Ductless/recirculating range hoods

[maction17]

Does everyone think ductless range hoods are a horrible idea?

 

[peter halle]

I don't like them but for someone who doesn't cook much they probably make sense.  All too often I see them being used without the charcoal or other filters that absorb odors.

Glad mine is vented outside.

Peter

 

[CrazyLarry]

Always struck me as a total waste of time / money / electric / space! Along the same lines as underfloor heating, communal water / low flow air heating systems: work in theory on a drawing board but utterly useless in a real world where individual human needs are all miles from the median!

 

[Kev]

They serve a purpose and they're certainly better than nothing. They eequire regular cleaning .. skip that step and they become useless and smelly!!

 

[Holzhacker]

I always tell clients if you know how to cook you can easily get by without one. If you don't know how to cook then having a ducted unit is highly recommended. The recirculating microwave unit set up can be helpful but not all that much.
If you want it for aesthetics then build something that looks good but doesn't have a motor assembly. Unless you've got a really odd situation running a 6" pipe outside isn't that hard

 

[Tayler_mann]

I have one that's been in my home since I moved in. If we leave our coats in the entry way near the kitchen we smell awful the next day. I even change all the filters and do the maintenance you are supposed to. It's garbage and it's getting thrown out when I redo our kitchen this coming summer.

 

[waterloomarc]

I hated the one we had in our last house. Nothing like cooking with the fan blowing the exhaust back out at your head. I never used it on account of that. If we burnt something I'd just open the windows, the hood didn't help at all. Paid the extremely small extra bit of money when building this time to have it vent outside.

I should note that my experience was with a simple LG microwave/hood combo.  I would think that one of the better units would do a much better job.

 

[bobfog]

They're better than nothing. They don't work as well as ducted, but they're a good product for people who don't have the option to vent through and exterior wall.

As for the comment on underfloor heating, I think it's brilliant as long as your expectations are realistic and you understand it's a luxury/comfort in addition the the primary heating system in your house.

 

[Cheese]

Does everyone think ductless range hoods are a horrible idea?

Not a horrible idea...just not a game changer for cooking and removing odors. Probably better than nothing, but not by much. If you have the room, vent it to the outside.

 

[atomicmike]

I always tell clients if you know how to cook you can easily get by without one. If you don't know how to cook then having a ducted unit is highly recommended.

I'd disagree with that. There's no substitute for a ducted unit when you are doing any sort of frying, unless you enjoy having every surface in your kitchen coated with grease. Not to mention the advantages for helping pull out moist air, etc. There's a reason restaurants use large exhaust hoods, and it's not because their chefs don't know how to cook.

 

[bertv]

The whole point of ductless hoods is that they filter grease and smells, which in some scenarios is a good thing. I have lived in a few houses where there was no way to install a duct because the landlord would not allow it & believe me - a ductless hood is better than no hood : ) [And I am a really good cook…]

On another note: underfloor heating (the low heat waterbased type) is the best. After having hearths, woodstoves, airco, central heating with radiators, and a lot of other systems, ufh wins hands down.

 

[sae]

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/07/23/kitchens-can-produce-hazardous-levels-of-indoor-pollutants/

In a recent study led by Logue, the team analyzed extensive data from several sources to understand how common it is for California homes to experience indoor air pollution at hazardous levels. They estimated that 60 percent of homes in the state that cook at least once a week with a gas stove can reach pollutant levels that would be illegal if found outdoors. That equates to 12 million Californians routinely exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels that exceed federal outdoor standards, 10 million exposed to formaldehyde exceeding federal standards and 1.7 million exposed to carbon monoxide exceeding ambient air standards in a typical week in winter.

These pollutants can come both from the cooking burners—especially gas burners but to a lesser extent electric burners also—as well as from cooking itself. The primary health effect of nitrogen dioxide, which is also found in the fumes of any type of combustion, is an increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Exposure to carbon monoxide is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease as it can enter the bloodstream and reduce oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues.

The indoor pollutant that scientists believe may be most harmful to human health is particles, including fine particles, which are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, and ultrafine particles, which are smaller than 1 micrometer. They are produced by both gas and electric burners and by cooking. They are potentially very harmful because they can enter the lungs and, for the smaller particles, enter the bloodstream or other tissues.

