represented the 

test data. Data from all six dehumidifiers were used to develop an accurate generic dehumidifier 

performance curve. 
12

References

ANSI/AHAM. (2008). Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers – Dehumidifiers. 

ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008. Washington, DC: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

ASHRAE. (2004). Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. ASHRAE 

Standard 55-2004. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers.

Christensen, D.; Winkler, J. (2009). Laboratory Test Report for ThermaStor Ultra-Aire XT150H 

Dehumidifier. NREL/TP-550-47215. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

DOE. (2010). EnergyPlus Engineering Reference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

EPA. (2011). EPA ENERGY STAR® Dehumidifier Product List. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

GE. (2011). GE Dehumidifier Model #: ADER65LP. General Electric Product Website. 

http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SpecPage&Sku=ADER

65LP. Accessed September 13, 2011.

Soluesair. (2011) SG-DEH-45-1A EnergyStar Dehumidifier. Soluesair Product Website. 

www.soleusair.com/sg_deh_45_1a.html. Accessed September 13, 2011. 

Therma-Stor. (2007). Installer’s and Owner’s Manual for Ultra-Aire XT150H. Madison, WI: 

Thermastor, LLC.

Therma-Stor. (2010). Installer’s and Owner’s Manual for Ultra-Aire 70H.Madison, WI: 

Thermastor, LLC.

Therma-Stor. (2011). Installer’s and Owner’s Manual for Santa Fe Compact. Madison, WI: 

Thermastor, LLC.
13

Appendix A – Photographs of Experimental Setup

Figure 6. Photograph of the Ultra-Aire XT150H test setup

A stand was constructed to elevate the unit so flow could be measured and collected. The 

temperature of the flowing condensate was measured in the trap. This piping was insulated to 

maintain condensate temperature up to a coriolis flow meter. All seams in the XT150H’s sheet 

metal box were sealed with aluminum tape to prevent air leakage and maintain an accurate air 

mass balance. The gray box atop the dehumidifier is the power meter.

NREL/PIX 19601Credit: Dane Christensen, NREL
14

Figure 7. Photograph of the Ultra-Aire XT150H test setup

The rigid ductwork (right) is a mixing section, at the end of which temperature and humidity are 

measured. Thick insulation was applied to the ductwork after that measurement to prevent heat 

loss and condensation before the dehumidifier inlet. Similarly, insulated ductwork routes the 

outlet airstream to a mixing section where outlet temperature and humidity are measured. The 

inset shows pitot tube connections for pressure measurement immediately at the unit’s inlet and 

outlet. The blue tubing connects the pitot tubes to pressure transducers.

NREL/PIX 19603 (main), 19602 (inset)Credit: Dane Christensen, NREL
15

Figure 8. Photograph of the GE dehumidifier test setup

Inlet (right) and outlet (left) plenums were constructed for the four standalone units. Plenums 

were constructed from 2-in. rigid insulation and tightly sealed with aluminum tape. The gray box 

atop the inlet plenum houses the power meters. The inlet static pressure was measured in three 

locations and one static pressure tap is shown in the inlet plenum. The condensate hose flowing 

to the coriolis flow meter is also shown.

NREL/PIX 19604Credit: Jon Winkler, NREL
16

Figure 9. Photograph of the GE dehumidifier test setup

Care was taken to insulate the inlet and outlet ducts. The insulated duct connected to the inlet 

plenum is on the right; insulated outlet ducts are on the left. Inlet and outlet dew points were 

measured with chilled mirror hygrometers, shown on the left for the outlet air stream.

NREL/PIX 19605Credit: Jon Winkler, NREL
17

Appendix B – Summary of Measured and Calculated Test Data

Summaries of the results are included in Tables 11 through 16. Intended test points were not perfectly achieved in all cases; however, 

the actual inlet conditions are included in the summary tables and were used in the analysis.

Table 11. Summary of Test Data for the Ultra-Aire XT150H

Inlet Conditions Outlet Conditions Performance Balances

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

Pints/

day

L/

day

L/ 

kWh

Power 

(W) εMass εEnergy εWater

15.60 8.82 0.00875 63.9 0.1867 26.03 1.46 0.0042 20.2 0.1875 97.02 45.91 3.02 634.18 0.995 0.984 1.038

21.10 8.69 0.00869 44.8 0.1851 30.33 3.09 0.0047 17.6 0.1855 76.45 36.17 2.24 672.68 0.997 0.994 1.015

32.20 9.22 0.00899 24.2 0.1856 39.15 6.73 0.0061 13.9 0.1862 39.07 18.49 1.01 766.46 0.997 0.997 0.958

