I’ve had a couple of requests for links to the sources for “Natural Ventilation – does it work?”, my article for Passive House Plus Issue 6 (start of 2014), so here is a list of most of them – live as at the time of posting in April 2014, but no guarantees they will remain so of course.
My apologies where (a few) refrences are behind a paywall – it usually means either that I’ve wriggled my way behind it somehow (though if your subscriber-only publication is on here, not yours, obviously 😉 ) – or a helpful academic has supplied me with a copy. Or alternatively, it means that I’ve only referred to the abstract.
The references are roughly in order of their appearance in the article. Here you go:
The NHBC Foundation’s commendably honest account highlighting a string of concerns in the design, specification, installation, commissioning and operation of MVHR systems in 10 ‘zero carbon’ homes: Assessment of MVHR systems and air quality in zero carbon homes NHBC Foundation August 2013 (Greenwatt Way study) http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/Researchpublications/MVHRsystems/tabid/585/language/en-US/Default.aspx (NB you have to register to download this, but registration is free)
Neil Jefferson, director of the NHBC writing in Building magazine, questioning whether MEV, PSV or natural ventilation are exempt from the performance issues that NHBC uncovered with (non-Passivhaus) MVHR installations in the study above: http://www.building.co.uk/we-need-to-know-all-ventilation-systems-are-safe/5062555.article
Bob Lowe’s 2000 modelling study investigating the “under-ventilation index” for naturally ventilated dwellings (the proportion of the heating season for which a dwelling will be underventilated without additional window opening). His results suggested that even for leaky buildings that lose heat unnecessarily in very cold or windy weather, and are generally over-ventilated (draughty!), under-ventilation for a proportion of the time (in mild and/or still weather) “is almost assured”: Building Services, Engineering, Research & Technology 21 (3) 179-186 R. J. Lowe: Ventilation Strategy, Energy Use and CO2 Emissions in Dwellings – a Theoretical Approach http://bse.sagepub.com/content/21/3/179.abstract (abstract)
Simon McKay & David Ross (AECOM), and Ian Mawditt & Stuart Kirk (Building Services Ltd) carried out a small study (of 22 homes of different types) for DCLG, to investigate whether Part F 2006 was providing adequate ventilation and IAQ in homes, and whether it should be uprated at the review in 2010. They found that all of the flats and 40% of the houses failed to achieve the recommended background ventilation rate; NO2 and volatile organic compound levels exceeded guidelines in a number of dwellings – and this was with all vents open and fans running. When the researchers arrived however they had found 60% of vents were closed and many extract fans disabled. Six of the 22 households didn’t use their kitchen and bathroom extract fans at all, and five said they used the isolator to control some of their fans – though in fact many more actually did so: Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Part F 2006 Homes BD 2702 DCLG 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/43637758/Ventilation-and-Indoor-Air-Quality-in-Part-F-2006-Homes, and Ian Mawditt’s presentation on the findings, showing the position of vents and fans as normally used by occupants http://www.goodhomes.org.uk/downloads/members/ian-mawditt-operation-and-behaviour.pdf
Stirling Howieson of the University of Strathclyde has reported on the basis of his recent research that “technical standards prescribed by the Building Regulations are not being enforced”. He also found that natural ventilation tends not to be used as intended and fails to give good IAQ. Howieson and colleagues looked at 24 new-build homes constructed to 2010 regulations, where trickle vents in the windows provided the only source of background ventilation. CO2 levels measured in occupied bedrooms “were found to be at unacceptable concentrations” (occupied mean peak of 2317 ppm with a maximum of 4800 ppm): “Are our homes making us ill?”, Stirling Howieson, University of Strathclyde. Perspectives in Public Health 2014 in press, abstract at https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/are-our-homes-making-us-ill%280b8ce07f-b36d-499f-8caa-08c249f241ac%29.html
Derrick Crump, Sani Dimitroulopoulou and colleagues at BRE carried out a study of ventilation and indoor air quality in 37 homes in 2002; although the sample were approximately as leaky as the average stock, the majority (68%) of the sample had below the recommended design air change rate of 0.5 ach. And some suffered indoor air pollution issues: in winter 18% of the homes during winter had kitchen CO levels above WHO guidelines, and even in summer, 13% of them did. In winter the kitchens of six homes also exceeded NO2 guideline values: VENTILATION AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY IN NEW HOMES Crump, Dimitroulopoulou et al BRE, Watford, http://www.umad.de/infos/cleanair13/pdf/full_104.pdf. The study is also summarised here
A Good Homes Alliance report presenting examples of good ventilation practice in low energy homes highlights only a few projects with natural ventilation (three with vents plus humidistat-controlled extract, two with passive heat recovery, and one with a passive stack system). Even so, two of the six dwellings had had poor IAQ , which was attributed to occupant behaviour: in both cases, occupants said they had closed vents/shut off fans because of noise or draughts. IAQ was poor in both cases. (Air quality in the other four of the six naturally ventilated dwellings was good): http://www.goodhomes.org.uk/downloads/news/VIAQ%20final%20120220%20-%20PUBLICATION.pdf
Contrary to general expectation, buildings may become more airtight as they age – which may also present an issue for ventilation design recommendations. In one NHBC study, eight of 23 homes became more airtight 1-3 years after completion. And in the NHBC’s Greenwatt Way study (see link above), 9 out of 10 homes became more airtight. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/eco/room-to-breathe/6514729.article
Some research suggests that in order to reduce the risk of house dust mite problems (mites are known to exacerbate asthma in particular) relative humidity below 60, or even lower, should be sought: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, http://www.iaqscience.lbl.gov/dampness-impacts.html