GBA徽标水平 Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest 推特 Instagram YouTube Icon 导航搜索图标 Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Picture icon Hamburger Icon Close Icon Sorted
Product Guide

初学者通风指南

目的很简单,但细节不过是

An energy-recovery ventilatoris among the more sophisticated options for ensuring an adequate amount of fresh air indoors. An ERV transfers heat and some moisture between incoming and outgoing air streams. Photo courtesy Chris Green / Fine Homebuilding magazine.

建造科学家和进步的建筑商花了数年时间才能超越“需要呼吸的建筑物”废话,并用更有帮助的咒语代替:“建造紧密,通风。”

泄漏的建筑物引起了问题,包括不必要的能源消耗,草稿以及墙壁和屋顶内部水分积累的潜力。空气泄漏率低的房屋没有这些问题,但是随着室内和室外空气的自然交换减少了机械通气的需求。建筑材料和家具,烹饪中的精细颗粒物,厨房范围和加热器的燃烧气体以及各种其他污染物都会导致不健康的室内空气。

机械通气具有两个重要的好处。它带来了新鲜的室外空气,可稀释室内污染物的浓度,并在其源头收集水分和污染物,并在整个房屋中散布之前将其驱动到外面。

introduction to this topic,劳伦斯·伯克利国家实验室(LBNL)指出,不可能监视室内空气质量以了解何时需要通风以及何时安全地进行通风。实验室指出:“最好的保护是提供背景通风,以不断去除室内空气,并用新鲜的户外空气代替它,并提供额外的通风设备,通常会生产污染物和水分(厨房炉灶,浴室,洗衣房,洗衣房,爱好地区)。”

Spot ventilation where it’s needed, and continuous whole-house ventilation, are the foundation of an effective ventilation system. Homeowners have many choices for each, ranging from simple to elaborate, all with pros and cons. The topic can become surprisingly complex, inviting experts to haggle over the smallest details (a post originally published at GBA in 2009 and updated in 2018 collected 117 comments from readers, collectively many times longer…

GBA Prime

本文仅适用于GBA Prime成员

注册免费试用,并立即访问本文以及GBA的完整优质文章和施工详细信息库。

开启免费体验

13条评论

  1. 马克·阿德尔||#1

    对这些“迷你” ERV的想法?

    在主要起居区中使用其中的2个可能更具成本效益,并且不涉及额外的劳动/设计工作,以适应所有专用的本垒式通风管/管道。

    Panasonic WhisperComfort ERV
    https://na.panasonic.com/us/home-and-building-solutions/ventilation-indoor-air-quality/energy-recovery-ventilators-0

    我喜欢用浴室和厨房用陈旧空气的想法,但是专用的ERV Zehnder Comfoair $ 7000是很难吞咽的昂贵药丸。

    1. Charlie Sullivan||#6

      From what I recall, those are good products but those particularly ones aren't equipped with defrost to deal with continuous operation in very cold weather.

  2. Paul Pfeiffer||#2

    Recirculating range hoods aren't nearly as good as venting ones, but is there any reason they couldn't be, especially for over an electric range? Say one had plenty of CFM and and multiple tiers of filtration with the final one being HEPA. Would that still fail to filter important contaminates, or would it likely clog to frequently to be worth it?

    1. Expert Member
      Kohta Ueno||#3

      从范围烹饪的污染物包括No,No2,甲醛,丙烯醛,PM2.5s等。不幸的是,我相信过滤只会处理事物的颗粒面,而没有任何实际的化学污染物。

      This is based on what I see from Brett Singer at LBNL--check out slide 39 onward in this presentation:

      https://www.buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/the_indoor_environment_dr._brett_singer.pdf

      幻灯片10显示了各种污染物的总体健康影响,就Dalys(残疾调整后的生活年)而言。以及有关过滤的更多信息,开始幻灯片54。

      1. Charlie Sullivan||#7

        和二氧化碳。

      2. Paul Pfeiffer||#9

        Good info, thanks. So now I wonder if a standard HRV/ERV in combination with a powerful recirculating range hood would be sufficient (even if not quite as good as a venting hood). Actually, I see this is somewhat addressed in the article & comments linked at the end of this article. It sounds like the best idea would be to have a small kitchen that can be relatively sealed-off from the rest of the house, which I understand is the opposite of what most people want.

