Shengzhou, Zhejiang, China-October 23,2026

Hero image: Jilu commercial under-cabinet range hood with digital control panel — a 24 inch deep stainless steel installation hood matching standard cabinet depth, which is a capture-geometry decision made at the drawing stage. Sourced from the Jilu commercial kitchen hood with digital control panel product page.Quick read

• Capture efficiency is a two-stage result, and only the second stage gets a spec number. Air first has to arrive at the hood opening, and only then does the filter decide how much of it stays. A CFM rating describes the fan, not either stage.
• The two stages multiply. That is why a higher-CFM hood with a mesh filter can lose to a lower-CFM hood with a properly designed baffle filter, and why the published engineering literature treats capture efficiency as a separate quantity from airflow rate.
• An independently published kitchen-ventilation study lists the variables that move capture as: venting to the outside, fan flow rate, operation time, hood capture volume, installation height, and burner coverage. Only two of those six are on a CFM spec sheet.
• The most under-spec’d variable is cross-draft. Published work states plainly that hood efficiency depends on cooking temperature and exhaust airflow rate but can be degraded by crossflows, and that combining a hood with an uncontrolled air supply is a detriment to capture compared with a fully controlled makeup-air supply.
• A real measured case is worth more than a rule of thumb: in a published hotel-kitchen exposure survey, one hood ventilation system served five cooking stations and the measured air velocity at the capture point was about 0.8 m/s. The geometry, not the fan, was the finding.
• The specification move that fixes this is to stop accepting CFM as the answer and start asking a supplier for a capture-side answer: mounting height, overhang, measured face velocity, crossflow condition, and what the filter efficiency rating means after five hundred wash cycles.

A CFM rating is a fan specification, not a capture specification

Start with the confusion the title names, because it is not a marketing error on anyone’s part. It is a units problem.

Cubic feet per minute is a volumetric flow rate. It tells you what the fan moves. Capture efficiency is the fraction of the contaminant the system actually retains, and it depends on three things that a fan rating does not contain: whether the plume reaches the hood at all, whether the hood geometry encourages it to stay, and whether the filter retains what arrives. A hood can be correctly powered, correctly ducted, correctly certified, and still fail to capture, because the failure is upstream of the machine.

That distinction is not ours to invent. An independently published exposure study of cooking emissions identifies the factors that determine range hood and over-the-range exhaust effectiveness as whether the device vents to the outside, fan flow rate, operation time, hood capture volume, installation height, and cooktop front-burner coverage. Read that list against a product data sheet: two of the six are on the sheet. The other four are installation and geometry decisions, and all four are made before anyone orders a fan. The full study is readable through the Europe PMC record on cooking methods and kitchen ventilation availability, and the wider evidence base on restaurant kitchen air pollution is collected in occupational exposures in restaurant kitchens, Environmental Science and Technology, which also cites the canonical review of hood performance and capture efficiency in the building literature.

So the honest framing for a specifier is this. There are two capture stages, they happen in sequence, and their efficiencies multiply.

Stage one, aerodynamic capture, is a geometry problem. The heat plume rising off a cooking surface has to be intercepted by the hood opening, and interception is governed by the ratio of hood opening area to heat-source area, the distance between them, the hood’s overhang projection, and the ambient air movement across the opening. None of that appears on a CFM line.

Stage two, grease capture efficiency, is a filter problem. The vapour that did arrive meets a media choice, and the media retains some fraction of it while the rest passes into the ductwork as an aerosol.

The arithmetic that follows is simple and is the whole argument of this article. If aerodynamic capture is high and the filter is weak, the system retains only what the weak filter holds out of a partially intercepted plume. If aerodynamic capture is low, no filter rating rescues it, because there is simply less contaminant arriving to be retained. Raising CFM does not fix either stage. It raises the volumetric rate while leaving both multipliers untouched.

Stage one: whether the plume arrives at all

Aerodynamic capture is where the engineering literature concentrates, and where the popular framing of “bigger hood, more CFM” is least accurate.

Three geometry variables dominate it.

Overhang. A hood whose lip projects beyond the heat source intercepts more of the rising column than a flush-face hood over the same footprint. Overhang is cheap to specify and almost never specified, because it does not appear in a CFM table and it does not change the fan order. It is a drawing dimension.

