Development of Performance Data for Common Building Air Cleaning Devices


$EPA
    United States
    Environmental Protection
    Agency
    Office of Research and Development
    National Homeland Security Research Ce

-------

-------
                                  EPA/600/R-08/013 December 2008 www.epa.gov/ord
FINAL REPORT ON
Development  of Performance  Data  for
Common  Building Air Cleaning Devices
Contract No. GS-10F-0275K
Task Order 1105
Prepared for
Joseph Wood and Les Sparks, Project Officers
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development/National Homeland Security Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC


Prepared by
Richard Hecker  (614) 424-7955
Kent C. Hofacre (614) 424-5639
 "WARNING - This document may contain technical data whose export is restricted
 by U.S. law. Violators of export control laws may be subject to severe legal penalties.
 Do not disseminate this document outside the United States or disclose its contents to
 non-U.S. persons except in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and after
 obtaining any required authorizations."
BATTELLE COLUMBUS OPERATIONS
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201

-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development funded
this research. It has been subject to an administrative review but does not necessarily reflect the views
of the Agency. No official endorsement should be inferred. EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale
of any commercial products or services.

-------
                                                                     Table  of  Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS	xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION	1
2.0 AIR CLEANER DEVICE SELECTION	3
     2.1 Filter Selection	3
     2.2 Electronic Air Cleaner Selection	7
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS	9
     3.1 Inert Aerosol Tests	9
        3.1.1  Inert Aerosol Test Method	9
        3.1.2  Inert Aerosol Data Analysis	10
     3.2 Bioaerosol Tests	10
        3.2.1  Bioaerosol Test Method	11
        3.2.2  Bioaerosol Data Analysis	12
     3.3 Aging of Air Cleaners for In-Use Tests	13
        3.3.1  Aging of Filters	13
        3.3.2  Aging of Electronic Air Cleaners	14
     3.4 Conditioning of Electrostatic Filters	14
     3.5 Conditioning of Electronic Air Cleaners Using Silicon Vapor	15
4.0 TEST RESULTS	17
     4.1 Unaged — "Off-the-Shelf" — Inert Aerosol Evaluations	17
        4.1.1  Unaged Filters	17
        4.1.2  Unaged Electronic Air Cleaners	30
     4.2 Bioaerosol Penetration	32
     4.3 Results from the Aging Evaluations	39
        4.3.1  Aging Evaluations - Filters	39
        4.3.2  Aging Evaluations - Electronic Air Cleaners	50
     4.4 Results from the Conditioning Evaluations	55
        4.4.1  Results from the Conditioning Evaluations - Filters	55
        4.4.2  Results from the Conditioning Evaluations - Electronic Air Cleaners	64
     4.5 Quality Assurance	67
5.0 CURVE FITTING TO THE "OFF-THE-SHELF "AIR CLEANER RESULTS	69
     5.1 Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Filter Evaluations	69
     5.2 Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Electronic Air Cleaner Evaluations	75
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	77
     6.1 Results from Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Filters	77
     6.2 Results from Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Electronic Air Cleaners	78
     6.3 Results from Bioaerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Filters and Electronic Air Cleaners	78
     6.4 Results from Aging Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Filters	78
     6.5 Results from Aging Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Electronic Air Cleaners	79
     6.6 Results from Conditioning Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Filters	79
     6.7 Results from Conditioning Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Electronic Air Cleaners	80
     6.8 Recommendations	80
7.0 REFERENCES	83
APPENDIX A:  SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FROM THE INERT AEROSOL TESTS	A-l

-------
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FROM THE BIOAEROSOL TESTS	B-l
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AGING OF FILTERS DURING THE IN-USE TESTS	C-l
APPENDIX D: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VARIOUS TEST SYSTEMS UTILIZED DURING INERT
           AEROSOL TESTING, BIOAEROSOL TESTING, AGING OF ELECTRONIC AIR CLEANERS,
           AND EXPOSURE OF ELECTRONIC AIR CLEANERS	D-l
APPENDIX E: RESULTS FROM THE INERT AEROSOL EVALUATIONS OF "OFF-THE-SHELF "
           AIR CLEANERS	E-l
APPENDIX F: RESULTS FROM THE BIOAEROSOL EVALUATIONS OF "OFF-THE-SHELF"
           AIR CLEANERS	F-l
APPENDIX G: RESULTS FROM THE INERT AEROSOL EVALUATIONS OF THE
           AGED AIR CLEANERS	G-l
APPENDIX H: RESULTS FROM THE INERT AEROSOL EVALUATIONS OF THE CONDITIONED
           AIR CLEANERS	H-l
APPENDIX I: QUALITY ASSURANCE	1-1

-------
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Test Matrix for Filter Evaluation 3
Table 2-2. Approximate Shares of the U.S. Air Filter Market (Mcllvaine, 2002) 4
Table 2-3. Evaluated Residential Filters 5
Table 2-4. Evaluated Commercial Filters 6
Table 2-5. Recommended Test Matrix for Electronic Air Cleaner Evaluations from the Statement of Work 7
Table 2-6. Evaluated Electronic Air Cleaners 7
Table 4-1. Results from the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Residential Filters 18
Table 4-2. Results from the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Commercial Filters 19
Table 4-3. Results from the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Electronic Air Cleaners 31
Table 4-4. Summary of the Results from the Bioaerosol Evaluations 33
Table 4-5. Summary of the Results from the Filter Aging Evaluations 40
Table 4-6. Summary of the Results from the Electronic Air Cleaner Aging Evaluations 51
Table 4-7. Summary of the Results from the Filter Conditioning Evaluations 56
Table 4-8. Summary of the Results from the Silicon Vapor Exposures of the Electronic Air Cleaners 65
Table 5-1. Summary of the Results from the Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of Unaged
Unconditioned Air Filters 70
Table 5-2. Summary of the Results from the Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of Unaged
Unconditioned Electronic Air Cleaners 75
Table 6-1. Summary of the Results from the Inert Aerosol Evaluations and Curve Fits of Unaged
Unconditioned Air Filters 78
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. EAC Air Filtration Mechanism 7
Figure 3-1. Aerosol Sampling Instruments, TSI SMPS (left) and Climet CI-500 (right) 9
Figure 3-2. Schematic of the Bioaerosol Test Rig 11
Figure 4-1. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 5 Filters 21
Figure 4-2. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 5 Filters 21
Figure 4-3. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 6 Filters 22
Figure 4-4. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 6 Filters 22
Figure 4-5. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 7 Filters 23
Figure 4-6. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 7 Filters 23
Figure 4-7. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 8 Filters 24
Figure 4-8. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 8 Filters 24
Figure 4-9. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 10 Filters 25
Figure 4-10. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 10 Filters 25
Figure 4-11. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 12 Filters 26
Figure 4-12. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 12 Filters 26
Figure 4-13. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 14 Filters 27
Figure 4-14. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 14 Filters 27
Figure 4-15. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 16 Filters 28
Figure 4-16. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 16 Filters 28
Figure 4-17. Measured Collection Efficiency of Unaged MERV 16+ (HEPA) Filter 29
Figure 4-18. Measured Pressure Drop of Unaged MERV 16+ (HEPA) Filter 29
Figure 4-19. Measured Collection Efficiency of Unaged Electronic Air Cleaners 30
Figure 4-20. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged Electronic Air Cleaners 32
Figure 4-21. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter 2NS-8-1 34
Figure 4-22. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter 4FUA-12-1 34
Figure 4-23. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter 8NM-10-1 35

-------
List of Figures
Figure 4-24. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter 6DDUE-8-12 35
Figure 4-25. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Electronic Air Cleaner A 36
Figure 4-26. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Electronic Air Cleaner H 36
Figure 4-27. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Electronic Air Cleaner P 37
Figure 4-28. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter C15AAA-11-BIO 37
Figure 4-29. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter C17FPP-8-BIO 38
Figure 4-30. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
Measurements for Filter C11GM-16-BIO 38
Figure 4-31. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8 During the Aging Evaluations 43
Figure 4-32. Measured Pressure Drop of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8 During the Aging Evaluations 43
Figure 4-33. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 8NM-10 During the Aging Evaluations 44
Figure 4-34. Measured Pressure Drop of Residential Filter 8NM-10 During the Aging Evaluations 44
Figure 4-35. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C17FPP-8 During the Aging Evaluations 45
Figure 4-36. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C17FPP-8 During the Aging Evaluations 45
Figure 4-37. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C15AAA-11 During the Aging Evaluations 46
Figure 4-38. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C15AAA-11 During the Aging Evaluations 46
Figure 4-39. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C8GZ-13 During the Aging Evaluations 47
Figure 4-40. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C8GZ-13 During the Aging Evaluations 47
Figure 4-41. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C14PCS During the Aging Evaluations 48
Figure 4-42. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C14PCS During the Aging Evaluations 48
Figure 4-43. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C11GM-16 During the Aging Evaluations 49
Figure 4-44. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C11GM-16 During the Aging Evaluations 49
Figure 4-45. Measured Collection Efficiency of Electronic Air Cleaner A During the Aging Evaluations 52
Figure 4-46. Measured Pressure Drop of Electronic Air Cleaner A During the Aging Evaluations 52
Figure 4-47. Measured Collection Efficiency of Electronic Air Cleaner H During the Aging Evaluations 53
Figure 4-48. Measured Pressure Drop of Electronic Air Cleaner H During the Aging Evaluations 53
Figure 4-49. Measured Collection Efficiency of Electronic Air Cleaner P During the Aging Evaluations 54
Figure 4-50. Measured Pressure Drop of Electronic Air Cleaner P During the Aging Evaluations 54
Figure 4-51. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 6DDUE-8-11 During the Conditioning Evaluations 58
Figure 4-52. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8 During the Aging Evaluations 58
Figure 4-53. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 5RM-11-1 During the Conditioning Evaluations 59
Figure 4-54. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 4FUA-12-3 During the Conditioning Evaluations 59
Figure 4-55. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 7AST-8-3 During the Conditioning Evaluations 60
Figure 4-56. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 8NM-10-11 During the Conditioning Evaluations 60
Figure 4-57. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 8NM-10 During the Aging Evaluations 61
Figure 4-58. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter C15AAA-11 During the Conditioning Evaluations 61
Figure 4-59. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C15AAA-11 During the Aging Evaluations 62
Figure 4-60. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter C17FPP-8 During the Conditioning Evaluations 62
Figure 4-61. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C17FPP-8 During the Aging Evaluations 63
Figure 4-62. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter C8GZ-13 During the Conditioning Evaluations 63
Figure 4-63. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C8GZ-13 During the Aging Evaluations 64
Figure 4-64. Measured Collection Efficiencies for Electronic Air Cleaner A Before and After Exposure
to Silicon Vapor 66
Figure 4-65. Measured Collection Efficiencies for Electronic Air Cleaner H Before and After Exposure
to Silicon Vapor 66
Figure 4-66. Measured Collection Efficiencies for Electronic Air Cleaner P Before and After Exposure
to Silicon Vapor 67

-------
                                                                             List  of  Figures
Figure 5-1.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Single Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 5 Filter	71
Figure 5 -2.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Two Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 6 Filters	71
Figure 5-3.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Six Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 7 Filters	72
Figure 5 -4.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Four Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 8 Filters	72
Figure 5-5.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Single Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 10 Filter	73
Figure 5-6.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Five Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 12 Filters	73
Figure 5-7.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Four Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 14 Filters	74
Figure 5 -8.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Three Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 16 Filters	74
Figure 5-9.  Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Single Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 16+ (HEPA) Filter	75
Figure 5-10. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Six Unaged, Unconditioned Electronic Air Cleaners	76

-------

-------
                                                                       List  of Acronyms
ANSI      American National Standards Institute
ASHRAE   American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
BG        Bacillus globigii
CB        chemical or biological
CDC       Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFM       cubic feet per minute
CPU       colony forming unit
COTR     Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
CT        time-integrated concentration (concentration*time)
CV        coefficient of variation
El         average efficiency for particles with physical diameters between 0.3 um and 1 um
E2         average efficiency for particles with physical diameters between 1 um and 3 um
E3         average efficiency for particles with physical diameters between 3 um and 10 um
EAC       electronic air cleaner
EPA       Environmental Protection Agency
ETV       Environmental Technology Verification
fpm       feet per minute
g          grams
HEPA      high efficiency paniculate air
HVAC     heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
in.         inches
in. w. g.     inches of water gauge
inHg       inches of mercury
KC1       potassium chloride
MERV     Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
NA        not available
OPC       optical particle counter
ORD       Office of Research and Development
PBS       phosphate-buffered saline
PSI        pounds per square inch
QA        quality assurance
QAPP      Test/Quality Assurance Project Plan
SMPS      Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer
SOP       standard operating procedure
SOW       statement of work
TSA       tryptic soy agar
um        micrometer

-------
 Executive  Summary
Recent events have shown that buildings are vulnerable
to terrorist attacks involving biological agents. The most
serious effects of such an attack are on the health of the
occupants of the buildings. Building occupants may suffer
health effects ranging from irritation to severe sickness to
death. An attack may also have long-term economic and
other impacts due to contamination of the building. Several
organizations, including the Army Corps of Engineers,
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recognize this
terrorist threat and have issued guidance documents on
how to deal with it. These documents, while useful, suffer
from the fact that the scientific, engineering, and economic
information needed to determine optimum courses of
action is inadequate. The tools and technologies required
to implement optimum courses of action are often not
available, are too expensive to use, or are  inadequate.
The work described in this document was performed  under a
broader project to investigate building air cleaning systems'
effectiveness in removing biologically active particles from
air. This report in particular describes the results of an effort
to collect performance data (pressure drop and collection
efficiency for biological and non-biological aerosols) on 24
commonly used ventilation filters and on 3 commercially
available electronic air cleaners (EACs). For both sets of
air cleaners, tests were performed with both "off-the-shelf"
units and with a selected subset of units aged in a typical or
simulated use environment to allow a better understanding of
how the units would likely perform over their entire service
lives. In addition, testing was performed on a select subset
of units against  a bioaerosol to demonstrate the similarity in
performance between inert and biological particles. Empirical
equations were developed that relate particle collection
efficiency to particle physical diameter over the range of
0.03 to 10 um. These equations can be incorporated into
indoor air quality models.
Results from Inert Aerosol Evaluations of
"Off-the-Shelf " Filters
The measured pressure drops of the "off-the-shelf" filters
generally corresponded quite well (± 30%) with the
information provided by the vendors, although, in a few
cases, the measured pressure drops were somewhat greater.
With the exception of several Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV)  11 filters, the MERV ratings that were
determined from the tests were generally equivalent or within
one or two MERV ratings reported by the manufacturer.
The testing during this study consisted of evaluating single
filters; therefore, the results may not be representative of
typical performance. (Note:  The ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999
standard does not provide any guidance as to the number of
samples of a filter type that should be tested to ensure that the
manufacturer-reported MERV rating provides a statistically
reasonable representation of their performance.)
For the filters tested, which covered all of the MERV ratings,
collection efficiencies determined from measurements made
with the Climet model 500 Spectrometer optical particle
counter (OPC) (0.3 to 10 um) generally corresponded very
well with the collection efficiencies determined using the TSI
Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) (0.03 to 0.3 um).
The most penetrating particle size was consistently in the 0.1
to 0.3 um range, which is consistent with typical filtration
efficiency curves. Table ES-1 provides a summary of the
results from the inert aerosol evaluations of unconditioned,
unaged ("off-the-shelf") filters. As shown in Table ES-1,
the pressure drops of the filters between MERV 5 and 10 at
370 feet per minute (fpm) did not appear to be substantially
different, with a good deal of overlap between the average
pressure drops. However,  there was a significant increase in
pressure drops between the MERV 10 and MERV 12 filters,
between the MERV 14 and MERV 16 filters, and between
the MERV 16 filters and the HEPA (MERV >16) filter. As
expected, the collection efficiency of the filters generally
increased with MERV rating. Therefore, consumers of air
filters will need to balance the higher pressure drops and cost
of MERV 12 to  MERV 16 filters with the  expected increase
in performance.
Table ES-2 lists the results from the curve fitting analysis
(the development of equations to predict particle penetration
as a function of particle size, based on the experimental
data) for the "off-the-shelf" filters. As shown in Table
ES-2, all but one of the curve fits possessed correlation
coefficients (r squared) greater than 0.89,  indicating an
excellent representation of the data. The MERV 6 curve fit
possessed a lower correlation value of 0.83. In all cases,
it is not recommended that the equations be extrapolated
outside of the particle size range used (0.03 to 10 um). These
curve fits provide a valuable tool that will enable consumers
to accurately estimate the collection efficiency of a filter
with a given MERV rating to determine whether its likely
performance will justify its increased cost and pressure drop.

