A custom project needs an agreed design basis, interface responsibilities and acceptance plan. Use the following sequence to evaluate who will resolve the project-specific engineering decisions.
- Define the operating conditions before comparing suppliers.
- Compare proposed duty, energy inputs and evidence on the same project basis.
- Check testing evidence, drawings, and control interfaces.
- Record what is standard, what changes and who approves each change.
1. Start with the operating conditions
Before comparing proposals, agree a design basis: normal and limiting conditions, required performance, assumptions and what remains unknown. Ask who will verify missing inputs and when the design may be released.
For company, manufacturing and general evidence checks, use how to evaluate an industrial dehumidifier manufacturer. This page focuses on the custom scope, system interfaces, change control and acceptance of a particular project.
Record the humidity quantity, units, temperature basis and measurement location. A room RH target, an inlet condition and a required supply-air dew point are different requirements; do not leave the supplier to infer which one governs.
Define these inputs first:
- Moisture duty. Document the sources, air exchange and time profile used in the load estimate. Separate measured inputs from assumptions and state who owns the calculation. Do not assume one source dominates every application.
- Target level. State a dew point or a relative humidity band at a defined temperature. "Keep it dry" is not an engineering requirement.
- Operating range. State entering-air temperature and humidity together, including start-up and seasonal conditions. Ask for the proposed model’s delivered performance across the required range.
- Installation limits. Space, power, drainage, controls, and maintenance access all constrain the design.
The dew point calculator and sizing guide can support the input discussion; neither substitutes for an agreed project load and equipment selection.
2. What "custom" means
Custom scope may combine standard components with project-specific changes. Identify what is being modified, which performance assumptions remain valid and which drawings or tests must be updated. A new label alone is not evidence of an engineering change.
Ask how the proposed technology satisfies the duty and what supporting services it needs:
- Refrigerant equipment removes moisture at a cold evaporator surface. The condenser rejects heat; it is not the cold surface being discussed in a dehumidification-coil frosting assessment. Check delivered capacity, defrost and heat rejection for the proposed arrangement.
- Desiccant equipment uses a liquid or solid sorbent; a rotor is one configuration. Evaluate process airflow, required outlet condition, regeneration heat and exhaust arrangements for the actual design.
Use the refrigerant vs desiccant comparison for technology boundaries and the desiccant rotor product page for that equipment family. Refrigerant choice, such as R290 or R410A, is a separate decision from choosing a drying technology.
When discussing a proposal with Yakeclimate, make the requested custom changes and the interfaces to the wider project explicit. Treat the agreed quotation, drawings and acceptance scope as the project record.
For the wider equipment and application context, see industrial dehumidification.
3. Compare proposals on a common design basis
Use these questions to test the proposed design, rather than assigning technology from a single temperature or RH threshold:
| Project requirement | Evidence to request | Integration consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Required moisture removal and outlet condition | Model-specific capacity at the agreed inlet, airflow and target | Check whether the target refers to the unit outlet or the treated space. |
| Cold or variable operation | Operating limits, defrost behavior and expected delivered capacity | Include start-up and changing load; do not apply a universal switching temperature. |
| Regeneration or heat rejection | Heat source, fan power, exhaust and any additional cooling or heating | Compare all included energy inputs and identify services supplied by others. |
| Intermittent or staged operation | Proposed sequence, sensor locations and responses to faults | Check interaction with ventilation, cooling and the wider controller. |
Ask the partner to document why the selected arrangement meets the design basis and where evidence is still missing. A comparison table is not a substitute for that explanation.
Example: why a capacity number alone is not enough
Illustrative example: two proposals each quote 50 L/day, one at 27°C / 60% RH and one at 30°C / 80% RH. Neither rating alone establishes output at a project condition of 15°C / 70% RH. Request comparable model-specific evidence there, identifying measured points, interpolation and calculations. Include effective removal, power and defrost assumptions. This is a comparison method, not a reported Yakeclimate test or installation.
