UV and ozone canopy systems are they worth it?

They fit UV light and/or ozone to the canopy to break down some grease and odour in the air at source - so less grease reaches the ductwork and cooking odours in the discharge are reduced. UV and ozone canopy systems are extract canopies fitted with technology that treats the grease-laden air at the canopy. UV (ultraviolet light) and/or ozone (a reactive gas, sometimes generated by the UV) break down some of the grease and odour at source - so less grease reaches the ductwork downstream, and cooking odours in the extract discharge are reduced. So they tackle both grease and odour early, at the canopy, rather than letting the grease deposit in the duct and the odours discharge untreated. The two often go together (UV may generate ozone, or ozone is used with UV), working on the same principle of breaking down grease and odour in the air. This gives them two potential benefits - odour control and reduced duct grease - to weigh against their costs (purchase, maintenance, ozone safety) and the fact they don't end duct cleaning. So they break down grease and odour at the canopy using UV and/or ozone. So they treat grease and odour at source. This is general commentary on canopy technology.

It depends on your kitchen - for a real odour problem (near neighbours, planning conditions) they can be well worth it, as odour control is their strongest benefit; without an odour issue, the case rests on grease reduction versus the cost and upkeep. Whether UV/ozone systems are worth it depends on weighing their benefits against their costs for your particular kitchen. For a kitchen with a real odour problem - near neighbours or residential areas, or under planning conditions on odour - they can be well worth it: odour control is their strongest benefit and can be the deciding factor (sometimes even a requirement). For a kitchen with no odour issue, the case rests more on the grease reduction (a cleaner duct, possibly a lower cleaning frequency) - which may or may not justify the extra purchase cost and ongoing upkeep, depending on the numbers. So there's no universal answer: worth it where the benefits (especially odour) justify the cost and upkeep, less so where they don't. And in all cases they don't replace duct cleaning. So assess your kitchen's needs (particularly odour) and weigh the cost-benefit. So it depends - strong for odour, marginal otherwise. So worth it mainly for odour needs. This is general commentary on canopy technology.

They cost more to buy, need ongoing maintenance (lamps and components cleaned, serviced and replaced), ozone needs careful safety design (it's a respiratory irritant), and they don't remove the need to clean the ductwork. UV/ozone systems have real costs and caveats. Higher purchase cost: they cost more to buy and install than a plain canopy. Ongoing maintenance: the UV lamps or ozone components need cleaning, servicing and replacing as they age (a neglected unit stops working and loses the benefit) - an ongoing cost and task. Ozone safety: ozone is a respiratory irritant, so its use must be properly designed and controlled (correct levels, safe discharge) - a genuine safety consideration needing competent design. And, crucially, they don't end duct cleaning: the grease reduction is partial, so the ductwork still needs cleaning to the TR19 Grease standard (perhaps less often, but not never) - the system adds to, rather than replaces, the cleaning. So the downsides are cost, upkeep, ozone safety, and no escape from duct cleaning - all to weigh against the odour and grease benefits. So cost, maintenance, ozone safety, and continued duct cleaning. So extra cost and upkeep, plus ozone safety. This is general commentary on canopy technology.

No - the grease reduction is partial, so the ductwork still needs cleaning to TR19 Grease (perhaps less often, but not never); the system is an addition to the cleaning, not a replacement, and must not be treated as a way to stop cleaning. No - UV/ozone systems reduce but don't eliminate the grease reaching the duct, so the ductwork still needs cleaning. The grease reduction is partial (the effectiveness varies and isn't total), so grease still accumulates in the ductwork over time, just more slowly - meaning the duct must still be cleaned to the TR19 Grease standard, perhaps less frequently than an untreated system (if the UV/ozone genuinely reduces the loading and is maintained), but not never. So the system is an addition to the cleaning, not a replacement for it. It should never be sold or understood as a way to stop cleaning the duct - a dangerous misconception, because the grease still reaches the duct (and if the unit is neglected and not working, at full loading) and the fire risk still builds if it isn't cleaned. So keep cleaning the ductwork to standard even with UV/ozone fitted (as covered in the UV-canopy-cleaning page). So no - the duct still needs cleaning, just perhaps less often. So no; they don't replace cleaning. This is general commentary on canopy technology.

Ozone is a respiratory irritant, so an ozone system must be properly designed and controlled (correct levels, safe discharge, no harmful exposure) by a competent specialist; done properly it can be used safely, but the safety design is essential, not optional. Ozone is a reactive gas and a respiratory irritant, so its use in a kitchen extract system must be properly designed and controlled - it's a genuine safety consideration, not something to take lightly. A properly designed ozone system controls the ozone levels, ensures safe discharge, and avoids harmful exposure to people - so that the ozone does its job (breaking down grease and odour) without creating a health risk. Done properly, by a competent specialist, ozone can be used safely; but the safety design is essential and must be got right. So if considering an ozone system, ensure it's designed, installed and maintained by a competent specialist who addresses the ozone safety (levels, discharge, exposure) - and that it's maintained to stay safe and effective. This is a key reason to get a specific system properly assessed and designed rather than treating it as a simple bolt-on. So ozone can be used safely, but only with proper, competent safety design. So yes if properly designed and controlled by a specialist. This is general commentary on canopy technology; ozone safety design is a specialist matter.

When you have a real odour problem - near neighbours or residential areas, or under planning conditions on odour - since odour control is their strongest benefit; the grease reduction is a bonus, but odour need is what most justifies the cost. UV/ozone systems are most worth fitting when you have a genuine odour problem, because odour control is their strongest benefit. This applies especially to kitchens near neighbours or residential areas (where cooking smells cause complaints), or under planning conditions requiring odour control (where the local authority requires odour mitigation - UV/ozone being a common way to meet it). For such odour-sensitive sites, UV/ozone directly addresses the problem and is often well worth the cost and upkeep (sometimes even required). The grease reduction (slowing duct build-up, possibly lowering the cleaning frequency) is a useful secondary benefit, but on its own it's a more marginal cost-benefit call - so a kitchen with no odour issue has a weaker case for fitting one. So the clearest case for UV/ozone is an odour need; without that, weigh the grease benefit against the cost carefully. And either way, it doesn't replace duct cleaning. So most worth it for a real odour problem. So when odour control is genuinely needed. This is general commentary on canopy technology.