My external post probably would have been better with some explicit comparisons, but my claim is that in-duct UVC (a) isn’t widely applicable, and so the overall potential benefit of pushing for it is low and (b) isn’t cost effective even where it’s applicable.
I think (b) is the more important one and where we most disagree. I’ve now added the cost-effectiveness calculation to the end of https://​​www.jefftk.com/​​p/​​against-in-duct-uv and it looks to me like even in the best case in-duct is much more expensive per CADR than filters or far-uvc.
I finally found some time to study your longer reply and study/​research more. Main thing I didn’t know is how effective MERV-13 filters are (@ ~50%). (I built a box-fan filter as soon as I learned about it back when summer wildfire smoke started hitting Seattle some years back. Works great!) Given the high air-turnover in ducted systems, seems like that alone can do (almost?) all the necessary. Thanks.
My external post probably would have been better with some explicit comparisons, but my claim is that in-duct UVC (a) isn’t widely applicable, and so the overall potential benefit of pushing for it is low and (b) isn’t cost effective even where it’s applicable.
I think (b) is the more important one and where we most disagree. I’ve now added the cost-effectiveness calculation to the end of https://​​www.jefftk.com/​​p/​​against-in-duct-uv and it looks to me like even in the best case in-duct is much more expensive per CADR than filters or far-uvc.
I finally found some time to study your longer reply and study/​research more. Main thing I didn’t know is how effective MERV-13 filters are (@ ~50%). (I built a box-fan filter as soon as I learned about it back when summer wildfire smoke started hitting Seattle some years back. Works great!) Given the high air-turnover in ducted systems, seems like that alone can do (almost?) all the necessary. Thanks.