-------
Table ES-1. Summary of the Results from the Inert Aerosol Evaluations and Curve Fits of
            Unaged Unconditioned Air Filters
                                    Average              Predicted Collection Efficiencies from Curve Fits (%)
    MERV        Number of      Pressure Drop
    Rating       Filters Tested     (in. of water) at   Q.03 um    0.1 um    0.3 um     1.1 um    3.5 um    8.4 um
                                   370 fpm
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
16+(HEPA)
1
2
6
4
1
5
4
3
1
0.24
0.22 + 0.06
0.30 + 0.08
0.26 + 0.03
0.29
0.46a + 0.09
0.48b + 0.11
0.73 + 0.15
0.97
13
12
44
40
55
71
82
99
>99
0
6
13
20
37
47
59
95
>99
5
5
20
22
29
49
68
96
>99
24
16
47
52
53
78
93
99
>99
34
35
61
75
85
95
99
99
>99
34
53
65
86
97
99
99
99
>99
1 - neglecting electrostatic filter 4FUA-12-3, which had a pressure drop of only 0.13 inches of water
3 - neglecting filter C6-ADP-15-1, which was evaluated well above its nominal flow rate
Table ES-2. Summary of the Results from the Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of
            Unaged Unconditioned Air Filters
MERV Rating Equation Parameters Correlation Coefficient (r2)
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
16+ (HEPA)
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Ln Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3 + ex4
where Y = percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
a= 1.8906
b =-0.1722
c = 0.0307
d = 0.0793
a= 1.9311
b =-0.1441
c =-0.1243
d =-0.0234
a= 1.7467
b =-0.3314
c= -0.0036
d= 0.1381
a = 0.5839
b= 0.1675
c= 0.1289
d= 0.0188
a= 1.7083
b =-0.5759
c =-0.6721
d =-0.1775
a= 1.3943
b =-0.9080
c= -0.6240
d =-0.0404
a= 0.9531
b =-1.4941
c= -0.8443
d =-0.0013
a = 0.3855
b =-2. 0698
c = 0.5326
d= 1.3895
a= 0.0361
b =-0.3506
c= 0.5119
d = 0.0481
e =-0.1816
0.8935
0.8332
0.9064
0.9658
0.9852
0.9902
0.9668
0.9728
0.8917

-------
Table ES-3. Summary of the Results from the Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of Unaged
            Unconditioned Electronic Air Cleaners
MERV Rating Equation Parameters Correlation Coefficient (r2)
14 and 15 (all unaged
unconditioned EACs)
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
a= 0.8422
b= -0.6469
c =-0.2157
d= 0.1645
0.9600
Results from Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf"
Electronic Air Cleaners
The measured pressure drops of two of the three tested units
(A and P) corresponded well with the information provided
by the manufacturers, while the pressure drop for Unit H was
nearly double the expected value. The measured pressure
drops for the EACs averaged 0.14 + 0.03 inches of water at
370 feet per minute (fpm), which is approximately one-half
that of the average pressure drop for MERV 5 to 10 filters.
Given that the EACs possessed MERV ratings of 14 and 15,
at least initially, they appeared to offer considerably higher
collection efficiency than air filters for a given pressure
drop.  In terms of collection efficiency, the MERV ratings
that were determined from the tests ranged from one MERV
rating below to three MERV ratings above the manufacturer-
reported value. Note that the testing during this study
consisted of evaluating pairs of units; therefore, the results
may not be representative of typical performance.
As with the filters, collection efficiencies determined with
the OPC (0.3 to 10 um) generally corresponded very well
with the collection efficiencies determined using the SMPS
(0.03  to 0.3  um). A single curve was fit with an excellent
correlation (r squared value of 0.96) to all of the "off-the-
shelf" EAC results; the results are listed in Table ES-3.
This empirical model may be used for predicting the likely
collection efficiency of an electronic air cleaner with a
MERV rating of 14 or 15.
Results from Bioaerosol Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf"
Filters and Electronic Air Cleaners
A select group of filters (seven) and EACs (three) were
evaluated against a bioaerosol challenge. The purpose of
the bioaerosol tests was to compare the penetration of a
bioaerosol to the penetration of a similarly sized inert aerosol
to determine whether there were any significant differences
between the penetration of bioaerosol and inert particles.
Similar to previously reported results (RTI, 2004), in nine of
the ten tests, the measured bioaerosol collection efficiencies
generally exceeded the average collection efficiency for
inert particles with physical particle diameters between 0.3
and 1  um but were generally less than or equivalent to the
inert aerosol collection efficiency results for 1- to 3-um
particles. For the remaining filter (6DDUE-8, an EAC), only
a 6%  collection efficiency was measured but with a large
standard deviation. When the standard deviation is taken
into consideration, the test results are likely in reasonable
agreement. Overall, the results indicate that the collection
efficiency for bioaerosol particles is similar to comparably
sized  inert particles.
Results from Aging Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf" Filters
For a select group of filters (seven), simulated aging tests
were performed with inert aerosols to examine the effect of
dust loading in actual use environments on the collection
efficiencies and pressure drops of the units.
For the two electrostatic residential filters (6DDUE-8 and
8NM-10), the collection efficiency for larger particles (3.0
to 10.0 um) either increased significantly (6DDUE-8) or
remained the same (8NM-10) after the filters started to be
loaded with particles. However, for both filters, a substantial
decrease in collection efficiency was noted for smaller
particles (0.3 to 3 um) after the filters were loaded. The
collection efficiency of the filters for smaller particles did not
exceed the initial efficiency until between 8 and 12 weeks of
loading had occurred. The pressure drops of both residential
filters remained fairly consistent through the first 8 weeks of
use; the pressure drop then increased greatly between weeks
8 and 12. It should be noted that 12 weeks of use constitutes
100% of the manufacturer-recommended service time for
these two filters.
Similarly,  the two electrostatic commercial prefilters
(C17FPP-8 and C15AAA-11) demonstrated  consistent
average collection efficiencies for larger particles (4.0 to
10.0 um) over the entire 16-week test. However, there was
a very substantial drop in collection efficiency for particles
smaller than approximately 4  um once the loading began,
and the collection efficiency for the smaller particles never
returned to the measured initial values. The pressure drops of
the two prefilters did not demonstrate any noticeable increase
over the aging period. The typical service life for prefilters
in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning  (HVAC)
system of interest ranges from 3 to 6 months, so the 4 months
of aging that was performed represented between 67% and
133% of a typical service period. It should be noted that the
performance of Filter C15AAA-11 was  considerably poorer
than was expected from the manufacturer's literature.
In contrast, the 12-inch deep electrostatic commercial
box filter (C8GZ-13) substantially degraded in collection
efficiency  for all particle sizes over the entire aging period,
dropping steadily from MERV 12 to MERV  10. No change
in pressure drop  occurred over this period, implying that a
suitable dust cake did not form during loading, which would
likely have caused the degradation of collection efficiency
to slow. The range of service life for filter C8GZ-13 in the
application of interest is  6 to 12 months, with typical usage
closer to 12 months, so the aging period represented only
33% to 67% of the typical service life.
As expected, the two commercial, 12-inch deep, non-
electrostatic, traditional fiberglass media deep-pleated

-------
filters (C14PCS and C11GM-16) did not demonstrate any
degradation in collection efficiency during the aging period.
In fact, the collection efficiency of filter C14PCS clearly
increased as dust was collected on the filter during aging. No
change in pressure drop was noted over the aging period for
these two filters. The typical service life for these two filters
in the application of interest is 6 to  12 months (typically
closer to 12 months), so the aging period represented only
33% to 67% of the typical service life.
Results from Aging Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf"
Electronic Air Cleaners
For the EACs (three), aging was performed using an inert
aerosol to examine the effect of dust loading in actual use
environments on the collection efficiency and pressure drop
of the units. Cleaning was not performed over the entire
aging duration. This was consistent with the manufacturers'
recommendations of cleaning intervals between one and
six months in duration. The manufacturers' literature
recommended cleaning only when a visual inspection
indicated that one was required.
As expected, the pressure drops of all three units remained
consistent over the entire aging period. Unit A demonstrated
nearly no degradation in performance over the entire
2,016 hour aging period, having just a minor decrease in
the average efficiency for 0.3- to 1-um particles (from 87.6%
to 80.7%).
Unit H performed reasonably well but showed more
degradation than Unit A, dropping from a MERV 15 to a
MERV 12 over the aging period. While the MERV rating
remained consistent for the first 1,008 hours of aging, after
2,016 hours of operation, its MERV rating dropped to 12,
indicating that cleaning after 84 days of continuous operation
was warranted.
In contrast, Unit P dropped precipitously from a MERV
14 to a MERV 6 between 336 hours and 1,008 hours of
use. Despite the significant drop in collection efficiency,
the visible buildup on the unit was not substantial enough
to clearly warrant cleaning. Unit P was not visibly dirtier
than the other two units,  so the user would have no reason
to suspect that performance had substantially  degraded.
However, based on its collection efficiency, cleaning
of Unit P would be recommended after 14 days of
continuous use.
Results from Conditioning Evaluations of
"Off-the-Shelf" Filters
Eight filters (all electrostatic) were evaluated  using an inert
aerosol test method that involved conditioning the filter
with submicron potassium chloride particles to identify the
loading or conditioning level that resulted in the minimum
collection efficiency. The test method used was from the draft
Addendum C to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999. The
purpose of the conditioning tests was to compare results with
the aging tests to determine whether the draft Addendum
C test method provided a suitable means for accurately
simulating the performance over time of an electrostatic filter
in a typical use environment.
Four of the residential electrostatic filters performed similarly
during the conditioning evaluations. Upon conditioning,
the collection efficiency increased significantly for particles
larger than approximately 1 to 2 um but appeared to decrease
slightly or remain constant for particles smaller than 1 to
2 um. This was consistent with the observed trend during the
aging tests of one of the residential filters, during which the
collection efficiency increased upon aging for particles larger
than 4 um but decreased significantly for particles smaller
than 2 um.
For a fifth residential filter, the collection efficiency
decreased slightly for all particles upon initial conditioning
but increased for all particles once the equivalent of one
month of conditioning had been performed. This trend was
similar to the results observed during the aging tests for the
same filter, although the decrease in collection efficiency
was more substantial and required approximately 12 weeks
of aging for the collection efficiency to increase past the
initial values.
The aging and conditioning tests of one commercial
prefilter also appeared to be consistent. Conditioning of the
commercial prefilter resulted in a noticeable decrease in
collection efficiency for all particles less than approximately
1 um, with no recovery during the approximately one month
equivalent of conditioning. Aging of the prefilter also resulted
in a decrease (although more substantial) in collection
efficiency for all particles smaller than approximately 4 um,
with no recovery over 16 weeks of aging.
In contrast, the aging and conditioning tests of the remaining
two commercial filters did not produce consistent results.  For
a commercial prefilter, the collection efficiency increased
slightly for all particles upon initial conditioning and
remained at the same level with further conditioning. This
result noticeably contrasted with the results from the aging
evaluations, in which the collection efficiency decreased
substantially for particles smaller than 4 um with aging and
did not increase over 16 weeks  of use. For a commercial box
filter, the results from the aging and conditioning evaluations
contrasted even more strongly. In the  conditioning evaluation,
the collection efficiency remained essentially constant during
the approximately one month equivalent of conditioning,
even increasing slightly for particles smaller than 0.3 um.
However, during the entire 16 weeks of aging, the box
filter consistently and continually decreased in collection
efficiency for all particles.
It is not known why the trends in the results from the
conditioning evaluations are consistent with the aging results
for some but not all of the filters. Further investigation of
these contrasting results seems warranted but was beyond
the scope of this effort. It should be noted that during the
conditioning evaluations, only a single filter of each type
was tested. In contrast, the aging evaluations were performed
with five different filters of identical make, model, and size.
Therefore, some variability is present in the aging evaluations
due to the different performance levels of the individual
filters, whereas the analysis of variability for the conditioning
tests for a particular type of filter is not feasible.