Height above the cooking surface. Every additional unit of height increases the distance the plume must travel, which widens the column and raises the volume of air that must be drawn to intercept it. This is the variable where the popular shorthand fails hardest: raising the hood does not simply reduce efficiency, it changes the volume requirement, and a designer who fixes the fan first and then mounts the hood high has quietly specified a system whose face velocity is below what the geometry needs.

The ratio between hood width and heat-source width. A hood sized to the cabinet run rather than to the equipment is a common specification error, and it is invisible in the fan data. A dedicated piece of published guidance on this failure mode frames it as the three signs a hood is undersized for an open-plan kitchen, which is the same underlying error expressed from the occupant’s side, and the width-versus-coverage rule behind it is set out separately in our 30 inch versus 36 inch hood coverage rules.

The measurement that settles stage one is the air velocity at the hood face, not the fan nameplate figure. This is the standard that field engineers actually check on commissioning, and it is worth separating from volumetric rate permanently in your specification language.

The published field example makes the case better than any rule of thumb. In a survey of exposure to airborne particles in a Chinese hotel kitchen, the kitchen measured 5 m by 16 m, split into storage, preparation and cooking areas, and the cooking area held five cooking stations. The hood ventilation facility was set above the front of the five stoves, but there was only one hood ventilation system for the whole kitchen. During operation, the air velocity at the capture point measured about 0.8 m/s. Read that result carefully: the number is not an indictment of the fan. It is what the geometry produced. The method and the measurement conditions are documented in the Frontiers in Public Health hotel kitchen exposure survey.

One hood serving five stations is the geometry failure in its clearest form, and it is common in real kitchens precisely because nobody thinks of a cooking line as an array of independent capture points.

If overhang and height are under-specified, cross-draft is close to absent from commercial hood specification entirely, and the published work on it is unusually direct.

 

The mechanism is straightforward. A cooking plume is a buoyant column of hot air rising from a heat source. It is coherent because it rises faster than the room air around it. Introduce a horizontal air movement across the top of that column and you apply a lateral shear to it. The column bends, tilts away from the opening, and a fraction of it escapes sideways rather than being drawn in. You now need more face velocity to recover what cross-draft destroyed, and you are unlikely to discover that the requirement doubled, because the plant-room number has not changed.

The published statement of the effect is worth reading closely, because it contains the remedy as well as the problem. In a controlled comparison of cooking emissions mitigation using automated and manually operated interventions, the authors note that the efficiency of a stove hood primarily depends on the cooking temperature and the exhaust airflow rate, but can be affected by crossflows — so combining a stove hood with an open window has to account for the potential detriment to capture efficiency compared with a fully controlled makeup air supply. For optimal performance the balance has to be found between the concurrent air supply and the exhaust by the hood.

That is a two-part requirement in one sentence. First, uncontrolled air inflow degrades capture. Second, the fix is not simply closing the window and leaving the room short of make-up air, because an unbalanced room generates its own unintended drafts. The equipment that resolves this correctly is a make-up air system integrated with the hood control, and that is an electrical and controls specification, not an airflow one. The failure mode that follows when a specifier ignores the static side of this is documented in our CFM shortfall and static pressure collapse hood performance audit, which is the closest thing we have to a documented non-compliance post-mortem. The study is available through the Scientific Reports comparison of automated and manual air quality interventions.

For a restaurant kitchen designer, the practical consequence is that a capture specification has to state the air balance. Which doors are open during service. Where the conditioned air supply lands relative to the cooking line. Whether the hood runs with a dedicated make-up air inlet. A supplier who cannot answer those questions for your layout has not engineered for your kitchen, regardless of what the fan curve says.

Note that this is the one place in this article where the answer is genuinely a control decision rather than a metal decision, which is why the digital control panel belongs in the capture conversation and not only in the convenience conversation.

Stage two: reading the published filter efficiency bands correctly

Stage two is where the numbers exist, and where they are most often quoted without their conditions.

Our own published filter data, from the under-cabinet hood capture efficiency article on this site, sets out three bands. Mesh filter, residential grade, captures 40-50 % of grease and needs 1,200 CFM or more for equivalent capture, with weekly cleaning. Standard baffle filter captures 65-75 %, needs 900-1,000 CFM, and cleans every two to three weeks. High-efficiency baffle filter captures 80-85 %, needs only 700-900 CFM, and cleans monthly.

That table is the clearest published demonstration that CFM and capture efficiency trade against each other rather than scale together. The mesh configuration needs roughly the highest airflow in the range and still retains less than half the grease. The high-efficiency baffle configuration needs the lowest airflow and retains more than four times as much. If CFM were the variable that mattered, the first row would win.

