Air filters are designed to remove
particulate pollutants from indoor air. Their performance depends not only on
the airflow rate through the filter media and the filter efficiency, but also
on factors such as the:
·
Particle size and mass.
·
Amount of dust on the air filter.
·
Airflow rate, velocity, path, and
resistance through the filter media.
·
Mixing of air leaving the filter with the
air in the room.
·
Leakage rate of air that bypasses the air
filter.
Types of Particle-Removal Air Filters
Two general types of particle removal
air-cleaning devices are available: mechanical air filters and electronic air
cleaners. They are classified by the method employed to remove particles of
various sizes from the air.
Mechanical air filters
installed in a central HVAC system or in a portable air cleaner capture
particles on filter media. Particles either become trapped in the fibers of the
filter or stick to the filter because of an electrostatic charge. Mechanical
air filters come in two major types: flat and pleated.
Flat or panel filters
generally consist of coarse glass fibers, coated animal hair, vegetable fibers,
synthetic fibers (such as polyester or nylon), synthetic foams, metallic wools,
or expanded metals and foils. The filter media may be treated with a viscous
substance, such as oil, that causes particles to stick to the fibers. Flat
filters also may be made of three types of permanently electrostatically
charged material: resin wool, a plastic film or fiber called “electret,” or an
electrostatically sprayed polymer. Their static charge attracts and captures
particles. The fibers of electret filters are somewhat larger than the fibers
of other flat filters, resulting in relatively low pressure drop and greater
efficiency in filtering smaller particles. The efficiency of electret filters
decreases as the media become loaded with particles.
Pleated or extended surface filters
are generally more efficient than flat filters in capturing respirable
particles. Pleating the filter medium increases surface area, reduces air
velocity, and allows the use of smaller fibers and increased packing density of
the filter without a large drop in airflow rate. A wire frame in the form of a
pocket or V-shaped cardboard separators may be used to maintain the pleat spacing.
The media used in pleated filters are fiber mats, bonded glass fibers,
synthetic fibers, cellulose fibers, wool felt, and other cotton-polyester
material blends.
High efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters are a type of extended surface filter. HEPA filters usually are made of
submicron glass fibers and have a texture similar to blotter paper. They also
have a larger surface area and remove respirable particles more efficiently
than pleated filters.
Electronic air cleaners
use a process called electrostatic attraction to trap charged particles. There
are two types of electronic air cleaners: electrostatic precipitators and ion
generators.
Electrostatic precipitators have an
ionization section and a collecting plate section, both of which use an external
power source. The air cleaner draws air through the ionization section, where
particles obtain an electrical charge. The charged particles accumulate on a
series of flat plates called a collector that is oppositely charged. Cleaning
the collector plates is essential to maintaining adequate performance.
Ion generators, or ionizers, disperse
charged ions into the air, similar to an electrostatic precipitator, but
ionizers do not have collecting plates. They produce ions by means of corona
discharge or UV light. The ions attach to particles and give them a charge so
they adhere to nearby surfaces such as walls, furniture, and draperies, or
combine with other particles and settle on room surfaces. Ion generators are
the simplest form of electronic air cleaner and come in tabletop, portable, and
ceiling mounted units.
Like mechanical filters, electronic air
cleaners can be installed in HVAC systems or used in portable units. Although
electronic air cleaners remove small particles, they do not remove gases or odors.
And because electronic air cleaners use high voltage to generate ionized
fields, they can produce ozone, either as a by-product or by design.8
Residential indoor ozone concentrations may be affected by the amount of ozone
emitted by electronic air cleaners, which varies among models. Even at
concentrations below public health standards, ozone reacts with chemicals
emitted by such common indoor sources as household cleaning products, air fresheners,
deodorizers, certain paints, polishes, wood flooring, carpets, and linoleum.
The chemical reactions produce harmful by-products that may be associated with
adverse health effects in some sensitive populations. The ozone reaction
by-products that may result include ultrafine particles (smaller than 0.1 µm in
diameter), formaldehyde, ketones, and organic acids.8,
9,
10
Concerns about ozone and ozone-generating devices are discussed in the EPA
document "Ozone Generators that are Sold as Air Cleaners," posted on
the EPA Website at www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html.
Defining Efficiency and Effectiveness
To choose air-cleaning devices and use them
properly, it is important to understand the difference between efficiency and
effectiveness. The efficiency of an air-cleaning device, usually expressed as a
percentage, is a measure of its ability to remove airborne particles or gaseous
pollutants from the air that passes through it. The effectiveness of an
air-cleaning device is a measure of its ability to reduce airborne particle or
gaseous pollutant concentrations in an occupied space.
