Comparing Central Air and Ductless Systems

Comparing Central Air and Ductless Systems

Overview of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning options for mobile homes

When it comes to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) options for mobile homes, choosing the right system is crucial for ensuring comfort and efficiency. Two of the most popular choices are central air systems and ductless mini-split systems. Each has its advantages and drawbacks, making it essential to compare them based on factors such as cost, installation, energy efficiency, and suitability for mobile homes.


Central air conditioning systems are a common choice for many homeowners due to their ability to provide consistent cooling throughout the entire home. These systems use a network of ducts to distribute cool air from a central unit to various rooms. One of the main advantages of central air is its ability to maintain an even temperature across all spaces in a mobile home. Moreover, these systems can improve indoor air quality by filtering dust and allergens through their ductwork.


However, installing a central air system in a mobile home can be challenging due to space limitations. Proper airflow improves the overall comfort of mobile home interiors replacing hvac system in mobile home energy conservation. Mobile homes often have smaller basements or crawl spaces where ductwork needs to be installed. This can increase installation costs significantly compared to traditional homes. Additionally, older mobile homes might require extensive modifications to accommodate ductwork and vents.


In contrast, ductless mini-split systems offer an appealing alternative that circumvents some of the challenges associated with central air installations in mobile homes. As their name suggests, these systems do not rely on ducts; instead, they consist of an outdoor compressor unit connected directly to indoor units mounted on walls or ceilings in each room. This setup allows for zoned cooling-meaning different rooms can be cooled at different temperatures according to individual preferences.


Ductless systems are generally easier and less expensive to install than central air because they do not require invasive ductwork installation. They also tend to be more energy-efficient since there is no loss of cold air through leaky ducts-a common issue in older HVAC setups. Furthermore, modern mini-split units often come with advanced features such as programmable thermostats and remote controls that enhance convenience.


On the downside, while ductless systems eliminate the need for ducts, they can sometimes struggle with maintaining consistent temperatures across larger spaces unless multiple indoor units are installed throughout the home. This could lead to higher upfront costs if several units are needed.


When deciding between central air and ductless mini-split systems for a mobile home, it's important to consider both immediate needs and long-term implications. Central air may offer superior whole-home cooling but requires significant investment in terms of installation time and cost-especially if retrofitting an older mobile structure is necessary. Conversely, ductless mini-splits provide flexible solutions tailored specifically towards smaller living environments like those found within mobile homes but may demand higher initial equipment expenses depending on desired coverage areas.


Ultimately each homeowner must weigh these factors carefully against personal preferences regarding climate control capabilities before making any final decisions about which type best suits their specific lifestyle requirements inside this unique type residential setting!

When it comes to maintaining a comfortable atmosphere in homes or offices, choosing the right air conditioning system is a decision that holds significant importance. Among the most commonly considered options are central air systems and ductless systems. Each of these has its own set of advantages and considerations, making it essential for consumers to understand their unique characteristics before making a choice.


Central air systems are perhaps the more traditional option, widely known for their ability to cool an entire building through a network of ducts. These systems consist of an outdoor unit connected to an indoor unit that distributes cooled air via ducts installed throughout the structure. A major advantage of central air systems is their ability to maintain a consistent temperature across all rooms, ensuring uniform comfort throughout the space. Additionally, since they operate on a single thermostat, they offer straightforward control over the indoor climate.


On the other hand, ductless systems-also known as mini-split systems-have been gaining popularity due to their flexibility and efficiency. Unlike central air systems, ductless units do not require extensive ductwork; instead, they consist of one or more indoor units connected to an outdoor compressor. This setup allows for precise temperature control in individual zones or rooms, catering directly to varying comfort needs within different areas of a building. As such, ductless systems can be particularly advantageous in scenarios where certain rooms require different cooling levels at different times.


One key factor that distinguishes these two types of systems is energy efficiency. Ductless systems often boast higher energy efficiency ratings because they eliminate the need for ducts, which can be prone to leaks and energy loss in traditional setups. By cooling specific areas only when needed, homeowners can potentially reduce overall energy consumption and lower utility bills with ductless solutions.


However, central air systems have their merits too-particularly when it comes to aesthetics and noise level. With all major components hidden away either outside or within walls and ceilings, central air provides an unobtrusive cooling solution without visible equipment cluttering living spaces. Additionally, since the main noise-producing element-the compressor-is located outside the building, interior noise levels tend to remain minimal compared to some ductless installations where indoor units might produce audible sound during operation.


In terms of installation costs and complexity, central air typically requires more initial investment due to the necessity of installing extensive ductwork if it's not already present. In contrast, ductless systems generally offer simpler installation processes with less disruption since no ducts need to be laid down-a potential cost saver particularly in older buildings without existing infrastructure.


Ultimately, deciding between central air and ductless systems hinges on individual preferences regarding factors like budget constraints, architectural considerations of the building in question (existing ducts versus none), desired level of control over different zones' temperatures indoors alongside long-term operational costs associated with each type's respective efficiencies.


Both options exhibit distinct strengths tailored towards varied needs: those seeking comprehensive coverage might lean toward centralized solutions while others favoring customizable zoning could opt for modernized convenience found within innovative mini-split designs evident today across many residences worldwide alike!

More About Us

What Yelp Says About Us

How to reach us


How Seasonal Upkeep Enhances HVAC Performance in Mobile Homes

How Seasonal Upkeep Enhances HVAC Performance in Mobile Homes

Energy Savings and Extended Lifespan Through Consistent Upkeep: How Seasonal Upkeep Enhances HVAC Performance in Mobile Homes In the ever-evolving landscape of residential living, mobile homes have steadily gained popularity for their affordability and flexibility.. However, like all dwellings, they require consistent maintenance to ensure optimal comfort and efficiency.

Posted by on 2024-12-27

Preparing HVAC Units for Heat Waves in Mobile Homes

Preparing HVAC Units for Heat Waves in Mobile Homes

Emergency Preparedness During Extreme Heat Events: Preparing HVAC Units for Heat Waves in Mobile Homes As climate change continues to escalate the frequency and intensity of heat waves, it is imperative for residents of mobile homes to prioritize emergency preparedness.. One crucial aspect of this preparedness involves ensuring that HVAC units are optimally maintained and ready to combat the soaring temperatures associated with extreme heat events. Mobile homes, while offering affordable and flexible living options, often face unique challenges during heat waves.

Posted by on 2024-12-27

Components and operation of central air systems in mobile homes

When considering the comfort of a mobile home, one of the key factors is an efficient and effective air conditioning system. Two popular options are central air systems and ductless systems. Understanding the components and operation of these systems can help homeowners make an informed decision tailored to their specific needs.


Central air systems in mobile homes operate through a network of ducts that distribute cooled air throughout the entire living space. The main components include an outdoor unit, which houses the compressor and condenser coil, and an indoor unit with evaporator coils and an air handler or furnace. The system works by drawing warm air from inside the home into the ducts, where it passes over the evaporator coils filled with refrigerant. This process absorbs heat from the air, cooling it before it is recirculated back into the rooms.


One significant advantage of central air systems is their ability to provide consistent temperatures across multiple rooms, creating a uniform climate throughout the home. This can be particularly beneficial in larger mobile homes or those with open floor plans. Additionally, modern central air systems often come with advanced filtration options, improving indoor air quality by trapping allergens and pollutants.


However, installing central air in a mobile home can present challenges. The limited space within walls for ductwork can make installation complex and expensive. Furthermore, older mobile homes may require modifications to accommodate such systems efficiently.


In contrast, ductless mini-split systems offer a more flexible solution without requiring extensive ductwork. A ductless system consists of an outdoor compressor unit connected to one or more indoor blower units mounted on walls or ceilings within different rooms. These units are linked by small conduits that carry refrigerant lines and electrical wiring.


Ductless systems operate by drawing warm indoor air into the blower unit where it is cooled by passing over refrigerated coils before being expelled back into the room. Each indoor unit can be individually controlled, allowing for customized temperature settings in different areas-a feature known as zoned cooling.


The primary benefit of ductless systems lies in their ease of installation and energy efficiency. Since they do not rely on ducts, there is minimal energy loss associated with leaks or poor insulation common in traditional setups. Moreover, their compact design suits smaller spaces typical of many mobile homes.


Nevertheless, ductless systems have limitations too; they may not be suitable for very large homes unless multiple units are installed-an option that could become cost-prohibitive compared to a single central system serving similar square footage.


Ultimately choosing between central air and ductless options depends heavily on individual needs: budget constraints versus operational advantages like zoning capabilities must weigh against each other carefully when deciding which system best suits your lifestyle requirements within your unique living space configuration found typically among various types/styles/models/makes/year-ranges/manufacturers-of-mobile-homes available today!

Components and operation of central air systems in mobile homes

Pros and cons of using central air in mobile home settings

When considering the optimal cooling system for a mobile home, central air and ductless systems stand out as two prominent options. Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages that can significantly impact comfort, efficiency, and cost.


Central air conditioning is often favored for its ability to cool an entire home uniformly. This is especially beneficial in mobile homes, where space is limited and maintaining a consistent temperature throughout is crucial for comfort. One of the primary advantages of central air systems is their efficiency in cooling large areas quickly. Once installed, they can deliver even temperatures across multiple rooms through a network of ducts, ensuring that every corner of the home remains comfortable during hot weather.


However, there are several downsides to this approach in a mobile home setting. The installation process can be complex and costly due to the need for extensive ductwork. Mobile homes typically have less space to accommodate such infrastructure, potentially requiring significant modification or even restructuring. Additionally, central air systems can be less energy-efficient compared to ductless options because conditioned air can escape through leaks in the ducts over time.


Ductless systems offer an appealing alternative by providing targeted cooling without the need for extensive ductwork. These systems consist of an outdoor unit connected to one or more indoor units, allowing residents to control temperatures on a room-by-room basis. This zoned approach not only enhances comfort but also improves energy efficiency by eliminating the loss associated with ducts.


Moreover, ductless systems are generally easier and quicker to install than central air conditioning since they require minimal structural changes to a mobile home. They are also known for quieter operation and better air quality management due to advanced filtration capabilities.


On the downside, while ductless systems provide excellent flexibility and efficiency, they may not be suitable for those who prefer uniform temperature control across all rooms simultaneously without manual adjustments. Additionally, initial costs per unit might be higher than adding central air if multiple indoor units are required.


In conclusion, choosing between central air and ductless systems for a mobile home revolves around balancing initial investment against long-term benefits like energy savings and flexible temperature management. Central air excels at providing uniform cooling but demands significant upfront infrastructural changes; meanwhile, ductless offers adaptability with potential savings on operational costs but might involve higher initial equipment expenses depending on individual needs. Ultimately, homeowners should weigh these pros and cons carefully in light of their specific requirements and constraints before making a decision.

Exploring Ductless Systems

When considering options for home cooling and heating, two systems often come under comparison: central air systems and ductless systems. Each has its unique set of advantages and potential drawbacks, so understanding the differences can help homeowners make informed decisions tailored to their needs.


Central air conditioning systems have long been a staple in American households. These systems rely on a network of ducts to circulate conditioned air throughout the home. One of the main benefits of central air is its ability to cool or heat an entire house uniformly. This system works efficiently in larger homes where distributing temperature evenly across multiple rooms is necessary. Additionally, with a single thermostat control, maintaining a consistent indoor climate becomes relatively straightforward.


However, central air systems are not without their downsides. The installation process can be invasive and costly, particularly if ductwork needs to be added to older homes not originally designed for such infrastructure. Furthermore, ducts can be a source of energy inefficiency. Leaks or poorly insulated ducts may lead to energy losses as high as 30%, according to some estimates, which can significantly impact utility bills over time.


On the other hand, ductless systems-also known as mini-split systems-offer a modern alternative that has gained popularity due to its flexibility and efficiency. Unlike central air systems, ductless setups do not require extensive ductwork; instead, they consist of an outdoor condenser unit and one or more indoor units mounted on walls or ceilings within various zones of the house. This configuration allows for zoned heating and cooling, meaning each room or zone can be adjusted independently based on usage patterns and personal preferences.


The absence of ducts inherently eliminates the risk of energy loss associated with traditional models. Ductless systems often prove more energy-efficient overall because they allow users to heat or cool specific areas rather than the entire home at once. This targeted approach not only conserves energy but also reduces utility costs significantly.


Despite these advantages, ductless systems come with their own challenges. Initial installation costs can be higher compared to replacing existing central air units due to the price of individual components required for multiple zones. Additionally, while these units are generally unobtrusive in design, some homeowners may find them aesthetically displeasing when mounted visibly within living spaces.


In conclusion, both central air and ductless systems offer distinct benefits suited for different scenarios and preferences. Central air remains ideal for those seeking whole-home solutions with minimal user intervention after setup while maintaining architectural consistency within interiors devoid of visible equipment installations. Conversely, ductless configurations shine in scenarios demanding precision control over specific zones paired with heightened energy efficiency goals amidst architectural constraints limiting conventional setups feasibility entirely-or simply offering greater appeal towards embracing innovation alongside sustainability pursuits head-on effectively addressing evolving environmental considerations today's conscientious consumer base increasingly prioritizes globally alike indeed ultimately dictating market dynamics moving forward assuredly enough regardless context surely so!

Explanation of ductless mini-split systems suitable for mobile homes

When considering the best cooling and heating solutions for mobile homes, it's essential to weigh the options between central air systems and ductless mini-split systems. Mobile homes, with their unique structural characteristics and often limited space, present particular challenges that make choosing the right system crucial for comfort and efficiency.


Central air systems have long been a staple in traditional homes, offering a comprehensive solution by circulating cool or warm air through a series of ducts. This method ensures an even temperature throughout the house, which is ideal for larger spaces. However, in mobile homes, installing such a system can be complex and costly due to the lack of pre-existing ductwork. The installation process would require significant modifications that may not only increase expenses but also disrupt the integrity of the home's structure.


In contrast, ductless mini-split systems offer an appealing alternative tailored specifically for environments like mobile homes. As their name suggests, these systems do not rely on extensive ductwork. Instead, they consist of an outdoor compressor unit connected to one or more indoor air-handling units via a conduit. This design allows for greater flexibility in installation and typically involves less intrusive construction work.


One of the main advantages of ductless mini-splits is their ability to provide zoned heating and cooling. This means homeowners can control temperatures in individual rooms or areas without affecting others-an especially useful feature in mobile homes where some rooms may be used more frequently than others. Additionally, since each unit operates independently, energy consumption can be more efficient as you are only using power where it is needed.


Ductless systems are also known for their quiet operation compared to traditional central air units. The absence of large ducts reduces noise levels significantly since most sound comes from the small indoor units rather than centralized machinery pushing air through extensive networks.


Another benefit lies in their modern technology that often includes features such as remote access via smartphones or integration with smart home systems. This enhances convenience and gives users complete control over their environment at any time.


Moreover, maintenance with ductless mini-splits tends to be simpler than with central air systems. There's no need to worry about cleaning or repairing ducts; instead, regular maintenance involves basic tasks like cleaning filters and ensuring unobstructed airflow around the units.


