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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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 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 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 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 at 15:44

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.