| Résumé | 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%. |
|---|