The same source records a direct observation from a commissioning sequence that is worth repeating because it inverts the usual assumption. A client specified a high-CFM hood on the reasoning that more extraction means better capture. The installed system returned a grease capture efficiency of 68 %, below the locally required minimum. The diagnosis was not the fan. It was the combination of filter design and capture distance. The same article also notes that a hood pulling a given flow through a mesh filter traps substantially less grease than the same hood pulling a lower flow through properly designed baffle filters, and it reports that the deciding variables were inflow rate, cut-off behaviour and the other controllable design parameters rather than nominal capacity.

Filter design parameters that move stage two, in the order they matter, are the channel gap width, the number of directional changes the air is forced through, and the surface finish of the media. Narrower channels capture more grease but restrict airflow, so the two optimise against each other and must be designed as a pair. Each directional change strips more grease, which is why a triple-bend channel outperforms a single bend at the same gap. And a brushed stainless surface lets grease sheet off and run down into the trough, whereas a painted or powder-coated surface creates nucleation points where grease builds up — which matters commercially, because a surface that accumulates grease is a surface that raises duct pressure drop over time.

The honest caveat on all of the above: filter efficiency figures are laboratory conditions. What a specifier should additionally ask for is how the figure behaves after service, and specifically whether it holds after repeated cleaning cycles, since a filter that is dishwasher-safe in principle but deforms in practice quietly loses the efficiency it was bought for. That is a fair question to put to any supplier, and one that a certificate does not answer.

Why the two stages multiply, in one worked example

Take the published bands and do the multiplication explicitly. This is the calculation that turns the argument into a specification.

Assume an aerodynamic capture of 80 % at the hood opening, which is a plausible working figure for a correctly proportioned canopy at a sensible mounting height with the make-up air balanced. Under that condition, with a standard baffle filter at 70 % capture efficiency, the combined retention against the plume is 0.80 multiplied by 0.70, or about 56 % of the grease generated.

Now change only the filter, holding geometry constant. Raise filter efficiency to 82 % and combined retention becomes about 66 % — roughly a ten-point gain in retained grease from a filter decision alone, with the same fan, the same ductwork, the same motor, and no change to the electrical load.

Now change only the geometry, holding the filter constant. Lift the mounting height and improve the overhang so aerodynamic capture rises from 80 % to 90 %. Combined retention becomes about 63 %. Same arithmetic, comparable gain, and this change costs a drawing revision rather than an equipment order.

Now do the wrong thing, which is what a CFM-only specification invites. Keep the poor geometry at 70 % aerodynamic capture, keep the weak mesh filter at 45 %, and double the CFM. The fan moves more air, the geometry does not improve, and the multiplier stays 0.70 multiplied by 0.45, or about 32 %. Additional capacity has been added to a system whose losses are elsewhere. This is the arithmetic behind the published observation that a well-designed baffle filter at a lower flow outperforms a mesh filter at a higher flow, and it is why the comparison has to be drawn on retained contaminant rather than on moved air.

The useful conclusion for a specification is a priority order. Fix geometry and air balance first, because they are free at the point of decision and they cap everything downstream. Specify filter efficiency second, because it is the largest single equipment-side multiplier available and it carries the lowest installed cost. Specify airflow third, and size it to the geometry you have actually chosen rather than to the equipment you would like to buy.

A five-step field capture audit, before anyone orders a replacement

When a kitchen already has a hood and the complaint is that it does not perform, run the audit in this order. Each step costs nothing and each one invalidates the assumption the next one rests on.

Step one, measure the face velocity and the capture-point velocity, not the fan rating. Read the airflow at the hood opening under normal operating conditions. If the capture-point velocity around individual cooking stations differs materially from the average, you have found a geometry and coverage problem, and no fan change will address it.

Step two, map the coverage station by station. A cooking line is an array of capture points, not a single volume. Confirm how many hoods or how many hood bays serve how many heat sources. A single hood serving several stations is a coverage defect, and it is the configuration that produced the published hotel-kitchen measurement discussed above. Where the coverage question becomes a configuration question, our three split-type range hood configurations for commercial kitchens article covers the wall-mount, island and insert arrangements that change the coverage geometry without changing the fan.

