Home / Kitchen Extraction Cleaning / Guide
Kitchen extraction cleaning - design
When a kitchen extraction system is designed, compliance can be built in - proper access panels, cleanable ductwork, a system that can be maintained to standard - or left out, to be bolted on later at greater cost and disruption. Designing compliance in from the start is far cheaper and better than retrofitting it. Here is why to design compliance in, not bolt it on. This is general commentary.
The short answer
There is a choice made (often unconsciously) when a kitchen extraction system is designed and installed: whether to build in the ability to clean and maintain it to standard, or leave that out to be dealt with later. This is the difference between designing compliance in and bolting it on. Designing compliance in: designing the extraction system so it can be cleaned and maintained to the standard (TR19 Grease) from the start - which means, above all, adequate access: enough access panels, well placed (at bends, along runs, at the fan), so the whole ductwork can be reached and cleaned; and cleanable ductwork - routed and constructed so it can be accessed and cleaned throughout (avoiding inaccessible runs, awkward routing, or construction that cannot be cleaned). So the system is built to be cleanable and maintainable to standard. Bolting it on: leaving these out at design (a system with too few access panels, awkward inaccessible ductwork) and dealing with the cleaning and compliance problems later - retrofitting access panels (cutting them into existing ductwork), working around or modifying poor routing, at greater cost and disruption once the system is installed and in use. Why designing it in is far better: cost - including adequate access and cleanable routing at the design stage costs very little (it is just good design), whereas retrofitting access panels and fixing poor routing later costs a lot (as covered in the cost of retrofitting access panels); disruption - designing it in is free of disruption (it is just how the system is built), whereas retrofitting means work on an installed, in-use system; and outcome - a system designed for compliance is properly cleanable and maintainable for its whole life, whereas a bolted-on fix is often a compromise. So designing compliance in - building the access and cleanability into the extraction from the start - is far cheaper, less disruptive, and better than bolting it on later. This applies whenever an extraction system is designed, installed, refurbished or replaced: build the compliance in. So design compliance in, not bolt it on - it is cheaper and better. This is general commentary on extraction design and compliance.
Key points
A choice at design
When a kitchen extraction system is designed and installed, there is a choice - often not consciously made - about whether the ability to clean and maintain it to standard is built in or left out. Every extraction system, once installed, will need cleaning throughout its life (to control the grease fire risk, to the TR19 Grease standard) - so it will need to be cleanable: accessible, and constructed and routed so it can be cleaned. Whether it is cleanable depends on how it was designed and installed - and this is decided at the design/installation stage, whether or not anyone thinks about it.
So there is a choice at design: build in the cleanability and compliance (design the system to be cleaned and maintained to standard - adequate access, cleanable ductwork), or leave it out (design without regard to cleaning, resulting in a system that is hard or impossible to clean properly). If it is built in, the system is cleanable and compliant from the start. If it is left out, the cleaning and compliance problems appear later (the ductwork cannot be reached, cannot be properly cleaned) and have to be bolted on (retrofitted). This choice - build it in or leave it out - is made at design, and it has large consequences for the cost, ease and quality of cleaning and compliance over the system's whole life. So designing compliance in, or leaving it to be bolted on, is a choice at design worth making deliberately. So build it in, or leave it out, is the choice at design. This is general commentary.
What designing it in means
Designing compliance into an extraction system means, above all, building in adequate access and cleanable ductwork - so the whole system can be reached and cleaned to standard from the start. Adequate access: the most important element. The ductwork can only be cleaned where it can be reached, which means access panels - so designing compliance in means including enough access panels, well placed (at bends and changes of direction, along the runs at appropriate intervals, at the fan, and either side of any component that cannot be cleaned through), so the whole ductwork can be reached, inspected and cleaned (as the TR19 Grease standard requires). Building this access in at design is straightforward; the panels are part of the ductwork as installed.
Cleanable ductwork: designing the ductwork itself to be cleanable - routed so it can be accessed throughout (avoiding inaccessible runs buried where they cannot be reached, or awkward routing that prevents access), and constructed so it can be cleaned (appropriate materials and construction). So the ductwork is not just accessible via panels but sensibly routed and built to be cleaned. Together, adequate access (enough well-placed access panels) and cleanable ductwork (accessible routing and construction) make the system cleanable and maintainable to standard - which is what designing compliance in means. It also includes considering the whole system's maintainability (the fan, filters, and any pollution-control stages accessible for cleaning/servicing). So designing compliance in means building in the access and cleanability - so the system can be cleaned to standard throughout its life. So access and cleanable ductwork are what designing it in means. This is general commentary.
