99.8%
AC Efficacy
97.5%
Non-AC Efficacy
80
Location Pairs
Abstract
This 6-month controlled comparison study evaluates antimicrobial coating performance in air-conditioned versus naturally ventilated spaces across diverse Singapore locations. Using 80 paired test locations with matched surface types and usage patterns, the study isolates ventilation type as the key variable to determine its impact on coating efficacy.
Results reveal optimal efficacy in air-conditioned environments (99.8%) with strong performance in naturally ventilated settings (97.5%) despite higher humidity levels.
Results
"97.5% efficacy in non-AC environments demonstrates robust performance despite 75-90% humidity"— Key Comparative Finding
| Building Type | AC Environment | Non-AC Environment | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial | 99.9% | 97.8% | 2.1% |
| Healthcare | 99.8% | 97.6% | 2.2% |
| Educational | 99.7% | 97.4% | 2.3% |
| Residential | 99.6% | 97.2% | 2.4% |
Environmental Factor Analysis
- Temperature: No significant correlation (p > 0.05)
- Humidity 50-70%: 99.5% average efficacy
- Humidity 70-85%: 98.2% average efficacy
- Humidity 85-95%: 97.0% average efficacy
Conclusion
Key Takeaways
- 99.8% efficacy in air-conditioned environments
- 97.5% efficacy in naturally ventilated spaces
- Only 2.3% average difference between ventilation types
- Robust performance across all Singapore building categories
References
- Building and Construction Authority. (2024). Green Building Guidelines for Tropical Climates.
- National Environment Agency. (2024). Indoor Air Quality Guidelines.
- Tan, M.H., et al. (2023). Antimicrobial Surface Performance in Varied Humidity Conditions.
- WHO. (2023). Indoor Climate and Health Guidelines.