The efficiency of air filters used in ducts
of HVAC systems or in portable air cleaners varies based on the airflow rate
and the particulate matter load. The effectiveness of an air-cleaning device in
removing pollutants from an occupied space depends on three factors: its
efficiency, the amount of air being filtered, and the path that the clean air
follows after it leaves the filter. For example, a filter may remove 99 percent
of the particles from the air that passes through it (i.e., have 99 percent
efficiency). However, if the airflow rate through the filter is only 10 cubic
feet per minute (cfm) in a typical room of approximately 1,000 cubic feet
(e.g., 10’ x 12’ x 8’), the filter will be relatively ineffective at removing
particles from the air (i.e., 10 times less effective than if the airflow rate
were 100 cfm).
Higher efficiency filters remove larger and
smaller airborne particles more efficiently. Homeowners should take care to
properly install them in HVAC systems and make sure that leakage of air
bypassing the filter is minimized. The higher a filter’s efficiency, the more
attention must be paid to its sealed installation because increased airflow
resistance is more likely to create leaks. Air filter effectiveness may be
substantially reduced if air leaks through a poorly installed filter frame and
its holding system.11,
12
Leakage of air bypassing a HEPA filter used in a portable, stand-alone unit may
also reduce the filter’s expected efficiency. Effectiveness may be decreased if
air exiting an exhaust grille of the HVAC system is not well mixed with room
air before re-entering the system. This situation can occur if air return and
intake vents are too close together.
Air Filters - Available Guidance for Their
Comparison
Several standardized methods have been
developed to measure the efficiency of different types of air filters installed
in the ductwork of HVAC systems. They can be used to compare the performance of
air filters made by different companies. The American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Institute of
Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST) have published voluntary standards
for rating air filters. The IEST is now the recognized standard-setting
organization for the former Military Standard 282 developed by the U.S
Department of Defense for rating HEPA filters. The standards do not rate the
air filters’ effectiveness; rather, they compare the performance of various
filters.
Particle removal efficiency can be assessed
by four standard methods: the weight arrestance test, atmospheric dust spot
efficiency test, dioctyl phthalate (DOP) penetration test, and particle size
removal efficiency (PSE) test.
* ASHRAE Standard 52.1.2992, Gravimetric
and Dust-Spot Procedures for Method of Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in
General Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter was withdrawn in Spring
2009. Information previously found in this standard is now included via
Addendum B to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2, Method of Testing General
Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size.
The addendum mandates calculation of weight arrestance for filters with Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Values (MERVs) of 1 to 4 and atmospheric dust spot
efficiency for filters with MERVs of 5 to 6.
The weight arrestance test,13
defined in ASHRAE Standard 52.1-1992,*
is generally used to evaluate low efficiency filters designed to remove the
largest and heaviest particles. These filters are commonly used in residential
furnaces and air-conditioning systems to protect system components, or as
upstream filters to protect higher efficiency filters. In this test, a
synthetic dust is fed into the air cleaner and the percentage by weight of the
dust the filter traps, called “arrestance,” is determined. The weight
arrestance test may be of limited value in assessing the removal of smaller,
respirable particles because particles in the test dust are generally larger
than those that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs.
The atmospheric dust spot efficiency
test,13 also defined in ASHRAE Standard
52.1-1992,*
is generally used to rate medium-efficiency filters in removing fine airborne
dust particles that can soil walls and other interior surfaces. A naturally
occurring atmospheric dust is fed into the air cleaner to test its ability to
reduce soiling of a clean paper target as an indication of the cleaner’s
capability to remove fine particles from the air.
The DOP penetration test,14
described in the IEST-RP CC001.4 test method, is used to rate true HEPA
filters. A DOP cloud of uniform 0.3 µm particles is fed into the filter. The
concentration of penetrating smoke measured upstream and downstream of the
filter determines the filter efficiency, or the percentage of particles the
filter removes.
The PSE test,15
described in ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2007, provides a composite minimum efficiency
for removing particles of specific size by filters incrementally loaded with
synthetic dust. The PSE test method does not eliminate the need for DOP
penetration and arrestance testing. Very low-efficiency air filters, such as
furnace filters, must also be tested in accordance with the weight arrestance
method. The composite minimum efficiency values are averaged and used to
determine the air cleaner’s minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV). The MERV
ranges from a low of 1 to a high of 20. The PSE test may not be appropriate for
evaluating electronic air cleaners because the dust used contains conductive
carbon, which may cause electrical shorting and thus compromise the
effectiveness of these devices and alter their MERV. The dust-loading procedure
may also affect the efficiency of electrostatically charged filters.
A cross-reference of atmospheric dust spot
efficiency tests to the MERV is shown in Table
2.