While upfront costs for purchasing a ductless system might seem higher than other options initially, potential savings on installation costs-and subsequent energy bills-make them a cost-effective solution over time. Additionally, many models are designed with high energy efficiency ratings that qualify homeowners for rebates or incentives offered by utility companies or governmental bodies.


In conclusion, while central air conditioning has its merits in certain contexts, ductless mini-split systems emerge as particularly well-suited for mobile homes thanks to their flexible installation process, targeted climate control capabilities, quieter operation, ease of maintenance, and overall cost efficiency. For those seeking an efficient way to ensure year-round comfort without compromising space or budget constraints inherent in mobile home living conditions-ductless mini-splits certainly deserve consideration as a viable option worth exploring further.

Advantages and disadvantages of ductless systems

When considering the best cooling and heating solutions for your home, it's important to weigh the pros and cons of various systems. Two popular choices are central air systems and ductless systems, each with its unique advantages and disadvantages. In this essay, we will delve into the benefits and drawbacks of ductless systems to help you make an informed decision.


Ductless systems, also known as mini-split systems, have gained popularity in recent years due to their flexibility and efficiency. One of the primary advantages of ductless systems is their ease of installation. Unlike central air systems that require extensive ductwork, ductless units can be installed with minimal disruption. This makes them an ideal choice for older homes or buildings where adding ducts would be impractical or costly.


Energy efficiency is another significant benefit of ductless systems. Because they don't rely on ducts, there's no energy loss typically associated with leaks or poor insulation in traditional ductwork. Additionally, many ductless models come equipped with inverter technology, which allows them to adjust their output according to the needs of the space continuously. This feature not only enhances comfort but also reduces energy consumption and utility bills.


Ductless systems also offer greater flexibility in terms of zoning. With individual units installed in different rooms or areas, homeowners can control temperatures independently across zones. This capability ensures that everyone can enjoy their preferred climate without affecting other parts of the house-ideal for families with varying comfort preferences.


Despite these advantages, there are some drawbacks to ductless systems that homeowners should consider. The initial cost can be higher than installing a central air system if multiple indoor units are needed to cover a large area effectively. For those on a tight budget, this upfront investment might be a significant deterrent.


Aesthetic concerns may also arise with ductless systems since indoor units are mounted on walls or ceilings and remain visible within living spaces. While modern designs aim to blend seamlessly into interiors, they might not appeal to everyone's taste compared to hidden ducts.


Finally, maintenance can be more involved for ductless systems compared to central air setups. Each indoor unit contains filters that require regular cleaning or replacement to ensure optimal performance-a task some homeowners might find cumbersome over time.


In conclusion, while ductless systems offer numerous advantages such as energy efficiency, ease of installation, and zoning capabilities, they are not without their challenges like higher initial costs and ongoing maintenance requirements. Weighing these factors against your specific needs will help determine if a ductless system is the right choice for you when comparing it with traditional central air options.

When it comes to selecting a cooling system for your home, the decision often boils down to central air conditioning versus ductless systems. Both options have their merits, and a careful cost comparison can help illuminate which might be the better investment for your specific needs.


Central air conditioning systems are a common choice for many homeowners, primarily due to their ability to cool entire homes uniformly. The initial installation costs of central air systems can be quite high, largely because they require ductwork throughout the house. For homes with existing ducts, this might not be an issue. However, in older homes without pre-existing ductwork, installation can become cumbersome and expensive-potentially ranging from $3,000 to $7,000 or more depending on the complexity of the project.


On the other hand, ductless systems-often referred to as mini-split systems-offer flexibility that central air cannot match. One of their biggest advantages is that they do not require ductwork. This makes them especially appealing for older homes or spaces where retrofitting ducts would be impractical or too costly. Installation of a ductless system typically ranges from $2,000 to $5,000 per unit depending on capacity and brand. While they seem cheaper initially on a per-unit basis compared to central air systems, multiple units may be needed to cool an entire house effectively.


Energy efficiency is another crucial factor in this cost comparison. Ductless systems are generally more energy efficient than traditional central air systems because they avoid energy losses associated with ductwork-losses that can account for up to 30% of energy consumption in some cases. Moreover, ductless systems allow you to control temperatures room-by-room rather than cooling your whole home uniformly; this zoned cooling capability offers potential savings by only using energy where it's needed.


However, maintenance and longevity also play roles in long-term cost considerations. Central air conditioners have been around longer and have a proven track record of reliability over decades if properly maintained. They usually last about 15-20 years with regular upkeep such as filter changes and periodic servicing. Ductless systems tend also to have similar lifespans but may need more frequent servicing particularly since each unit acts as an independent cooling source.


In conclusion, while both central air and ductless systems come with their own set of pros and cons when it comes to cost comparison-the best choice often depends on individual circumstances like existing infrastructure (ducts), home layout, budget constraints for installation versus operational costs over time-and personal preferences regarding comfort control (zoning). Carefully weighing these factors will ensure you make an informed decision tailored best towards your household's needs while keeping financial implications at forefront consideration throughout process selection journey!

When considering the comfort of a mobile home during the sweltering summer months, the choice between central air and ductless systems often becomes a focal point for homeowners. As with any significant home improvement project, understanding the initial installation costs is crucial in making an informed decision. Both systems have their unique advantages and financial implications.


Central air conditioning systems, known for their ability to cool entire homes uniformly, require a network of ducts to distribute cooled air throughout different rooms. Installing such a system in a mobile home involves several steps that can significantly impact the initial costs. First, there's the expense of purchasing the central air unit itself, which can range from a few thousand dollars to over ten thousand dollars depending on the capacity and efficiency level desired. Next comes the cost of installing ductwork, which is often where expenses start to climb. Many older mobile homes were not originally designed with ductwork in mind, requiring modifications or even complete installations that can add substantially to overall costs. Additionally, there are labor fees for HVAC professionals who must ensure proper installation and integration with existing electrical systems.


In contrast, ductless mini-split systems present an alternative that might be more financially appealing at first glance. These systems consist of an outdoor compressor unit connected to one or more indoor air-handling units via refrigerant lines rather than extensive ductwork. This setup reduces installation complexity and time compared to central air systems. The absence of ducts makes them especially attractive for mobile homes where space and structural constraints may pose challenges for traditional HVAC installations. The costs involved typically include purchasing individual indoor units for each room you wish cooled-an upfront investment that can still be substantial but tends to run lower than installing central ductwork.


Both options come with their own set of considerations beyond just initial costs. Central air systems offer consistent cooling across larger spaces but demand higher energy usage due to potential losses through ductwork inefficiencies-a factor reflected over time in utility bills rather than immediate outlay. Meanwhile, ductless systems provide flexibility by allowing temperature control on a room-by-room basis; however, they may struggle with maintaining uniform temperatures if too few indoor units are installed.


Ultimately, deciding between these two types hinges not only on budgetary constraints but also on personal preferences regarding cooling needs and lifestyle habits within your mobile home environment. While central air conditioning may involve higher upfront expenditures due largely to labor-intensive installations involving ducts-ductless models balance out lower initial investments against long-term operational considerations like maintenance frequency or energy efficiency.


Homeowners should weigh these factors carefully while consulting professionals who understand both system intricacies alongside specific requirements posed by mobile homes themselves-ensuring any chosen solution aligns well both financially now as well as functionally into future seasons ahead without compromise on comfort levels sought after therein ultimately yielding satisfaction all around no matter what path decided upon therein lies forthwith accordingly thereto thusly so forthwise indeed!

When contemplating the decision between central air and ductless systems, it's crucial to weigh the long-term operational costs and energy efficiency of each option. These considerations not only impact your wallet but also influence your home's comfort level and environmental footprint over time.


Central air conditioning systems have long been a staple in many homes, providing consistent temperature control throughout large spaces. However, they often entail significant upfront costs due to the requirement for ductwork installation if it isn't already present. Additionally, ducts can lead to energy inefficiencies; leaks or poor insulation within these systems can result in lost cooled air, making them less efficient over time. This inefficiency is reflected in higher utility bills, as the system must work harder to maintain desired temperatures.


Moreover, central systems usually operate on a single thermostat basis, cooling entire zones rather than individual rooms. This means that cooling might be provided to unoccupied areas of a home, leading to unnecessary energy consumption and higher operational costs. Regular maintenance, such as cleaning filters and servicing ducts, adds to these ongoing expenses but is essential for maintaining system efficiency.


In contrast, ductless mini-split systems offer an attractive alternative with potentially lower long-term operational costs and enhanced energy efficiency. One of their most significant advantages is their zoned cooling capability. Homeowners can install units in specific rooms or areas that require cooling, allowing for individualized temperature settings and reducing wasted energy on unoccupied spaces.


The absence of ductwork eliminates the potential for air leakage associated with central systems. Instead of distributing air through ducts that may be prone to inefficiencies over time, ductless systems deliver cooled air directly where it's needed most. This direct delivery system typically results in improved energy efficiency and lower electricity bills.


Additionally, modern ductless units often come equipped with advanced inverter technology that allows for variable-speed operation. Unlike traditional systems that turn off when reaching a set temperature only to restart later-consuming more power-ductless units adjust their output continuously according to demand. This capability not only reduces wear and tear on the system but also contributes significantly to operational cost savings over time.


Despite their benefits, it's important to consider the initial investment required for installing multiple indoor units with a ductless setup compared to a single central unit installation. Yet many homeowners find that this upfront cost is offset by savings accrued from reduced monthly energy expenses and lower maintenance requirements.


In conclusion, while both central air and ductless systems have their merits, those prioritizing long-term cost-effectiveness and energy efficiency may lean towards opting for ductless solutions. By offering targeted cooling without relying on potentially inefficient ducts and employing smart technologies like inverter compressors, ductless systems present an increasingly appealing option in today's environmentally conscious world where every kilowatt counts toward sustainability goals.

When considering the installation of a new cooling system for your home, two popular options often stand out: central air conditioning systems and ductless mini-split systems. Each has its own installation process and requirements that can significantly impact your decision-making process.


Central air conditioning systems are renowned for their ability to cool entire homes through a network of ducts. The installation process begins with assessing the existing ductwork in your home or, if you're starting from scratch, designing a new network to efficiently disperse conditioned air throughout every room. This can be a complex task, often requiring significant modifications to accommodate the ducts. The placement of vents must be carefully planned to ensure even airflow and optimal cooling performance.


The main unit of a central air system is typically installed outside the home, where it connects to an indoor evaporator coil that is usually placed near your furnace or air handler. This setup requires both electrical wiring and refrigeration lines to connect these components seamlessly. Additionally, proper insulation around the ductwork is crucial to prevent energy loss and maintain efficiency. While this extensive installation process might seem daunting, it often results in a cohesive cooling solution that integrates seamlessly into homes built with ductwork in mind.


In contrast, ductless mini-split systems offer greater flexibility, particularly for homes without existing ducts. Installation is generally quicker and less invasive than central air systems because there's no need for extensive ductwork. Instead, these systems consist of an outdoor compressor unit connected directly to one or more indoor air-handling units via small conduits containing refrigerant tubing and electrical wiring.


The indoor units can be mounted on walls or ceilings in individual rooms, allowing for targeted cooling where you need it most. Each unit operates independently with its own thermostat, offering personalized comfort settings across different zones in your home. This zoned approach not only enhances comfort but also improves energy efficiency by avoiding unnecessary cooling of unoccupied spaces.


Despite their straightforward installation process, ductless systems still require careful planning regarding the placement of both indoor and outdoor units to optimize performance and aesthetics. It's important to consider factors like sun exposure and airflow obstructions when deciding on locations.


In conclusion, the choice between central air and ductless mini-split systems hinges largely on your home's layout and specific cooling needs. Central air offers a comprehensive whole-house solution but demands significant upfront work with ducting infrastructure. Ductless mini-splits provide versatile zone control without major construction but may involve multiple units for larger areas. Understanding these differences in installation processes and requirements will guide you toward making an informed decision that aligns best with your lifestyle preferences and budget constraints.

When comparing central air systems to ductless systems, one of the most critical aspects to consider is the space, infrastructure, and technical requirements each system demands. Central air systems are a popular choice for many homeowners due to their ability to cool an entire house uniformly. However, they come with a set of specific needs that must be addressed to ensure optimal performance and efficiency.


Space is a primary consideration when installing a central air system. These systems typically require a significant amount of room for both the indoor unit, often located in the basement or attic, and the outdoor condenser unit. The ductwork, which is essential for distributing conditioned air throughout the home, also requires considerable space within walls or ceilings. Older homes without pre-existing ductwork may face challenges in accommodating this infrastructure without extensive renovations.


The infrastructure needed for central air systems extends beyond just physical space. A robust electrical setup is necessary to support these systems' power demands. This might involve upgrading the home's electrical panel or ensuring there are adequate circuits to handle the load. Additionally, proper ventilation and drainage solutions must be in place to handle condensation and prevent moisture-related issues.


From a technical standpoint, central air systems can be complex and often require professional installation and maintenance. The intricacy of ductwork design plays a crucial role in ensuring efficient airflow and minimizing energy wastage. Incorrectly sized ducts or poorly planned layouts can lead to uneven cooling and increased utility bills. Regular maintenance by qualified technicians is essential to keep central air systems running efficiently; this includes cleaning filters, checking refrigerant levels, and inspecting components for wear and tear.


In contrast, ductless systems offer more flexibility regarding space requirements. These units consist of an outdoor compressor linked directly to one or more indoor units via refrigerant lines rather than bulky ducts. As a result, they are ideal for homes where adding ductwork is impractical due to architectural constraints or budget considerations.


Despite these differences in spatial requirements and infrastructure complexity, both central air and ductless systems have strengths that appeal to different needs. For those with ample space who value uniform cooling across large areas, central air remains an attractive option despite its demanding setup process. Ultimately, understanding these fundamental distinctions helps homeowners make informed decisions about which system best suits their homes' unique characteristics and their personal preferences for comfort control.

When it comes to choosing an air conditioning system for your home, the decision often boils down to comparing central air systems with ductless systems. Each has its own set of advantages, yet one area where ductless systems stand out is in their flexibility and ease of installation.


Central air conditioning systems are a popular choice for many homeowners due to their ability to cool an entire house uniformly. However, this uniformity comes at the cost of a rather complex installation process. Central air systems require extensive ductwork throughout the home, which can be both time-consuming and invasive. This is particularly challenging in older homes or those without existing ducts, where retrofitting can become laborious and expensive.


In contrast, ductless systems offer remarkable flexibility and ease of installation that appeal to many homeowners. As their name suggests, these systems do not rely on ducts to circulate air. Instead, they consist of an outdoor unit connected to one or more indoor units via a small conduit that houses refrigerant lines, electrical wiring, and a condensate drain line.


The installation process for ductless systems is straightforward and minimally invasive. Typically completed within a day or two by professionals, it involves drilling a small hole in the wall for the conduit. This simplicity makes them an attractive option for those who wish to avoid major renovations or disruptions in their living space.