-------
Results from Conditioning Evaluations of "Off-the-Shelf"
Electronic Air Cleaners
Three EACs were evaluated both before and after
conditioning with silicon vapor. The purpose of the exposure
to silicon vapor was to determine whether this conditioning
approach resulted in filter performance similar to the
performance of the EACs after one month of actual use.
The exposure of Units A and P to silicon vapor appeared
to cause a very similar level of degradation in performance
compared to that likely to be observed after one month of
ambient aging (672 hours of use). For both of these units,
the collection efficiency of the EAC degraded more than
that observed during 336 hours (2 weeks) of ambient use
but less than that observed after 1,008 hours (6 weeks) of
ambient use.
For Unit H, however, the silicon vapor exposure degraded
the unit's performance well beyond that observed after
even 2,016 hours of ambient aging (12 weeks of continuous
operation).
It is not known why the results from the aging and
conditioning evaluations are consistent for units A and P
but inconsistent for Unit H. It  could be a result of design
and component differences between the three units. Given
the approximately 50% decrease in pressure drop in Unit H
after silicon vapor exposure, and the alteration in the shape
of the collection efficiency curve, it is possible that the
exposure allowed leakage to occur within the unit. Further
investigation of the contrasting results for Unit H seems
warranted but was beyond the scope of this effort.
It should be noted that in contrast to the filter evaluations,
during the EAC aging evaluations, a single unit was
used. Therefore, no variability data are available for the
EAC aging evaluations.
Recommendations
As a result of this effort, empirical models (curve fits)
are now available that provide a valuable tool enabling
researchers and consumers to accurately estimate the
collection efficiency (by particle size) of a filter or EAC
with a given MERV rating and determine whether its likely
performance will justify its increased cost and pressure drop.
Unfortunately, due to a combination of a limited test matrix
and some filters that did not perform as anticipated, data for
filters performing at MERV ratings of 9, 11, 13, and 15 were
not acquired. Therefore, future efforts should be performed to
capture data for these MERV ratings. In addition, acquiring
additional data for filters with  MERV ratings of 5 and 10 is
desirable, as only one filter was available at that performance
rating in the current study.
Also, it was observed during this study that a number of
filters did not perform in accordance with the MERV ratings
provided by the filter vendors. Although in many cases, the
performance was only a few percentage points below the
vendor-provided rating, in some cases, the performance was
three or four MERV ratings below. Because the standard for
establishing MERV ratings (ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999)
does not currently provide any guidance as to the number of
samples of a filter type that should be tested to ensure that the
manufacturer-reported MERV rating provides a statistically
reasonable representation of their performance, currently,
an evaluation of a single filter could be used to characterize
the performance of a very large number of filters. A study
investigating the consistency of performance for filters at a
given MERV rating is recommended to enable consumers to
make better-informed decisions about the likely performance
of purchased filters.
In this study, EACs appeared to be an excellent choice for
residential air cleaning, as they provided substantially higher
collection efficiencies than are available from residential
filters at a fraction of the pressure drop. Evaluations of their
performance to better define the likely frequency of cleaning
and the collection efficiency performance as a function of the
number of cleaning cycles are needed to compare the long-
term operational costs of EACs to those of air filters.
The results from this study indicated that the conditioning
procedures for electrostatic filters described in Addendum
C of ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999 warrant additional
investigation. Although the results from aging and
conditioning via Addendum C demonstrated similar trends
for residential electrostatic filters, the results from the
commercial filters contrasted strongly.
Similarly, the silicon vapor exposure conditioning method
that was investigated for EACs would benefit from additional
study. For two of the three units evaluated, the results
between the aging and conditioning methodology showed
very good agreement; however, for the third unit, the results
contrasted significantly. While these results seem promising
for the silicon vapor exposure method, additional study and
refinement may be warranted.
For the inert particles, size measurements were made using
a light-scattering technique (0.3 to 10 um) and a technique
based on electrical mobility (0.03 to 0.3 um). In general,
the collection efficiency measured at the lowest size bin
for the larger range (0.35 um midpoint) was within 10%
of the highest size bin of the smaller size range (0.294 um
midpoint). Often, the agreement was much closer. However,
to  our knowledge a study to assess the agreement between
the two measurement methods in a range of overlapping
particle sizes has not been performed. It is recommended that
research be performed to investigate the differences between
these different measurement techniques in the overlapping
size range.

-------
1.0
Introduction
Concerns persist that buildings are vulnerable to terrorist
attack using biological agents. The most serious effects
of such an attack are on the health of the occupants of the
buildings. Building occupants may suffer health effects
ranging from irritation to severe sickness to death. The
attack may also have long-term economic and other
impacts due to contamination of the building. Several
organizations, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers,
ASHRAE, and CDC, have recognized this terrorist threat
and have issued guidance documents on how to deal with
it. These documents, while useful, lack the scientific,
engineering, and economic information needed to determine
optimum courses of action. Tools and technologies to
implement optimum courses of action are often not
available, are too expensive to use, or are inadequate.
The work described in this document was conducted to
develop performance information (pressure drop and
collection efficiency for biological and non-biological
aerosols) on a wide range of commonly used ventilation
filters and on three commercially available EACs that
could be used in HVAC systems. For both types of aerosol
reduction technologies, tests were performed with both
"off-the-shelf" units and with units aged in a typical or
simulated use environment to allow a better understanding of
how the units would likely perform over their entire service
life. In addition, testing was performed on a select subset
of units using a bioaerosol to demonstrate the similarity in
performance with inert particles. Empirical equations were
then developed that relate particle collection efficiency to
particle physical diameter over the range of 0.03 to 10 um.
These equations can be incorporated into indoor air quality
models. (It should be noted that the publicly available
performance data for filters and EACs have been typically
reported for particles between 0.3 and 10 um. However,
within the past three to four years it has become feasible
to economically measure the performance of air cleaning
devices for particles between 0.03 and 0.3 um. Therefore,
efforts were focused on testing a wide variety of air cleaning
devices over the entire 0.03 to 10 um particle diameter
range, so that empirical equations could be developed over
that entire range, rather than just the 0.3 to 10 um generally
available in the literature. It should also be noted that the
objective of this effort was not to determine the "typical"
performance to be expected of a particular make and model
of filter, nor to determine the accuracy of the MERV ratings
supplied by manufacturers. Although some observations
were made in regard to these two issues, they were not the
objectives of this effort.)
The research described in this report consisted of four
phases. In the first phase, representative HVAC air cleaning
devices were selected for experimental evaluation. In the
second phase, a pair of Test/QA Project Plans (QAPP)
were drafted that clearly defined the test methods and
procedures that were used during testing (Battelle, 2005a;
Battelle, 2005b). The test protocols were primarily based
on a commonly used standard, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
52.2-1999 (ANSI/ASHRAE, 1999). This standard describes
a test fixture and methodology for measuring the pressure
drop and collection efficiency of ventilation filters, as well
as a method for determining the MERV rating. In the third
phase, the 27 commonly used air cleaning devices identified
in Phase 1 were acquired and evaluated for their pressure
drop and collection efficiency, as received. In addition,
eight electrostatic filters were subsequently loaded with a
submicrometer inert aerosol and their collection efficiency
reevaluated. Ten of the devices (seven filters and three
EACs) were evaluated for their collection efficiency after
approximately 1 or 2 weeks, 2 or 4 weeks, 6 or 8 weeks, and
12 or 16 weeks of normal use. A separate set often devices
(seven filters and three EACs, also known as electrostatic
precipitators) were evaluated for their efficiency for a
bioaerosol. Finally, three (EACs) were evaluated both before
and after exposure to silicon vapor to simulate an actual
use environment. In the fourth phase, empirical equations
that related particle collection efficiency to particle physical
diameter over the range of 0.03 to 10 um were developed to
fit the data collected during Phase 3. Each of these phases is
described in the rest of this report.
The results of the experimental efforts described in this report
will help to mitigate the impacts of a terrorist attack with a
biological threat agent by:
• Providing empirical performance equations of paniculate
collection efficiency that can be used in indoor air quality
modeling efforts to assess the impact of HVAC paniculate
control devices (used in residential or commercial
buildings) on reducing the effects and spread of aerosol
contaminants.
• Providing empirical performance data regarding the
pressure drop of these air cleaning devices that can be
used to assess energy requirements of air cleaners during
building operation.
• Comparing the penetration of inert and biological particles
through said air cleaning devices.
• Expanding the data set regarding aerosol penetration over
a wider range of particle sizes.

-------

-------
                                                                                                2.0
                                            Air  Cleaner  Device  Selection
2.1  Filter Selection
The first step in the overall effort was to select the air
cleaning devices for testing. Table 2-1 illustrates the
recommendations provided in the statement of work
for the filter test matrix. As shown in Table 2-1, the
recommendations indicated that only a few filters of
moderate efficiency (MERV 5-10) be evaluated so that a
clear comparison between those filters and filters with greater
efficiencies (charged filters and those with MERVs greater
than 10) could be made. The recommendations also indicated
that more attention should be focused on commercial
HVAC than on residential HVAC filters. It was preferred
that the filters selected for the biological and in-use tests be
a subset of those selected for the inert aerosol tests so that
comparisons among the various results could be made.
Table 2-1. Test Matrix for Filter Evaluation
MERV Range Inert Aerosol Tests In-Use Tests Biological Tests
Residential Filters
5 to 10 inclusive
11 and higher
Charged filter media
Total
2a
3
3
8
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
4
Commercial HVAC Filters
5 to 10 inclusive
11 to 12 inclusive
13 to 15 inclusive
16
H EPA or other >16
Charged filter media
Total
2
3
3
3
3
3
17
0
0
1
1
1
2
5
0
0
1
1
2
2
6
 The total number of test filters with MERV ratings less than or equal to 10 should not exceed 4.

-------
Table 2-2 provides a listing of the approximate U.S.
market share for a variety of filter manufacturers in both
the residential and commercial markets (Mcllvane, 2002).
As shown in Table 2-2, American Air Filter clearly holds a
dominant portion of the U.S. air filter market, possessing
almost a third of the residential market, and is the only
company to  possess more than 10% of all the different filter
categories. Other manufacturers that hold significant shares
of the residential market include Flanders, Purolator, and 3M.
The commercial market is spread much more evenly among
a larger number of companies, notably American Air Filter,
Farr, Airguard, and Flanders.
The selection of residential filters to be tested was based on
the manufacturer's share of the residential market, previous
experience with filter evaluations, information available
on the Web sites of various vendors,  an informal survey of
filters available at retailers such as Home Depot, Lowe's, and
Wal-Mart, and telephone conversations with various sales
representatives. Approximately ten company Web sites were
thoroughly examined, and various vendors were contacted
to determine which of their particular air filters were the
most popular, and to obtain technical information. All of
the selected filters were commercially available across the
United States.
From the compiled information, it was apparent that in the
residential market, the most inexpensive filters dominate.
These include fiberglass, disposable polyester/cotton blends,
and pleated air filters. The lowest MERV-rated filter identified
was 4, and the highest rated filter available in the residential
market was 12.  Electrostatic filters were found to dominate
the medium- and high-efficiency residential filter market.  No
commercially available non-electrostatic residential filters
with MERV ratings above 10 were identified.
As shown in Table 2-3, the manufacturer-supplied MERV
ratings for the tested residential filters ranged from 6
to 12. Since the residential market was so dominated
Table 2-2. Approximate Shares of the U.S. Air Filter Market (Mcllvaine, 2002)
MERV MERV MERV Residential Commercial
Company 1-4 (%) 5-9 (%) 10-16+ (%) Total (%) (%) (%)
American Air Filter
Farr
Air Guard
Flanders
McLeod Russel
Purolator
Glas Floss
Koch
Freudenberg
Air Kontrol
Donaldson
3M
Web Products
Camfil
Tridim
Hefco
Hepa
TDC
Pneumafil
Fleetguard
W.L. Gore
General Filters Inc.
Columbus
Dol linger
Filtration Group
BHA
Trion
Viskon-Aire
Fiberbond
Others
25
3
3
18

8



3




3







2

<1
<1



34
12
9
9
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
10
7
2

3


<1
<1


1
4
2
3
<1
2
1
2
9
13
6
6
13

3




16


5
3
4
6


6
6

2

1
<1



9
16
7
7
10
2
5
2
2
1
2
8
4
1
<1
3
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
1
<1
3
1
2
<1
1
<1
1
17
32


15

10



4

11
3

2






2
1

<1




19
12
11
11
8
4
5
4
4

2

2
<1

4






<1
3
1
2
<1

<1
2
21

-------
by electrostatic materials (mostly polypropylene and/
or polyolefin), six filters with charged media (rather than
the three specified in the statement of work [SOW]) were
evaluated. An option that was discussed but not pursued was
to evaluate two washable filters, which are fairly common in
the market but generally have low MERV ratings. All of the
tested residential filters had a recommended service lifetime
of three months.
The selection of commercial filters to be tested was also
based on the manufacturer's share of the residential market,
previous experience with filter evaluations, information
available on the Web sites of various vendors, and
telephone  conversations with various sales representatives.
Approximately 15 company Web sites were thoroughly
examined, and various vendors were contacted to determine
which of their particular air filters were the most popular,
and to obtain technical information. In addition, an HVAC
maintenance specialist recommended different types of
commercial air filters. This specialist stated that the bag or
box designs performed better and had longer lifetimes than
pleated or panel type filters, so two bag filters  and three box
filters were included in the recommended test  matrix. All of
the selected filters were commercially available across  the
United States.
As shown in Table 2-4, a much wider variety of filter types
and MERV ratings are available in the commercial market.
It was not difficult to find commercial filters with MERV
            ratings between 1 and 15. MERV 16 filters were more
            difficult to find, but three suitable candidates were identified
            with a reasonable amount of effort. As high efficiency
            paniculate air (HEPA) filters are highly regulated, are not
            meant to be evaluated by ASHRAE 52.2-1999 (ASHRAE
            52.2-1999), and are generally unsuitable for general HVAC
            usage due to their pressure drop, it was recommended that
            fewer HEPA filters be tested than was recommended in
            the SOW (Table 2-1). Instead, two additional filters with
            MERV ratings between 13 and 15 were added to the matrix.
            As shown in Table 2-4, the MERV ratings for the filters
            recommended for testing ranged from 7 to 16.
            It may be important to note that during procurement of the
            commercial filters, a fairly high number of difficulties were
            experienced. Although some mistakes should be expected
            given the significant number of filters and filter types that
            were procured, difficulties in obtaining serviceable filters
            of the correct model and size were experienced with nearly
            one-third of the procured test filters. These difficulties
            included shipment of incorrect (but similar) models, incorrect
            sizes, incorrect frame types and materials, and damaged or
            improperly constructed filters. For consumers concerned with
            filter performance, care must be taken to inspect filters before
            use to ensure that the filters are appropriate for use. Much
            less difficulty was encountered with the procurement of the
            residential filters.
Table 2-3. Evaluated Residential Filters
   Required
    MERV     Identifier for
   Ratings     Charts and
  (from SOW)     Tables         Description
Manufacturer   Dimensions                As-ls    In-Use   Biological
MERV Rating    (inches)    Electrostatic   Tests    Tests      Tests
5 to 10
inclusive
11 and
higher
Charged
Filter Media
IPP-6-1
2NS-8-1
3PAF-11-1
4FUA-12-1
5RM-11-1
6DDUE-8
7AST-8-3
8NM-10
Pleated polyester and
cotton blend
Pleated polyester and
cotton blend
Pleasted hydrophobic
synthetic media
Pleated polypropylene
and polyolefin
Pleated electrostatic
Pleated electrostatic
Pleated electrostatic
Pleated electrostatic
6
8
11
12
11
8
8
10
16x25x 1
16x25x 1
16x25x2
16x25x 1
16x25x 1
16x25x 1
16x25x 1
16x25x 1
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