This table shows the minimum PSE in three size ranges for each MERV. A consumer
can use the table to identify the MERV required to control a specific
pollutant. While these standards cannot by themselves predict the actual
effectiveness of any filter over its lifetime, they can generally be used to
compare the performance characteristics of one air filter with another.
| Table 2:
Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) Parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ASHRAE Standard 52.2 |
ASHRAE
Standard 52.1 |
Application
Guidelines |
| MERV |
Particle
Size Removal Efficiency, Percent in Particle Size Range, μm |
Dust-Spot
Efficiency Percent |
Particle
Size and Typical Controlled Contaminant |
Typical
Applications |
Typical
Air Filter/Cleaner Type |
| 0.3 to 1 |
1
to 3 |
3
to 10 |
| 20 |
≥ 99.999 |
in 0.1 - 0.2
μm particle size |
- |
<
0.3 μm |
Electronics
manufacturing |
HEPA/ULPA Filters* |
| Virus (un attached) |
Pharmaceutical
manufacturing |
| 19 |
≥
99.999 |
in 0.3
μm particle size |
- |
Carbon
Dust |
Carcinogenic
materials |
| 18 |
≥
99.99 |
in 0.3
μm particle size |
- |
Sea
Salt |
|
| 17 |
≥
99.97 |
in 0.3
μm particle size |
- |
All
combustion smoke |
|
| 16 |
> 95 |
> 95 |
> 95 |
- |
0.3-1
μm |
Superior
commercial buildings |
Bag Filters
- Non supported (flexible) microfine fiberglass or synthetic media, 12 to 36
inches deep. |
| All bacteria |
Hospital
inpatient care |
|
| Droplet nuclei (sneeze) |
General
surgery |
Box filters
- Rigid style cartridge, 6 to 12 inches deep. |
| Cooking oil |
|
|
| Most smoke |
|
|
| 15 |
85-95 |
>
90 |
>
90 |
>
95 |
Insecticide
dust |
|
|
| 14 |
75-85 |
>
90 |
>
90 |
90-95 |
Most
face powder |
|
|
| 13 |
<
75 |
>
90 |
>
90 |
80-90 |
Most
paint pigments |
|
|
| 12 |
- |
> 80 |
> 90 |
70-75 |
1-3
μm |
Superior
residential |
Pleated filters - Extended surface with cotton or polyester media or both, 1
to 6 inches thick. |
| Legionella |
Better
commercial buildings |
|
| Humidifier dust |
Hospital
laboratories |
Box Filters
- Rigid style cartridge, 6 to 12 inches deep. |
| Lead dust |
|
|
| 11 |
- |
65-80 |
>
85 |
60-65 |
Milled
Flour |
|
|
| 10 |
- |
50-65 |
>
85 |
50-55 |
Auto
emission particles |
|
|
| 9 |
- |
<
50 |
>
85 |
40-45 |
Nebulizer
drops |
|
|
| 8 |
- |
- |
> 70 |
30-35 |
3-10
μm |
Better
residential |
Pleated filters - Extended surface with cotton or polyester media or both, 1
to 6 inches thick |
| Mold |
Commercial
buildings |
|
| Spores |
Industrial
workspaces |
Cartridge filters - Viscous cube or pocket filters |
| Dust mite body parts and droppings |
|
|
| Cat and dog dander |
|
Throwaway -
Synthetic media panel filters |
| Hair spray |
|
|
| 7 |
- |
- |
50-70 |
25-30 |
Fabric
protector |
|
|
| 6** |
- |
- |
35-50 |
<
20 |
Dusting
aids |
|
|
| 5 |
- |
- |
20-35 |
<
20 |
Pudding
mix |
|
|
| 4 |
- |
- |
< 20 |
<
20 |
>
10 μm |
Minimum
filtration |
Throwaway -
Fiberglass or synthetic media panel, 1 inch thick |
| Pollen |
Residential
window air conditioners |
|
| Dust mites |
|
Washable -
Aluminum mesh, foam rubber panel |
| Cockroach body parts and droppings |
|
|
| Spanish moss |
|
Electrostatic
- Self-charging (passive) woven polycarbonate panel |
| Sanding dust |
|
|
| 3 |
- |
- |
<
20 |
<
20 |
Spray
paint dust |
|
|
| 2 |
- |
- |
<
20 |
<
20 |
Textile
fibers |
|
|
| 1 |
- |
- |
<
20 |
<
20 |
Carpet
fibers |
|
|
| This table is adapted from ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2007.15 |
|
|
|
* The
last four MERV values of 17 to 20 are not part of the official standard test6,
but have been added by ASHRAE for comparison purposes. Ultra Low Penetration
Air Filters (ULPA) have a minimum efficiency of 99.999 percent in removing 0.3
μm particles, based on the IEST test method. MERVs between 17 and 19 are rated
for 0.3 μm particles, whereas a MERV of 20 is rated for 0.1 to 0.2 μm
particles.
** For residential applications, the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2-200716 requires a filter with a designated minimum
efficiency of MERV 6 or better.