4
$\begingroup$

Previously I had thought the maximum concentration of CO2 for human health to be given by the ‘Pettenkofer CO2 level’ with a maximum of 1000 ppm.

But according to this post

a growing body of research suggests CO2 levels as low as 1,000 ppm could cause health problems, even if exposure only lasts for a few hours.

Therefore it looks like a lower value than 1000 ppm would be healthier for the human body. Is that so?

What would be the target CO2 level inside a passive house? Since outside it is in the range 3-400 ppm. So with more ventillation we could get closer to 3-400ppm, which is Nature’s default (which shouldn’t be bad?)

Perhaps 750 ppm would be ideal — is there any research on that, either cognitive or related to blood vessels.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What suggests that any $\ce{CO_2}$ concentration is beneficial, let alone a concentration between $400\ \mathrm{ppm}$ and $1000\ \mathrm{ppm}$? $\endgroup$
    – Jam
    Jul 9, 2019 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ well, outside, in the nature, there is 3-400ppm. AND: that x>1000 is bad = Pettenkofer advise $\endgroup$
    – niving6473
    Jul 9, 2019 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Just cause something's in our natural habitat doesn't make it beneficial for us. We've evolved to tolerate starving and fighting too. $\endgroup$
    – Jam
    Jul 9, 2019 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ oh, hokay. Thanks :) good idea. but maybe this is not a well-researched topic, since I cannot find some exact facts, what would be the most healthy for the human-body. $\endgroup$
    – niving6473
    Jul 9, 2019 at 15:44

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.