A simple furnace humidifier is often time the most unknown solution to good air quality control in large homes. See, most home owner does not even know this central humidification technology exist. That’s because they never see it in the big stores like Walmart or Targets. The most common, but least effective way to control humidity is with a single room simple humidifier. Those are the most viewed and reviewed types of humidifiers. They are cheap, portable and don’t work very well for big homes furnace humidifier.
If you need a humidity solution for the complete house, and heat that house with a central air furnace, then a furnace humidifier is what you need.
The furnace humidifier will handle house’s air in one simple device and from that simple location.
The furnace humidifier blows hot dry air on one side of the humidifier and releases humid air on the other side. As seen in the small diagram here, the effectiveness of Warn Air – Return Air furnace humidifier is still unequaled and much higher capacity then portable units.
Best furnace humidifier will cover you for houses of up to 2500-3000 square feet in constructed area. Can you even image controlling and reducing the winter’s dry air buying and installing a humidifier in each room?
So, in short, if you are using a central forced air furnace to heat your house with, this is the most effective way to eliminated dry air in the winter.
Effects of Temperature and Humidification in the Environment
Respiration is enhanced when heated humidification is employed. This is likely due to a reduction in side effects associated with upper airway symptoms and a more refreshed feeling upon awakening. Compliance gains may be realized sooner if patients are started with heated humidity. The hot air coming from any best furnace humidifier can help realize those health gains.
The study took place in 2 wings of the building. During the experiment, after a random selection, 1 of the wings was humidified and the other remained non-humidified. After 1 week, the humidification was switched. During the total study period of 6 week, the population in the 2 wings was exposed to humidification for 3 1-week periods and to non humidified conditions that corresponded to 3 1-week periods. Determinants of interest were temperature in each office and air humidification. In a baseline questionnaire administered at the beginning or the study, we obtained information about personal characteristics and variables concerning work-related factors and the work environment.
During the 6-week experiment, the participants completed a daily structured questionnaire that contained queries about symptoms of acute respiratory illness, time spent in the office, symptoms of dryness (scale of 0 to 3), and the sensation of dryness (scale of 1 to 5) during each work day. The outcomes of interest were symptom scores, which we calculated with the information provided in the daily symptom reports: (1) dryness symptom score (0-12), which included skin symptoms (i.e., dryness, irritation, or itching), nasal dryness, and pharyngeal dryness; and (2) SBS symptoms score (0-6), which included combined symptoms of SBS (i.e., skin, eye, nasal, and pharyngeal symptoms, headache, and lethargy). The sensation of dryness was coded as 1 (too humid) to 5 (too dry).
At the beginning of the study, each of the two groups studied included 180-190 clerical workers. Individuals were eligible for the study if they did not have or use a humidifier in their office. Those who had completed the baseline questionnaire were eligible for participation in the experiment. In the final analyses, we included individuals who had filled in the baseline questionnaire acceptably and who had spent at least 2 hr in the office during which time they had suffered no symptoms of acute respiratory illness.
To grasp the direction and strength of the association of outcomes and temperature during and without humidification, we fitted a multiple linear-regression model for each outcome. In addition, we used analysis of covariance to calculate adjusted means for the outcomes in 5 temperature categories. Given the skewed distributions and heteroscedasticity of the outcomes,[4] we assessed the statistical significance of the linear association by the method of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).[5] For the CMH method, we classified outcomes in 3-4 categories that contained approximately equal numbers of participants. Calculations were made with a personal computer and version 6.12 SAS statistical software.
Results
Study population and indoor air quality. At least one diary was returned by each of 230 workers during the non humidified period and by 233 workers during the humidified period. There were no statistically significant differences between the non humidified and humidified periods with respect to personal characteristics or with respect to characteristics of the work environments.
Validity of results. The non experimental study design raised the possibility that selection bias (i.e., people chose offices with a most-suitable temperature) occurred. The crossover design of this study eliminated such a problem. The opening of windows likely provided compensation for the temperature rise caused by humidification. Both mechanisms tended to dilute the effects of humidification and temperature on the symptoms and perceptions we studied.
The results of this study strengthened the evidence that an indoor temperature in excess of 21 [degrees] C or 22 [degrees] C is likely to increase dryness symptoms of the skin and upper airways and to increase the total number of symptoms than can be related to SBS syndrome. The sensation of dryness increased at higher indoor temperatures. Humidification alleviated dryness symptoms and the sensation of dryness. Use a whole house humidifier, also called furnace humidifiers.