-------
Table 2-4.  Evaluated Commercial Filters
   Required
    MERV     Identifier for
   Ratings     Charts and
 (from SOW)     Tables
                 Manufacturer   Dimensions                 As-ls    In-Use    Biological
Description       MERV Rating     (inches)     Electrostatic   Tests     Tests      Tests
5 to 10
inclusive
11 to 12
inclusive
13 to 15
inclusive
16
H EPA or
other > 16
Charged
Filter Media
C1APP-7
C2T90-8
C3AV-11
C4FPC-11
C5PSC-11
C6ADP-15
C7CFER-13
C8GZ-13
C14PCS
C10CFS-14
C11GM-16
C12AB-16
C13AMG-16
C114FA-H
C15AAA-11
C16ADP-8A
C17FPP-8
Pleated uncharged
novel media prefilter
Panel uncharged
polyester prefilter
with a light tack
Pleated
microfiberglass box
filter
Pleated
microfiberglass
Pleated
microfiberglass
Fiberglass bag filter
(6 pockets)
Pleated synthetic
box filter
Pleated synthetic
box filter
Pleated
microfiberglass
Meltblown synthetic
bag filter (8 pockets)
Pleated
microfiberglass
Pleated
microfiberglass
Pleated
microfiberglass
Pleated
microfiberglass
Pleated electrostatic
prefilter
Pleated electrostatic
prefilter
Pleated electrostatic
prefilter
7
8
11
11B
13B
14B
14
13
14B
14
16
16
16
HEPA
11
8
8
24 x 24 x 2
24 x 24 x 2
24 x 24 x 4
24x24x 12
24x24x12
24x24x 10
24x24x 12
24x24x12
24x24x 12
24x24x 15
24x24x12
24x24x 12
24x24x 12
24x24x12
24 x 24 x 2
24 x 24 x 2
24 x 24 x 2
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
YesA
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No*
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
1 - Ultimately, filter C16ADP-8 was not evaluated, as commercial filter C8GZ-13-1 underwent an additional evaluation instead.
' - MERV rating based on Table E-l in ASHRAE 52.2-1999

-------
2.2 Electronic Air Cleaner Selection
EACs are a commercially available alternative to
filters for residential air cleaning. Generally, EACs
are marketed as possessing higher efficiencies
than residential filters, lower pressure drops, and
no need for frequent filter replacement. Figure 2-1
illustrates how air is purified by an electronic air
cleaner. As dirty air is drawn into the unit, the
particles pass through an electrostatic field and
receive an ionized charge. The charged particles
are then collected on alternatively charged or
grounded collection plates. Frequently, an after-
or post-filter is also marketed to remove odors and/or to
improve the overall efficiency of the unit. Both the collection
plates and the ionizing system require cleaning every 1 to
6 months. Both are typically removable for easy cleaning.
The prefilters are typically made of an aluminum mesh and
capture only very large dust particles.
The most common EAC sizes are 16" x 25" and 20" x 25"
and typically cost between $500 to $800 installed. Residential
EACs are typically designed for installation directly in the
HVAC duct as "whole-house" cleaners. Portable units are
also available for single-room purification (typically referred
to as room air cleaners). Commercial EACs are commonly
designed for wall or ceiling mounting. The wall/ceiling
mounted units are typically designed to treat the air in a
single room independently from the HVAC system.
Table 2-5 illustrates the recommendations that were provided
in the SOW for the electronic air cleaner test matrix. As
with the filter tests, the same EACs (make and model) were
subjected to the inert aerosol tests, the in-use tests, and the
biological tests so that direct comparisons could be made.
Similar to filter selection, the selection of EACs to be
tested was based on the manufacturer's share of the
market, information available on the Web sites of various
vendors, and telephone conversations with various sales
representatives. Approximately ten company Web sites were
thoroughly examined, and various vendors were contacted
to determine which of their EACs were the most popular,
loniring
Pro-Filter Suction
prates
After-Filter cioan Air
Figure 2-1. EAC Air Filtration Mechanism
and to obtain technical information. Five domestic EAC
manufacturers were identified: United Air Specialists, Trion,
Honeywell, Skuttle, and Emerson Climate Technologies.
According to Mcllvaine (2002), two companies stand out
in the field of EACs. Trion is a leader in both the residential
and commercial markets, whereas United Air Specialists is a
leader in the commercial market. Trion has reported annual
sales of $65 million, of which 23% is attributed to residential
EACs and 37% comprises commercial EAC sales. Present
sales are estimated at $44 million for United Air Specialists,
a division of Clarcor. Nearly 100% of United Air Specialists
revenue is from the sale of commercial EACs.
From the information acquired, it was clear that the
residential market greatly dominates the commercial market
for duct-mounted EACs. Only one duct-mounted unit was
identified that was marketed to the commercial market, and
that unit was marketed for both commercial and residential
use. EACs designed for the commercial market are nearly
exclusively wall- or ceiling-mounted units. In contrast to the
commercial market, it was estimated that approximately 10%
of new homes have duct-mounted EACs (Mcllvaine, 2002).
Since it was desired to select EACs that were as
representative as possible of the overall market, the three
residential EAC units listed in Table 2-6 were selected
for evaluation. All three are duct-mounted units that are
available nationwide.
Table 2-5. Recommended Test Matrix for Electronic Air Cleaner Evaluations from the Statement of Work
Inert Aero
Biological Test
1 unit from 3 vendors
1 - Including silicon vapor exposure tests
Table 2-6. Evaluated Electronic Air Cleaners
Charts and Tables
A
H
P
Price ($)
$405
$283
$310

16x25
20x20
20x20
Capacity
(CFM)
Up to 2000
Up to 1400
Up to 1400
Manufacturer-Provided
Pressure Drop
0.17" w.g. at 500 fpm
0.06" w.g. at 295 fpm
0.11" w.g. at 500 fpm
Manufacturer-Provided
Collection Efficiency
> 94% at 0.35 urn (MERV 15)
UptoMERV12at492fpm
NA
NA = Not available

-------

-------
3.0
Experimental Methods
As described in Section 1.0, a variety of different test
methods were used during this study. For all 24 filters and all
3 EACs, inert aerosol evaluations were performed to measure
their "off-the-shelf" collection efficiency for particles with
diameters between 0.03 and 10 um. For a select group of
seven filters and three EACs, testing using a bioaerosol
was performed for comparison to the inert aerosol results.
For a select group of seven filters and three EACs, aging
was performed in conjunction with inert aerosol testing
to examine the effect of use on the collection efficiency
and pressure drop of the units. For a select group of eight
electrostatic filters, inert aerosol testing was performed in
conjunction with submicron particle conditioning in the
ASHRAE 52.2-1999 test rig to evaluate the degradation in
performance likely to occur with use. For all three EACs,
inert aerosol testing was performed both before and after
exposure to silicon vapor to simulate the degradation in
performance likely to occur during actual use. Filters were
selected for the bioaerosol and electrostatic tests using the
recommendations listed in Table 2-1 to ensure that a variety
of residential and commercial filters and a variety of MERV
ratings were examined. Descriptions of the various test
methods used during these evaluations are provided in
turn below.

3.1 Inert Aerosol Tests
The purpose of the inert aerosol tests was to characterize the
filtration efficiency of the air cleaners for particles between
0.03 and 10 um at the maximum flow rate the units would
likely encounter in actual use. The pressure drops of the units
were also evaluated at 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the
maximum flow rates that the units would likely encounter
in actual use. All testing was performed in accordance with
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999 "Method of Testing
General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal
Efficiency by Particle Size" (ANSI/ASHRAE, 1999). All of
the inert aerosol tests were performed by Intertek ETL Semko
in their certified ASHRAE 52.2-1999 test facility. A detailed
description of the facility and test procedures required for
ASHRAE 52.2-1999 testing can be found in the standard
(ANSI/ASHRAE, 1999) and therefore is not repeated in this
document. However, for the convenience of the reader, brief
summaries of the facility and procedures are provided below.

3.1.1 Inert Aerosol Test Method
All of the inert aerosol tests were conducted in Intertek ETL
Semko's certified ASHRAE 52.2-1999 test rig. The test
rig's fully enclosed ducting is primarily composed of 24"
x 24" (0.61 x 0.61 m) cross section. The system operates
at positive pressure to minimize infiltration and has two
pleated 24" x 24" (0.61 x 0.61 m) prefilters and two 24" x 24"
(0.61 x 0.61 m) HEPA filters both downstream and upstream
of the blower to ensure a consistent aerosol challenge to the
test air cleaner.
As required by ASHRAE 52.2-1999 (ANSI/ASHRAE, 1999),
to mix the test aerosol with the air stream, an orifice plate
and mixing baffle are located immediately downstream of
the aerosol injection point and upstream of the test device.
An identical orifice plate and mixing baffle are located
after the 180 degree bend. The latter downstream orifice
Figure 3-1. Aerosol Sampling Instruments, TSI SMPS (left) and Climet CI-500 (right)

-------
straightens out the flow after going around the bend and
mixes the aerosol that penetrates the air cleaner. This mixing
is necessary to obtain a representative downstream aerosol
measurement.
Two particle sizing and counting instruments were used for
the inert aerosol tests:  a Climet model 500 Spectrometer
OPC covering the particle diameter size range from 0.3
to  10 um in 12 particle sizing channels and a TSI SMPS
covering the range from 0.03 to 0.3 um (shown in Figure
3-1). The OPC uses a laser-light illumination source and has
a wide collection angle for the scattered light. The  SMPS
consisted of a TSI Model 3080L electrostatic classifier and a
TSI Model 3022A-S condensation particle counter. It should
be recognized that the two selected instruments measure
particles based upon different physical properties:  electrical
mobility in the case of the SMPS and light scattering in the
case of the OPC. It is well understood in the field of particle
physics that these two size measurements are not directly
comparable. This did not affect the efficiency measurements
for specific particle sizes but was chiefly responsible for the
minor gaps in continuity that were occasionally observed
between the filtration efficiency curves obtained from the
two instruments.
Two aerosol generators were used for the tests. Both used
an aqueous solution of potassium chloride (KC1) to generate
particles. The concentration of KC1 in the solution was varied
as  needed to generate particles in the proper size range. For
the 0.3 to 10 um tests, an external air atomizing nozzle was
used along with a KC1 solution of approximately 300 g KC1
to  1 liter of distilled water. For the 0.03 to 0.3 um tests, a
Collison nebulizer was used with a solution of approximately
100 g KC1 to 1 liter of distilled water. Both generators were
connected to a 12-inch (0.30 m) diameter, 51-inch  (1.3 m)
tall transparent acrylic spray tower. The tower allowed the
salt particles to dry as well as the larger particles to settle
out of the challenge aerosol  air stream. After drying in the
spray tower, the challenge aerosol passed through an aerosol
neutralizer before being injected counter to the airflow in
the test duct. This was necessary as aerosol particles have a
tendency to collect static charge, which may influence their
filtration characteristics.
As required by ASHRAE 52.2-1999 (ANSI/ASHRAE, 1999),
the aerosol sampling lines (both upstream and downstream)
were composed of stainless steel, used gradual bends when
needed to minimize particle losses, and used changeable
sampling nozzles to ensure isokinetic sampling at the various
flow rates. For the 0.3 to 10  um tests, an automated valve
system was used to automatically control the upstream and
downstream sampling by the OPC. For the 0.03 to  0.3 um
tests, the sampling lines were manually altered.
It should be noted that the inert aerosol tests consisted of only
the pressure drop measurements and the  initial collection
efficiency measurements specified in ASHRAE 52.2-1999
(ANSI/ASHRAE, 1999). ASHRAE 52.2-1999 (ANSI/
ASHRAE, 1999) also describes a procedure for dust loading
with a  standardized loading dust in conjunction with a
series of collection efficiency tests to examine the collection
efficiency of the air cleaners as they become loaded with
dust. At the direction of the sponsor, these loading procedures
were not performed.
In addition, it also should be noted that the tests of the EACs
were performed by the procedures described above with only
one modification. In the case of the EACs,  care was taken to
ensure that the devices were powered and properly operating
during the tests.

3.1.2  Inert Aerosol Data Analysis
As specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999 (ANSI/
ASHRAE, 1999), the computation of inert  aerosol filtration
efficiency was based on the ratio of the downstream-to-
upstream particle concentrations corrected  on a channel-by -
channel basis for:
 • Background counts (i.e., upstream and downstream counts
   observed when the aerosol generator is off)
 • The correlation ratio measured at the start of the test
   sequence
These data were used for determining filtration efficiency by
computing the observed penetration (P0bserved):
p
observed
(D
(U
~Db)
-ub)
(1)
where:
    D = Downstream particle count,
    Db = Downstream background count,
    U = Upstream count, and
    Ub = Upstream background count.
As specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999, to
remove system bias, the observed penetration was corrected
by the correlation ratio (R) (the P0bserved measured during a
blank control test for which no filter is installed in the duct).
              P      = P       / R
               corrected     observed
(2)
The filtration efficiency was then computed as:
     Filtration Efficiency (%) = 100 (l-Pcorrected)       (3)
Data from the inert aerosol tests were verified to ensure
that all measured parameters fell within reasonable
agreement with the anticipated results before continuing/
terminating testing.
A sample set of calculations from the inert aerosol tests is
provided in Appendix A.

3.2  Bioaerosol Tests
A select group of filters (seven) and EACs (three) were
evaluated against a bioaerosol. The purpose of the bioaerosol
tests was to compare the penetration of a bioaerosol to the
penetration of a similarly sized inert aerosol to determine
whether there were any significant differences between the
penetration of bioaerosol and inert particles.