Step three, check the air balance during actual service. Doors open, air conditioning running, extraction fans on the same wall. This is where cross-draft reveals itself, and it is invisible during a quiet commissioning visit with the kitchen empty.

Step four, verify the filter specification against what is actually installed, and inspect the filters. Nominal filter type and installed filter type are different facts in a large share of kitchens, and a filter that has not been cleaned in a month is a different system from the one you specified.

Step five, only then look at the controls. Ask what the control panel actually does under a change in demand, whether it has a delay-off function, and whether it notifies on rising airflow resistance rather than on a calendar. A control system that cannot respond to a load change leaves the operator choosing between too loud and not ventilated, which produces a hood that is off when it should be running.

That ordering is deliberate. Steps one through four are diagnostic and reversible. Step five is the one that most often gets skipped forward into step one, because it is the most visible item on a product page.

What to write into the RFQ so the answer cannot be a CFM number

A request for quotation that asks for airflow invites a CFM number. Reissue it so that the answer has to be an engineering response, and the following items are the ones that make the difference.

Request the hood mounting height above the finished floor and above the cooking surface, with the intended clearances stated, and require that the proposal be checked against the ceiling height you actually have rather than a nominal one. Low ceilings are where standard hoods stop fitting and where the geometry decision has to be made early.

Request the overhang or projection of the hood lip beyond the heat source, per elevation. If the supplier cannot draw it, they have not engineered it.

Request the make-up air arrangement in writing, including where the supply enters the room and how it is interlocked with the hood. If the answer is an open window, the capture design has an uncontrolled term in it.

Request the measured capture-point air velocity target for the duty you described, not just the fan capacity. Ask which condition that figure is valid at, including the cooking load and the ambient state.

Request the filter efficiency rating with its test method, and ask separately how the figure is expected to hold after repeated cleaning cycles. Treat a supplier who answers only the first question carefully.

Request the electrical and controls data: motor type, voltage options, control functions including variable-speed modulation, delay-off duration, and any filter-resistance indication. This is what determines whether the system can follow load rather than being left at a fixed setting.

And ask for the failure case rather than the success case: what does the supplier recommend when the measured capture velocity is below target on site, and is that remedy within their scope or outside it. The answers separate an engineering supplier from a catalogue supplier faster than any datasheet.

Where the existing published record needs care

Three cautions for anyone building on the published material in this category, offered non-accusatorily because they are all fixable and all of them are exactly the kind of thing this article is about.

The efficiency figures are lab conditions and should be labelled as such. Band values are meaningful and useful. Presenting them without the test method and the service history invites exactly the misreading this article is written against, where a filter number gets treated as a total system result.

Cost figures published alongside efficiency figures tend to be quoted as though they were independent. In this category it is common to see energy savings, labour savings and inspection-failure costs presented next to capture efficiency as if the whole set were equally transferable. The efficiency bands are engineering quantities. The financial figures depend on labour rates, duty cycles and local inspection practice in a specific jurisdiction, and they do not travel. We deliberately publish no such figures here, and we would read any that reach you with the same caution.

The strongest engineering claims in this category are the ones nobody tests. That a well-designed baffle filter at a lower flow beats a mesh filter at a higher flow is a mechanistically sound claim that follows from the filter geometry, and it is also a claim that survives contact with procurement because it is cheaper to build. Claims that require a commissioning result to demonstrate are worth asking for in writing before they are relied on.

For the standards framework, the design basis for commercial kitchen exhaust in North America and Europe is well established and the organisations that publish it are reachable: NFPA publishes the fire protection standard for commercial cooking operations, UL publishes the exhaust hood and duct standard used in the United States and Canada, and ASHRAE publishes the ventilation design guidance that those systems are built on. In Europe the corresponding exhaust hood standard is the one referenced for commercial kitchen installations, and certification for the North American market is issued by Intertek as well as by UL, with both accepted by fire departments and building inspectors. Definitional background on hood types and ducted versus recirculating arrangements is on the range hood reference page.

Where Jilu commercial hoods sit in this framework

Our own commercial under-cabinet line is specified against the same variables described above, and the digital control panel commercial hood product page publishes the physical envelope: hood widths of 24, 30 and 36 inches, with a 22 inch depth and a 10 inch height at every width, a copper motor, and voltage options of 120V 60Hz or 220V 50Hz. A 24 inch deep hood matches standard 24 inch deep upper cabinetry, which is a geometry decision made at the drawing stage rather than at the order stage, and it is the dimension that determines whether the capture zone is actually usable.