18.30 13.02 0.01161 71.1 0.1869 31.13 5.63 0.0056 20.1 0.1865 126.29 59.76 3.66 680.71 1.002 0.995 1.047

26.70 12.73 0.01142 41.9 0.1877 37.28 7.64 0.0065 16.4 0.1870 91.82 43.44 2.46 735.40 1.004 1.004 1.010

21.10 15.58 0.01380 70.6 0.1869 35.49 8.38 0.0068 19.0 0.1866 144.70 68.47 3.94 723.88 1.002 0.998 1.037

29.40 15.48 0.01371 42.8 0.1867 41.34 10.49 0.0079 16.0 0.1862 105.95 50.13 2.65 788.63 1.003 1.004 0.997

21.10 17.49 0.01565 79.7 0.1868 37.27 9.95 0.0076 19.2 0.1868 168.04 79.51 4.46 743.37 1.000 0.997 1.046

32.20 17.67 0.01583 41.9 0.1877 45.18 12.85 0.0092 15.3 0.1874 117.90 55.79 2.78 837.21 1.002 1.005 1.007

26.71 18.22 0.01632 59.6 0.1864 41.63 12.16 0.0088 17.6 0.1863 146.81 69.47 3.65 792.98 1.001 1.000 1.011

32.21 20.34 0.01867 49.6 0.1863 47.22 15.25 0.0108 16.1 0.1862 143.04 67.68 3.27 862.92 1.000 1.001 0.997

26.75 25.04 0.02500 90.4 0.1912 46.83 18.98 0.0138 20.8 0.1913 222.58 105.32 5.15 852.66 1.000 0.996 1.022
18

Table 12. Summary of Test Data for the Ultra-Aire 70H

Inlet Conditions Outlet Conditions Performance Balances

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

Pints/ 

day

L/

day

L/ 

kWh

Power 

(W) εMass εEnergy εWater

26.01 14.33 0.01249 48.4 0.0936 39.00 9.36 0.0073 16.8 0.0932 49.39 23.37 1.78 547.26 1.004 1.007 1.024

26.90 10.87 0.00992 36.6 0.0949 36.13 7.85 0.0066 17.7 0.0949 26.27 12.43 0.99 525.08 1.001 1.000 1.021

32.99 24.17 0.02350 59.9 0.0930 54.09 18.62 0.0134 14.2 0.0925 95.31 45.10 2.76 680.25 1.006 1.024 1.026

30.97 24.16 0.02349 67.2 0.0929 53.23 18.04 0.0130 14.3 0.0923 103.45 48.95 3.03 672.98 1.006 1.024 1.028

27.46 24.05 0.02332 81.7 0.0932 51.40 16.95 0.0121 14.6 0.0927 116.57 55.16 3.49 658.15 1.006 1.021 1.029

35.01 22.29 0.02087 47.8 0.0936 52.88 17.61 0.0126 14.1 0.0927 74.42 35.21 2.20 667.56 1.009 1.026 1.029

32.99 20.93 0.01914 49.2 0.0936 50.48 15.92 0.0113 14.3 0.0927 73.15 34.62 2.23 645.66 1.009 1.025 1.029

22.58 20.62 0.01877 88.6 0.0931 44.61 12.43 0.0090 15.3 0.0927 107.29 50.77 3.53 599.04 1.004 1.013 1.029

26.70 18.36 0.01624 60.2 0.0932 44.27 11.98 0.0087 15.1 0.0929 77.13 36.49 2.56 593.65 1.003 1.012 1.023

32.97 17.29 0.01515 39.2 0.0929 46.71 13.21 0.0094 14.5 0.0922 49.32 23.34 1.59 609.70 1.008 1.021 1.022

21.70 16.87 0.01473 73.9 0.0932 39.45 9.29 0.0073 16.3 0.0931 81.05 38.35 2.87 556.73 1.001 1.003 1.024

21.67 15.03 0.01306 65.8 0.0934 37.20 8.16 0.0067 17.0 0.0933 67.39 31.89 2.47 538.38 1.001 1.001 1.021

21.55 11.59 0.01039 52.9 0.0938 33.32 6.26 0.0059 18.6 0.0945 44.70 21.15 1.75 504.82 0.993 0.984 1.024
19

Table 13. Summary of Test Data for the GE ADER65LP

Inlet Conditions Outlet Conditions Performance Balances

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

Pints/ 

day

L/

day

L/ 

kWh

Power 

(W) εMass εEnergy εWater

33.00 23.91 0.02319 59.0 0.1087 51.13 19.89 0.0146 17.8 0.1036 81.39 38.51 1.89 846.83 1.049 1.055 1.061