-------
3.2.1 Bioaerosol Test Method
The first step in the bioaerosol testing was the selection of
an organism. The bioaerosol tests were conducted using the
spore form of the Gram-positive bacteria Bacillus atrophaeus
(formerly B. sub tills var. niger and 'Bacillus globigii or
BG). The BG spore is elliptically shaped with dimensions
of 0.7 -0.8 x 1 - 1.5 um. BG spores were used for testing
because they:
• Have historically been used as a surrogate for
anthrax spores
• Are very durable
• Possess natural resistance to heat and desiccation
• Are significantly resistant to loss of culturability during
aerosolization and collection
• Have a median aerodynamic diameter of approximately
1 um, thus they possess a reasonably good chance of
penetration through air cleaning devices
• Can be generated in sufficient concentrations for testing
• Can be generated as single spores with narrow size
distributions
The BG spore challenge suspensions were prepared using
a dry Dugway Proving Ground BG powder. The Dugway
BG was processed post-production. The raw fermentation
product was concentrated to achieve 20% solids content. The
concentrated BG suspension was then spray dried. Aerosil
812 S (Degussa GmbH; Dtisseldorf, Germany) was added
as the dried batches were blended. The dried BG was then
jet milled and additional Aerosil 812 S was added to achieve
the desired physical properties. The BG spore challenge
suspensions were prepared for testing by resuspending
25 grams of the dry Dugway Proving Ground BG powder
in 1000 mL sterile 18 megohm/cm water. (Resuspension
in sterile 18 megohm/cm water is essential to minimize
the particle counts from sources other than the organisms
themselves [e.g., dissolved solids].) This stock suspension
was approximately 5.0 x 109 colony forming units (CPU)/
mL and was used to prepare the nebulization suspension
for each aerosol test. The nebulization suspension for each
test was prepared by diluting 20 mL of the stock suspension
in 180 mL of 18 megohm/cm water, yielding a challenge
concentration of approximately 5.0 x 10s CFU/mL.
Because the aerosol generation and measurement techniques
and equipment required for bioaerosol testing were different
from those required for ASHRAE 52.2-1999, and required a
higher level of containment and different handling protocols,
the bioaerosol testing was performed in a separate test facility
from the inert aerosol testing. A diagram of the bioaerosol
evaluation test duct is shown in Figure 3-2. The test duct
possessed an approximately 24" x 24" cross-sectional
sampling zone where an array of reference samplers and
the unit being tested were exposed to the same well-mixed
bioaerosol. The air was pulled through the test system by
a blower located downstream of a pair of 24" x 24" x 12"
HEPA filters to ensure bioaerosol containment. A pair of
24" x 24" x 12" HEPA filters were also used on the intake to
the test duct to prevent any contamination of the test system
by background biological materials.
As shown in Figure 3-2, the challenge organism suspensions
were aerosolized using a single 24-jet Collison nebulizer
(BGI, Waltham, MA) at 40 pounds per square inch (PSI)
air pressure. The Collison nebulizer generated droplets
with an approximate volume mean diameter of 2 um.
Since the remaining water evaporated upon exposure to
the large volume of air (> 800 cfm) moving through the
test system, the aerodynamic mass median diameter of
the challenge aerosol was generally less than 1 um (single
spores). Upstream and downstream sampling of the aerosol
was accomplished isokinetically, using nine upstream and
nine downstream 47-mm water-soluble gelatin filters (18
total samples). These filters were placed in standard 47-
mm filter housings and connected to the sampling probes.
(Filter holders and impactors were autoclaved at 121 °C at
a pressure of approximately 19 PSI for 20 minutes and then
dried with a 10-minute vacuum exposure at 10 inHg prior
to testing.) A vacuum pump was used to sample through the
filters at a rate of approximately 7.5 L/min. Once sampled,
the filters were removed from their holders, dissolved in 10
mL of pH 7.4 phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and then
diluted to an appropriate concentration before being plated on
tryptic soy agar (TSA). Each sample was plated in triplicate
Filter Test Section
Mixing Plate
Aerosol Generator
i
Air Flow
Reference Samplers

Figure 3-2. Schematic of the Bioaerosol Test Rig

-------
and incubated overnight at 32 °C. After the incubation period,
the colonies were counted using a Qcount™ automatic
plate counter (Spiral Biotech, Inc.), and the colony counts
were used to calculate the nitration efficiency of the test air
cleaner.
The size distribution of the challenge aerosol was determined
using a six-stage Battelle cascade impactor (BCI). The
cutoff aerodynamic size ranges for Stage 1 to  Stage 6 were
16.0 urn and greater, 16.0 - 8.0, 8.0 - 4.0, 4.0 - 2.0, 2.0 -
1.0, and 1.0 - 0.5 um, respectively. Particles collected on
the filter were smaller than 0.5 um (the filter was considered
a seventh stage). The glass impactor slides were coated
with a thin film of KY Jelly®, a water-soluble adhesive. The
slides were extracted in 100 mL beakers, using 10 mL of pH
7.4 PBS with shaking at 32 °C for 10 minutes at a speed of
120 rpm. The samples were then diluted to an appropriate
concentration and plated on TSA. Each sample was plated
in triplicate and incubated overnight at 32 °C.  After the
incubation period, the colonies were counted using the
Qcount™  automatic plate counter,  and the colony counts
were used to calculate the size distribution of the bioaerosol.
The experimental conditions  and sampling times were
adjusted so that these samplers were used within their upper
and lower sampling limits. To quantify the microbial counts,
the BG samples were plated according to Battelle's standard
operating procedure (SOP), ABAT-E-002-00 Standard
Operating Procedure for the Operation and Maintenance of
the Spiral Biotech Autoplate® 4000 Automated Spiral Plater.
Post-extraction, BG samples were diluted in PBS, using
serial 10-fold dilutions to achieve concentrations in the range
of 20 CFU/mLto approximately 10,000 CFU/mL. Samples
were then  plated in triplicate  on TSA using the Spiral
Biotech Autoplate® 4000. This instrument deposits 50 uL of
sample over the surface of the plate in a spiral pattern with a
distribution that dilutes  the sample, allowing the enumeration
of samples in the aforementioned range. The plates were
incubated  overnight at 32 °C, and CFU/mL were determined
by counting the resulting colonies with the Spiral Biotech
QCount™ colony counter.
Both before the air cleaner tests were conducted and
during each test, the uniformity of aerosol concentration
was measured. Both with and without air cleaners present,
bioaerosol measurements were performed both upstream
and downstream of the air cleaner test location, at cross-
sectional planes perpendicular to the flow. The cross-section
was divided into nine equal areas, and concentration was
measured at the center of each area. The mean concentration
and the coefficient of variation (CV, computed as the standard
deviation divided by the mean) of the nine corresponding
grid point  concentration values was then calculated. The
maximum acceptable CV value was set at 30%. If the
measured CV exceeded 30%, the airflow baffles were
modified, and the test was repeated until the requirement
of CV less than 30% was met. This uniformity test was
performed at both flow rates used for the bioaerosol tests
(820 cfm and 984 cfm).
Similarly, before each bioaerosol test, airflow rates were
measured using a hot-wire anemometer to measure the air
velocity at the nine points that were identified in the center
of the nine equal, imaginary areas across the test duct at the
inlet location of the air cleaners. The mean flow velocity
was calculated by averaging the nine velocity values and
multiplying the  mean velocity by the cross-sectional area.
The CV of the velocities was also calculated. The maximum
acceptable CV value was set at 25%. If the measured CV
exceeded 25%, the airflow baffles were modified, and the
test was repeated until the requirement of CV less than 25%
was met.

3.2.2  Bioaerosol  Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using commercially available
software (Microsoft Excel) by manually entering the raw data
into a spreadsheet and calculating the results from a series
of equations.  Samples were collected simultaneously using
multiple samplers.
The mean upstream and downstream concentrations were
calculated as:

u =


n
yui
t5*
n
n
D = y Di
and £f
n


(4)

where:
    D; = Downstream concentration of the ith sample and n
         is the number of samples collected,
    U; = Upstream concentration of the ith sample and n is
         the number of samples collected,
    D = Mean downstream concentration with a unit
        installed in the test rig, and
    U = Mean upstream concentration with a unit installed in
        the test rig.
The calculation of the penetration was based on the ratio of
the downstream to upstream culturable concentrations. The
penetration with the unit installed in the test rig (Pmeasured) is
shown in the following equation:
* measured -
D/
/U
(5)
where:
    P measured = Penetration with the unit installed in the
               test rig.
The P100 (no unit installed in the test rig) was calculated as
me Pmeasured but using the results of the no-filter tests.
                                                    (6)

-------
where:
        D100 = Mean downstream concentration with no unit
               in the test rig and
        C/100 = Mean upstream concentration with no unit in
               the test rig.
To remove system bias, the Pmeasured was corrected by the
penetration of a blank "no-filter" test for which no air cleaner
was installed in the duct (P100)- (Pioo was °-995 for the 82°
cfm tests and 1.034 for the 984 cfm tests.)
f corrected
P /
measured /
/MOO
(7)
The filtration efficiency was then calculated as shown in
Equation 8.
Filtration Efficiency (%) =
100(1
"corrected/
(8)
Lastly, the combined standard deviation of the penetration
measurements was calculated to indicate one standard
deviation of the penetration based on the CV of the upstream
and downstream culturable concentrations as shown in
Equation 9.
Combined Standard Deviation =
P\fC^\T \2 _i_ ff^\T \2~|05
measured i\. U/ v D^ J
(9)
Where:
    Pmeasured = Penetration calculated from the upstream and
              downstream culturable concentrations,
    CVrj = Coefficient of variation from the upstream
           concentrations, and
    CVD = Coefficient of variation from the downstream
           concentrations.
A sample set of calculations from the bioaerosol tests is
provided in Appendix B.

3.3 Aging of Air Cleaners for In-Use Tests
For a select group of seven filters and three EACs, aging
was performed in conjunction with inert aerosol testing to
examine the effect of dust loading in actual use environments
on the collection efficiency and pressure drop of the units.

3.3.1 Aging of  Filters
To determine the effects of dust accumulation, a select
group of seven filters was tested using the inert aerosol
procedures described in Section 3.1 both before and after
aging in actual use environments. As shown in Tables 2-3 and
2-4, two residential filters and five commercial filters were
evaluated "in-use." For all seven filters, evaluations using the
procedures described in Section 3.1 were performed before
use and  then after approximately 2 weeks,  4 weeks, 8 weeks,
and 12 (residential), or 16 (commercial) weeks of use. It is
important to note that it was not feasible to use the same filter
for all five of these evaluations due to the excessive amount
of shipping and handling that would be required to transport
the filter between the use environment and the test facility.
Therefore, five identical (from the same package or lot) filters
of each of the seven filter types were used during testing.
For the residential filters, aging was accomplished by
using the filters in the home residences of two Battelle
staff members. Because of the significant differences in
the operational parameters of residential HVAC systems,
electronic data logging systems were installed into each
residence to record the actual hours of operation of the
blower. Photographs of the residential HVAC systems used
are provided in Appendix C.
For the commercial filters, aging was accomplished by
insertion into two separate operational HVAC systems at
Battelle's facilities in Columbus, Ohio, and West Jefferson,
Ohio. Both of these HVAC systems operated using 100%
fresh (outdoor) air intake, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Both of these systems used a pair of filters to process the
outdoor air — a bank of 24" x 24" x 2" prefilters followed
by a bank of 24" x 24" x 12" medium- to high-efficiency
filters.  Photographs of the two HVAC systems are provided in
Appendix C. In both cases, a complete  replacement of all the
filters (both prefilters and medium/high-efficiency filters) in
the entire filter bank was performed when aging was initiated.
This was performed to ensure that the flow (and thus the dust
loading) through the various filters would be as homogenous
as possible  during the entire aging process. All of the aged
filters were initially inserted into the system on the same
day.  The filters were removed individually, when their aging
duration had been completed, and replaced with a new filter
of the same type. Because the maximum recommended
lifetime for the residential filters was 3  months, the final
aging duration was limited to 12 weeks instead of the 16
weeks  that was used for the  commercial filters.
After the filters were exposed, they were weighed,
photographed, and placed into special carrying cases that
were designed to minimize the loss of loaded dust due
to vibration, shock, or damage during delivery to the test
facility. The filters were weighed both before and after
delivery to  the test facility to ensure that the loss of loaded
dust was minimal. Delivery  from  the aging location to the
testing location was performed directly by Battelle staff to
ensure that  no damage occurred during transit.
All filters for this study were stored in an indoor, air-
conditioned environment both prior to and after aging. Each
filter was numbered using a permanent marker. All of the test
filters used  in this study were inspected before testing/use and
were found to be free of problems such as holes or defects
in the media, damage or defects in the frame, and gaps in the
seals between the medium and frame. Damaged/defective
filters were not used in any of the tests.
It may  be important to note  that significant difficulties were
encountered in acquiring commercial filters for testing that
did not contain minor or major defects  due to a combination
of manufacturing errors, damage during transit, incorrect
filter models being sent, etc. Approximately one third of the
commercial filters required some  sort of remedial action to
ensure that  pristine samples of the correct filter model were

-------
acquired. In contrast, acquisition of the residential filters and
EACs required no remedial action whatsoever. Therefore,
to ensure that the desired performance level is met, filter
purchasers should institute a standard practice of carefully
inspecting each filter that is received. A careful comparison
between the model numbers on the filters/boxes/purchase
order should be performed to ensure that the proper filters
were received. In addition, each filter should be visually
inspected to ensure that the filter has the proper dimensions
and gasketing; has no holes, rips, or tears in the medium; and
is properly sealed (no breaks) to the filter frame. The filters
should be stored in a clean, dry area away from normal foot
traffic and rainwater seepage. During installation, care must
be taken to ensure that the filters are not handled roughly
or damaged, and that they are properly installed in the filter
holders with no gaps in the filter assembly and no loose
or unused clamping or sealing mechanisms. Without these
procedures, it is likely that filter performance will not match
the desired values.

3.3.2  Aging of Electronic Air Cleaners
To determine the effects of dust accumulation, three of
the EACs were tested using the inert aerosol procedures
described in Section 3.1 both before and after aging in actual
use environments. For all three units, evaluations using the
procedures described in Section 3.1 were performed before
use and then after 1 week (168 hours), 2 weeks (336 hours),
6 weeks (1,008 hours), and 12 weeks (2,016 hours) of use. In
contrast to the aged filters,  the same unit was used for all five
of these evaluations.
Due to the size and weight of the units and  the difficulty
and custom nature of installing/removing them into/from a
residence, it was not feasible to age them in an actual use
environment separate from the test facility.  Therefore,  an
aging system was fabricated and operated in the test facility
at Intertek ETL Semko. A photograph of the aging system is
provided in Appendix D. The system consisted of a single
blower attached to a plenum that was connected to three
separate ducts. Each duct contained an airflow monitor as
well as an adjustable damper. When operating, the aging
system continuously (100% operation, 24 hours per day, 7
days per week) drew unconditioned air from the test facility
through the EACs. The airflow monitors were periodically
monitored and the dampers modified as needed to ensure that
the airflow through each unit was approximately 295 fpm
during the entire exposure period. Since the pressure drop
of the EACs did not significantly change during loading,
adjustment of the dampers  was rarely  necessary. Therefore,
aging of all of the EACs occurred simultaneously.
All the EACs for this study were stored in an indoor, air-
conditioned environment both prior to and after aging. Each
unit was numbered using a permanent marker. All of the
units used in this study were inspected before testing/use and
were found to be free of problems such as broken ionizing
wires, unattached connectors, holes or defects in the media
(for the one unit that had a filter), damage or defects in the
frame,  and gaps in the seals between the cells and frame.
(While significant difficulties were encountered in acquiring
commercial filters that did not contain defects, none of the
EACs that were procured contained any.) However, care was
taken to ensure that the cells in the air cleaners remained
operational during both aging and testing, as it was observed
during initial testing that the electrical connections on some
of the cleaners could loosen during use, powering down the
unit and greatly reducing the collection efficiency.