Moreover, ductless systems provide unparalleled flexibility in terms of placement and zoning capabilities. Homeowners can choose specific rooms or areas to cool based on individual needs and preferences. This is especially beneficial for households with varying temperature requirements across different rooms or spaces that are rarely used. The ability to control each unit independently allows for energy savings and personalized comfort-something central air struggles to achieve efficiently.


Additionally, the design flexibility of ductless systems makes them suitable for various architectural styles and room layouts. They are perfect solutions for home additions, sunrooms, garages converted into living spaces, or any area where extending existing ductwork would be impractical or costly.


Another appealing aspect is that modern ductless units are sleek and unobtrusive compared to traditional window units or bulky central system vents. They blend seamlessly into interior designs while providing effective climate control without taking up considerable space.


In conclusion, while both central air and ductless systems have their merits depending on specific homeowner needs and circumstances, those seeking flexibility without extensive installation challenges may find ductless options particularly advantageous. With quick setup times coupled with customizable cooling zones tailored precisely according to lifestyle demands-ductless systems truly offer unmatched convenience alongside efficient performance in today's fast-paced world where adaptability reigns supreme.

When it comes to central air and ductless systems, maintenance and longevity are critical factors that can influence a homeowner's decision. Both systems offer unique advantages, but they differ significantly in terms of upkeep and lifespan.


Central air conditioning systems have been a staple in many homes for decades. These systems rely on a network of ducts to distribute cool air throughout the house. One of the main advantages of central air is its ability to maintain consistent temperatures across large spaces. However, this network of ducts can also be a drawback when it comes to maintenance. Over time, dust and debris can accumulate in the ductwork, leading to reduced efficiency and potentially circulating allergens throughout the home. Regular cleaning and inspection of the ducts are essential to ensure optimal performance and prolong the system's life. Additionally, central air units typically require professional servicing at least once a year to check refrigerant levels, inspect electrical components, and clean coils.


On the other hand, ductless systems-also known as mini-split systems-provide an alternative approach by eliminating the need for ductwork entirely. This design inherently reduces some maintenance concerns associated with central air systems, such as duct cleaning. Ductless units are known for their energy efficiency since they allow homeowners to control temperatures room by room rather than cooling an entire house uniformly. Maintenance for ductless systems generally involves cleaning or replacing filters every few months and ensuring that outdoor units remain free from obstructions like leaves or debris.


Regarding longevity, both systems offer comparable lifespans if properly maintained. Central air conditioning units typically last between 15-20 years with regular care, while ductless systems can last up to 20 years or more when maintained correctly. The longevity of either system heavily depends on factors such as usage patterns, climate conditions, and adherence to recommended maintenance practices.


In conclusion, choosing between central air and ductless systems involves weighing several factors beyond just initial installation costs or energy efficiency ratings; maintenance requirements and potential longevity play crucial roles too. Central air might appeal more to those who prioritize uniform temperature control across large areas despite its higher maintenance demands due to ductwork involvement. Meanwhile, individuals seeking flexibility in cooling specific spaces without extensive upkeep may find ductless systems more advantageous in meeting their needs over time. Ultimately, understanding these aspects empowers homeowners to make informed decisions aligned with their preferences for comfort and long-term value.

When considering the installation of a new cooling system, homeowners often face the decision between central air conditioning and ductless mini-split systems. Both options have their own set of advantages and disadvantages, yet an essential factor that should not be overlooked is routine maintenance needs. Regular upkeep can significantly impact the efficiency, longevity, and overall performance of these cooling systems.


Central air conditioning systems are known for their ability to cool entire homes uniformly through a network of ducts. However, this expansive system requires regular attention to maintain its optimal functioning. One critical aspect of maintaining a central air system is ensuring that the ducts are clean and free from debris. Over time, dust and other particles can accumulate in the ductwork, obstructing airflow and reducing efficiency. Professionals typically recommend having ducts inspected and cleaned every few years.


In addition to duct cleaning, central air conditioners require routine checks on their filters, coils, and fins. Filters should ideally be replaced or cleaned every one to three months during peak usage periods to ensure proper airflow and prevent dirt from accumulating on coils. The coils themselves need periodic cleaning as well; if left unattended, they can become coated with grime that hinders heat absorption. Lastly, bent or damaged fins on the condenser unit should be straightened or repaired to maintain efficient airflow.


On the other hand, ductless mini-split systems offer a different approach to cooling by eliminating the need for extensive ductwork. This feature simplifies some aspects of maintenance but introduces others specific to its design. One notable advantage is that ductless systems do not suffer from issues related to dirty or leaky ducts, which can significantly reduce energy loss.


However, each indoor unit in a ductless system contains filters that must be regularly cleaned or replaced-generally once a month during heavy use-to ensure effective operation and indoor air quality. Additionally, outdoor units require seasonal cleaning to remove any debris or vegetation that might block airflow around the condenser.


Both central air and ductless systems demand professional inspections at least once yearly before peak seasons begin-usually in spring-for tasks such as checking refrigerant levels, inspecting electrical connections, lubricating moving parts where necessary, and assessing overall system performance.


In conclusion, while central air conditioning systems involve more complex maintenance primarily due to their reliance on extensive ductwork and larger components spread across multiple locations within a home's infrastructure; ductless mini-splits simplify some aspects but still necessitate diligent care focused on individual indoor units' cleanliness alongside standard outdoor unit checks similar in scope albeit simpler compared against traditional setups reliant upon centralized conduits running throughout property interiors altogether potentially influencing final selection based upon personal preference concerning convenience versus complexity involved therein accordingly balancing trade-offs inherent either choice ultimately entails practically speaking overall determining factor likely centering around specific household requirements budgetary constraints lifestyle considerations prevailing climatic conditions regional availability professional servicing options amongst myriad additional factors unique individual circumstances taken collectively comprehensively evaluated prior arriving informed decision best suited meeting particular needs aspirations long-term objectives satisfactorily fulfilled through prudent careful deliberation measured thoughtful reflection exercised judiciously sensibly wisely end result satisfactory outcome desired attained optimally successfully achieved commendably well executed manner befitting anticipated expectations realized eventually conclusively resultantly finally decisively conclusively determinatively effectually efficaciously conclusively manifestly effectively conclusively entirely fully thoroughly completely totally absolutely perfectly proficiently excellently superbly wonderfully marvelously splendidly magnificently grandiosely gloriously triumphantly victoriously happily pleasurably delightfully enjoyably gratifyingly satisfying fulfilling contentedly peacefully tranquilly serenely blissfully harmoniously agreeably pleasingly favorably

When considering the comfort and efficiency of home cooling systems, two popular options often come to mind: central air conditioning systems and ductless mini-split systems. Both have their own unique set of attributes that cater to different preferences and requirements. One critical aspect to explore when comparing these systems is their expected lifespan and reliability factors, which can significantly impact long-term satisfaction and investment value.


Central air conditioning systems have been a staple in many homes for decades. These systems rely on a network of ducts to distribute cooled air throughout an entire building. Typically, a well-maintained central air system can last between 15 to 20 years. This longevity is largely due to robust engineering and the widespread use of reliable components that have been tested over time. However, the lifespan can be affected by factors such as climate conditions, frequency of use, and maintenance practices. Regular servicing, including cleaning or replacing filters and checking refrigerant levels, is crucial for maintaining optimal performance and extending the unit's life.


Reliability in central air systems also hinges on the integrity of the ductwork. Leaks or blockages in ducts can lead to inefficiencies and put additional strain on the system, potentially reducing its lifespan. Additionally, since these systems usually cool entire homes regardless of whether certain areas are in use or not, they may consume more energy compared to ductless counterparts.


On the other hand, ductless mini-split systems offer a more modern approach with distinct advantages in terms of flexibility and efficiency. These systems consist of one or more indoor units connected to an outdoor compressor without requiring traditional ductwork. A typical ductless system has an expected lifespan similar to central air units-around 15 to 20 years-with proper maintenance.


One major benefit of ductless systems is their ability to provide zoned cooling; each indoor unit can be controlled independently, allowing users to cool specific rooms as needed rather than an entire house. This targeted cooling not only enhances energy efficiency but also reduces wear on individual components by limiting unnecessary operation.


Reliability factors for ductless systems often revolve around their complexity regarding installation precision and regular maintenance needs. Improper installation can lead to issues such as refrigerant leaks or inefficient operation that might shorten its effective life span. Nonetheless, with professional installation and routine checks-including filter cleaning every few months-the risk of major repairs or failures diminishes significantly.


In conclusion, both central air conditioning and ductless mini-split systems offer viable solutions for home cooling with comparable lifespans when maintained properly. Central air's reliance on established technology provides a sense of durability but demands attention towards duct integrity and overall usage patterns for optimal reliability. Meanwhile, ductless setups provide enhanced control over cooling zones with efficient operations but require precise installation techniques alongside consistent upkeep efforts.


Homeowners should weigh these considerations against personal preferences regarding energy consumption patterns along with budgetary constraints before deciding which option aligns best with their long-term goals for comfort coupled with dependability within any given environment they inhabit permanently or seasonally alike!

When contemplating the installation of a new cooling system, homeowners are often confronted with a choice between central air conditioning and ductless systems. Both options offer unique benefits, but in an era increasingly defined by climate consciousness, the environmental impact of these choices cannot be overlooked.


Central air conditioning systems operate by circulating cooled air through a network of ducts that run throughout a home. These systems are typically powered by electricity derived from fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Moreover, traditional refrigerants used in central air systems have historically been potent contributors to ozone depletion and climate change. Although recent regulations have phased out many harmful substances, it is imperative to consider how much energy these units consume over their lifespan.


On the other hand, ductless systems-also known as mini-split systems-offer a potentially more eco-friendly alternative. These units consist of an outdoor compressor connected to one or more indoor units via small conduits. The absence of extensive ductwork not only simplifies installation but also reduces energy loss common in ducted systems. This enhanced efficiency means ductless systems can use less power to achieve similar cooling levels compared to their central counterparts.


Furthermore, ductless systems allow for zoned cooling-meaning they can cool specific areas rather than an entire home at once. This targeted approach can lead to significant energy savings since homeowners can choose to cool only occupied spaces rather than maintaining a uniform temperature throughout the house.


However, it is essential to recognize that both system types share common challenges concerning environmental impact. First and foremost is the need for sustainable refrigerant solutions across all models. Additionally, regardless of the system type chosen, ensuring optimal insulation within the home and regular maintenance will minimize unnecessary energy consumption.


In conclusion, when comparing central air and ductless systems with climate considerations in mind, it becomes evident that while both have made strides towards improved efficiency and reduced emissions, ductless systems may offer a slight edge due to their flexibility and ability to minimize wasted energy through zoned cooling capabilities. Nonetheless, selecting the most environmentally supportive option should also involve evaluating local climate needs and integrating renewable energy sources where possible for powering these appliances. As we continue navigating our changing world with sustainability at heart, informed decisions about such household technologies play a crucial role in contributing positively towards global climate goals.

When choosing an air conditioning system, one of the most critical factors to consider is how well it suits the regional climate conditions. Central air systems and ductless systems each have their unique advantages and limitations, which can significantly affect their performance and efficiency depending on the climate.


Central air conditioning systems are often more suitable for regions with extreme temperature fluctuations throughout the year. These systems are designed to cool an entire home or building through a network of ducts, making them highly effective in providing consistent indoor temperatures across large spaces. In areas that experience hot summers and cold winters, central air can offer comprehensive heating and cooling solutions when paired with a furnace or heat pump. Additionally, their ability to dehumidify makes them ideal for humid climates, as they can effectively reduce moisture levels inside the home, enhancing comfort.


However, central air systems can be less efficient in regions where the climate remains relatively mild year-round. The extensive ductwork required for these systems can lead to energy losses if not properly insulated or maintained. This inefficiency becomes more apparent in areas where heating or cooling needs fluctuate minimally throughout the day or season.


On the other hand, ductless mini-split systems excel in regions with more moderate climates. These systems consist of an outdoor compressor unit connected to one or more indoor units via refrigerant lines rather than ducts. Ductless systems provide flexibility by allowing zone-specific heating and cooling, which is advantageous for homes where different rooms may require varying levels of temperature control. In coastal regions with mild summers and winters, ductless systems can efficiently manage individual room temperatures without wasting energy on unoccupied spaces.


Moreover, ductless systems are particularly beneficial in older homes that lack existing ductwork or in new constructions where preserving architectural aesthetics is important. Their installation process is less invasive compared to central air systems since there's no need for extensive ductwork modifications.


In summary, when assessing the suitability of central air versus ductless systems based on regional climate conditions, it's essential to weigh the specific demands of your local environment against each system's capabilities. Central air may be preferable in areas with significant temperature variations and high humidity levels due to its comprehensive coverage and dehumidifying properties. Conversely, ductless mini-splits offer energy-efficient solutions for milder climates by tailoring comfort to individual zones within a home while minimizing installation disruption. Ultimately, understanding your region's climate dynamics will guide you toward selecting a system that maximizes comfort and efficiency year-round.

Choosing the perfect cooling system for your mobile home can be a daunting task. As you weigh the options, two popular choices stand out: central air conditioning and ductless systems. Each has its own set of advantages and limitations, making it crucial to explore their features thoroughly to make an informed decision.


Central air conditioning systems are renowned for their ability to cool an entire space uniformly. They operate through a network of ducts that distribute cool air throughout the home, ensuring every room maintains a consistent temperature. For larger mobile homes with multiple rooms, this can be a significant advantage. Central systems are also generally quieter since the main unit is located outside or in an isolated area of the home. Once installed, they require little interference from homeowners beyond regular maintenance checks.


However, there are considerations to keep in mind with central air systems. The installation process can be invasive and costly, particularly if your mobile home does not already have existing ductwork. Furthermore, energy efficiency may suffer if ducts are not properly sealed or insulated, leading to higher utility bills over time.


On the other hand, ductless mini-split systems offer flexibility that makes them highly appealing for many mobile homeowners. These systems consist of an outdoor compressor and one or more indoor air-handling units that deliver cooled air directly into specific zones or rooms-without needing any ductwork. This setup is ideal for smaller mobile homes or those without existing ducts because it requires less intrusive installation work.


Energy efficiency is another significant benefit of ductless systems; they allow users to control temperatures in individual rooms rather than cooling unoccupied spaces unnecessarily-a feature that can lead to substantial savings on electricity bills over time. Moreover, installation tends to be quicker and less expensive compared to central AC units.


Nevertheless, there are potential drawbacks to consider with ductless systems as well. While they might provide targeted cooling efficiently, having multiple indoor units could affect the aesthetics of your home's interior design. Additionally, while typically more efficient in terms of energy use per square foot cooled, initial costs per unit can add up if you need several units throughout your home.


In conclusion, when deciding between central air conditioning and ductless systems for your mobile home, consider both the size and layout of your living space as well as budgetary constraints and personal preferences regarding efficiency and aesthetics. By evaluating these aspects carefully alongside each system's respective pros and cons outlined above-you'll be better equipped to make an informed choice that ensures comfort while aligning with your lifestyle needs effectively.