“Electric burners produce ultrafine particles essentially by volatilizing dust,” Singer explained. “It’s the same process with your toaster, resistance heater or radiator if you haven’t used it for awhile. After you turn it on, you can smell it­—it smells terrible. You’re smelling the chemicals that have been volatilized. Once they’re in the air, they recondense into these ultrafine particles. This is the chemistry lab in your kitchen.”

 

[bobfog]

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/07/23/kitchens-can-produce-hazardous-levels-of-indoor-pollutants/

In a recent study led by Logue, the team analyzed extensive data from several sources to understand how common it is for California homes to experience indoor air pollution at hazardous levels. They estimated that 60 percent of homes in the state that cook at least once a week with a gas stove can reach pollutant levels that would be illegal if found outdoors. That equates to 12 million Californians routinely exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels that exceed federal outdoor standards, 10 million exposed to formaldehyde exceeding federal standards and 1.7 million exposed to carbon monoxide exceeding ambient air standards in a typical week in winter.

These pollutants can come both from the cooking burners—especially gas burners but to a lesser extent electric burners also—as well as from cooking itself. The primary health effect of nitrogen dioxide, which is also found in the fumes of any type of combustion, is an increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Exposure to carbon monoxide is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease as it can enter the bloodstream and reduce oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues.

The indoor pollutant that scientists believe may be most harmful to human health is particles, including fine particles, which are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, and ultrafine particles, which are smaller than 1 micrometer. They are produced by both gas and electric burners and by cooking. They are potentially very harmful because they can enter the lungs and, for the smaller particles, enter the bloodstream or other tissues.

“Electric burners produce ultrafine particles essentially by volatilizing dust,” Singer explained. “It’s the same process with your toaster, resistance heater or radiator if you haven’t used it for awhile. After you turn it on, you can smell it­—it smells terrible. You’re smelling the chemicals that have been volatilized. Once they’re in the air, they recondense into these ultrafine particles. This is the chemistry lab in your kitchen.”

The validity of some of the statements in that article are questionable.

They draw a comparison with outdoor levels of pollution and indoor levels. However this is an erroneous comparison. Outdoor levels are different to indoor because outdoors the level of pollution is far more steady and will last for longer periods. The levels indoors are higher but only for a very short period. To be fair the statements made would need to discuss total average exposure, rather than short term peak exposure.

Striking a match indoors releases all sorts of nasty chemicals if measurements were taken in the area immediately in the vicinity of where the match was struck they would exceed government outdoor regulations for a brief period before the chemicals dissipated.

This is just pseudo-sales/marketing science to scaremonger consumers.

 

[Dane]

[member=60286]bobfog[/member]

"This is just pseudo-sales/marketing science to scaremonger consumers."

I actually work with Brett Singer, who is quoted in that abstract and whom you are criticizing, he is a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one of the national authorities on indoor air contamination.  I can assure you there is no marketing angle to his research.  PM 2.5 is now being  identified as one of the most harmful contaminants for human health due to its size and the way that it interacts with human physiology.  It also happens to be one of the most common contaminants generated by the cooking process.  Believe it or don't, but please don't do others the disservice of dismissing research that you don't understand and that could help them keep their clients and families safe.  Currently available non-ducted range hoods do very little to address the most concerning contaminants generated by cooking.  The LBNL researchers and others are trying to see if a filter can be made that will help in a non-ducted scenario- but it would probably have to be the size of an average upper cabinet to be effective...

 

[bobfog]

[member=60286]bobfog[/member]

"This is just pseudo-sales/marketing science to scaremonger consumers."

I actually work with Brett Singer, who is quoted in that abstract and whom you are criticizing, he is a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and one of the national authorities on indoor air contamination.  I can assure you there is no marketing angle to his research.  PM 2.5 is now being  identified as one of the most harmful contaminants for human health due to its size and the way that it interacts with human physiology.  It also happens to be one of the most common contaminants generated by the cooking process.  Believe it or don't, but please don't do others the disservice of dismissing research that you don't understand and that could help them keep their clients and families safe.  Currently available non-ducted range hoods do very little to address the most concerning contaminants generated by cooking.  The LBNL researchers and others are trying to see if a filter can be made that will help in a non-ducted scenario- but it would probably have to be the size of an average upper cabinet to be effective...

Beyond applying for the funding from sources described below:

"The research described here was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the California Energy Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

It would be interesting to know if this is an independently selected area of research, or if an external stakeholder "suggested" they carry out this area of research.

 

[Dane]

Well, I can tell you the answer to that, if you like.