3.4 Conditioning of Electrostatic Filters
For non-electrostatic air filters, collection efficiency and
pressure drop will be at a minimum prior to any loading/
usage.  Once usage begins, their pressure drop and collection
efficiency will generally increase as particles are loaded
because the loaded particles increase the resistance to airflow
as well as create a more torturous path for particles to pass
through. However, electrostatic filters achieve a relatively
high collection efficiency at relatively low pressure drops
by relying heavily on the electrostatic attraction of particles
to their charged media.  It is well known that the collection
efficiency of electrostatic filters generally decreases after
being loaded with a small amount of dust. Similar to other
filters,  eventually, the collection efficiency of electrostatic
filters generally increases with dust loading once a substantial
dust cake starts to build up on the filter. Therefore, the
minimum collection efficiency  for electrostatic filters
generally is not at initial use, but at some point between
initial loading before a substantial dust cake has built up.
Therefore, eight electrostatic filters were evaluated using a
modified inert aerosol test method (Section 3.1) that involved
conditioning to identify their minimum collection efficiency,
rather than their initial collection efficiency. This modified
inert aerosol test method was performed in accordance with
the latest recommendation from ASHRAE, namely draft
Addendum C for ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999.
Essentially, this test method consisted of multiple
performances of the procedures described in Section 3.1.
Their collection efficiencies and pressure drops were initially
measured using the methods described in Section 3.1.
Following the initial collection efficiency tests, the filters
were loaded in the ASHRAE 52.2-1999 test rig with
submicron potassium chloride particles until the CT
(concentration*time) of the filters was on the order of 3.2* 107
(particles*min)/cm3. The collection efficiency of the filters
was again measured in both the 0.03 to 0.3 and 0.3 to 10
um particle diameter ranges, using the methods described
in Section 3.1. Loading of the filters with additional
potassium chloride particles was again performed until
the CT had approximately doubled (approximately 7*107
[particles*min]/cm3). The collection efficiency of the filters
was again measured in both the 0.03 to 0.3 and 0.3 to 10 um
particle diameter ranges. This pattern was repeated until the
collection efficiency of the filter did not degrade (decrease
by more than 2% in more than one individual size bin
between 0.3 and 10 um) between two successive loadings
or when the CT reached 1.2*109 (particles*min)/cm3. As
explained in draft Addendum C of ASHRAE 52.2-1999, the
purpose of these loading tests is to determine the minimum
collection efficiency of electrostatic filters, which are known

-------
to initially degrade in collection efficiency with use until
the built-up dust cake begins to compensate for the loss of
available electrostatic charge on the filter fibers. (Based on
previous testing [Hanley and Owen, 2003], a CT of 3.1*108
[particles*min]/cm3 is thought to represent approximately
3 months of full-time use.)

3.5  Conditioning of Electronic Air Cleaners Using
     Silicon Vapor
In addition to the "in-use" tests described in Section 3.3,
three EACs were evaluated by the inert aerosol methods
described in Section 3.1 both before and after exposure to
silicon vapor. The purpose of the exposure to silicon vapor
was to compare the results from exposure to silicon vapor
to the results from the "in-use" tests to determine whether
the silicon vapor exposure resulted in a realistic assessment
of their likely performance after one month of actual use.
The silicon vapor exposure was performed using the draft
protocol from the EPA ETV program (Hanley et al., 2002).
The EAC cell (or cells) were placed in a small (16 to 24 ft3)
chamber equipped with a 12" nominal diameter fan. The
fan moved air over a small holding pan filled with DOW
Corning 244 fluid (octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane) and
through the EAC cell(s).  The cell(s) were placed in the
chamber and energized according to their normal operating
voltage. The mixing fan was operated for 3 hours with
the cells off and the chamber sealed; then the cells were
powered for 8 hours. The cells were then powered down,
the chamber vented, and  the cells removed. The  cell(s)
were replaced in the EAC and the collection efficiency
measured as described in Section 3.1. Based on limited
previous testing (Hanley  et al., 2002), 8 hours of exposure
to the silicon vapor approximates one month of full time
usage. (This conditioning method duration approximation
is based on testing of one electronic air cleaner in a single
home over several months [Hanley et al., 2002].)

-------

-------
4.0
Test Results
As described in Section 3, a variety of different test methods
were used during this study. For both the filters and EACs,
inert aerosol evaluations were performed to measure their
collection efficiency for particles with diameters between
0.03 and 10 um. For a select group of both filters (seven) and
EACs (three), testing using a bioaerosol was performed for
comparison to the inert aerosol results. For a select group of
both filters (seven) and EACs (three), aging was performed
in conjunction with inert aerosol testing to examine the
effect of use on the collection efficiency and pressure drop
of the units. For a select group of electrostatic filters (eight),
inert aerosol testing was performed in conjunction with
conditioning in the ASHRAE 52.2-1999 test rig to evaluate
the degradation in performance likely to occur with use. For
a select group of the EACs (three), inert aerosol testing was
performed both before and after exposure to silicon vapor
to simulate the degradation in performance likely to occur
during actual use. Descriptions of the results from these tests
are provided in turn below.
The results discussed in Section 4.1 include results only from
tests of air cleaners in their original "off-the-shelf" condition.
Section 4.2 contains the measured bioaerosol penetration
efficiencies for a selected subset of seven unaged filters and
three EACs. Results after the various aging and conditioning
steps are discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. A
complete listing of the results from the evaluations of each
"off-the-shelf" air cleaner is provided in Appendix E. A
summary of the results is provided for the filters and EACs in
the following sections.

4.1 Unaged — "Off-the-Shelf" — Inert Aerosol
Evaluations
The purpose of the inert aerosol tests was to characterize the
filtration efficiency of the air cleaners for particles between
0.03 and 10 um at the maximum flow rate the units would
likely encounter in actual use. The pressure drops of the units
were also evaluated at 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the
maximum flow rates that the units would likely encounter
in actual use. A total of 27 different air cleaning devices (24
filters, 3 EACs) were evaluated in this manner in their "as-
received" or "off-the-shelf" condition.
4.1.1 Unaged Filters
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the results from the "off-the-
shelf" evaluations of the residential and commercial filters,
respectively. As shown in these tables, the measured pressure
drops of the filters generally corresponded quite well (± 30%)
to the information provided by the various manufacturers,
although in a few cases, the measured pressure drops were
somewhat greater. In terms of collection efficiency, the
MERV ratings determined from the tests ranged from two
ratings above to four ratings below the manufacturer's
nominal MERV rating. It should be noted that the testing
performed on the current study did not include the dust-
loading portion of ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999; therefore, the
MERV ratings were determined from the initial collection
efficiency portion of the test only. As noted in Tables 4-1
and 4-2, some manufacturers did not provide MERV ratings
so MERV ratings were estimated based on the literature
provided by the manufacturer and Table E-l from ANSI/
ASHRAE 52.2-1999 (1999). Lastly, it should be noted that
the testing during this study consisted of evaluations of single
filters, so the results may not be representative of typical
performance. It should be noted that the purpose of this study
was not to evaluate manufacturer-provided MERV ratings.
The results listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are provided to
illustrate that the obtained results were reasonably similar to
the anticipated performance based on the obtained literature.
Since some variation should be expected in individual filters,
some number of replicates would have been needed to make
these comparisons statistically meaningful.
Figures 4-1 through 4-18 graphically illustrate the collection
efficiencies and pressure drops that were measured for the
"off-the-shelf" filters. The results from the measurements
were compiled onto the various charts according to the
MERV ratings that were obtained. As shown in Figures 4-1
through 4-18, except for the MERV 8 filters shown in
Figure 4-7, the collection efficiency curves obtained for the
filters with identical MERV ratings were similar in shape.
In addition, collection efficiencies measured with the OPC
(0.3 to 10 um) generally corresponded very well with the
collection efficiencies measured with the SMPS (0.03 to
0.3 um), in the common region of overlap around 0.3 um,
with only a few discontinuities.

-------
           i  i  E
 -
 o>
 O)
 0)
CfL
^
 i
 o
 §
 o
 E
<
 fe
l\
 I
 O)
cr
s  -S  «
   n:  -Q
          >  BbO
          CC  = V)

ro
1 i 1
"&
~ ^
is
ID A
>
tr


E
ti
ro
ro
2

00
-1
0

tj
2
"03

d
o ro
°° ro ro
LO ro ro
II II II
t-i CM ro
LJ LiJ LJ
LO
ID
Z
Pleated
polyester and
cotton blend

ID
d.
9=
2 >
°^
^ o
LO C

ro
1 i 1
OJ
'^ x?
— ' o^
2 S
1^ A
>.
cr
^

E
o
0
CM
00
"03
01
i — i
d


z



i^ ro
^ LO ^
LO i— 1 -^f
II II II
t-i CM ro
LJ LiJ LJ
ID
00
O
Z
Pleated
polyester and
cotton blend
i — i
00
ih
z
CM




•4-1 <"
2^-2
^-oo

•5 t ^. oi
fill
> X° ^
1 i 1 L^
2 °° o
A 0.
E
o
0
CM
00
"03
00
1 — 1
d
E
't'T
0
LO
00
"03
CM
d
ro 01 .-1
ro i^ CM
CM ro oo
ii ii ii
•— i CM ro
LJ LiJ LJ
00
i — i
i — i
1
O
_O) O '^ .03
i — 1
i — i
i — i
u_
ro
T3 s_
03 -C
,_, .00

1 — 1 -^




O)
o




E
o
0
CM
00
"03
01
0
d


<



1^ 00 rt
Ol O CM
ro oo 01
II II II
t-i CM ro
LJ LiJ LJ
CM
CM
i — i
c/)
Pleated
polypropylene
and polyolefin
CM
i — i
<
ID
LJ_





ro
1 i 1
.
tr
^

E
o
0
CM
00
"03
LO
CM
d
E
t>
•=3-
Ol
ID
"03
CM
i — i
d
CM Ol 1^
Ol -=3- 00
i — i tD tD
II II II
•— i CM ro
LiJ LiJ LiJ
-
1 	 1
1 	 1
.
tr
^

E
o
0
CM
00
"03
^j-
i — i
d
E
o
o
CM
00
"03
i — i
d
ID Ol 00
O i— i ID
CM LO LO
II II II
t-i CM ro
LJ LiJ LJ
-
CO

O i±
L_

ro
1 i 1
.
tr
5

E
o
0
CM
00
"03
01
CM
d


z



o ID ro
Ol CM i-i
^H ID ID
II II II
t-i CM ro
LJ LiJ LJ
-
CO
-------
              9  9  o
 o

 a3

 E

 E
 o
O
CO

 O)
p


4—
 O




 O


"03
 03
 >
 O

 E
 a>

-t—'

 a3
 c

 a>
 E
 o
 a>
cr
J2

.<"
CO
1 1 1
OJ
^ o^
£ S
1^ A
tr
LU

E
"o
00
ID
01
i — i
TO
00
CM
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
00
CM
0

ro i^
•* -^ 01
•=t CM •^f
II II II
t-i CM ro
LU LU LU


ID

^
0
"oi s-
•o c 4^
^1-
— ^- 03
o_ _™ =5
o ^
c E
^

i^
ol
Q_
O
O >
1—1 '«
_0 ^
^.E
ro
1 1 1
£
^ o^
^_ 1^
00 A
tr
LU

E
tJ
00
ID
01
i — i
TO
i — 1
•=3"
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
0
LO
0

O Ol •^f
LO -^ -— 1
i— 1 -3- LO
II II II
•— i CM ro
LU LU LU




00
0
z
~a oJ ^
OJ -^ o
00 — 03
03 "S ^
	 ~y, 03
111

00
o
01
CM
O




CM
LU
£
0) LO
"- ID
m A
tr
LU
2
E
tJ
00
ID
01
i — i
TO
ID

0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
LO
•^J-
0

ro LO LO
•^f *-< CM
ro ID 01
n n n
•— i CM ro
LU LU LU


o

i — i
i — i
0
z
Pleated
icrofiberglass
box filter
E

.— 1
CO
o
C\J 0)
>— 1 .^

-2 ^
2 .E
ro
1 1 1
£
11
Ol A
tr
LU

E
tJ
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
ID
ro
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
0
ro
0

1^ 1^ Ol
LO ro oo
CM -=3- i^
n n n
t-i CM ro
LU LU LU


00

i — i
i — 1
0
z
Pleated
icrofiberglass
E

i — 1
C4FPC-




CM
LU
£
0) O
•- 01
2 A
tr
LU
2
E
"o
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
•=3-
10
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
0
ID
0

00 ID CM
01 ro i^
LO 00 Ol
II II II
t-i CM ro
LU LU LU


CM
, — 1

ro
1 — 1
0
z
Pleated
icrofiberglass
E

, — 1
C5PSC-




cu "O cu ^ ^
^ 2 ^ o .g
1 |i^i
lilP1

>< ^ (~) t/i CO
LU ^ ^ TO ^
5
E
tJ
00
ID
01
i — i
TO
00
ID
i — i
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
00

i — i

^H ^H •^f
CM 00 Ol
00 Ol Ol
II II II
t-i CM ro
LU LU LU




i — 1
0
Z
00
03 .-— .
_Q C/)
(SI . OJ
%B o
-S s
iZ
LO
i — 1
a.
Q
ID
o
LO 0)
,-H .>

p. ^
2!
, — 1
LU
£
C7 0^
0) LO
•- oo
12 A
tr
LU
2
E
tJ
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
LO
00
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
00
LO
0

t-i 00 00
i — i tD Ol
00 Ol Ol
II II II
t-i CM ro
LU LU LU


, — 1

<3-
1 — 1
1
o
'B E
03
0)
Q_
ro
1 — 1
C7CFER-





®>g
•5 tr i^
S"1"1"1 A
ro ^p- LU
O a)
g 01 .±
LU A g-
2 CM £
LU

03
< E
ro 4—
d oo
-g
LO '-'
o

E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
^j-
•3-
0
LO ro i^
1^ ID 00

•^f ro" ID"
oi 06 06
ID 00 Ol
II II II
•— i CM ro
LU LU LU
|
C\J
1 — 1
CO
1 — 1
1g
o
0)
Q_

ro
i — i
N
00
O




CM
LU
£
0) O
•- 01
2 A
tr
LU
2
E
"o
00
ID
01
i — i
TO
0
ID
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
0
ID
0

ro -^ ID
•-i oi 06
1^ 00 Ol
II II II
•— i CM ro
LU LU LU


CM

1 — 1
0
Pleated
icrofiberglass
E

CO
o
Q_
O




i — i
LU
£
C7 0^
0) LO
•- oo
T— H A
tr
LU
2
E
"o
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
1^
LO
0
E CM
t) '-1
O £ —.
o -^ 42
O > 0)
dJ O
"03 1= §_
o tl
LO O
o -