When faced with the decision of choosing between central air and ductless systems, homeowners must consider several key factors to determine which option best suits their needs. Both systems have distinct advantages and drawbacks that can significantly impact comfort, energy efficiency, installation costs, and overall home aesthetics.


One of the primary considerations is the layout and size of the space requiring cooling or heating. Central air systems are typically more suitable for larger homes with existing ductwork. They distribute air evenly throughout the house via a network of ducts, ensuring consistent temperature control in every room. In contrast, ductless systems-also known as mini-split systems-are ideal for smaller spaces or homes without pre-existing ducts. They allow for individual zoning, enabling precise temperature control in specific areas rather than cooling unused spaces.


Energy efficiency is another vital factor to weigh when comparing these two options. Ductless systems tend to be more energy-efficient because they avoid the energy losses associated with ductwork in central air systems. These losses can account for as much as 30% of energy consumption due to leaks or poor insulation in the ducts. Consequently, ductless units often result in lower utility bills over time, although this benefit can vary based on usage patterns and climate conditions.


Installation costs play a significant role in decision-making as well. Installing a central air system can be quite expensive if new ductwork needs to be installed or existing ducts require significant repairs or upgrades. On the other hand, while ductless systems generally have a higher upfront cost per unit compared to a single central air unit, they offer flexibility by allowing homeowners to install them incrementally according to budget constraints and immediate needs.


Maintenance requirements also differ between these two types of systems. Central air systems require regular maintenance of both the HVAC unit and duct system to ensure optimal performance and prevent issues like mold growth or clogged filters that could impair airflow. Ductless systems typically demand less maintenance since they lack extensive ductwork; however, their filters need regular cleaning to maintain efficiency.


Aesthetic considerations should not be overlooked either when making this choice. Central air conditioning remains largely hidden within walls or ceilings except for vents, maintaining a clean look in living spaces. Conversely, indoor units of ductless systems are visible on walls and might affect room aesthetics unless carefully integrated into interior design plans.


Ultimately, deciding between central air and ductless systems hinges on evaluating these factors alongside personal preferences and long-term goals for home comfort solutions. Homeowners must assess their unique circumstances-including budgetary constraints, spatial configurations, energy usage priorities-and potentially consult HVAC professionals who can provide tailored advice based on individual home characteristics before arriving at an informed decision that aligns best with their lifestyle needs.

 

An ab anbar (water reservoir) with double domes and windcatchers (openings near the top of the towers) in the central desert city of Naeen, Iran. Windcatchers are a form of natural ventilation.[1]

Ventilation is the intentional introduction of outdoor air into a space. Ventilation is mainly used to control indoor air quality by diluting and displacing indoor pollutants; it can also be used to control indoor temperature, humidity, and air motion to benefit thermal comfort, satisfaction with other aspects of the indoor environment, or other objectives.

The intentional introduction of outdoor air is usually categorized as either mechanical ventilation, natural ventilation, or mixed-mode ventilation.[2]

  • Mechanical ventilation is the intentional fan-driven flow of outdoor air into and/or out from a building. Mechanical ventilation systems may include supply fans (which push outdoor air into a building), exhaust[3] fans (which draw air out of a building and thereby cause equal ventilation flow into a building), or a combination of both (called balanced ventilation if it neither pressurizes nor depressurizes the inside air,[3] or only slightly depressurizes it). Mechanical ventilation is often provided by equipment that is also used to heat and cool a space.
  • Natural ventilation is the intentional passive flow of outdoor air into a building through planned openings (such as louvers, doors, and windows). Natural ventilation does not require mechanical systems to move outdoor air. Instead, it relies entirely on passive physical phenomena, such as wind pressure, or the stack effect. Natural ventilation openings may be fixed, or adjustable. Adjustable openings may be controlled automatically (automated), owned by occupants (operable), or a combination of both. Cross ventilation is a phenomenon of natural ventilation.
  • Mixed-mode ventilation systems use both mechanical and natural processes. The mechanical and natural components may be used at the same time, at different times of day, or in different seasons of the year.[4] Since natural ventilation flow depends on environmental conditions, it may not always provide an appropriate amount of ventilation. In this case, mechanical systems may be used to supplement or regulate the naturally driven flow.

Ventilation is typically described as separate from infiltration.

  • Infiltration is the circumstantial flow of air from outdoors to indoors through leaks (unplanned openings) in a building envelope. When a building design relies on infiltration to maintain indoor air quality, this flow has been referred to as adventitious ventilation.[5]

The design of buildings that promote occupant health and well-being requires a clear understanding of the ways that ventilation airflow interacts with, dilutes, displaces, or introduces pollutants within the occupied space. Although ventilation is an integral component of maintaining good indoor air quality, it may not be satisfactory alone.[6] A clear understanding of both indoor and outdoor air quality parameters is needed to improve the performance of ventilation in terms of occupant health and energy.[7] In scenarios where outdoor pollution would deteriorate indoor air quality, other treatment devices such as filtration may also be necessary.[8] In kitchen ventilation systems, or for laboratory fume hoods, the design of effective effluent capture can be more important than the bulk amount of ventilation in a space. More generally, the way that an air distribution system causes ventilation to flow into and out of a space impacts the ability of a particular ventilation rate to remove internally generated pollutants. The ability of a system to reduce pollution in space is described as its "ventilation effectiveness". However, the overall impacts of ventilation on indoor air quality can depend on more complex factors such as the sources of pollution, and the ways that activities and airflow interact to affect occupant exposure.

An array of factors related to the design and operation of ventilation systems are regulated by various codes and standards. Standards dealing with the design and operation of ventilation systems to achieve acceptable indoor air quality include the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards 62.1 and 62.2, the International Residential Code, the International Mechanical Code, and the United Kingdom Building Regulations Part F. Other standards that focus on energy conservation also impact the design and operation of ventilation systems, including ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and the International Energy Conservation Code.

When indoor and outdoor conditions are favorable, increasing ventilation beyond the minimum required for indoor air quality can significantly improve both indoor air quality and thermal comfort through ventilative cooling, which also helps reduce the energy demand of buildings.[9][10] During these times, higher ventilation rates, achieved through passive or mechanical means (air-side economizer, ventilative pre-cooling), can be particularly beneficial for enhancing people's physical health.[11] Conversely, when conditions are less favorable, maintaining or improving indoor air quality through ventilation may require increased use of mechanical heating or cooling, leading to higher energy consumption.

Ventilation should be considered for its relationship to "venting" for appliances and combustion equipment such as water heaters, furnaces, boilers, and wood stoves. Most importantly, building ventilation design must be careful to avoid the backdraft of combustion products from "naturally vented" appliances into the occupied space. This issue is of greater importance for buildings with more air-tight envelopes. To avoid the hazard, many modern combustion appliances utilize "direct venting" which draws combustion air directly from outdoors, instead of from the indoor environment.

Design of air flow in rooms

[edit]

The air in a room can be supplied and removed in several ways, for example via ceiling ventilation, cross ventilation, floor ventilation or displacement ventilation.[citation needed]

Furthermore, the air can be circulated in the room using vortexes which can be initiated in various ways:

Ventilation rates for indoor air quality

[edit]

The ventilation rate, for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) buildings, is normally expressed by the volumetric flow rate of outdoor air, introduced to the building. The typical units used are cubic feet per minute (CFM) in the imperial system, or liters per second (L/s) in the metric system (even though cubic meter per second is the preferred unit for volumetric flow rate in the SI system of units). The ventilation rate can also be expressed on a per person or per unit floor area basis, such as CFM/p or CFM/ft², or as air changes per hour (ACH).

Standards for residential buildings

[edit]

For residential buildings, which mostly rely on infiltration for meeting their ventilation needs, a common ventilation rate measure is the air change rate (or air changes per hour): the hourly ventilation rate divided by the volume of the space (I or ACH; units of 1/h). During the winter, ACH may range from 0.50 to 0.41 in a tightly air-sealed house to 1.11 to 1.47 in a loosely air-sealed house.[12]

ASHRAE now recommends ventilation rates dependent upon floor area, as a revision to the 62-2001 standard, in which the minimum ACH was 0.35, but no less than 15 CFM/person (7.1 L/s/person). As of 2003, the standard has been changed to 3 CFM/100 sq. ft. (15 L/s/100 sq. m.) plus 7.5 CFM/person (3.5 L/s/person).[13]

Standards for commercial buildings

[edit]

Ventilation rate procedure

[edit]

Ventilation Rate Procedure is rate based on standard and prescribes the rate at which ventilation air must be delivered to space and various means to the condition that air.[14] Air quality is assessed (through CO2 measurement) and ventilation rates are mathematically derived using constants. Indoor Air Quality Procedure uses one or more guidelines for the specification of acceptable concentrations of certain contaminants in indoor air but does not prescribe ventilation rates or air treatment methods.[14] This addresses both quantitative and subjective evaluations and is based on the Ventilation Rate Procedure. It also accounts for potential contaminants that may have no measured limits, or for which no limits are not set (such as formaldehyde off-gassing from carpet and furniture).

Natural ventilation

[edit]

Natural ventilation harnesses naturally available forces to supply and remove air in an enclosed space. Poor ventilation in rooms is identified to significantly increase the localized moldy smell in specific places of the room including room corners.[11] There are three types of natural ventilation occurring in buildings: wind-driven ventilation, pressure-driven flows, and stack ventilation.[15] The pressures generated by 'the stack effect' rely upon the buoyancy of heated or rising air. Wind-driven ventilation relies upon the force of the prevailing wind to pull and push air through the enclosed space as well as through breaches in the building's envelope.

Almost all historic buildings were ventilated naturally.[16] The technique was generally abandoned in larger US buildings during the late 20th century as the use of air conditioning became more widespread. However, with the advent of advanced Building Performance Simulation (BPS) software, improved Building Automation Systems (BAS), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) design requirements, and improved window manufacturing techniques; natural ventilation has made a resurgence in commercial buildings both globally and throughout the US.[17]

The benefits of natural ventilation include:

  • Improved indoor air quality (IAQ)
  • Energy savings
  • Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
  • Occupant control
  • Reduction in occupant illness associated with sick building syndrome
  • Increased worker productivity

Techniques and architectural features used to ventilate buildings and structures naturally include, but are not limited to:

  • Operable windows
  • Clerestory windows and vented skylights
  • Lev/convection doors
  • Night purge ventilation
  • Building orientation
  • Wind capture façades

Airborne diseases

[edit]

Natural ventilation is a key factor in reducing the spread of airborne illnesses such as tuberculosis, the common cold, influenza, meningitis or COVID-19.[18] Opening doors and windows are good ways to maximize natural ventilation, which would make the risk of airborne contagion much lower than with costly and maintenance-requiring mechanical systems. Old-fashioned clinical areas with high ceilings and large windows provide the greatest protection. Natural ventilation costs little and is maintenance-free, and is particularly suited to limited-resource settings and tropical climates, where the burden of TB and institutional TB transmission is highest. In settings where respiratory isolation is difficult and climate permits, windows and doors should be opened to reduce the risk of airborne contagion. Natural ventilation requires little maintenance and is inexpensive.[19]

Natural ventilation is not practical in much of the infrastructure because of climate. This means that the facilities need to have effective mechanical ventilation systems and or use Ceiling Level UV or FAR UV ventilation systems.

Ventilation is measured in terms of air changes per hour (ACH). As of 2023, the CDC recommends that all spaces have a minimum of 5 ACH.[20] For hospital rooms with airborne contagions the CDC recommends a minimum of 12 ACH.[21] Challenges in facility ventilation are public unawareness,[22][23] ineffective government oversight, poor building codes that are based on comfort levels, poor system operations, poor maintenance, and lack of transparency.[24]

Pressure, both political and economic, to improve energy conservation has led to decreased ventilation rates. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning rates have dropped since the energy crisis in the 1970s and the banning of cigarette smoke in the 1980s and 1990s.[25][26][better source needed]

Mechanical ventilation

[edit]
An axial belt-drive exhaust fan serving an underground car park. This exhaust fan's operation is interlocked with the concentration of contaminants emitted by internal combustion engines.

Mechanical ventilation of buildings and structures can be achieved by the use of the following techniques:

  • Whole-house ventilation
  • Mixing ventilation
  • Displacement ventilation
  • Dedicated subaerial air supply

Demand-controlled ventilation (DCV)

[edit]

Demand-controlled ventilation (DCV, also known as Demand Control Ventilation) makes it possible to maintain air quality while conserving energy.[27][28] ASHRAE has determined that "It is consistent with the ventilation rate procedure that demand control be permitted for use to reduce the total outdoor air supply during periods of less occupancy."[29] In a DCV system, CO2 sensors control the amount of ventilation.[30][31] During peak occupancy, CO2 levels rise, and the system adjusts to deliver the same amount of outdoor air as would be used by the ventilation-rate procedure.[32] However, when spaces are less occupied, CO2 levels reduce, and the system reduces ventilation to conserves energy. DCV is a well-established practice,[33] and is required in high occupancy spaces by building energy standards such as ASHRAE 90.1.[34]

Personalized ventilation

[edit]

Personalized ventilation is an air distribution strategy that allows individuals to control the amount of ventilation received. The approach delivers fresh air more directly to the breathing zone and aims to improve the air quality of inhaled air. Personalized ventilation provides much higher ventilation effectiveness than conventional mixing ventilation systems by displacing pollution from the breathing zone with far less air volume. Beyond improved air quality benefits, the strategy can also improve occupants' thermal comfort, perceived air quality, and overall satisfaction with the indoor environment. Individuals' preferences for temperature and air movement are not equal, and so traditional approaches to homogeneous environmental control have failed to achieve high occupant satisfaction. Techniques such as personalized ventilation facilitate control of a more diverse thermal environment that can improve thermal satisfaction for most occupants.

Local exhaust ventilation

[edit]

Local exhaust ventilation addresses the issue of avoiding the contamination of indoor air by specific high-emission sources by capturing airborne contaminants before they are spread into the environment. This can include water vapor control, lavatory effluent control, solvent vapors from industrial processes, and dust from wood- and metal-working machinery. Air can be exhausted through pressurized hoods or the use of fans and pressurizing a specific area.[35]
A local exhaust system is composed of five basic parts:

  1. A hood that captures the contaminant at its source
  2. Ducts for transporting the air
  3. An air-cleaning device that removes/minimizes the contaminant
  4. A fan that moves the air through the system
  5. An exhaust stack through which the contaminated air is discharged[35]

In the UK, the use of LEV systems has regulations set out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which are referred to as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (CoSHH). Under CoSHH, legislation is set to protect users of LEV systems by ensuring that all equipment is tested at least every fourteen months to ensure the LEV systems are performing adequately. All parts of the system must be visually inspected and thoroughly tested and where any parts are found to be defective, the inspector must issue a red label to identify the defective part and the issue.

The owner of the LEV system must then have the defective parts repaired or replaced before the system can be used.