But, I'm curious, what industry or interest group are you suspicious of their work benefitting? The ducted range hood manufacturers association or something?

Believe it or not, the federal and state  government agencies that are tasked with protecting public health fund this kind of research to investigate issues that answer the questions raised by the initial poster on this thread.  Will non-ducted range hoods protect your health?  Nope.

 

[peter halle]

Please lets not let this go to the overload.  Nothing further on the personal front please.

Peter

 

[sae]

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/07/23/kitchens-can-produce-hazardous-levels-of-indoor-pollutants/

In a recent study led by Logue, the team analyzed extensive data from several sources to understand how common it is for California homes to experience indoor air pollution at hazardous levels. They estimated that 60 percent of homes in the state that cook at least once a week with a gas stove can reach pollutant levels that would be illegal if found outdoors. That equates to 12 million Californians routinely exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels that exceed federal outdoor standards, 10 million exposed to formaldehyde exceeding federal standards and 1.7 million exposed to carbon monoxide exceeding ambient air standards in a typical week in winter.

These pollutants can come both from the cooking burners—especially gas burners but to a lesser extent electric burners also—as well as from cooking itself. The primary health effect of nitrogen dioxide, which is also found in the fumes of any type of combustion, is an increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Exposure to carbon monoxide is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease as it can enter the bloodstream and reduce oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues.

The indoor pollutant that scientists believe may be most harmful to human health is particles, including fine particles, which are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, and ultrafine particles, which are smaller than 1 micrometer. They are produced by both gas and electric burners and by cooking. They are potentially very harmful because they can enter the lungs and, for the smaller particles, enter the bloodstream or other tissues.

“Electric burners produce ultrafine particles essentially by volatilizing dust,” Singer explained. “It’s the same process with your toaster, resistance heater or radiator if you haven’t used it for awhile. After you turn it on, you can smell it­—it smells terrible. You’re smelling the chemicals that have been volatilized. Once they’re in the air, they recondense into these ultrafine particles. This is the chemistry lab in your kitchen.”

The validity of some of the statements in that article are questionable.

They draw a comparison with outdoor levels of pollution and indoor levels. However this is an erroneous comparison. Outdoor levels are different to indoor because outdoors the level of pollution is far more steady and will last for longer periods. The levels indoors are higher but only for a very short period. To be fair the statements made would need to discuss total average exposure, rather than short term peak exposure.

Striking a match indoors releases all sorts of nasty chemicals if measurements were taken in the area immediately in the vicinity of where the match was struck they would exceed government outdoor regulations for a brief period before the chemicals dissipated.

This is just pseudo-sales/marketing science to scaremonger consumers.

So you're concluding that it's safer to breathe toxins indoors than outdoors? Where there is much less air circulation, and more likely that you'll inhale the toxins a second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth time that didn't get caught in your lungs the first time around?  [blink]

 

[bkharman]

Another check mark for @bobfog!  Making friends galore on this forum buddy.

You live with non-vented cooking, completely sealed tight house and I will take my breathing house fitted with cooking vented to the exterior... We will see who feels better in a year.

Indoor cooking in 3rd world countries is especially harmful.  I invested in a few companies a few years back looking to solve some of these issues and am proud to be an investor in one that is doing gangbusters. If anyone wants some details, PM me and we can talk about their tech.  Great company with a great mission.

Cheers. Bryan.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[McNally Family]

Another check mark for [member=60286]bobfog[/member]!  Making friends galore on this forum buddy.

You live with non-vented cooking, completely sealed tight house and I will take my breathing house fitted with cooking vented to the exterior... We will see who feels better in a year.

Indoor cooking in 3rd world countries is especially harmful.  I invested in a few companies a few years back looking to solve some of these issues and am proud to be an investor in one that is doing gangbusters. If anyone wants some details, PM me and we can talk about their tech.  Great company with a great mission.

Cheers. Bryan.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was researching a guy years ago, for a history project, and was told a story about how one of his relatives criticized him for running his window air conditioner, with some of the windows open at the same time.  His response was that he was getting cooled and fresh air at the same time. 

Made sense to me....

Today people are so focused on sealing up their homes to save energy (money), they are missing the potential for harm, from lack of air circulation.    I'm not so certain central heat and air (or wall to wall carpet for that matter), is a blessing or curse.

Give me hardwood floors, rugs, and a few open windows any day.