The cost of bolting it on
Leaving compliance out at design, and bolting it on later, is expensive and disruptive - because retrofitting access and fixing poor routing on an installed, in-use system costs far more than building it in would have. If an extraction system is installed without adequate access (too few access panels) or with awkward, inaccessible ductwork, the cleaning and compliance problems appear when it needs cleaning: the ductwork cannot be reached, so it cannot be properly cleaned, so the system cannot be maintained to standard - a real problem (the fire risk uncontrolled, the compliance unmet). Fixing this means bolting on what should have been designed in: retrofitting access panels (cutting them into the existing installed ductwork - a job with real cost, as covered in the cost of retrofitting access panels), and working around or modifying poor routing.
This costs far more than building it in would have: retrofitting access panels into installed ductwork (possibly in awkward, in-use locations - ceilings, voids) is a much bigger job than including them at installation; and it is disruptive (work on an installed, operating system, possibly requiring access to occupied spaces). And the bolted-on result is often a compromise (added access where it can be fitted, rather than optimal access designed in). So bolting compliance on later is expensive, disruptive, and often second-best - the price of not designing it in. This is the classic false economy of leaving compliance out at design: a small saving (or oversight) at design leads to a large cost and disruption later, when the system has to be made cleanable retrospectively. So the cost of bolting it on - retrofitting access, fixing routing - is expensive and disruptive. So retrofitting is expensive and disruptive. This is general commentary.
Why designing it in wins
So designing compliance in wins over bolting it on, on every count - cost, disruption, and the quality of the result over the system's whole life. Cost: including adequate access and cleanable routing at the design stage costs very little - it is just good design, with the access panels and sensible routing part of the system as built. Retrofitting the same access later costs a lot more (cutting into installed ductwork). So designing it in is far cheaper than bolting it on. Disruption: designing it in is free of disruption (it is just how the system is built); bolting it on means disruptive work on an installed, in-use system. So designing it in avoids the disruption.
Quality over the system's life: a system designed for compliance is properly cleanable and maintainable to standard throughout its whole life - every clean can reach and do the whole system, keeping the fire risk controlled and compliance met, easily. A system with compliance bolted on is often a compromise (added access where it fits, not optimal), and may never be as cleanable as one designed for it. So designing compliance in gives a better outcome for the system's whole life - not just a one-off saving but ongoing cleanability and compliance. So designing compliance in wins on cost (cheaper), disruption (none), and quality (properly cleanable for life). This is why it is far better to design it in than to bolt it on - the small effort at design pays off across the system's life. So designing it in wins: cheaper, easier, better for life. This is general commentary.
Build it in from the start
So the message is clear: design compliance into the extraction system from the start - the access and cleanability that let it be cleaned and maintained to standard - rather than leaving it out to be bolted on later at greater cost and disruption. Designing it in is far cheaper (little cost at design vs a lot to retrofit), less disruptive (built in vs retrofitted on an in-use system), and better for the system's whole life (properly cleanable vs a compromise). So build the compliance in from the start.
This applies at every point where an extraction system is designed or worked on: a new installation (design in the access and cleanability), a refurbishment (build compliance into the refurbished system - as covered in fire safety considerations in a kitchen refurbishment), or a system replacement (design the new system for compliance). At any of these points, building in adequate access (enough well-placed access panels) and cleanable ductwork (accessible routing and construction) costs little and pays off across the system's life - whereas leaving it out means bolting it on later. So whenever an extraction system is being designed, installed, refurbished or replaced, take the opportunity to design compliance in: it is the cheapest and best time to do it, and it makes the system cleanable and compliant for its whole life. A good extraction system designer or installer will build this in; and asking for it (adequate access, cleanable ductwork, designed to TR19 Grease maintainability) ensures it. So build compliance in from the start - at design, installation or refurbishment - not bolt it on later. This is general commentary on extraction design and compliance.
Questions
It means designing the system so it can be cleaned and maintained to the standard (TR19 Grease) from the start - above all, building in adequate access and cleanable ductwork. Adequate access is the key element: the ductwork can only be cleaned where it can be reached, so designing compliance in means including enough access panels, well placed (at bends, along the runs, at the fan, either side of un-cleanable components), so the whole ductwork can be reached, inspected and cleaned. Cleanable ductwork means designing the ductwork to be accessible throughout (sensible routing, avoiding inaccessible buried runs or awkward routing) and constructed so it can be cleaned. Together, adequate access and cleanable ductwork make the system cleanable and maintainable to standard from the start - so every clean can reach and do the whole system. It also includes the fan, filters and any pollution-control stages being accessible for cleaning/servicing. So designing compliance in means building in the access and cleanability so the system can be cleaned to standard throughout its life. So it means building in access and cleanability from the start. This is general commentary.