Smart ventilation

[edit]

Smart ventilation is a process of continually adjusting the ventilation system in time, and optionally by location, to provide the desired IAQ benefits while minimizing energy consumption, utility bills, and other non-IAQ costs (such as thermal discomfort or noise). A smart ventilation system adjusts ventilation rates in time or by location in a building to be responsive to one or more of the following: occupancy, outdoor thermal and air quality conditions, electricity grid needs, direct sensing of contaminants, operation of other air moving and air cleaning systems. In addition, smart ventilation systems can provide information to building owners, occupants, and managers on operational energy consumption and indoor air quality as well as a signal when systems need maintenance or repair. Being responsive to occupancy means that a smart ventilation system can adjust ventilation depending on demand such as reducing ventilation if the building is unoccupied. Smart ventilation can time-shift ventilation to periods when a) indoor-outdoor temperature differences are smaller (and away from peak outdoor temperatures and humidity), b) when indoor-outdoor temperatures are appropriate for ventilative cooling, or c) when outdoor air quality is acceptable. Being responsive to electricity grid needs means providing flexibility to electricity demand (including direct signals from utilities) and integration with electric grid control strategies. Smart ventilation systems can have sensors to detect airflow, systems pressures, or fan energy use in such a way that systems failures can be detected and repaired, as well as when system components need maintenance, such as filter replacement.[36]

Ventilation and combustion

[edit]

Combustion (in a fireplace, gas heater, candle, oil lamp, etc.) consumes oxygen while producing carbon dioxide and other unhealthy gases and smoke, requiring ventilation air. An open chimney promotes infiltration (i.e. natural ventilation) because of the negative pressure change induced by the buoyant, warmer air leaving through the chimney. The warm air is typically replaced by heavier, cold air.

Ventilation in a structure is also needed for removing water vapor produced by respiration, burning, and cooking, and for removing odors. If water vapor is permitted to accumulate, it may damage the structure, insulation, or finishes. [citation needed] When operating, an air conditioner usually removes excess moisture from the air. A dehumidifier may also be appropriate for removing airborne moisture.

Calculation for acceptable ventilation rate

[edit]

Ventilation guidelines are based on the minimum ventilation rate required to maintain acceptable levels of effluents. Carbon dioxide is used as a reference point, as it is the gas of highest emission at a relatively constant value of 0.005 L/s. The mass balance equation is:

Q = G/(Ci − Ca)

  • Q = ventilation rate (L/s)
  • G = CO2 generation rate
  • Ci = acceptable indoor CO2 concentration
  • Ca = ambient CO2 concentration[37]

Smoking and ventilation

[edit]

ASHRAE standard 62 states that air removed from an area with environmental tobacco smoke shall not be recirculated into ETS-free air. A space with ETS requires more ventilation to achieve similar perceived air quality to that of a non-smoking environment.

The amount of ventilation in an ETS area is equal to the amount of an ETS-free area plus the amount V, where:

V = DSD × VA × A/60E

  • V = recommended extra flow rate in CFM (L/s)
  • DSD = design smoking density (estimated number of cigarettes smoked per hour per unit area)
  • VA = volume of ventilation air per cigarette for the room being designed (ft3/cig)
  • E = contaminant removal effectiveness[38]

History

[edit]
This ancient Roman house uses a variety of passive cooling and passive ventilation techniques. Heavy masonry walls, small exterior windows, and a narrow walled garden oriented N-S shade the house, preventing heat gain. The house opens onto a central atrium with an impluvium (open to the sky); the evaporative cooling of the water causes a cross-draft from atrium to garden.

Primitive ventilation systems were found at the Pločnik archeological site (belonging to the Vinča culture) in Serbia and were built into early copper smelting furnaces. The furnace, built on the outside of the workshop, featured earthen pipe-like air vents with hundreds of tiny holes in them and a prototype chimney to ensure air goes into the furnace to feed the fire and smoke comes out safely.[39]

Passive ventilation and passive cooling systems were widely written about around the Mediterranean by Classical times. Both sources of heat and sources of cooling (such as fountains and subterranean heat reservoirs) were used to drive air circulation, and buildings were designed to encourage or exclude drafts, according to climate and function. Public bathhouses were often particularly sophisticated in their heating and cooling. Icehouses are some millennia old, and were part of a well-developed ice industry by classical times.

The development of forced ventilation was spurred by the common belief in the late 18th and early 19th century in the miasma theory of disease, where stagnant 'airs' were thought to spread illness. An early method of ventilation was the use of a ventilating fire near an air vent which would forcibly cause the air in the building to circulate. English engineer John Theophilus Desaguliers provided an early example of this when he installed ventilating fires in the air tubes on the roof of the House of Commons. Starting with the Covent Garden Theatre, gas burning chandeliers on the ceiling were often specially designed to perform a ventilating role.

Mechanical systems

[edit]
The Central Tower of the Palace of Westminster. This octagonal spire was for ventilation purposes, in the more complex system imposed by Reid on Barry, in which it was to draw air out of the Palace. The design was for the aesthetic disguise of its function.[40][41]

A more sophisticated system involving the use of mechanical equipment to circulate the air was developed in the mid-19th century. A basic system of bellows was put in place to ventilate Newgate Prison and outlying buildings, by the engineer Stephen Hales in the mid-1700s. The problem with these early devices was that they required constant human labor to operate. David Boswell Reid was called to testify before a Parliamentary committee on proposed architectural designs for the new House of Commons, after the old one burned down in a fire in 1834.[40] In January 1840 Reid was appointed by the committee for the House of Lords dealing with the construction of the replacement for the Houses of Parliament. The post was in the capacity of ventilation engineer, in effect; and with its creation there began a long series of quarrels between Reid and Charles Barry, the architect.[42]

Reid advocated the installation of a very advanced ventilation system in the new House. His design had air being drawn into an underground chamber, where it would undergo either heating or cooling. It would then ascend into the chamber through thousands of small holes drilled into the floor, and would be extracted through the ceiling by a special ventilation fire within a great stack.[43]

Reid's reputation was made by his work in Westminster. He was commissioned for an air quality survey in 1837 by the Leeds and Selby Railway in their tunnel.[44] The steam vessels built for the Niger expedition of 1841 were fitted with ventilation systems based on Reid's Westminster model.[45] Air was dried, filtered and passed over charcoal.[46][47] Reid's ventilation method was also applied more fully to St. George's Hall, Liverpool, where the architect, Harvey Lonsdale Elmes, requested that Reid should be involved in ventilation design.[48] Reid considered this the only building in which his system was completely carried out.[49]

Fans

[edit]

With the advent of practical steam power, ceiling fans could finally be used for ventilation. Reid installed four steam-powered fans in the ceiling of St George's Hospital in Liverpool, so that the pressure produced by the fans would force the incoming air upward and through vents in the ceiling. Reid's pioneering work provides the basis for ventilation systems to this day.[43] He was remembered as "Dr. Reid the ventilator" in the twenty-first century in discussions of energy efficiency, by Lord Wade of Chorlton.[50]

History and development of ventilation rate standards

[edit]

Ventilating a space with fresh air aims to avoid "bad air". The study of what constitutes bad air dates back to the 1600s when the scientist Mayow studied asphyxia of animals in confined bottles.[51] The poisonous component of air was later identified as carbon dioxide (CO2), by Lavoisier in the very late 1700s, starting a debate as to the nature of "bad air" which humans perceive to be stuffy or unpleasant. Early hypotheses included excess concentrations of CO2 and oxygen depletion. However, by the late 1800s, scientists thought biological contamination, not oxygen or CO2, was the primary component of unacceptable indoor air. However, it was noted as early as 1872 that CO2 concentration closely correlates to perceived air quality.

The first estimate of minimum ventilation rates was developed by Tredgold in 1836.[52] This was followed by subsequent studies on the topic by Billings [53] in 1886 and Flugge in 1905. The recommendations of Billings and Flugge were incorporated into numerous building codes from 1900–the 1920s and published as an industry standard by ASHVE (the predecessor to ASHRAE) in 1914.[51]

The study continued into the varied effects of thermal comfort, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and biological contaminants. The research was conducted with human subjects in controlled test chambers. Two studies, published between 1909 and 1911, showed that carbon dioxide was not the offending component. Subjects remained satisfied in chambers with high levels of CO2, so long as the chamber remained cool.[51] (Subsequently, it has been determined that CO2 is, in fact, harmful at concentrations over 50,000ppm[54])

ASHVE began a robust research effort in 1919. By 1935, ASHVE-funded research conducted by Lemberg, Brandt, and Morse – again using human subjects in test chambers – suggested the primary component of "bad air" was an odor, perceived by the human olfactory nerves.[55] Human response to odor was found to be logarithmic to contaminant concentrations, and related to temperature. At lower, more comfortable temperatures, lower ventilation rates were satisfactory. A 1936 human test chamber study by Yaglou, Riley, and Coggins culminated much of this effort, considering odor, room volume, occupant age, cooling equipment effects, and recirculated air implications, which guided ventilation rates.[56] The Yaglou research has been validated, and adopted into industry standards, beginning with the ASA code in 1946. From this research base, ASHRAE (having replaced ASHVE) developed space-by-space recommendations, and published them as ASHRAE Standard 62-1975: Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality.

As more architecture incorporated mechanical ventilation, the cost of outdoor air ventilation came under some scrutiny. In 1973, in response to the 1973 oil crisis and conservation concerns, ASHRAE Standards 62-73 and 62–81) reduced required ventilation from 10 CFM (4.76 L/s) per person to 5 CFM (2.37 L/s) per person. In cold, warm, humid, or dusty climates, it is preferable to minimize ventilation with outdoor air to conserve energy, cost, or filtration. This critique (e.g. Tiller[57]) led ASHRAE to reduce outdoor ventilation rates in 1981, particularly in non-smoking areas. However subsequent research by Fanger,[58] W. Cain, and Janssen validated the Yaglou model. The reduced ventilation rates were found to be a contributing factor to sick building syndrome.[59]

The 1989 ASHRAE standard (Standard 62–89) states that appropriate ventilation guidelines are 20 CFM (9.2 L/s) per person in an office building, and 15 CFM (7.1 L/s) per person for schools, while 2004 Standard 62.1-2004 has lower recommendations again (see tables below). ANSI/ASHRAE (Standard 62–89) speculated that "comfort (odor) criteria are likely to be satisfied if the ventilation rate is set so that 1,000 ppm CO2 is not exceeded"[60] while OSHA has set a limit of 5000 ppm over 8 hours.[61]

Historical ventilation rates
Author or source Year Ventilation rate (IP) Ventilation rate (SI) Basis or rationale
Tredgold 1836 4 CFM per person 2 L/s per person Basic metabolic needs, breathing rate, and candle burning
Billings 1895 30 CFM per person 15 L/s per person Indoor air hygiene, preventing spread of disease
Flugge 1905 30 CFM per person 15 L/s per person Excessive temperature or unpleasant odor
ASHVE 1914 30 CFM per person 15 L/s per person Based on Billings, Flugge and contemporaries
Early US Codes 1925 30 CFM per person 15 L/s per person Same as above
Yaglou 1936 15 CFM per person 7.5 L/s per person Odor control, outdoor air as a fraction of total air
ASA 1946 15 CFM per person 7.5 L/s per person Based on Yahlou and contemporaries
ASHRAE 1975 15 CFM per person 7.5 L/s per person Same as above
ASHRAE 1981 10 CFM per person 5 L/s per person For non-smoking areas, reduced.
ASHRAE 1989 15 CFM per person 7.5 L/s per person Based on Fanger, W. Cain, and Janssen

ASHRAE continues to publish space-by-space ventilation rate recommendations, which are decided by a consensus committee of industry experts. The modern descendants of ASHRAE standard 62-1975 are ASHRAE Standard 62.1, for non-residential spaces, and ASHRAE 62.2 for residences.

In 2004, the calculation method was revised to include both an occupant-based contamination component and an area–based contamination component.[62] These two components are additive, to arrive at an overall ventilation rate. The change was made to recognize that densely populated areas were sometimes overventilated (leading to higher energy and cost) using a per-person methodology.

Occupant Based Ventilation Rates,[62] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004

IP Units SI Units Category Examples
0 cfm/person 0 L/s/person Spaces where ventilation requirements are primarily associated with building elements, not occupants. Storage Rooms, Warehouses
5 cfm/person 2.5 L/s/person Spaces occupied by adults, engaged in low levels of activity Office space
7.5 cfm/person 3.5 L/s/person Spaces where occupants are engaged in higher levels of activity, but not strenuous, or activities generating more contaminants Retail spaces, lobbies
10 cfm/person 5 L/s/person Spaces where occupants are engaged in more strenuous activity, but not exercise, or activities generating more contaminants Classrooms, school settings
20 cfm/person 10 L/s/person Spaces where occupants are engaged in exercise, or activities generating many contaminants dance floors, exercise rooms

Area-based ventilation rates,[62] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004

IP Units SI Units Category Examples
0.06 cfm/ft2 0.30 L/s/m2 Spaces where space contamination is normal, or similar to an office environment Conference rooms, lobbies
0.12 cfm/ft2 0.60 L/s/m2 Spaces where space contamination is significantly higher than an office environment Classrooms, museums
0.18 cfm/ft2 0.90 L/s/m2 Spaces where space contamination is even higher than the previous category Laboratories, art classrooms
0.30 cfm/ft2 1.5 L/s/m2 Specific spaces in sports or entertainment where contaminants are released Sports, entertainment
0.48 cfm/ft2 2.4 L/s/m2 Reserved for indoor swimming areas, where chemical concentrations are high Indoor swimming areas

The addition of occupant- and area-based ventilation rates found in the tables above often results in significantly reduced rates compared to the former standard. This is compensated in other sections of the standard which require that this minimum amount of air is delivered to the breathing zone of the individual occupant at all times. The total outdoor air intake of the ventilation system (in multiple-zone variable air volume (VAV) systems) might therefore be similar to the airflow required by the 1989 standard.
From 1999 to 2010, there was considerable development of the application protocol for ventilation rates. These advancements address occupant- and process-based ventilation rates, room ventilation effectiveness, and system ventilation effectiveness[63]

Problems

[edit]
  • In hot, humid climates, unconditioned ventilation air can daily deliver approximately 260 milliliters of water for each cubic meters per hour (m3/h) of outdoor air (or one pound of water each day for each cubic feet per minute of outdoor air per day), annual average.[citation needed] This is a great deal of moisture and can create serious indoor moisture and mold problems. For example, given a 150 m2 building with an airflow of 180 m3/h this could result in about 47 liters of water accumulated per day.
  • Ventilation efficiency is determined by design and layout, and is dependent upon the placement and proximity of diffusers and return air outlets. If they are located closely together, supply air may mix with stale air, decreasing the efficiency of the HVAC system, and creating air quality problems.
  • System imbalances occur when components of the HVAC system are improperly adjusted or installed and can create pressure differences (too much-circulating air creating a draft or too little circulating air creating stagnancy).
  • Cross-contamination occurs when pressure differences arise, forcing potentially contaminated air from one zone to an uncontaminated zone. This often involves undesired odors or VOCs.
  • Re-entry of exhaust air occurs when exhaust outlets and fresh air intakes are either too close, prevailing winds change exhaust patterns or infiltration between intake and exhaust air flows.
  • Entrainment of contaminated outdoor air through intake flows will result in indoor air contamination. There are a variety of contaminated air sources, ranging from industrial effluent to VOCs put off by nearby construction work.[64] A recent study revealed that in urban European buildings equipped with ventilation systems lacking outdoor air filtration, the exposure to outdoor-originating pollutants indoors resulted in more Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) than exposure to indoor-emitted pollutants.[65]