O O Ol
•-J LO 00
00 Ol Ol
II II II
•— i CM ro
LU LU LU


, — 1

<3-
1 — 1
1
E ^" 2
5 ° o
±T ~ Q_
-I—"
,_,.
, — 1
CIOCFS-




-------
T3
 a)
 o
O
 o
 a>
 E
 E
 o
O
CO
 tb
p


H—
 O



 O
 O
 t/)
 a)
 c

 a>
 E
 o
 a>
01
03 s Q
IS
Q- Oi
"O
-C CD
.5? to

E
o
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
LO
00
0
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
i — i
ID
0

ID 01 o
06 oi °
Ol Ol •— '
II II II
£ CM ro
LJ LJ J-1







ID
i — i




ID
i — i




0






«
03
~O DO
O3 -Q
0) ^
51 £
o
E

ID
i — i
^
O
1 — 1
1 — 1
o

ID
i — i




-0)
~
Q_
0
Q
5?
LO
Ol


E
""£"7
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
i — i
q
i — i
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
LO
Ol
0

O 1^ Ol
06 oi oi
Ol Ol Ol
II II II
t-i CM ro
LJ LJ LJ







ID
1 — 1




ID
1 — 1




0






«
03
~O DO
O3 -Q
0) ^
51 £
o
E

ID
1 — 1
CD
c^
CM
1 — 1
o







.2
L^
Q_
0
Q
5?
LO
Ol


E
*Q
00
ID
01
i — i
"03
01
CM
i — i
E
o
0
0
Ol
•— '
"03
LO
Ol
0

•3- 00 LO
ib ib i^
Ol Ol Ol
ii ii ii
•-I CM ro
LJ LJ LJ







ID




ID
i — 1




0






«
03
-0 DO
O3 -Q
0) ^=
Q- £
o
E

ID
1
o
^
ro
O








0)
=
Q_
LJ




E
""Q
CO
t£>
CT>
i — i
"TO
ro
i — i
E
o
0
0
o
CM
"03
LO
•3"
i — 1

000
o o o
1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1
II II II
•— i CM ro
LJ LJ LJ







ID
1 — 1



Q_
LJ




0






«
03
-a DO
03 -Q
0) ^=
Q- £
o
E


1
[2
•3-
,_,
o
o '-'
< A
Q_ s_
LJ 0)
^ -^
o
CM y
X CM
^f x
CM ;^
X CM
CM c\J
03 <-<
"O TO
CU -Q
"K c
^J TO
^ 0
CO "c"
01 -^ Q-
X; la "-
^ o CM
03-3-01
•3- d S
ro - c
o E £
tj
E
O
0 "p
§1
CM 0
"03 g
00 —
ro
0
LO Ol -3-
i< cxi •-!
i — i o~i tD
i — i i — i tD
•3" 1^ ID
II II II
•— i CM ro
LJ LJ LJ





bo
r--"



i — i
i — i




0)
^~






.2
03 o [EE
-------
   o
   £
   1

100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
         0.01
                    -IPP-6-1
                    -MERV 5 MINIMUM (AVERAGE)
                    -MERV 5 MAXIMUM (AVERAGE)
tf^W^^^S^.
   0.1                    1
    Particle Size (microns)
                                                                   10
Figure 4-1. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 5 Filters
0.25 -,
I"'
"S
(fl
® 0.15 -
b
a
2 0.1 -
Q
a
(A
<£ °'05 -
0.
0
(


























/
/
/
/




/
/
\











































) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-2. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 5 Filters
-------
100
90
80
I70
1 60
| 50
5 40
1 30
* 20
10
0
O.I
-




— C1APP-7-1
- MERV 6 MINI
MFRV 6 MAX






"V**^



MUM (AVERAGE)
JMUM (AVERAGE)










*-T*A
~w ^ l*-^--ix M
s*




^^
S^tr-t^
tf J*
/ S
//
^/


31 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-3. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 6 Filters
rt j c .
V-'»3
n A -
^ °-4
•
73 rt 'ic .
**—
o n q
« UJ
•
"S n 9
-------
o
c
w

£
LU
"<5
o
E
     100
      90
      80
      70
      60
      50
      40
      30
      20
      10
        0
•C2T90-8-L
 5RM-M-1
 6DDUE-8-11
-7AST-8-3
•C]7FPP-$-small2
 C15AAA-11-IO
 MERV 7 MINIMUM (AVERAGE)
 MERV 7 MAXIMUM (AVERAGE)
        0.01
           0.1                   1

             Particle Size (microns)
                                                                   10
Figure 4-5. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 7 Filters
0.8 n
./ '
s
CD
$ r\(\
^ U.D
*o
« n c
0> U.3
O
.— n i
Q.
O
Q"~ n ^ -
u o
2>
« n 9 -
s u^
•
£ n 1
U.I






I

^-C2T9G-8-l
— 5RM-11-1
-0-6DDUK-8-1I
-M- 7AST-8-3
-*-C17FPP-8-sma112
-^C15AAA-I1-IO






^
°^






^





X
//
*2Z
^^"



S
/ *
^>*
^


/
/
/
/
//
^



/*

^
P





i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-6. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 7 Filters
-------
£
 >.
 o
"o
   CD
   O
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
                 	I	
                  3PAF-1I-I
                 •C4FPC-11-1
                 •ClSAAA-ll-sniall]
                  C17FPP-8-I1
                  MERV 8 MINIMUM (AVERAGE)
         0.01
                         0.1                    1
                            Particle Size (microns)
                                                                        10
Figure 4-7. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 8 Filters
     0.7
  8
  a>
  4>
  O

  O,
  O
  Q
  £
  3
  V)
  (A
  «
0.4
     0.1

                 3PAF-H-1
            Cl5AAA-Il-smalll
                 100      200      300      400      500
                                Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
                                                           600      700
Figure 4-8. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 8 Filters
-------
g
o
£
m

     100
      90
      80
      70
      60
      50
      40
      30
      20
      10
             •C3AV-1M
             •MERV 10 MINIMUM H3 (AVKKAGH)
             • MERV 10 MINIMUM E2 (AVERAGE)
             • MERV 10 MAXIMUM E2 (AVERAGE)
        0.01
                           0,1                   1
                             Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-9. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 10 Filters
                  100      200      300      400      500
                               Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
                                                             600
700
 Figure 4-10. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 10 Filters
-------
   >»
   o
   «
   'o
   £
   UJ
   0>
   cc
    100
     90
     80
     70
     60
     50
     40
     30
     20
     10
      0
          0.01
C5PSC-11-1
C8CZ-I3-1
CI4PCS-1
4RJA-I2-3
8NM-IO-II

MFRVI2MINIMUM
E3 (AVERAGR)
MFRV 12 MINIMUM
                              0.1                     1
                                Particle Size (microns)
              10
Figure 4-11. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 12 Filters
   0.9
y 0.8
1 °-7
| 0,6
u
S 0.5
o 0.4
a
£ 0.3
3
   ?0.2
^
°- 0.1
     0
                 C5PSC-11-I
                 C8GZrl3-l
                 C14PCS-1
                 4FUA-12-3
                •8NM-10-11
                100      200      300      400
                              Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
                                                        500
  600
700
Figure 4-12. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 12 Filters
-------
100
90
80
£70
9ft
O
5 60
'o
•t 50
Ul
"g 40
0
i 30
CC
20
10
0
0.


v
^^
"V ^
^\*





&

2Z_
/s
**•&&$.
**^#\jd





Y

.o^A^S^



-A— C7CFBR-L3-1
— •— C10CFS-14-1
-0-C6-AD
— o— OSGZ-1
	 MI£RV
MI£RV



)1 0.1 1
Particle Size (microns)
MS-1
3-l(Tesl2)
14 MINIMUM E3(AVI£RAGE)
14 MINIMUM E2(AVI£RAGE)
14 MINIMUM El (AVERAGE)
14 MAXIMUM Cl (AVERAGE)
1 L 1




-
10
Figure 4-13. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged MERV 14 Filters
2C .
•9
w •"> .
w
"S
SIR
flj l.D
0
0 1
s
o
CD
1 OR
£
a.



I


^^C7CFER-13-I
— -C1QCFS-14-1
-S-C6-ADP-15-1
-0-C8GZ-13-1 (Test 2)










^
»— -~




/
^-^


x
/
^

-------
Removal Efficiency {%)
-j.roto4itna>-jcocDo
oooooooooooo


&aam$£g










---C12AB-16-1
-o-CllGM-16-1
TLdT7D\7 1 A \ifIMl
	 MERV 16 MINI
MKRV 16 MINI

<*&#&8i&&£^
* • • ••• •"
r




MUM E3 (AVERAGE)
MUM E2 (AVER AGE)
MUM Kl (AVKRAtiK)






r^-°—° — ° — ° — P — 9 — 9
^S-A^j. — i — & — &r~a — i










31 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-15. Measured Collection Efficiencies of Unaged  MERV 16 Filters
1.8 -i
1 A
T ll6
*
*-
(O 1 A
*^
0 4 0
« r2
A
•*; H
O
_c
CL fl R
s.
0 nfi
flj U-V
w n A
« U.H
Si
^ n 5








-a-C!3AMG-l6-l
-^Cl2AB-l6-l
-0-CHGM-I6-1







0














S
^ ^






300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-16. Measured Pressure Drops of Unaged MERV 16 Filters
-------
100
90
80
I 70
.2 60
"o
te 50
LU
« 40
1 30
a
" 20
10
0
O.I
—







-6-CI14FA-H-1
ndFi?v i f, fhtiMi
mri?v if. fhtiMi
Kjf C1>V 1 £. HjfTMT
JvlbKV LO MINJ








MUM E3 (AVERAGE)
MUM E2 (AVERAGE)
MUM El (AVERAGE)





















D1 0,1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-17. Measured Collection Efficiency of Unaged MERV 16+ (HEPA) Filter
2
1.8
f 16
! 1.4
o
« 4 0
o 1.2
o
.£ 1
o 0.8
0
2 0.6
a
0) f. *
w 0.4
£
°- 0.2
0
(

-A




-C1I4FA-





H-l

X





/






X
X




X





^





) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-18. Measured Pressure Drop of Unaged MERV 16+ (HEPA) Filter
-------
The most penetrating particle size was consistently in the 0.1
to 0.3 um range, consistent with typical filtration efficiency
curves. The pressure drops of the filters between MERV 5
and 8 did not appear to be substantially different, averaging
approximately 0.18 inches of water at 300 fpm for all four
MERV ratings. However, the pressure drops of the filters
generally increased as the MERV ratings increased past 8,
averaging approximately 0.22 inches of water at 300 fpm for
MERV 10, approximately 0.34 inches of water at 300 fpm for
MERV 12 (with the exception of electrostatic filter 4FUA-
12-1), approximately 0.39 inches of water at 300 fpm for
MERV 14 (excluding filter C6-ADP-15-1, which was tested
well beyond its recommended flow rate), approximately 0.57
inches of water at 300 fpm for MERV 16, and approximately
0.75 inches of water at 300 fpm for the HEPA filter.
Therefore, consumers of air filters will need to balance the
higher pressure drops and costs of MERV 12 to MERV 16
filters versus the expected increase in performance.

4.1.2 Unaged Electronic Air Cleaners
Table 4-3 summarizes the results from the "off-the-shelf"
evaluations of the EACs. As shown in Table 4-3, the
measured pressure drops of Units A and P corresponded well
with the information provided by the manufacturers, while
the pressure drop for Unit H was nearly double the expected
value. However, in all three cases, the measured pressure
drops were less than 0.12 inches of water at 295 feet per
minute, which was approximately one-third less than the
pressure drops for MERV 5 to 8 filters. In terms of collection
efficiency, the MERV ratings that were determined from the
tests ranged from one MERV rating below to three MERV
ratings above the manufacturer data. The MERV ratings
were also consistent between the two samples of each unit
evaluated. As with the filter testing, it should be noted that
the testing performed on the current study did not include the
dust-loading portion of ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999; therefore,
the MERV ratings were determined from the initial collection
efficiency portion of the test only. Similarly, while the testing
during this study consisted of evaluating pairs of the units,
the results may not be representative of typical performance.
Figures 4-19 and 4-20 graphically illustrate the collection
efficiencies and pressure drops that were measured for
the "off-the-shelf" EACs. As shown in Figure 4-19, the
collection efficiency curves obtained for the EACs were quite
similar in shape. In addition, collection efficiencies measured
with the OPC (0.3 to 10 um) generally corresponded very
well with the collection efficiencies measured with the SMPS
(0.03 to 0.3 um). As shown in Figure 4-20, the pressure
drops of the EACs were generally similar or up to 33% less
than filters with MERV ratings between 5 and 8. Given that
the EACs possessed MERV ratings of 14 and 15, at least
initially, they appeared to offer considerably higher collection
efficiency than air filters for a given pressure drop.
100
90
80
£ 70
| 60
| 50
LU
Af\
« 4U
| 3°
* 20
10
0
O.I

^??^&afcft
i^**i!l^o*s
*****»»^. &s&3£
&&o-~o~i»_«.J«JK?r ^^G*'
s^^"^*^*^^
**fcj^i*A£x?"r
^'Vfr^JT







-A— Unit P - Used fo
-*- Unit P- Used fc
-°- Unit H - Used ft
:gfc*" r™1



raging
r silicon vapor exposure
>r aging
— «— Unit H - Used for silicon vapor exposure
— o— Unit A - Used for aging
• Unit A - Used for silicon vapor exposure



31 0.1
Particle Size (microns)



] 10
           Figure 4-19. Measured Collection  Efficiency of Unaged Electronic Air Cleaners
-------
-a
 o>
1/5
 o
 CO
 o
 t/)
 (/)

 CD

 CO


O


<
 o
 o
 O)
CO

 CD
p

4—
 O



 o
-t—'
 CO
 CO
 >
 o
 t/)
CD
c

CD
 E
 o
 CD
cr

ro
4
          'o  C5  C5
          ^  rt  ro
                             0)



                             0) LO
                             •- oo
                             03

                             CM

                             ^  E
                             O  0.
                               Q.

                               o
                               o
                               LO
                             j  ,-H cn
                          ,  .-  co i^
                           oo  cn cn

                           oo" -=3-" ID"
                           d  ^ id
                           cn  cn cn
                            ii   ii   ii
                           t-i  CM CO
                               •=3-
                               i—i

                               LO"
                             en
                             A
o
o
o
CM
_0

 Q.
ID
                               LO
                               CM
                               ID
                                          0)



                                          0)  LO
                                          •-  cn
                                         ^   E
                                         0   0.
                                            Q.

                                           LO
                                           cn
                                           CM
                                           ID
                                           0
                                           cn
         LO-CM 00

           • i^ oo
         5^ cn cn
          ii  ii   ii
         •—i CM CO
         LJ LJ LJ
                                           LO
                                           i—I


                                           LO"
                                         "
                                         CM
                                             CM
                                             cn
                                           O
                                           O
                                           B
                                            Q.
                                           O
                                           CM
                                           0
                                           CM
                       0)



                       0)  LO
                       •-  oo

                       12  A
                                                       :
                                                      LJ
                       03

                       ID
                       C3)  ^

                       d  a.
                                                      03 cn

                                                      00^
                                                      0
                         Q.