4. Verify the custom engineering deliverables
4.1 Performance at your conditions
Request the promised duty and its conditions, including airflow and external resistance where relevant. Mark measured results separately from modelled or interpolated values. Record unresolved assumptions before approving the design.
4.2 Verification plan
Agree which claims require factory testing and which depend on site installation. Define the method, instruments, operating conditions, stabilization period, tolerances and records before testing; do not treat a generic factory report as verification of every custom configuration.
4.3 Documentation
Review the revision-controlled arrangement, wiring, utility connections and maintenance clearances. Match the bill of materials and control version to the approved configuration. Specify which drawings become the installation record after changes.
4.4 Controls and integration
Use an interface schedule: connection, signal or protocol, units, range, normal state, alarm behavior and responsible party. Agree sensor locations, enable/disable authority, interlocks and recovery after a power or communication failure. Test the interfaces with the wider system; a protocol name alone is not acceptance.
4.5 Change control and responsibility
Require written approval for component, software or interface substitutions. Record their effect on performance, safety, drawings and retesting. Assign supplier and site responsibilities rather than assuming one team owns every interface. Company background remains available through manufacturing and about Yakeclimate; these pages are not proof that a particular custom configuration has been tested.
5. Build the acceptance matrix before ordering
| Decision | Document to agree | Acceptance question |
|---|---|---|
| Design basis | Conditions, target, load assumptions and exclusions | Is the delivered configuration assessed against this revision? |
| Performance | Duty, method, measurement boundary and tolerance | Which measured result constitutes a pass? |
| Controls | Sequence, signal list and fault responses | Do local and supervisory controls respond as agreed? |
| Physical interfaces | Connections, clearances, drain and exhaust responsibilities | Who confirms the installed services and access? |
| Changes | Approved substitutions and revised records | Was their impact assessed and any required retest completed? |
| Delivery scope | Equipment, site work, commissioning and training boundaries | Who supplies and verifies each part? |
| Handover | Test records, outstanding issues and closure process | What remains open, who resolves it and how is closure accepted? |
List exceptions beside the agreed requirements. Resolve or explicitly accept them before manufacturing release instead of treating silence as agreement.
After the quote: commissioning and verification
Separate factory checks from site acceptance. At site, verify installed air paths, services, drainage, sensors, controls and agreed performance under documented conditions. If the required seasonal condition is unavailable, record what was demonstrated and agree the remaining verification. Define handling of failed tests, corrections and retests. Completion should follow the agreed evidence and open-item process, not shipment alone.
Check unresolved risks
Slow down if you see any of these:
- Generic trust language with no data: "reliable", "trusted", "unmatched", or "industry-leading" with no test record behind it.
- Capacity quoted at a condition that is not stated.
- A quotation leaves critical operating inputs blank without stating assumptions or a plan to verify them.
- No named reviewer or approval route for design changes and unresolved interfaces.
- Integration responsibilities, alarm behavior or required site services remain unspecified.
What to send for project review
Send the design basis with layout and connection constraints, load evidence, utility limits, control expectations and the proposed acceptance matrix. Identify unknowns and request an explicit scope, assumptions, exclusions and change process with the quotation.
The sizing guide and commercial selection guide cover the inputs and comparison steps in more detail.
6. Close the engineering decisions
The decision is whether the partner and project team can agree a traceable design, workable interfaces and a verifiable acceptance scope. Keep assumptions, changes and unresolved items visible through commissioning. That record supports the decision; it does not guarantee an outcome before the equipment is tested in the agreed conditions.
Related tools and references
- Dew point calculator
- Industrial dehumidifier sizing guide
- Commercial dehumidifier selection guide
- R290 / R410A refrigerant comparison
- Desiccant rotor dehumidifiers
- Industrial dehumidifiers
- Manufacturing
- About Yakeclimate
- ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Applications (psychrometrics and humidity-control sections; general reference for the methods used in this guide)