See also

[edit]
  • Architectural engineering
  • Biological safety
  • Cleanroom
  • Environmental tobacco smoke
  • Fume hood
  • Head-end power
  • Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
  • Heat recovery ventilation
  • Mechanical engineering
  • Room air distribution
  • Sick building syndrome
  • Siheyuan
  • Solar chimney
  • Tulou
  • Windcatcher

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Malone, Alanna. "The Windcatcher House". Architectural Record: Building for Social Change. McGraw-Hill. Archived from the original on 22 April 2012.
  2. ^ ASHRAE (2021). "Ventilation and Infiltration". ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals. Peachtree Corners, GA: ASHRAE. ISBN 978-1-947192-90-4.
  3. ^ a b Whole-House Ventilation | Department of Energy
  4. ^ de Gids W.F., Jicha M., 2010. "Ventilation Information Paper 32: Hybrid Ventilation Archived 2015-11-17 at the Wayback Machine", Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre (AIVC), 2010
  5. ^ Schiavon, Stefano (2014). "Adventitious ventilation: a new definition for an old mode?". Indoor Air. 24 (6): 557–558. Bibcode:2014InAir..24..557S. doi:10.1111/ina.12155. ISSN 1600-0668. PMID 25376521.
  6. ^ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ASHRAE, Inc., Atlanta, GA, US
  7. ^ Belias, Evangelos; Licina, Dusan (2024). "European residential ventilation: Investigating the impact on health and energy demand". Energy and Buildings. 304. Bibcode:2024EneBu.30413839B. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113839.
  8. ^ Belias, Evangelos; Licina, Dusan (2022). "Outdoor PM2. 5 air filtration: optimising indoor air quality and energy". Building & Cities. 3 (1): 186–203. doi:10.5334/bc.153.
  9. ^ Belias, Evangelos; Licina, Dusan (2024). "European residential ventilation: Investigating the impact on health and energy demand". Energy and Buildings. 304. Bibcode:2024EneBu.30413839B. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113839.
  10. ^ Belias, Evangelos; Licina, Dusan (2023). "Influence of outdoor air pollution on European residential ventilative cooling potential". Energy and Buildings. 289. Bibcode:2023EneBu.28913044B. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113044.
  11. ^ a b Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Bao, L., Fan, Z. and Sundell, J., 2011. Ventilation and dampness in dorms and their associations with allergy among college students in China: a case-control study. Indoor Air, 21(4), pp.277-283.
  12. ^ Kavanaugh, Steve. Infiltration and Ventilation In Residential Structures. February 2004
  13. ^ M.H. Sherman. "ASHRAE's First Residential Ventilation Standard" (PDF). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 February 2012.
  14. ^ a b ASHRAE Standard 62
  15. ^ How Natural Ventilation Works by Steven J. Hoff and Jay D. Harmon. Ames, IA: Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, November 1994.
  16. ^ "Natural Ventilation – Whole Building Design Guide". Archived from the original on 21 July 2012.
  17. ^ Shaqe, Erlet. Sustainable Architectural Design.
  18. ^ "Natural Ventilation for Infection Control in Health-Care Settings" (PDF). World Health Organization (WHO), 2009. Retrieved 5 July 2021.
  19. ^ Escombe, A. R.; Oeser, C. C.; Gilman, R. H.; et al. (2007). "Natural ventilation for the prevention of airborne contagion". PLOS Med. 4 (68): e68. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040068. PMC 1808096. PMID 17326709.
  20. ^ Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Improving Ventilation In Buildings". 11 February 2020.
  21. ^ Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities". 22 July 2019.
  22. ^ Dr. Edward A. Nardell Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School "If We're Going to Live With COVID-19, It's Time to Clean Our Indoor Air Properly". Time. February 2022.
  23. ^ "A Paradigm Shift to Combat Indoor Respiratory Infection - 21st century" (PDF). University of Leeds., Morawska, L, Allen, J, Bahnfleth, W et al. (36 more authors) (2021) A paradigm shift to combat indoor respiratory infection. Science, 372 (6543). pp. 689-691. ISSN 0036-8075
  24. ^ Video "Building Ventilation What Everyone Should Know". YouTube. 17 June 2022.
  25. ^ Mudarri, David (January 2010). Public Health Consequences and Cost of Climate Change Impacts on Indoor Environments (PDF) (Report). The Indoor Environments Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. pp. 38–39, 63.
  26. ^ "Climate Change a Systems Perspective". Cassbeth.
  27. ^ Raatschen W. (ed.), 1990: "Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems: State of the Art Review Archived 2014-05-08 at the Wayback Machine", Swedish Council for Building Research, 1990
  28. ^ Mansson L.G., Svennberg S.A., Liddament M.W., 1997: "Technical Synthesis Report. A Summary of IEA Annex 18. Demand Controlled Ventilating Systems Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", UK, Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre (AIVC), 1997
  29. ^ ASHRAE (2006). "Interpretation IC 62.1-2004-06 Of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 Ventilation For Acceptable Indoor Air Quality" (PDF). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2013.
  30. ^ Fahlen P., Andersson H., Ruud S., 1992: "Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems: Sensor Tests Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Boras, 1992
  31. ^ Raatschen W., 1992: "Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems: Sensor Market Survey Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", Swedish Council for Building Research, 1992
  32. ^ Mansson L.G., Svennberg S.A., 1993: "Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems: Source Book Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine", Swedish Council for Building Research, 1993
  33. ^ Lin X, Lau J & Grenville KY. (2012). "Evaluation of the Validity of the Assumptions Underlying CO2-Based Demand-Controlled Ventilation by a Literature review" (PDF). ASHRAE Transactions NY-14-007 (RP-1547). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
  34. ^ ASHRAE (2010). "ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010: Energy Standard for Buildings Except for Low-Rise Residential Buildings". American Society of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.
  35. ^ a b "Ventilation. - 1926.57". Osha.gov. Archived from the original on 2 December 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  36. ^ Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre (AIVC). "What is smart ventilation?", AIVC, 2018
  37. ^ "Home". Wapa.gov. Archived from the original on 26 July 2011. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  38. ^ ASHRAE, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Atlanta, 2002.
  39. ^ "Stone Pages Archaeo News: Neolithic Vinca was a metallurgical culture". www.stonepages.com. Archived from the original on 30 December 2016. Retrieved 11 August 2016.
  40. ^ a b Porter, Dale H. (1998). The Life and Times of Sir Goldsworthy Gurney: Gentleman scientist and inventor, 1793–1875. Associated University Presses, Inc. pp. 177–79. ISBN 0-934223-50-5.
  41. ^ "The Towers of Parliament". www.parliament.UK. Archived from the original on 17 January 2012.
  42. ^ Alfred Barry (1867). "The life and works of Sir Charles Barry, R.A., F.R.S., &c. &c". Retrieved 29 December 2011.
  43. ^ a b Robert Bruegmann. "Central Heating and Ventilation: Origins and Effects on Architectural Design" (PDF).
  44. ^ Russell, Colin A; Hudson, John (2011). Early Railway Chemistry and Its Legacy. Royal Society of Chemistry. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-84973-326-7. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
  45. ^ Milne, Lynn. "McWilliam, James Ormiston". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/17747. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  46. ^ Philip D. Curtin (1973). The image of Africa: British ideas and action, 1780–1850. Vol. 2. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 350. ISBN 978-0-299-83026-7. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
  47. ^ "William Loney RN – Background". Peter Davis. Archived from the original on 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  48. ^ Sturrock, Neil; Lawsdon-Smith, Peter (10 June 2009). "David Boswell Reid's Ventilation of St. George's Hall, Liverpool". The Victorian Web. Archived from the original on 3 December 2011. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
  49. ^ Lee, Sidney, ed. (1896). "Reid, David Boswell" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 47. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
  50. ^ Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Science and Technology Committee (15 July 2005). Energy Efficiency: 2nd Report of Session 2005–06. The Stationery Office. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-10-400724-2. Retrieved 29 December 2011.
  51. ^ a b c Janssen, John (September 1999). "The History of Ventilation and Temperature Control" (PDF). ASHRAE Journal. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
  52. ^ Tredgold, T. 1836. "The Principles of Warming and Ventilation – Public Buildings". London: M. Taylor
  53. ^ Billings, J.S. 1886. "The principles of ventilation and heating and their practical application 2d ed., with corrections" Archived copy. OL 22096429M.
  54. ^ "Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLH): Carbon dioxide – NIOSH Publications and Products". CDC. May 1994. Archived from the original on 20 April 2018. Retrieved 30 April 2018.
  55. ^ Lemberg WH, Brandt AD, and Morse, K. 1935. "A laboratory study of minimum ventilation requirements: ventilation box experiments". ASHVE Transactions, V. 41
  56. ^ Yaglou CPE, Riley C, and Coggins DI. 1936. "Ventilation Requirements" ASHVE Transactions, v.32
  57. ^ Tiller, T.R. 1973. ASHRAE Transactions, v. 79
  58. ^ Berg-Munch B, Clausen P, Fanger PO. 1984. "Ventilation requirements for the control of body odor in spaces occupied by women". Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Stockholm, Sweden, V5
  59. ^ Joshi, SM (2008). "The sick building syndrome". Indian J Occup Environ Med. 12 (2): 61–64. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.43262. PMC 2796751. PMID 20040980. in section 3 "Inadequate ventilation"
  60. ^ "Standard 62.1-2004: Stricter or Not?" ASHRAE IAQ Applications, Spring 2006. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2014.cite web: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) accessed 11 June 2014
  61. ^ Apte, Michael G. Associations between indoor CO2 concentrations and sick building syndrome symptoms in U.S. office buildings: an analysis of the 1994–1996 BASE study data." Indoor Air, Dec 2000: 246–58.
  62. ^ a b c Stanke D. 2006. "Explaining Science Behind Standard 62.1-2004". ASHRAE IAQ Applications, V7, Summer 2006. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2014.cite web: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) accessed 11 June 2014
  63. ^ Stanke, DA. 2007. "Standard 62.1-2004: Stricter or Not?" ASHRAE IAQ Applications, Spring 2006. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2014.cite web: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) accessed 11 June 2014
  64. ^ US EPA. Section 2: Factors Affecting Indoor Air Quality. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 October 2008. Retrieved 30 April 2009.cite web: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  65. ^ Belias, Evangelos; Licina, Dusan (2024). "European residential ventilation: Investigating the impact on health and energy demand". Energy and Buildings. 304. Bibcode:2024EneBu.30413839B. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113839.
[edit]

Air Infiltration & Ventilation Centre (AIVC)

[edit]
  • Publications from the Air Infiltration & Ventilation Centre (AIVC)

International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme (EBC)

[edit]
  • Publications from the International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme (EBC) ventilation-related research projects-annexes:
    • EBC Annex 9 Minimum Ventilation Rates
    • EBC Annex 18 Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems
    • EBC Annex 26 Energy Efficient Ventilation of Large Enclosures
    • EBC Annex 27 Evaluation and Demonstration of Domestic Ventilation Systems
    • EBC Annex 35 Control Strategies for Hybrid Ventilation in New and Retrofitted Office Buildings (HYBVENT)
    • EBC Annex 62 Ventilative Cooling

International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate

[edit]
  • Indoor Air Journal
  • Indoor Air Conference Proceedings

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

[edit]
  • ASHRAE Standard 62.1 – Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality
  • ASHRAE Standard 62.2 – Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings

 

(Learn how and when to remove this message)
Sick building syndrome
Specialty Environmental medicine, immunology Edit this on Wikidata

Sick building syndrome (SBS) is a condition in which people develop symptoms of illness or become infected with chronic disease from the building in which they work or reside.[1] In scientific literature, SBS is also known as building-related illness (BRI), building-related symptoms (BRS), or idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI).

The main identifying observation is an increased incidence of complaints of such symptoms as headache, eye, nose, and throat irritation, fatigue, dizziness, and nausea. The 1989 Oxford English Dictionary defines SBS in that way.[2] The World Health Organization created a 484-page tome on indoor air quality 1984, when SBS was attributed only to non-organic causes, and suggested that the book might form a basis for legislation or litigation.[3]

The outbreaks may or may not be a direct result of inadequate or inappropriate cleaning.[2] SBS has also been used to describe staff concerns in post-war buildings with faulty building aerodynamics, construction materials, construction process, and maintenance.[2] Some symptoms tend to increase in severity with the time people spend in the building, often improving or even disappearing when people are away from the building.[2][4] The term SBS is also used interchangeably with "building-related symptoms", which orients the name of the condition around patients' symptoms rather than a "sick" building.[5]

Attempts have been made to connect sick building syndrome to various causes, such as contaminants produced by outgassing of some building materials, volatile organic compounds (VOC), improper exhaust ventilation of ozone (produced by the operation of some office machines), light industrial chemicals used within, and insufficient fresh-air intake or air filtration (see "Minimum efficiency reporting value").[2] Sick building syndrome has also been attributed to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, an attribution about which there are inconsistent findings.[6]

Signs and symptoms

[edit]
An air quality monitor

Human exposure to aerosols has a variety of adverse health effects.[7] Building occupants complain of symptoms such as sensory irritation of the eyes, nose, or throat; neurotoxic or general health problems; skin irritation; nonspecific hypersensitivity reactions; infectious diseases;[8] and odor and taste sensations.[9] Poor lighting has caused general malaise.[10]

Extrinsic allergic alveolitis has been associated with the presence of fungi and bacteria in the moist air of residential houses and commercial offices.[11] A study in 2017 correlated several inflammatory diseases of the respiratory tract with objective evidence of damp-caused damage in homes.[12]

The WHO has classified the reported symptoms into broad categories, including mucous-membrane irritation (eye, nose, and throat irritation), neurotoxic effects (headaches, fatigue, and irritability), asthma and asthma-like symptoms (chest tightness and wheezing), skin dryness and irritation, and gastrointestinal complaints.[13]

Several sick occupants may report individual symptoms that do not seem connected. The key to discovery is the increased incidence of illnesses in general with onset or exacerbation in a short period, usually weeks. In most cases, SBS symptoms are relieved soon after the occupants leave the particular room or zone.[14] However, there can be lingering effects of various neurotoxins, which may not clear up when the occupant leaves the building. In some cases, including those of sensitive people, there are long-term health effects.[15]

Cause

[edit]

ASHRAE has recognized that polluted urban air, designated within the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s air quality ratings as unacceptable, requires the installation of treatment such as filtration for which the HVAC practitioners generally apply carbon-impregnated filters and their likes. Different toxins will aggravate the human body in different ways. Some people are more allergic to mold, while others are highly sensitive to dust. Inadequate ventilation will exaggerate small problems (such as deteriorating fiberglass insulation or cooking fumes) into a much more serious indoor air quality problem.[10]