  3. Granular||#4

    GRR,我讨厌当前的超越房屋的时尚。我们不需要子1ACH的房屋 - ROI不存在,也不一定是健康的 - 紧身房屋需要正确设计,正确安装,并且(最重要的是)适当维护的HVAC系统也是如此非常贵。

    如果您使用Sprayfoam,OSB,地毯,层压板等建造一个昂贵的紧身盒,并且如果它们在设计,安装或维护方面存在问题,那么您本质上是在为自己加油。停止宣传这种胡说八道!真的应该被起诉渎职...

    1. Expert Member
      彼得·恩格尔||#5

      “如果您使用喷雾剂,OSB,地毯,层压板等建造一个昂贵的紧身盒,并且如果它们在设计,安装或维护方面存在问题,那么您本质上是在为自己加油。停止宣传这种胡说八道!真的应该被起诉以备案。。”

      如果您做可能可以做到的一切愚蠢的事情,那么您的结果将不超过最佳。如果OTOH,您可以最大程度地减少喷雾泡沫的使用,则使用非甲醛建筑材料,则在房屋内使用低或无voc饰面,避开合成地毯,通常遵循此站点的指导,您的IAQ问题将是最小化。按照良好的设计,安装和维护,正如该网站上广泛推荐的那样,您的房屋可能是天堂。这就是绿色建筑的一部分。假设一切都做错了,然后使用该假设证明一个荒谬的观点是草率的逻辑。

      1. Granular||#11

        "Assuming that everything is done wrong, and then using that assumption to prove a ridiculous point is sloppy logic."

        Not what I said at all. Read my comment again.

        1. Jason Volstad||#13

          I've read it a few times. It still doesn't hold up and you are quite silly and histrionic.

    2. Expert Member
      Michael Maines||#8

      彼得指出,构建的优点ing relatively airtight homes are well documented, on GBA and elsewhere.

      I agree that building an airtight home (or any home) using spray foam, carpet and laminates is not a good idea. It does take a bit more effort to properly design and build a high performance home; they are more sensitive to mistakes. So hire people who know what they're doing, not the lowest bidder, or learn what is necessary yourself.

      建造气密,隔热良好的房屋使您可以使用廉价的HVAC系统,而不是更昂贵的房屋,除非您坚持使用加热地板,地面源热泵或其他愚蠢。的确,平衡的通风系统具有成本,需要偶尔进行维护,但其结果是室内空气比室外空气明显清洁(更健康)。

      我还同意,低于1.0 ACH50的回报率降低。我不会说ROI不存在,因为一旦您了解如何到达1.0 ACH50,具体取决于组件,通常不再有更多的工作来达到0.6或更低,并且很容易估计相关的能源节省这样做。

      1. Granular||#12

        Micheal,

        I'm a fan of your low-carbon designs and generally agree on advantages of well-built tight homes. My point was more about those who ignore what is in their buildings (from a health perspective, not so much from a carbon perspective, even if they are often in alignment) and then glibly say 'tight is right'.

        I'd happily live in a 'leaky' code-minimum 3ACH home that uses wood fiber, cellulose, wool, plywood with generic HVAC but I'd never live in a <0.6 Passive House that uses foam/OSB and relies on complex air handling to attempt to provide decent air quality. I've been around long enough to know that complexity is rarely a good idea in the building industry.

        至于差异1和0.6ach,同意的成本可能很少 - 当时只关注细节。

  4. Expert Member
    马尔科姆·泰勒(Malcolm Taylor)||#10

    Scott,

    Nothing to say - beyond this is a really excellent overview.

登录或成为成员发表评论。

社区

最近的问题和答复

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |