Split System Retrofit With Mixed Refrigerant Charge
A technician is called to a 12-year-old 5 kW split air-conditioning unit in a small office. The nameplate is faded but the service log indicates the original charge was R-22. The unit is running with a low suction pressure and frost at the evaporator inlet. A gauge manifold set reads 4.2 bar on the low side and 18.5 bar on the high side with an ambient of 32 C. The technician suspects a partial charge loss and also notices the system has a top-up port fitted by a previous contractor. The customer asks whether the unit can simply be topped up with a readily available HFC blend, because the office cannot close for a day. The technician has a recovery cylinder, a recovery machine, and a leak detector on the van, but no R-22 supply. Local rules require that ozone-depleting substances be recovered and not vented.
1. Identify the compliance issue with the proposed top-up and explain what the technician must do before any refrigerant is added.
Read the worked answer
The proposed top-up is a compliance problem on two counts. First, R-22 is an ozone-depleting substance, so any refrigerant removed from the circuit must be recovered into a suitable cylinder and not vented; opening the system for a top-up creates that obligation. Second, adding a different refrigerant to an existing R-22 charge creates a mixed, unidentified charge. The blend cannot be reclaimed to a specification, and the resulting mixture has unknown pressure-temperature behaviour, so the technician can no longer diagnose the low suction pressure reliably.
Before adding anything, the technician must establish what is actually in the system. The service log is evidence but not proof, because the top-up port shows a previous contractor may have already added something. The correct sequence is to leak-test the circuit, recover the existing charge into a dedicated cylinder, weigh and record what comes out, and confirm the refrigerant identity (for example with a refrigerant identifier). Only then can the technician decide whether to repair the leak and recharge with the original refrigerant, or propose a retrofit. The customer's downtime concern does not override the recovery and identification steps.
2. The technician finds a leak at a flare joint and repairs it. The recovered charge weighs 1.1 kg, while the nameplate (where legible) suggests 1.4 kg. Explain how the technician should interpret this discrepancy and what it implies for the diagnosis.
Read the worked answer
The 0.3 kg shortfall is consistent with the leak at the flare joint, but the technician should not treat the nameplate figure as exact. Nameplate charges are nominal, and pipe runs, added line length, and any previous top-ups change the true charge. The more useful comparison is between the recovered mass and the expected charge for this specific installation, adjusted for the actual line length.
The discrepancy supports the leak diagnosis but does not by itself explain the low suction pressure. A 0.3 kg loss on a 1.4 kg system is roughly 20 percent, which is enough to cause reduced subcooling and low suction pressure, and it fits the frost at the evaporator inlet. However, the technician should also check for a restriction, because frost at the inlet can indicate a starving evaporator rather than just a low charge. After the repair, the correct action is to evacuate to a measured vacuum, confirm it holds, and recharge by weight to the corrected figure, then verify superheat and subcooling against the manufacturer's data.
3. The customer insists on a same-day fix and asks whether the recovered R-22 can be put back into the unit. Give the technician's decision and the conditions under which reusing the recovered charge is acceptable.
Read the worked answer
Reusing the recovered R-22 is acceptable in principle, but only under conditions. The recovered refrigerant must be shown to be the same substance that was in the system, with no evidence of contamination from a previous top-up with a different refrigerant or from air and moisture ingress. If the identifier shows a mixture, the charge must be sent for reclamation or destruction and must not be returned to the unit.
If the identity is confirmed, the technician can recharge with the recovered gas after the leak repair, provided the recovered amount plus any make-up matches the corrected charge weight. The technician should also confirm the recovered gas was collected into a clean, dedicated cylinder and that non-condensables were not drawn in during recovery. The same-day fix is therefore possible, but the decision rests on the identification result, not on the customer's schedule. If identification cannot be completed on site, the unit stays offline until it can be, and the technician should explain that returning an unidentified mixture would risk the compressor and breach the recovery obligation.