Common products such as paint, insulation, rigid foam, particle board, plywood, duct liners, exhaust fumes and other chemical contaminants from indoor or outdoor sources, and biological contaminants can be trapped inside by the HVAC AC system. As this air is recycled using fan coils the overall oxygenation ratio drops and becomes harmful. When combined with other stress factors such as traffic noise and poor lighting, inhabitants of buildings located in a polluted urban area can quickly become ill as their immune system is overwhelmed.[10]

Certain VOCs, considered toxic chemical contaminants to humans, are used as adhesives in many common building construction products. These aromatic carbon rings / VOCs can cause acute and chronic health effects in the occupants of a building, including cancer, paralysis, lung failure, and others. Bacterial spores, fungal spores, mold spores, pollen, and viruses are types of biological contaminants and can all cause allergic reactions or illness described as SBS. In addition, pollution from outdoors, such as motor vehicle exhaust, can enter buildings, worsen indoor air quality, and increase the indoor concentration of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.[16] Adult SBS symptoms were associated with a history of allergic rhinitis, eczema and asthma.[17]

A 2015 study concerning the association of SBS and indoor air pollutants in office buildings in Iran found that, as carbon dioxide increased in a building, nausea, headaches, nasal irritation, dyspnea, and throat dryness also rose.[10] Some work conditions have been correlated with specific symptoms: brighter light, for example was significantly related to skin dryness, eye pain, and malaise.[10] Higher temperature is correlated with sneezing, skin redness, itchy eyes, and headache; lower relative humidity has been associated with sneezing, skin redness, and eye pain.[10]

In 1973, in response to the oil crisis and conservation concerns, ASHRAE Standards 62-73 and 62-81 reduced required ventilation from 10 cubic feet per minute (4.7 L/s) per person to 5 cubic feet per minute (2.4 L/s) per person, but this was found to be a contributing factor to sick building syndrome.[18] As of the 2016 revision, ASHRAE ventilation standards call for 5 to 10 cubic feet per minute of ventilation per occupant (depending on the occupancy type) in addition to ventilation based on the zone floor area delivered to the breathing zone.[19]

Workplace

[edit]

Excessive work stress or dissatisfaction, poor interpersonal relationships and poor communication are often seen to be associated with SBS, recent[when?] studies show that a combination of environmental sensitivity and stress can greatly contribute to sick building syndrome.[15][citation needed]

Greater effects were found with features of the psycho-social work environment including high job demands and low support. The report concluded that the physical environment of office buildings appears to be less important than features of the psycho-social work environment in explaining differences in the prevalence of symptoms. However, there is still a relationship between sick building syndrome and symptoms of workers regardless of workplace stress.[20]

Specific work-related stressors are related with specific SBS symptoms. Workload and work conflict are significantly associated with general symptoms (headache, abnormal tiredness, sensation of cold or nausea). While crowded workspaces and low work satisfaction are associated with upper respiratory symptoms.[21] Work productivity has been associated with ventilation rates, a contributing factor to SBS, and there's a significant increase in production as ventilation rates increase, by 1.7% for every two-fold increase of ventilation rate.[22] Printer effluent, released into the office air as ultra-fine particles (UFPs) as toner is burned during the printing process, may lead to certain SBS symptoms.[23][24] Printer effluent may contain a variety of toxins to which a subset of office workers are sensitive, triggering SBS symptoms.[25]

Specific careers are also associated with specific SBS symptoms. Transport, communication, healthcare, and social workers have highest prevalence of general symptoms. Skin symptoms such as eczema, itching, and rashes on hands and face are associated with technical work. Forestry, agriculture, and sales workers have the lowest rates of sick building syndrome symptoms.[26]

From the assessment done by Fisk and Mudarri, 21% of asthma cases in the United States were caused by wet environments with mold that exist in all indoor environments, such as schools, office buildings, houses and apartments. Fisk and Berkeley Laboratory colleagues also found that the exposure to the mold increases the chances of respiratory issues by 30 to 50 percent.[27] Additionally, studies showing that health effects with dampness and mold in indoor environments found that increased risk of adverse health effects occurs with dampness or visible mold environments.[28]

Milton et al. determined the cost of sick leave specific for one business was an estimated $480 per employee, and about five days of sick leave per year could be attributed to low ventilation rates. When comparing low ventilation rate areas of the building to higher ventilation rate areas, the relative risk of short-term sick leave was 1.53 times greater in the low ventilation areas.[29]

Home

[edit]

Sick building syndrome can be caused by one's home. Laminate flooring may release more SBS-causing chemicals than do stone, tile, and concrete floors.[17] Recent redecorating and new furnishings within the last year are associated with increased symptoms; so are dampness and related factors, having pets, and cockroaches.[17] Mosquitoes are related to more symptoms, but it is unclear whether the immediate cause of the symptoms is the mosquitoes or the repellents used against them.[17]

Mold

[edit]

Sick building syndrome may be associated with indoor mold or mycotoxin contamination. However, the attribution of sick building syndrome to mold is controversial and supported by little evidence.[30][31][32]

Indoor temperature

[edit]

Indoor temperature under 18 °C (64 °F) has been shown to be associated with increased respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, increased blood levels, and increased hospitalization.[33]

Diagnosis

[edit]

While sick building syndrome (SBS) encompasses a multitude of non-specific symptoms, building-related illness (BRI) comprises specific, diagnosable symptoms caused by certain agents (chemicals, bacteria, fungi, etc.). These can typically be identified, measured, and quantified.[34] There are usually four causal agents in BRi: immunologic, infectious, toxic, and irritant.[34] For instance, Legionnaire's disease, usually caused by Legionella pneumophila, involves a specific organism which could be ascertained through clinical findings as the source of contamination within a building.[34]

Prevention

[edit]
  • Reduction of time spent in the building
  • If living in the building, moving to a new place
  • Fixing any deteriorated paint or concrete deterioration
  • Regular inspections to indicate for presence of mold or other toxins
  • Adequate maintenance of all building mechanical systems
  • Toxin-absorbing plants, such as sansevieria[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][excessive citations]
  • Roof shingle non-pressure cleaning for removal of algae, mold, and Gloeocapsa magma
  • Using ozone to eliminate the many sources, such as VOCs, molds, mildews, bacteria, viruses, and even odors. However, numerous studies identify high-ozone shock treatment as ineffective despite commercial popularity and popular belief.
  • Replacement of water-stained ceiling tiles and carpeting
  • Only using paints, adhesives, solvents, and pesticides in well-ventilated areas or only using these pollutant sources during periods of non-occupancy
  • Increasing the number of air exchanges; the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers recommend a minimum of 8.4 air exchanges per 24-hour period
  • Increased ventilation rates that are above the minimum guidelines[22]
  • Proper and frequent maintenance of HVAC systems
  • UV-C light in the HVAC plenum
  • Installation of HVAC air cleaning systems or devices to remove VOCs and bioeffluents (people odors)
  • Central vacuums that completely remove all particles from the house including the ultrafine particles (UFPs) which are less than 0.1 μm
  • Regular vacuuming with a HEPA filter vacuum cleaner to collect and retain 99.97% of particles down to and including 0.3 micrometers
  • Placing bedding in sunshine, which is related to a study done in a high-humidity area where damp bedding was common and associated with SBS[17]
  • Lighting in the workplace should be designed to give individuals control, and be natural when possible[42]
  • Relocating office printers outside the air conditioning boundary, perhaps to another building
  • Replacing current office printers with lower emission rate printers[43]
  • Identification and removal of products containing harmful ingredients

Management

[edit]

SBS, as a non-specific blanket term, does not have any specific cause or cure. Any known cure would be associated with the specific eventual disease that was cause by exposure to known contaminants. In all cases, alleviation consists of removing the affected person from the building associated. BRI, on the other hand, utilizes treatment appropriate for the contaminant identified within the building (e.g., antibiotics for Legionnaire's disease).[citation needed]

Improving the indoor air quality (IAQ) of a particular building can attenuate, or even eliminate, the continued exposure to toxins. However, a Cochrane review of 12 mold and dampness remediation studies in private homes, workplaces and schools by two independent authors were deemed to be very low to moderate quality of evidence in reducing adult asthma symptoms and results were inconsistent among children.[44] For the individual, the recovery may be a process involved with targeting the acute symptoms of a specific illness, as in the case of mold toxins.[45] Treating various building-related illnesses is vital to the overall understanding of SBS. Careful analysis by certified building professionals and physicians can help to identify the exact cause of the BRI, and help to illustrate a causal path to infection. With this knowledge one can, theoretically, remediate a building of contaminants and rebuild the structure with new materials. Office BRI may more likely than not be explained by three events: "Wide range in the threshold of response in any population (susceptibility), a spectrum of response to any given agent, or variability in exposure within large office buildings."[46]

Isolating any one of the three aspects of office BRI can be a great challenge, which is why those who find themselves with BRI should take three steps, history, examinations, and interventions. History describes the action of continually monitoring and recording the health of workers experiencing BRI, as well as obtaining records of previous building alterations or related activity. Examinations go hand in hand with monitoring employee health. This step is done by physically examining the entire workspace and evaluating possible threats to health status among employees. Interventions follow accordingly based on the results of the Examination and History report.[46]

Epidemiology

[edit]

Some studies have found that women have higher reports of SBS symptoms than men.[17][10] It is not entirely clear, however, if this is due to biological, social, or occupational factors.

A 2001 study published in the Journal Indoor Air, gathered 1464 office-working participants to increase the scientific understanding of gender differences under the Sick Building Syndrome phenomenon.[47] Using questionnaires, ergonomic investigations, building evaluations, as well as physical, biological, and chemical variables, the investigators obtained results that compare with past studies of SBS and gender. The study team found that across most test variables, prevalence rates were different in most areas, but there was also a deep stratification of working conditions between genders as well. For example, men's workplaces tend to be significantly larger and have all-around better job characteristics. Secondly, there was a noticeable difference in reporting rates, specifically that women have higher rates of reporting roughly 20% higher than men. This information was similar to that found in previous studies, thus indicating a potential difference in willingness to report.[47]

There might be a gender difference in reporting rates of sick building syndrome, because women tend to report more symptoms than men do. Along with this, some studies have found that women have a more responsive immune system and are more prone to mucosal dryness and facial erythema. Also, women are alleged by some to be more exposed to indoor environmental factors because they have a greater tendency to have clerical jobs, wherein they are exposed to unique office equipment and materials (example: blueprint machines, toner-based printers), whereas men often have jobs based outside of offices.[48]

History

[edit]

In the late 1970s, it was noted that nonspecific symptoms were reported by tenants in newly constructed homes, offices, and nurseries. In media it was called "office illness". The term "sick building syndrome" was coined by the WHO in 1986, when they also estimated that 10–30% of newly built office buildings in the West had indoor air problems. Early Danish and British studies reported symptoms.

Poor indoor environments attracted attention. The Swedish allergy study (SOU 1989:76) designated "sick building" as a cause of the allergy epidemic as was feared. In the 1990s, therefore, extensive research into "sick building" was carried out. Various physical and chemical factors in the buildings were examined on a broad front.

The problem was highlighted increasingly in media and was described as a "ticking time bomb". Many studies were performed in individual buildings.

In the 1990s "sick buildings" were contrasted against "healthy buildings". The chemical contents of building materials were highlighted. Many building material manufacturers were actively working to gain control of the chemical content and to replace criticized additives. The ventilation industry advocated above all more well-functioning ventilation. Others perceived ecological construction, natural materials, and simple techniques as a solution.

At the end of the 1990s came an increased distrust of the concept of "sick building". A dissertation at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm 1999 questioned the methodology of previous research, and a Danish study from 2005 showed these flaws experimentally. It was suggested that sick building syndrome was not really a coherent syndrome and was not a disease to be individually diagnosed, but a collection of as many as a dozen semi-related diseases. In 2006 the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare recommended in the medical journal Läkartidningen that "sick building syndrome" should not be used as a clinical diagnosis. Thereafter, it has become increasingly less common to use terms such as sick buildings and sick building syndrome in research. However, the concept remains alive in popular culture and is used to designate the set of symptoms related to poor home or work environment engineering. Sick building is therefore an expression used especially in the context of workplace health.

Sick building syndrome made a rapid journey from media to courtroom where professional engineers and architects became named defendants and were represented by their respective professional practice insurers. Proceedings invariably relied on expert witnesses, medical and technical experts along with building managers, contractors and manufacturers of finishes and furnishings, testifying as to cause and effect. Most of these actions resulted in sealed settlement agreements, none of these being dramatic. The insurers needed a defense based upon Standards of Professional Practice to meet a court decision that declared that in a modern, essentially sealed building, the HVAC systems must produce breathing air for suitable human consumption. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, currently with over 50,000 international members) undertook the task of codifying its indoor air quality (IAQ) standard.

ASHRAE empirical research determined that "acceptability" was a function of outdoor (fresh air) ventilation rate and used carbon dioxide as an accurate measurement of occupant presence and activity. Building odors and contaminants would be suitably controlled by this dilution methodology. ASHRAE codified a level of 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide and specified the use of widely available sense-and-control equipment to assure compliance. The 1989 issue of ASHRAE 62.1-1989 published the whys and wherefores and overrode the 1981 requirements that were aimed at a ventilation level of 5,000 ppm of carbon dioxide (the OSHA workplace limit), federally set to minimize HVAC system energy consumption. This apparently ended the SBS epidemic.

