Premium
Indoor Radon Reduction in Crawl‐space Houses: A Review of Alternative Approaches
Author(s) -
Henschel D. Bruce
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
indoor air
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.387
H-Index - 99
eISSN - 1600-0668
pISSN - 0905-6947
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1992.00009.x
Subject(s) - cabin pressurization , living space , space suit , space (punctuation) , radon , natural ventilation , confined space , environmental science , simulation , engineering , computer science , ventilation (architecture) , mechanical engineering , civil engineering , medicine , physics , apartment , environmental health , quantum mechanics , operating system
An analysis has been completed of the performance, mechanisms, and costs of alternative technologies for preventing radon entry into the living areas of houses having crawl‐space foundations. Sub‐membrane depressurization (SMD) is consistently the most effective technique, often providing radon reductions of 80‐98% in the living area. It has a relatively high installation cost, but a moderate annual operating cost. Forced crawl‐space depressurization is the second most effective, giving reductions of 70‐96%. Crawl‐space depressurization is less well demonstrated than is SMD, and performance will vary with crawl‐space tightness and weather, but it will be a primary option when large radon reductions are needed in buildings with crawl‐spaces which are inaccessible for installation of SMD. Crawl‐space depressurization has a lower installation cost than SMD, but its operating cost may be three times higher. Natural crawl‐space ventilation and forced crawl‐space pressurization each typically provides roughly 50% reduction or less in the living area. The lack of a clear benefit of crawl‐space pressurization in most installations probably indicates that the crawl space is in fact not being pressurized. Crawl‐space sealing and barriers (as stand‐alone methods) usually give little or no reduction.