That line also publishes a filtration capture figure of 90 % or greater for grease and fume capture, tool-free removable filter media, and a stated capability for 12 hours of daily continuous operation in high-heat and humid kitchens. A higher-capacity commercial variant is documented on the stainless steel commercial kitchen exhaust hood with high efficiency and safety page, and the digital-control commercial grade variant on the commercial grade under-cabinet hood with digital control page. The tool-free filter detail matters to this article’s argument more than it first appears: a filter that is removed without tools gets cleaned on a schedule rather than when somebody finds time, and a filter that gets cleaned retains the efficiency it was purchased with. The wider product range sits in the commercial range hoods catalogue, the private-label programme runs through the OEM under-cabinet range hood A13 line, and the full products index covers the range beyond hoods.

The point of describing our own product last is deliberate. The five-step audit and the two-stage model above are what determine whether any hood performs, and they are worth applying to a Jilu hood exactly as we apply them to a competitor’s.

Specifying a commercial hood that actually captures

Specifying a commercial range hood and tired of getting a CFM number back instead of an engineering answer? The commercial range hoods catalogue carries the full under-cabinet, wall-mount, island and insert range, the digital control panel commercial hood page publishes the 24, 30 and 36 inch widths at 22 inch depth with copper motor and 120V/220V options, and why CFM ratings alone are not enough sets out the filter efficiency bands this article builds on. Mr. Zheng and the Jilu engineering team return a two-stage capture assessment for your cooking line, a mounting-height and overhang check against your actual ceiling, a make-up air arrangement proposal, and a commissioning capture-velocity target — within one business day of the request-for-quotation.

FAQQ1: Is capture efficiency the same as filtration efficiency?

A1: No, and conflating them is the root of the CFM confusion. Filtration efficiency is the fraction of grease the filter media retains, which is a property of the filter and is what our published 40-50 %, 65-75 % and 80-85 % bands describe. Capture efficiency is the fraction of what was generated that the system actually retains end to end, which depends on the plume reaching the hood as well as on the filter. Because the two happen in sequence, they multiply. A filter cannot retain contaminant that never arrived, and raising airflow does not change either multiplier.

Q2: If I already know my CFM, what else do I need?

A2: Four installation and geometry variables, which is what the published literature says determines effectiveness alongside fan flow rate. You need the hood mounting height above the cooking surface and the ceiling height it has to fit under. You need the overhang or projection of the lip beyond the heat source. You need the hood capture volume relative to the number and size of cooking stations it serves. And you need the air balance condition during service, meaning door positions, supply air direction and whether make-up air is provided. None of these are on a CFM line and all of them cap your achievable result.

Q3: Does a bigger hood always capture more?

A3: No, and this is where the intuitive answer breaks. What matters is the relationship between the opening and the heat source, plus the distance between them, not the absolute size of the unit. A hood oversized for the equipment but mounted high, or a hood sized to the cabinet run rather than to the cooking line, can perform worse than a smaller hood correctly proportioned and correctly mounted. Overhang in particular is a drawing dimension that improves capture and appears on almost no spec sheet.

Q4: What is cross-draft and how much does it matter?

A4: Cross-draft is air movement across the top of the plume, typically from air conditioning, an open door or an unbalanced room, and it shears the rising column sideways so part of it escapes the opening instead of being drawn in. Published work states that hood efficiency depends primarily on cooking temperature and exhaust airflow rate but can be affected by crossflows, and that combining a hood with an open window must account for the detriment to capture compared with a fully controlled make-up air supply. The remedy is integrated make-up air, not simply closing the opening and starving the room.

Q5: Why is a high-efficiency baffle filter specified at lower CFM than a mesh filter?

A5: Because the two losses trade against each other rather than scaling together. Our published bands show the mesh configuration needing the highest airflow, at 1,200 CFM or more, while retaining only 40-50 % of grease, and the high-efficiency baffle configuration needing the lowest airflow, at 700-900 CFM, while retaining 80-85 %. Channel gap width is the design variable that couples them: narrower gaps capture more grease but restrict airflow, so the filter and the airflow requirement must be engineered as a pair rather than chosen independently.

Q6: What should I ask a supplier about the control panel?