31.06 23.92 0.02320 65.8 0.1090 49.79 19.56 0.0143 18.6 0.1038 87.56 41.43 2.08 829.75 1.050 1.057 1.067

27.27 23.79 0.02301 81.3 0.1084 47.11 18.79 0.0136 20.3 0.1036 97.68 46.22 2.40 803.13 1.046 1.047 1.068

35.05 22.46 0.02116 48.2 0.1080 51.80 18.74 0.0135 16.0 0.1029 69.38 32.83 1.62 846.44 1.049 1.057 1.069

33.00 20.38 0.01855 47.5 0.1082 48.82 16.43 0.0117 16.0 0.1028 65.26 30.88 1.61 800.30 1.052 1.068 1.064

22.22 20.33 0.01850 89.0 0.1085 40.70 14.43 0.0102 21.4 0.1038 92.50 43.77 2.52 723.74 1.045 1.038 1.087

26.73 18.23 0.01616 59.6 0.1090 42.45 13.32 0.0095 18.2 0.1043 70.44 33.33 1.90 732.67 1.045 1.044 1.062

33.07 17.36 0.01528 39.2 0.1084 46.86 13.68 0.0097 14.8 0.1028 51.50 24.37 1.32 768.31 1.055 1.071 1.063

21.19 16.78 0.01471 75.8 0.1087 36.99 10.88 0.0081 20.7 0.1039 75.25 35.61 2.22 668.46 1.046 1.042 1.085

26.05 14.63 0.01278 49.3 0.1093 39.36 9.90 0.0076 17.1 0.1044 55.17 26.11 1.60 679.84 1.048 1.058 1.091

21.15 14.48 0.01266 65.6 0.1096 35.16 8.82 0.0070 19.9 0.1048 63.96 30.27 1.97 640.67 1.046 1.047 1.073

26.91 10.98 0.01002 36.9 0.1083 37.15 7.55 0.0064 16.4 0.1032 33.09 15.66 1.02 639.93 1.050 1.040 1.046

20.51 10.20 0.00951 51.5 0.1095 31.15 5.73 0.0057 20.2 0.1068 40.69 19.25 1.33 604.56 1.026 0.985 1.096
20

Table 14. Summary of Test Data for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1

Inlet Conditions1 Outlet Conditions Performance Balances

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

Pints/ 

day

L/

day

L/ 

kWh

Power 

(W) εMass εEnergy εWater

21.73 14.53 0.01271 63.5 0.0573 41.53 7.07 0.0062 12.6 0.0547 41.86 19.81 1.51 545.97 1.046 1.071 1.066

21.05 10.28 0.00956 50.0 0.0592 36.85 3.86 0.0050 12.9 0.0556 29.28 13.86 1.12 513.70 1.065 1.096 1.062

32.99 24.07 0.02339 59.6 0.0601 56.48 19.01 0.0138 13.0 0.0593 56.54 26.75 1.70 654.03 1.014 1.032 1.045

31.00 24.04 0.02334 66.5 0.0601 55.29 18.53 0.0134 13.3 0.0593 60.60 28.68 1.85 645.11 1.013 1.032 1.044

28.06 24.00 0.02328 78.6 0.0600 53.54 17.83 0.0128 13.9 0.0593 66.47 31.45 2.06 635.27 1.011 1.034 1.037

35.03 22.35 0.02098 47.9 0.0596 56.48 17.76 0.0127 12.0 0.0592 46.82 22.15 1.41 654.48 1.007 1.025 1.040

33.00 20.47 0.01862 47.8 0.0599 53.47 15.59 0.0110 12.1 0.0593 44.51 21.06 1.40 627.34 1.010 1.024 1.044

23.12 20.72 0.01891 86.3 0.0597 47.10 13.45 0.0096 14.4 0.0599 63.15 29.88 2.11 588.76 0.997 1.018 1.012

26.59 18.36 0.01625 60.6 0.0600 47.08 12.21 0.0088 13.3 0.0602 48.33 22.87 1.63 584.24 0.996 1.021 1.011

33.00 17.45 0.01532 39.6 0.0598 50.95 12.98 0.0093 11.5 0.0594 34.66 16.40 1.12 608.31 1.008 1.019 1.039

21.51 16.98 0.01486 75.3 0.0598 42.26 9.55 0.0074 14.3 0.0604 51.83 24.52 1.86 549.81 0.990 1.016 1.007

25.98 15.10 0.01315 51.0 0.0602 43.86 9.12 0.0072 12.8 0.0606 39.11 18.51 1.39 554.38 0.993 1.015 1.021

