Residential balanced ventilation and its impacts on indoor pressure, ventilation and IAQ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents results from a project on the assessment of the indoor air quality (IAQ) benefits that might accrue from the use of a balanced ventilation system. The study compared the whole-building pressure, IAQ and ventilation performance of energy recovery ventilation (exhausting from kitchen and bathrooms) with that of exhaust-only ventilation (continuous exhaust from master bathroom). The side-by-side comparisons included various indoor mixing scenarios (no mixing, partial mixing and continuous mixing) using the NRC’s twin research houses. The side-by-side testing showed that balanced ventilation (energy recovery ventilation) was superior as a whole-house ventilation strategy, compared to unbalanced ventilation (single-point exhaust ventilation). It was superior because of the positive indoor pressure (1 to 3 Pa), higher air change rate (6% to 34%), uniform inter-zonal air flows, lower concentration of formaldehyde (by 37% to 70% in winter and 6% to 34% in summer), lower concentration of VOCs in winter (alpha-Pinene by 26% to 89% / Toluene-d8 (dTol) by 8% to 76%) and in summer (α-Pinene by 87% to 339% / Toluene-d8 by 45% to 88% / Heptane by 40% to 91% / Benzaldehyde by 35% to 406%), and as expected lower whole-house heating/cooling and ventilation energy consumption by up to 8.5%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".