Because including access and cleanable routing at the design stage costs very little, whereas retrofitting the same access into installed ductwork later costs a lot more. At design, the access panels and sensible routing are just part of the system as built - adding them costs little (it is good design). But if they are left out and the system is installed without adequate access or with awkward ductwork, fixing it later means retrofitting: cutting access panels into the existing installed ductwork (possibly in awkward, in-use locations like ceilings and voids), and working around or modifying poor routing - a much bigger, costlier job than including them at installation, and disruptive (work on an operating system). So the same access costs little to build in but a lot to retrofit. This is the false economy of leaving compliance out: a small saving or oversight at design leads to a large cost (and disruption) later when the system has to be made cleanable retrospectively. So designing it in is far cheaper because building access in at design is cheap, while retrofitting it is expensive. So it is cheaper to design in than to retrofit. This is general commentary.
The cleaning and compliance problems appear later, and have to be bolted on (retrofitted) at greater cost and disruption - or the system cannot be properly cleaned. If an extraction system is installed without adequate access (too few access panels) or with awkward, inaccessible ductwork, then when it needs cleaning, the ductwork cannot be properly reached - so it cannot be fully cleaned, so the system cannot be maintained to standard (the fire risk uncontrolled, the compliance unmet). To fix this, the compliance has to be bolted on: retrofitting access panels into the installed ductwork, and working around poor routing - expensive and disruptive. If it is not fixed, the system remains hard or impossible to clean properly, leaving a persistent fire risk and compliance gap (the years-of-missed-cleaning situation is often rooted in poor access designed into the system). So not designing compliance in leads either to costly, disruptive retrofitting later, or to a system that cannot be properly cleaned and maintained - both bad outcomes that designing it in avoids. So if it is not designed in, you pay for it later, or cannot clean properly. This is general commentary.
Whenever the system is designed or worked on - a new installation, a refurbishment, or a system replacement - because these are the points where the access and cleanability are decided. A new installation is the ideal time (design the system with adequate access and cleanable ductwork from scratch). A refurbishment is an opportunity to build compliance into the refurbished system (adding or improving access, improving routing) while the work is being done. A system replacement lets you design the new system for compliance. At any of these points, building in adequate access (enough well-placed access panels) and cleanable ductwork costs little (as part of the work) and pays off across the system's life - whereas leaving it out means bolting it on later. So the time to design compliance in is whenever the extraction system is being designed, installed, refurbished or replaced - the cheapest and best time to do it. Retrofitting it separately later (just to add access to an existing system) is possible but costlier. So design it in at any design, installation or refurbishment point. This is general commentary.
Specify that it be designed for cleanability and TR19 Grease maintainability - adequate, well-placed access and cleanable ductwork - and use a designer/installer who builds this in. When commissioning a new or refurbished extraction system, ask for it to be designed so the whole system can be cleaned and maintained to the TR19 Grease standard: adequate access panels, well placed (at bends, along runs, at the fan, either side of un-cleanable components), so the whole ductwork can be reached; ductwork routed and constructed to be accessible and cleanable throughout (avoiding inaccessible runs); and the fan, filters and any pollution-control stages accessible for cleaning/servicing. Use a competent extraction system designer/installer who understands and builds in this cleanability and compliance (a good one will), and confirm it is included. It can help to involve an extraction cleaning perspective (what makes a system cleanable) in the design. So ensure your new system is compliant by design by specifying cleanability and TR19 maintainability, and using a designer/installer who builds it in. So specify cleanability and use a competent designer. This is general commentary.
Yes - a system designed for compliance is properly cleanable and maintainable to standard throughout its whole life, not just at first. Because the access and cleanability are built into the system, every clean throughout the system's life can reach and do the whole system - keeping the fire risk controlled and compliance met, easily and to standard, at each cleaning. So the benefit is ongoing: not a one-off saving, but a system that stays cleanable and compliant for its whole operating life (which could be many years). By contrast, a system without compliance designed in (or with it bolted on as a compromise) may be hard to clean properly for its whole life - a persistent problem at every clean. So designing compliance in pays off across the system's whole life, making every clean effective and the compliance easy to maintain - the small effort at design giving a lasting benefit. So yes - designing compliance in helps the whole life of the system, not just the start. So it benefits the system's whole life. This is general commentary.
A system designed with adequate access and cleanable ductwork can be cleaned to standard easily for its whole life. We can advise on the access and cleanability a system needs, and clean the whole system to TR19 Grease - far easier when compliance was designed in. Ask us about the cleanability of your extraction system.