1 The 27°C DB, 35.1% RH test point was removed from the data due to difficulty in achieving steady state operation for this particular operating condition.
21

Table 15. Summary of Test Data for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G

Inlet Conditions Outlet Conditions Performance Balances

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

Pints/ 

day

L/

day

L/

kWh

Power 

(W) εMass εEnergy εWater

20.35 17.44 0.01527 83.2 0.1046 31.45 13.70 0.0098 33.9 0.1010 51.05 24.16 2.19 458.98 1.036 1.037 1.050

21.08 10.44 0.00961 50.5 0.1073 27.97 8.14 0.0067 28.6 0.1008 21.93 10.38 1.02 425.84 1.065 1.047 1.066

19.95 14.64 0.01272 71.3 0.1040 29.43 11.29 0.0083 32.5 0.0989 38.73 18.33 1.72 444.45 1.051 1.039 1.071

23.20 14.84 0.01288 59.2 0.1026 32.46 11.83 0.0086 28.3 0.0980 35.21 16.66 1.51 458.65 1.047 1.063 1.054

23.31 17.30 0.01514 68.9 0.1028 34.08 13.86 0.0099 29.6 0.0989 46.17 21.85 1.94 469.16 1.039 1.067 1.064

22.65 20.96 0.01919 90.1 0.1018 35.90 17.16 0.0122 33.0 0.0948 60.71 28.73 2.42 494.53 1.074 1.091 1.088

24.41 20.72 0.01891 79.9 0.1017 37.18 17.15 0.0122 30.8 0.0953 56.70 26.83 2.22 502.86 1.067 1.085 1.080

26.21 15.16 0.01316 50.5 0.1022 35.31 12.45 0.0090 25.2 0.0976 32.56 15.41 1.35 474.49 1.047 1.080 1.062

25.88 17.28 0.01511 59.0 0.1024 36.19 14.23 0.0101 26.9 0.0981 41.11 19.45 1.67 485.24 1.044 1.074 1.055

26.75 10.26 0.00948 35.5 0.1046 32.97 8.78 0.0070 22.5 0.0987 14.02 6.63 0.62 448.50 1.060 1.088 1.031

26.75 20.44 0.01857 68.3 0.1017 38.81 17.21 0.0123 28.3 0.0953 51.00 24.13 1.97 510.50 1.068 1.092 1.073

26.72 24.40 0.02387 87.1 0.1023 41.54 20.83 0.0155 30.7 0.0958 70.18 33.21 2.57 538.98 1.067 1.092 1.085

29.02 17.35 0.01519 49.3 0.0974 38.95 14.72 0.0104 24.0 0.0974 35.04 16.58 1.38 501.55 1.043 1.082 1.060

29.42 20.78 0.01898 59.7 0.1015 41.07 17.90 0.0128 26.2 0.0949 46.62 22.06 1.75 525.72 1.069 1.097 1.080

30.07 16.19 0.01408 43.1 0.1016 39.05 13.88 0.0099 22.6 0.0972 29.73 14.07 1.17 499.17 1.045 1.088 1.053

30.60 24.13 0.02347 68.5 0.1022 44.34 21.01 0.0157 26.8 0.0963 61.26 28.99 2.18 554.22 1.061 1.092 1.090

32.26 16.11 0.01400 37.9 0.0998 40.76 14.22 0.0101 21.1 0.0952 24.06 11.38 0.93 511.58 1.048 1.083 1.048

32.81 17.31 0.01515 39.6 0.1015 41.78 15.28 0.0108 21.4 0.0966 27.97 13.23 1.06 519.16 1.050 1.089 1.058

32.82 20.70 0.01889 49.0 0.1007 43.71 18.27 0.0131 23.4 0.0940 39.45 18.67 1.44 538.82 1.071 1.108 1.076

33.30 24.12 0.02345 58.7 0.1021 46.21 21.39 0.0160 24.9 0.0959 54.01 25.55 1.89 564.82 1.065 1.099 1.085

36.70 24.04 0.02333 48.4 0.1020 48.65 21.72 0.0164 22.5 0.0959 46.10 21.81 1.58 576.99 1.063 1.104 1.078
22

Table 16. Summary of Test Data for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD

Inlet Conditions Outlet Conditions Performance Balances

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

DB 

(°C)

DP 

(°C)

ω 

(kg/kg)

RH 

(%)

MFR 

(kg/s)

Pints/

day

L/

day

L/

kWh

Power 

(W) εMass εEnergy εWater

26.40 14.47 0.01262 47.8 0.0496 40.40 11.24 0.0083 17.6 0.0484 17.92 8.48 0.78 450.55 1.004 1.031 1.044