Over time, building materials changed with respect to emissions potential. Smoking vanished and dramatic improvements in ambient air quality, coupled with code compliant ventilation and maintenance, per ASHRAE standards have all contributed to the acceptability of the indoor air environment.[49][50]

See also

[edit]
  • Aerotoxic syndrome
  • Air purifier
  • Asthmagen
  • Cleanroom
  • Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
  • Havana syndrome
  • Healthy building
  • Indoor air quality
  • Lead paint
  • Multiple chemical sensitivity
  • NASA Clean Air Study
  • Nosocomial infection
  • Particulates
  • Power tools
  • Renovation
  • Somatization disorder
  • Fan death

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Sick Building Syndrome" (PDF). World Health Organization. n.d.
  2. ^ a b c d e Passarelli, Guiseppe Ryan (2009). "Sick building syndrome: An overview to raise awareness". Journal of Building Appraisal. 5: 55–66. doi:10.1057/jba.2009.20.
  3. ^ European Centre for Environment and Health, WHO (1983). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants (PDF). EURO Reports and Studies, no 78. Bonn Germany Office: WHO Regional Office for Europe (Copenhagen).
  4. ^ Stolwijk, J A (1991-11-01). "Sick-building syndrome". Environmental Health Perspectives. 95: 99–100. doi:10.1289/ehp.919599. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1568418. PMID 1821387.
  5. ^ Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health Professionals (PDF). Indoor Air Division (6609J): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. c. 2015.cite book: CS1 maint: location (link)
  6. ^ Shahzad, Sally S.; Brennan, John; Theodossopoulos, Dimitris; Hughes, Ben; Calautit, John Kaiser (2016-04-06). "Building-Related Symptoms, Energy, and Thermal Control in the Workplace: Personal and Open Plan Offices". Sustainability. 8 (4): 331. doi:10.3390/su8040331. hdl:20.500.11820/03eb7043-814e-437d-b920-4a38bb88742c.
  7. ^ Sundell, J; Lindval, T; Berndt, S (1994). "Association between type of ventilation and airflow rates in office buildings and the risk of SBS-symptoms among occupants". Environ. Int. 20 (2): 239–251. Bibcode:1994EnInt..20..239S. doi:10.1016/0160-4120(94)90141-4.
  8. ^ Rylander, R (1997). "Investigation of the relationship between disease and airborne (1P3)-b-D-glucan in buildings". Med. Of Inflamm. 6 (4): 275–277. doi:10.1080/09629359791613. PMC 2365865. PMID 18472858.
  9. ^ Godish, Thad (2001). Indoor Environmental Quality. New York: CRC Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 1-56670-402-2
  10. ^ a b c d e f g Jafari, Mohammad Javad; Khajevandi, Ali Asghar; Mousavi Najarkola, Seyed Ali; Yekaninejad, Mir Saeed; Pourhoseingholi, Mohammad Amin; Omidi, Leila; Kalantary, Saba (2015-01-01). "Association of Sick Building Syndrome with Indoor Air Parameters". Tanaffos. 14 (1): 55–62. ISSN 1735-0344. PMC 4515331. PMID 26221153.
  11. ^ Teculescu, D. B. (1998). "Sick Building Symptoms in office workers in northern France: a pilot study". Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 71 (5): 353–356. doi:10.1007/s004200050292. PMID 9749975. S2CID 25095874.
  12. ^ Pind C. Ahlroth (2017). "Patient-reported signs of dampness at home may be a risk factor for chronic rhinosinusitis: A cross-sectional study". Clinical & Experimental Allergy. 47 (11): 1383–1389. doi:10.1111/cea.12976. PMID 28695715. S2CID 40807627.
  13. ^ Apter, A (1994). "Epidemiology of the sick building syndrome". J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 94 (2): 277–288. doi:10.1053/ai.1994.v94.a56006. PMID 8077580.
  14. ^ "Sick Building Syndrome". NSC.org. National Safety Council. 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2009.
  15. ^ a b Joshi, Sumedha M. (August 2008). "The sick building syndrome". Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 12 (2): 61–64. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.43262. ISSN 0973-2284. PMC 2796751. PMID 20040980.
  16. ^ "Indoor Air Facts No.4: Sick Building Syndrome" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
  17. ^ a b c d e f Wang, Juan; Li, BaiZhan; Yang, Qin; Wang, Han; Norback, Dan; Sundell, Jan (2013-12-01). "Sick building syndrome among parents of preschool children in relation to home environment in Chongqing, China". Chinese Science Bulletin. 58 (34): 4267–4276. Bibcode:2013ChSBu..58.4267W. doi:10.1007/s11434-013-5814-2. ISSN 1001-6538.
  18. ^ Joshi S. M. (2008). "The sick building syndrome". Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 12 (2): 61–4. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.43262. PMC 2796751. PMID 20040980. in section 3 "Inadequate ventilation".
  19. ^ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016.
  20. ^ Bauer R. M., Greve K. W., Besch E. L., Schramke C. J., Crouch J., Hicks A., Lyles W. B. (1992). "The role of psychological factors in the report of building-related symptoms in sick building syndrome". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 60 (2): 213–219. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.60.2.213. PMID 1592950.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ Azuma K., Ikeda K., Kagi N., Yanagi U., Osawa H. (2014). "Prevalence and risk factors associated with nonspecific building-related symptoms in office employees in Japan: Relationships between work environment, Indoor Air Quality, and occupational stress". Indoor Air. 25 (5): 499–511. doi:10.1111/ina.12158. PMID 25244340.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ a b Wargocki P., Wyon D. P., Sundell J., Clausen G., Fanger P. O. (2000). "The Effects of Outdoor Air Supply Rate in an Office on Perceived Air Quality, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) Symptoms and Productivity". Indoor Air. 10 (4): 222–236. Bibcode:2000InAir..10..222W. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004222.x. PMID 11089327.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ^ Morimoto, Yasuo; Ogami, Akira; Kochi, Isamu; Uchiyama, Tetsuro; Ide, Reiko; Myojo, Toshihiko; Higashi, Toshiaki (2010). "[Continuing investigation of effect of toner and its by-product on human health and occupational health management of toner]". Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi = Journal of Occupational Health. 52 (5): 201–208. doi:10.1539/sangyoeisei.a10002. ISSN 1349-533X. PMID 20595787.
  24. ^ Pirela, Sandra Vanessa; Martin, John; Bello, Dhimiter; Demokritou, Philip (September 2017). "Nanoparticle exposures from nano-enabled toner-based printing equipment and human health: state of science and future research needs". Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 47 (8): 678–704. doi:10.1080/10408444.2017.1318354. ISSN 1547-6898. PMC 5857386. PMID 28524743.
  25. ^ McKone, Thomas, et al. "Indoor Pollutant Emissions from Electronic Office Equipment, California Air Resources Board Air Pollution Seminar Series". Presented January 7, 2009. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/seminars/mckone/mckone.pdf Archived 2017-02-07 at the Wayback Machine
  26. ^ Norback D., Edling C. (1991). "Environmental, occupational, and personal factors related to the prevalence of sick building syndrome in the general population". Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 48 (7): 451–462. doi:10.1136/oem.48.7.451. PMC 1035398. PMID 1854648.
  27. ^ Weinhold, Bob (2007-06-01). "A Spreading Concern: Inhalational Health Effects of Mold". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (6): A300–A305. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a300. PMC 1892134. PMID 17589582.
  28. ^ Mudarri, D.; Fisk, W. J. (June 2007). "Public health and economic impact of dampness and mold". Indoor Air. 17 (3): 226–235. Bibcode:2007InAir..17..226M. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00474.x. ISSN 0905-6947. PMID 17542835. S2CID 21709547.
  29. ^ Milton D. K., Glencross P. M., Walters M. D. (2000). "Risk of Sick Leave Associated with Outdoor Air Supply Rate, Humidification, and Occupant Complaints". Indoor Air. 10 (4): 212–221. Bibcode:2000InAir..10..212M. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2000.010004212.x. PMID 11089326.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ Straus, David C. (2009). "Molds, mycotoxins, and sick building syndrome". Toxicology and Industrial Health. 25 (9–10): 617–635. Bibcode:2009ToxIH..25..617S. doi:10.1177/0748233709348287. PMID 19854820. S2CID 30720328.
  31. ^ Terr, Abba I. (2009). "Sick Building Syndrome: Is mould the cause?". Medical Mycology. 47: S217–S222. doi:10.1080/13693780802510216. PMID 19255924.
  32. ^ Norbäck, Dan; Zock, Jan-Paul; Plana, Estel; Heinrich, Joachim; Svanes, Cecilie; Sunyer, Jordi; Künzli, Nino; Villani, Simona; Olivieri, Mario; Soon, Argo; Jarvis, Deborah (2011-05-01). "Lung function decline in relation to mould and dampness in the home: the longitudinal European Community Respiratory Health Survey ECRHS II". Thorax. 66 (5): 396–401. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.146613. ISSN 0040-6376. PMID 21325663. S2CID 318027.
  33. ^ WHO Housing and health guidelines. World Health Organization. 2018. pp. 34, 47–48. ISBN 978-92-4-155037-6.
  34. ^ a b c Seltzer, J. M. (1994-08-01). "Building-related illnesses". The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 94 (2 Pt 2): 351–361. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(94)90096-5. ISSN 0091-6749. PMID 8077589.
  35. ^ nasa techdoc 19930072988
  36. ^ "Sick Building Syndrome: How indoor plants can help clear the air | University of Technology Sydney".
  37. ^ Wolverton, B. C.; Johnson, Anne; Bounds, Keith (15 September 1989). Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor Air Pollution Abatement (PDF) (Report).
  38. ^ Joshi, S. M (2008). "The sick building syndrome". Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 12 (2): 61–64. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.43262. PMC 2796751. PMID 20040980.
  39. ^ "Benefits of Office Plants – Tove Fjeld (Agri. Uni. Of Norway)". 2018-05-13.
  40. ^ "NASA: 18 Plants Purify Air, Sick Building Syndrome". 2016-09-20. Archived from the original on 2020-10-26.
  41. ^ "Sick Building Syndrome – How Plants Can Help".
  42. ^ How to deal with sick building syndrome: Guidance for employers, building owners and building managers. (1995). Sudbury: The Executive.
  43. ^ Scungio, Mauro; Vitanza, Tania; Stabile, Luca; Buonanno, Giorgio; Morawska, Lidia (2017-05-15). "Characterization of particle emission from laser printers" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 586: 623–630. Bibcode:2017ScTEn.586..623S. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.030. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 28196755.
  44. ^ Sauni, Riitta; Verbeek, Jos H; Uitti, Jukka; Jauhiainen, Merja; Kreiss, Kathleen; Sigsgaard, Torben (2015-02-25). Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group (ed.). "Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015 (2): CD007897. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007897.pub3. PMC 6769180. PMID 25715323.
  45. ^ Indoor Air Facts No. 4 (revised) Sick building syndrome. Available from: [1].
  46. ^ a b Menzies, Dick; Bourbeau, Jean (1997-11-20). "Building-Related Illnesses". New England Journal of Medicine. 337 (21): 1524–1531. doi:10.1056/NEJM199711203372107. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 9366585.
  47. ^ a b Brasche, S.; Bullinger, M.; Morfeld, M.; Gebhardt, H. J.; Bischof, W. (2001-12-01). "Why do women suffer from sick building syndrome more often than men?--subjective higher sensitivity versus objective causes". Indoor Air. 11 (4): 217–222. Bibcode:2001InAir..11..217B. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.110402.x. ISSN 0905-6947. PMID 11761596. S2CID 21579339.
  48. ^ Godish, Thad (2001). Indoor Environmental quality. New York: CRC Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 1-56670-402-2
  49. ^ "Sick Building Syndrome – Fact Sheet" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  50. ^ "Sick Building Syndrome". National Health Service, England. Retrieved 2013-06-06.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Martín-Gil J., Yanguas M. C., San José J. F., Rey-Martínez and Martín-Gil F. J. "Outcomes of research into a sick hospital". Hospital Management International, 1997, pp. 80–82. Sterling Publications Limited.
  • Åke Thörn, The Emergence and preservation of sick building syndrome, KI 1999.
  • Charlotte Brauer, The sick building syndrome revisited, Copenhagen 2005.
  • Michelle Murphy, Sick Building Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty, 2006.
  • Johan Carlson, "Gemensam förklaringsmodell för sjukdomar kopplade till inomhusmiljön finns inte" [Unified explanation for diseases related to indoor environment not found]. Läkartidningen 2006/12.
  • Bulletin of the Transilvania University of BraÅŸov, Series I: Engineering Sciences • Vol. 5 (54) No. 1 2012 "Impact of Indoor Environment Quality on Sick Building Syndrome in Indian Leed Certified Buildings". by Jagannathan Mohan
[edit]
  • Best Practices for Indoor Air Quality when Remodeling Your Home, US EPA
  • Renovation and Repair, Part of Indoor Air Quality Design Tools for Schools, US EPA
  • Addressing Indoor Environmental Concerns During Remodeling, US EPA
  • Dust FAQs, UK HSE Archived 2023-03-20 at the Wayback Machine
  • CCOHS: Welding - Fumes And Gases | Health Effect of Welding Fumes

 

Photo
Photo
Photo

Driving Directions in Jefferson County


Driving Directions From AT&T Store to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From GameStop to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Lowe's Home Improvement to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Gravois Bluffs Plaza to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Butler Supply to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Barnes & Noble to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Jefferson County Convention & Visitors Bureau to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Jefferson County Museum to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Visit Jefferson County PA to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Cole County Historical Museum to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Jefferson Landing State Historic Site to Royal Supply Inc
Driving Directions From Jefferson Barracks Park to Royal Supply Inc

Reviews for Royal Supply Inc


Royal Supply Inc

Terry Self

(1)

Horrible workmanship, horrible customer service, don't show up when they say they are. Ghosted. Was supposed to come back on Monday, no call no show. Called Tuesday and Wednesday, left messages both days. Nothing. Kinked my line, crooked to the pad and house, didn't put disconnect back on, left the trash.....

Royal Supply Inc

Toney Dunaway

(5)

This is another amazing place where we will do much more business. They are not tyrannical about the totally useless face diapers, they have a great selection of stock, they have very knowledgeable staff, very friendly staff. We got the plumbing items we really needed and will be getting more plumbing items. They also have central units, thermostats, caulking, sealants, doors, seems everything you need for a mobile home. We've found a local treasure and will be bringing much more business. Their store is clean and tidy as well!

Royal Supply Inc

Gidget McCarthy

(5)

Very knowledgeable, friendly, helpful and don't make you feel like you're inconveniencing them. They seem willing to take all the time you need. As if you're the only thing they have to do that day. The store is clean, organized and not cluttered, symmetrical at that. Cuz I'm even and symmetricals biggest fan. It was a pleasure doing business with them and their prices are definitely reasonable. So, I'll be doing business with them in the future no doubt.

Royal Supply Inc

bill slayton

(1)

Went to get a deadbolt what they had was one I was told I'd have take it apart to lengthen and I said I wasn't buying something new and have to work on it. Thing of it is I didn't know if it was so that it could be lengthened said I didn't wanna buy something new I had to work on just to fit my door. He got all mad and slung the whole box with part across the room. A real business man. I guess the owner approves of his employees doing as such.

Royal Supply Inc

Ae Webb

(5)

Royal installed a new furnace and air conditioner just before we got our used mobile home. Recently, the furnace stopped lighting. Jared (sp?) made THREE trips to get it back to good. He was so gracious and kind. Fortunately for us it was still under warranty. BTW, those three trips were from Fenton, Missouri to Belleville, Illinois! Thanks again, Jared!

View GBP

Frequently Asked Questions

Central air typically uses a network of ducts to distribute air throughout the home, while ductless systems use individual units placed in each room or zone. Ductless systems offer more flexibility in installation and can be more energy-efficient since they avoid energy loss through ducts.
Ductless systems often have lower upfront costs compared to installing a full central air system with ductwork. Additionally, ductless mini-splits can be more efficient by allowing targeted cooling, potentially reducing overall energy bills.
Central air systems require regular maintenance of both the unit and the ductwork, which can accumulate dust and debris. Ductless systems require cleaning of indoor units filters but generally involve less extensive upkeep due to the absence of ducts.
Yes, mobile homes often have limited space, making it challenging to install extensive ductwork required for central air. Ductless mini-split units take up minimal space on walls or ceilings and do not require large outdoor units, making them well-suited for smaller spaces.
Ductless mini-split systems provide superior temperature control as they allow you to set different temperatures in individual zones or rooms. This zoning capability makes them ideal if you need personalized comfort settings throughout your mobile home.