A6: Ask what the controls actually do when demand changes, not what features they have. The functions worth specifying are variable-speed modulation so airflow tracks cooking intensity rather than cycling between fixed speeds, a delay-off timer that runs the hood after the cooktop is switched off to clear residual vapour before it settles in the ductwork, and a filter-resistance indication that alerts staff on actual airflow resistance rather than on a calendar reminder. Also ask how the control is integrated with make-up air, because that is where the cross-draft problem gets solved.

Q7: How do I know if my existing hood is the problem or the room is?

A7: Run the audit in cost order, because the first four steps are free and reversible. Measure capture-point velocity rather than trusting fan data, and map how many hoods serve how many cooking stations, since a single hood over several stations is a coverage defect. Then observe the air balance during actual service with doors and air conditioning running, which is when cross-draft becomes visible. Then verify the installed filter type against specification and inspect the filters. Only after those four should you look at controls or airflow capacity, and only then is the diagnosis about the machine.

Q8: Is a dishwasher-safe baffle filter worth specifying?

A8: It is worth specifying for a reason that connects directly to capture efficiency rather than to convenience. Filter efficiency is a laboratory figure, and the efficiency a kitchen actually experiences declines as grease accumulates on the media and raises pressure drop. Filters that can be removed without tools and cleaned in a dishwasher get cleaned on a schedule, which is what keeps the installed performance close to the specified performance. A filter that is nominally cleanable but awkward to remove will be cleaned on someone else’s schedule.

Q9: What certification should a commercial hood carry?

A9: Certification confirms minimum safety and fire-hazard compliance, not performance. In the United States and Canada the relevant published standards are the exhaust hood and duct standard issued by UL, and the fire protection standard for commercial cooking operations issued by NFPA, with design guidance from ASHRAE; in Europe the corresponding exhaust hood standard applies. A certification letter from a recognised laboratory, issued by either UL or Intertek, establishes compliance with the safety standard, but it does not tell you the filter retains its efficiency after service, that the control board survives a hot and humid kitchen, or that the motor is rated for long continuous duty. Ask for those separately.

Q10: Why do published efficiency figures from different suppliers not agree?

A10: Usually because they are measuring different things. A filtration band describes one filter in laboratory conditions. A capture figure may describe the filter, the hood, or the whole system in a test kitchen, and the difference between those is exactly the geometric variables this article is about. Test method, cooking load, mounting height and service state all move the number. The way to compare two suppliers is to fix the conditions yourself, which is why an RFQ that asks for mounting height, overhang, capture-point velocity and make-up air produces comparable answers, and one that asks for CFM does not. ## About the Author Mr. Zheng is the Technical Director at Jilu Kitchen. He has spent more than 30 years working on kitchen ventilation, stainless steel fabrication, and performance-focused exhaust solutions for demanding cooking environments. His practical experience covers airflow design, durability planning, and the details that make outdoor BBQ hoods last in real-world conditions. Mr. Zheng writes about the engineering that determines whether a hood performs in a real kitchen: capture geometry, filter media, air balance, and the durability decisions that keep a system in service. He is the author of this article. The equipment discussed here is documented on the commercial range hoods product catalogue and on the commercial kitchen hood with digital control panel product page, with the underlying capture-efficiency reasoning set out in the under-cabinet hood capture efficiency article. Follow the engineering work on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram.

Detail reference: Jilu digital control panel — the controls that integrate variable-speed modulation, delay-off timing and filter-resistance indication with the make-up air arrangement that resolves cross-draft. Sourced from the Jilu commercial kitchen hood with digital control panel product page.Mr. ZhengTechnical Director

Mr. Zheng has spent more than 30 years working on kitchen ventilation, stainless steel fabrication, and performance-focused exhaust solutions for demanding cooking environments. His practical experience covers airflow design, durability planning, and the details that make outdoor BBQ hoods last in real-world conditions. Experience: 30+ years in kitchen ventilation, stainless steel fabrication, airflow design, durability planning, and commercial exhaust solutions.

Mr. Zheng on YouTube · LU JI on Facebook · Jilu Kitchen on Instagram

About us

Shengzhou Jilu Ventilation Equipment Co., Ltd. was established in January 1996, marking the beginning of a 30-year journey as a professional and experienced manufacturer specializing in range hoods, as well as gas stoves and disinfection cabinets.

Media Contact
Company Name: SHENGZHOU JILU VENTILATION EQUIPMENT CO., LTD.
Contact Person: Media Relations
Email: Send Email
Country: China
Website: https://www.jilukitchen.com/