## 3 Experimental Setup and Results
### Results--Economic Evaluations  
During the testing period, the integrated system produced the following savings:  
* Bottled water saving: 158 dm\({}^{3}\)/day;
* Kitchen water saving: 1724 dm\({}^{3}\)/day;
* LPG saving: 164 dm\({}^{3}\)/day;
* Electric energy (laundry cooling): 150 kWh/day.  
As noted, the environmental conditions in Villahermosa are very steady during each month, thus, it is reasonable to extend the results obtained in the test period to the whole month of November.  
In order to calculate the corresponding economic savings, in addition to bottled and kitchen water costs, information about LPG and electric energy costs were obtained from hotel owners (referring to 2015). With these data, the economic saving for November accounts for 125,444 Pesos. At the 2015 exchange rate ( 17.3735 pesos/USD [13]), this yields a monthly saving of USD 7220.4 (Table 7).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Expressions and Values** & **Results** \\ \hline G\({}_{\text{da}}=\text{dry air airflow}\) [kg/s] & G\({}_{\text{da}}=\frac{\text{G}_{\text{ba}}}{(1+\text{x}_{\text{i}})}\) & G\({}_{\text{da}}=1.92\) kg/s \\ \hline G\({}_{\text{ha}}=\text{humid air airflow}\) [kg/s] & G\({}_{\text{ha}}=1.958\) kg/s & \\ x\({}_{1}=\text{moisture content}\) [kg\({}_{\text{vapour}}/\text{kg}_{\text{dry air}}\)] & x\({}_{1}=0.01975\) kg\({}_{\text{vap}}/\text{kg}_{\text{dry air}}\) & \\ \hline \(\varphi_{\text{el}}=\text{electric power}\) [kW] & \(\varphi_{\text{el}}=\frac{(\text{h}_{2}-\text{h}_{3})\cdot\text{G}_{\text{da}} }{\text{EER}}\) & \(\varphi_{\text{el}}=15\) kW \\ \hline h\({}_{1}\), h\({}_{2}=\text{humid air enthalpy}\) [k/kg] & h\({}_{1}=73.3\) kJ/kg & \\ EER = energy efficiency ratio & h\({}_{2}=46.3\) kJ/kg & \\ EER = 3.5 & & \\ \hline E\({}_{\text{s}}=\text{energy consumption of the traditional system}\) [kWh] & E\({}_{\text{s}}=\tau\)\(\varphi_{\text{el}}\) & E\({}_{\text{s}}=\) \\  & & 150 kWh/day \\ \hline \(\tau_{\text{ac}}=\text{air changes time per day [h/day]}\) & \(\tau_{\text{ac}}=10\) h/day & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Expressions used for energy consumption calculations for the laundry—Traditional plant.  
Figure 11: Air processes for the laundry.  
As described above, during the test, fresh and dry air coming from the integrated system was only partially used as primary air, in order to increase the environmental quality of the laundry. However, the hotel also has an air conditioning system dedicated to guest rooms and common areas, composed of fan coils and a primary air delivery system, that works throughout the year for 24 h/day.  
The ATU (Air Treatment Unit), which treats primary air, is situated on the roof and therefore it is possible to directly link the treated air outlet section of the integrated system to the existing ATU in order to employ the total airflow coming from the integrated system for 24 h/day, instead of only 10 h.  
It is important to highlight that the volume of external air treated by the existing ATU is significantly greater than 8500 m\({}^{3}\)/h (i.e., the average airflow amount produced by the integrated system in test conditions). Thus, all the fresh and dry air from the integrated machine can be delivered to the ATU. In this case, it is also possible to determine the electric energy saving achievable by means of such a pre-treated air flow.  
The EER of the existing air conditioning system was estimated to be about 3.5, in the November climate, also under the hypothesis of partial load. It is unknown if the ATU includes a heat recovery system or if post heating is performed by means of condensation heat or electric coils. We applied the same conservative assumptions made for the laundry cooling energy calculation; in other words, we postulated the existence of a heat recovery system that was able to cover the post heating. With these considerations, the daily electric energy saving rose to 510 kWh/day and total monthly saving rose to 134,346 pesos (or USD 7733).