28.47 9.23 0.00888 29.9 0.0489 38.43 8.23 0.0068 16.0 0.0496 4.42 2.09 0.20 437.92 0.985 1.006 1.011

22.45 9.29 0.00892 43.0 0.0499 33.42 6.95 0.0062 19.3 0.0499 9.94 4.70 0.47 418.33 0.999 1.000 1.058

32.99 24.32 0.02386 60.5 0.0498 52.85 20.79 0.0154 17.3 0.0486 34.38 16.27 1.28 528.07 1.024 1.060 1.038

31.19 24.18 0.02365 66.4 0.0499 51.65 20.27 0.0149 17.7 0.0488 37.40 17.70 1.42 519.59 1.023 1.062 1.040

25.07 24.20 0.02368 94.9 0.0503 47.70 19.17 0.0139 20.2 0.0496 47.31 22.38 1.84 506.35 1.013 1.041 1.070

22.11 17.08 0.01505 73.0 0.0500 38.95 12.47 0.0090 20.7 0.0492 29.00 13.72 1.27 450.30 1.016 1.026 1.063

35.02 22.13 0.02081 47.3 0.0495 52.44 19.24 0.0140 16.0 0.0479 25.03 11.84 0.94 523.89 1.005 1.038 1.036

33.00 20.14 0.01834 46.8 0.0493 49.57 17.15 0.0122 16.2 0.0484 23.20 10.98 0.90 507.70 1.018 1.048 1.056

22.29 20.67 0.01895 90.5 0.0496 42.77 15.29 0.0108 20.3 0.0489 40.46 19.15 1.69 472.15 1.014 1.039 1.039

27.31 18.46 0.01646 58.5 0.0491 44.77 14.44 0.0102 17.3 0.0465 26.91 12.73 1.11 479.54 0.948 0.979 0.959

33.03 17.10 0.01506 38.6 0.0487 47.71 14.56 0.0103 15.0 0.0471 16.46 7.79 0.66 490.65 1.002 1.040 1.055

19.80 15.10 0.01321 74.2 0.0492 36.03 10.23 0.0077 20.9 0.0484 26.58 12.58 1.19 438.73 1.015 1.023 1.055
Appendix C – Plots of Model Comparisons

Figure 10. Water removal rate model comparison for the Ultra-Aire XT150H

 

Figure 11. Energy factor model comparison for the Ultra-Aire XT150H

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

0 40 80 120 160 200 240

Predicted Water Removal Rate 

(pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWh)
24

Figure 12. Water removal rate model comparison for the Ultra-Aire 70H

 

Figure 13. Energy factor model comparison for the Ultra-Aire 70H

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Predicted Water Removal Rate 

(pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWh)
25

Figure 14. Water removal rate model comparison for the GE ADER65LP

 

Figure 15. Energy factor model comparison for the GE ADER65LP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Predicted Water Removal Rate 

(pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWhr)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWhr)
26

Figure 16. Water removal rate model comparison for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1

 

Figure 17. Energy factor model comparison for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

Predicted Water Removal Rate 

(pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWh)
27

Figure 18. Water removal rate model comparison for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G

 

Figure 19. Energy factor model comparison for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

Predicted Water Removal Rate 

(pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWh)
28

Figure 20. Water removal rate model comparison for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD

 

Figure 21. Energy factor model comparison for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Predicted Water Removal Rate 

(pints/day)

Measured Water Removal Rate (pints/day)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Predicted Energy Factor (L/kWh)

Measured Energy Factor (L/kWh)
29

Appendix D – Normalized Performance Curves

Figure 22. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Ultra-Aire XT150H

Figure 23. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Ultra-Aire XT150H

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DB Temperature (°C)
30

Figure 24. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Ultra-Aire 70H

Figure 25. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Ultra-Aire 70H

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

70%

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DBTemperature (°C)
31

Figure 26. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the GE ADER65LP

Figure 27. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the GEADER65LP

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

60%
32

Figure 28. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1

Figure 29. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Soleusair SG-DEH-45-1

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DB Temperature (°C)
33

Figure 30. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G

Figure 31. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Comfort Aire BHD-301-G

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DB Temperature (°C)
34

Figure 32. Normalized water removal rate performance curve for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD

Figure 33. Normalized energy factor performance curve for the Frigidaire FAD251NTD

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DB Temperature (°C)
35

Appendix E – Generic Performance Curves

Figure 34. Generic water removal rate performance curve

Figure 35. Generic energy factor performance curve

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Water Removal Rate

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

15 18 21 24 27 30

Normalized Energy Factor

Entering DB Temperature (°C)

60%