                         O
                         O
                         LO
                                                   •^f  LO 1^
                                                   oo  cn cn

                                                   LO"  co cn"
                                                   CM  LO ID
                                                   oo  cn cn
                                                    ii   ii   ii
                                                   •—i  CM CO
                                                   LJ  LJ LJ
                                                        0)
                                                        c
                                                        0
                                                       o
                                                       o
                                                       B
                                                        Q.
                         O
                         CM
                                                       0
                                                       CM
-------
0,18
01ft
2
« n u
0 n 1?
to u-1^
•
o O1
g U.I
Q. ft rtft
5- u.uo
i_
n nfi
o u.uo
3
2 n OA -
*n U.Vt
0
°~ 0 02















S j
^/
&

	


7
4 ?
///,
///
//,
%/.
y/
s*

/ /
/
\ ' ,^\\
—ft— Unit
-•-Unit
— o— Unit
-•-Unit
-•-Unit


















P-Used foraging
P - Used for silicon vapor exposure
H - Used for aging
H - Used for silicon vapor exposure
A - Used for aging
A - Used for silicon vapor exposure
H — — i — — i — — i — — i — — i — — i —
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
           Figure 4-20. Measured  Pressure Drops of Unaged Electronic Air Cleaners
4.2 Bioaerosol Penetration
A select group of niters (seven) and EACs (three) were
evaluated against a bioaerosol challenge. The purpose of
the bioaerosol tests was to compare the penetration of a
bioaerosol to the penetration of a similarly sized inert aerosol
to determine whether there were any significant differences
between the penetration of bioaerosol and inert particles.
All of the bioaerosol tests were performed at the same airflow
rate as the inert aerosol tests, which was the maximum flow
rate the units would likely encounter in actual use. The
pressure drops of the devices were also evaluated at the test
flow rate. For filter 2NS-8-1, the same filter was used for both
the inert and bioaerosol tests. However, for the remaining air
cleaners, use of the same device was not feasible. Therefore,
a unit of the same make, model, and size was used for both
the bioaerosol and inert aerosol. (For one filter, C11GM-
16-BIO, a 12" x 24" x 12" filter was evaluated versus the
bioaerosol, while a 24" x 24" x 12" filter was used in the inert
particle evaluations. However, the  same filtration velocity of
492 fpm was used.) No aging or conditioning of the filters or
the EACs was performed prior to the bioaerosol evaluations
so that direct comparisons to the inert aerosol evaluations of
"off-the-shelf" units (Section 4.1)  could be made. A complete
listing of the results from these evaluations for each air
cleaner is provided in Appendix F.  A summary of the results
is provided below.
Table 4-4 summarizes the results from the bioaerosol tests.
For the convenience of the reader,  both the filter evaluations
and EAC evaluations are included. As shown in Table 4-4,
the bioaerosol was consistently aerosolized chiefly as single
spores, with mass median aerodynamic diameters just under
1 um. (The standard deviations measured for the bioaerosol
indicated that the majority of the bioaerosol particles
possessed aerodynamic diameters within a factor of two
of the mass median aerodynamic diameter.) Figures 4-21
through 4-30 provide a graphical comparison between the
inert aerosol and bioaerosol test results. In each figure, the
bioaerosol collection efficiency is plotted along with the
standard deviation of the bioaerosol particle diameter and the
standard deviation of the measured collection efficiency as
calculated using equation 9 from Section 3.2.
Similar to previously reported results (RTI, 2004), in nine
of the ten tests, the measured bioaerosol collection
efficiencies generally exceeded the average collection
efficiency for inert particles with physical particle diameters
between 0.3 and 1 um (El) but were generally  less than or
equivalent to the inert aerosol collection efficiency results
for 1 to 3 um particles (E2). These results are consistent
with the measured mass median aerodynamic diameters of
the bioaerosol. The only exception was filter 6DDUE-8,
for which a low (6%) bioaerosol collection efficiency was
measured. However, as shown in Figure 4-24, when the
standard deviation of the bioaerosol results for filter 6DDUE-
8 is taken into consideration, the test results are likely in
reasonable agreement. Overall, the results indicate that
bioaerosol particles are collected similarly to comparably
sized inert particles.
-------
       «'    E   E
       fl)  CC  ,

       'o  —  O  O
       ~  *  m  o
         .  5  ci  ^
              _-      E
 t/)
 C
 O

"ro
 O

 o

 o3
 03
 o

DQ

 O)
 E
 o
 a>
cr
 03
 E
 E
 ^
CO

i^ ro
^ LO 7-1
LO 7-1 -3"
II II II
•-i CM ro
LJ LJ LJ




0^
00
-H
1 — 1


CM
CD
00
O
CD


1 '
i — i
00

eated polyester and
on blend - residential
°- Is
o

00
th
CM


1^ 00 7-1
Ol O CM
ro oo 01
II II II
•-i CM ro
LJ LJ LJ






-H
O
LO

o
CM
CM
Ol
O
S?
CM
03
xp
0
i — i
00
o
CM
eated polypropylene
and polyolefin
trostatic - residential
Q_ 0)
0)

CM



CM -3- -3-
i—i CM i—i
ro oo 01
II II II
7-1 CM ro
LJ LJ LJ





CD
-H
O


CM
LO
Ol
O
5?
CD


0^
01
5?
LO
CM
eated electrostatic -
residential
Q_


i — i
CD
Z
00


CD Ol 00
O T-I CD
CM LO LO
II II II
7-1 CM rO
LJ LJ LJ





01
-H
CD

CM
CM
CM
1^
O
CD
i — i


ro
i — i
b
i — i
CM
Pleated electet -
residential


CM
i — i
00
LJ
ID
Q
Q
CD

CM T-I Ol
•3- ro i^
00 Ol Ol
oo" 
-------
100 -,

Cft -
iftj
on
— . ou -
^
•"TO-
sn 'u
o
C gn _
gj WJ
'o
b Rfl ,
;e au
1LI
— Af\
ta VJ
I 30-
t -*1
a
cc 20 -

in -
1U
0,(


—*- Inert Tost
-a— liioaerosol Test









)1 0












\r~^^_s
1
Particle Size (microns













j
I







^^^_
/ '
/
7
/r
X'
1













0
     Figure 4-21. Comparison Between  Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection
                 Efficiency Measurements for Filter 2NS-8-1
•i/Vl .
nuu
on
yu
3" on -
Q?- OU
>» ?n
o 'U
* cn -
.2 DU
o
^ t^n -
£ w
jn
ra *J -
o 'in -
E *
o 9fl
oc *u
m
IU
0_
0.



— *— inen icsi
-a— |ljn;ti>muJTi>tt



*" "*V*^




31 0.





r
, y
/
*s»-
-------
•inn .
1UU
{Y\
yu •
'TT" or&
^ oU
=*. 7fl -
>• ru
g en -
OU
£ V}-
«t ou
m 40
«> w
5 TTI -
I ~
« 9TI -
ffi t.U
m
IU
0,

-*-InertTest
-o-BioaerosolTest





*_
^S*^*-*-ts*
I I I I I I I I
01 0,




/
/
: / I
/
z
rr •-* r*^
^•^•^•*^f
i i i i i i i i
1
Particle Size (microns)


S^
2
/





i i i i i i p i
i 1











D
Figure 4-23. Comparison Between  Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
            Measurements for Filter 8NM-10-1
      100
       90^
       80
  .
  £    50
  o
  E
       10
                   i     i   i  i  i  i i i
          0,01

0.1                        1
     Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-24. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
            Measurements for Filter 6DDUE-8-12
-------
100
90
80
£ 70
>> on
u DU
.* *%n
y OU
w 40
1 30
o
| 20
10
0
0,

fl-S**-o->o-»-fr«.






3P»


—o— Inert Test for silicon vapor exposure unit
-•— Inert Test for aging exposure unit
-o— Bioaerosd Test










01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-25. Comparison Between  Bioaerosol Collection  Efficiency and Inert Collection
            Efficiency Measurements for Electronic Air  Cleaner A
IUU
90
3? 80
fr 7°
1 60
Ecr\
DU
111
« 40
| 30
a 20
10
0
0.
8******fc,


^~f-* * • • "*•
rg.al"»»aigP^







— •— Inert Test for silicor
-•— Inert Test for aging
-a— Bioaerosol Test


i vapor exposure unit
exposure unit





01 0.1 1 1
                                    Particle Size {microns)

Figure 4-26. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection
            Efficiency Measurements for Electronic Air Cleaner H
-------
100 -|
on .

7/1 .
/u
o
2
75 ^Q _
0
EC
in
i\j -
0 -









***£2±T\^
^L*-»*X^
^













0.01



— fr— Inert Test for ^ging exposure unit
• Inert Test for silicon vapor exposure unit
— d— Uioacrosol Tesl
• i • 	
1 1 I










0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-27. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
            Measurements for Electronic Air Cleaner P
      100
80 --
                     Inert Test for 12"x 24"x 2H Filter

                     BwaerosolTest for 12"x24"x2" Filler

                     Inert Test for 24"x 24" xZ' Filler
          0.01
                            0.1
                                          Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-28. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
            Measurements for Filter C15AAA-11-BIO
-------
      100
        90
        80
   £70
    1   60
   1   50
    cu
    s
Inert Test for 12" x 24" x 2" Filter
Bioaerosol Test for 12" x 24" x 2" Filter
Inert Test for 24" x 24" x 2" Filter
          0.01
               0.1                       1
                   Particle Size (microns)
   10
Figure 4-29. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
            Measurements for Filter C17FPP-8-BIO
IUU
Qrt
yu
nn
5? °°
"~ 7H
& 7°
E #5n
q> OU
'o
ip ^n
S bu
« 40
e ?n
K 20
in
IU
n
"*^***
-»— Inert Test for 24" x 2'
— a — BioaerosoL Test for II





4-^j fc*-*^""**"
J" x 11" Filter
>"x24"x 12" Filter













              0.01
                0.1                     1
                   Particle Size (microns)
10
    Figure 4-30. Comparison Between Bioaerosol Collection Efficiency and Inert Collection Efficiency
                Measurements for Filter C11GM-16-BIO
-------
4.3 Results from the Aging Evaluations
For a select group of both niters (seven) and EACs (three),
aging was performed in conjunction with inert aerosol
testing to examine the effect of dust loading in actual use
environments on the collection efficiencies and pressure
drops of the units. All of the inert aerosol tests of the aged
units were performed at the same airflow rate, which was the
maximum flow rate the units would likely encounter in actual
use. The pressure drops of the devices were also  evaluated at
the test flow rate. A complete listing of the results from these
evaluations for each air cleaner is provided in Appendix G. A
summary of the results is provided for the filters  and EACs in
the following sections.

4.3.1  Aging Evaluations - Filters
Table 4-5 summarizes the results from the filter aging
evaluations. Figures 4-31 through 4-44 provide graphic
illustrations of the test results. It should be noted that
individual filters were evaluated at each of the different
loading durations, so some of the variation in the pressure
drops and collection efficiencies can be attributed to the
variability in the performance of individual filters. For the
two electrostatic residential filters (6DDUE-8 and 8NM-10),
the collection efficiency for larger particles (3.0 to 10.0 um)
either increased significantly (6DDUE-8) or remained the
same (8NM-10) after the  filters started to be loaded with
particles. However, for both filters,  a substantial  decrease
in collection efficiency was noted for smaller particles
(0.3 to  3 um) after the filters were loaded. The collection
efficiency of the filters for smaller particles did not exceed
the initial efficiency until between 8 and 12 weeks of loading
had occurred. The pressure drops of both residential filters
remained fairly consistent through the first 8 weeks of
use but then increased greatly between weeks 8 and 12. It
should be noted that 12 weeks of use constitutes  100% of the
manufacturer-recommended service time for these two filters.
The two electrostatic commercial prefilters (C17FPP-8 and
C15AAA-11) demonstrated consistent average collection
efficiencies over the entire 16-week aging duration for
larger particles (4.0 to 10.0 um). However, as can be
seen in Figures 4-35 and 4-37, the shape of the collection
efficiency curve for the unloaded filters (0 week) differed
from the shape of the curve for the loaded filters. The shape
of the 0 week collection efficiency curves is not unusual for
unloaded filters, although it is generally more frequently
observed with lower-efficiency filters (see Figures 4-1, 4-3,
4-5, 4-21, and 4-31 for examples). As with the residential
electrostatic filters, there was a very substantial drop in
collection efficiency for particles smaller than approximately
4 um once the loading began, and the collection efficiency
for the smaller particles never returned to the measured
initial values. The pressure drops of the prefilters did not
demonstrate any noticeable increase over the aging period.
It should be noted that the typical service life for prefilters
in the HVAC system of interest ranges from 3 to 6 months,
so the 4 months of aging that was performed represented
between 67% and 133% of a typical service period.  It should
also be noted that the performance of filter C15AAA-11
was considerably poorer than was expected from the
manufacturer's literature.
In contrast, the 12-inch deep electrostatic commercial
box filter (C8GZ-13) substantially degraded in collection
efficiency for all particle sizes over the entire aging  period,
dropping steadily from MERV 12 to MERV 10. No  change
in pressure drop occurred over this period, implying that a
suitable dust cake did not form during loading, which would
likely have caused the degradation of collection efficiency to
slow. It should be noted that the typical service life for filter
C8GZ-13 in the application of interest is 6 to 12 months,
typically closer to 12 months, so the aging period represented
only 33% to 67% of the typical service life.
As expected, the two commercial, 12-inch deep, non-
electrostatic, traditional fiberglass media deep-pleated
filters (C14PCS and C11GM-16) did not demonstrate any
degradation in collection efficiency during the aging period.
In fact, the collection efficiency of C14PCS  clearly increased
as dust was collected on the filter during aging. No change
in pressure drop was noted over the aging period for these
two filters. The typical service life for these two filters in the
application of interest is 6 to 12 months, typically closer to
12 months, so the aging period represented only 33% to  67%
of the typical service life.
-------
          Q. W)  O
          Q. (0 O
         <  s
 00 I
 00 I
< r
 I
 a>
cr
 o I

 -

z
!„
LO «
01 -g
C\J 0)
TO
( )
2
o
LO
01
^p
^ B-
i — I
0
0
00
ID
LO
Ol

LO

CNJ
0
"1 =
5 Ji
00
c/)
£
O TO
dJ —
~oj "c
"TO 

00
2
o






-
CM
ID
ID
LO
ro
LO
^

£ =
cu o
0) •<=
5 o
So














E
Q. ___^
LO -^
Ol 
^,








E
a.
LO "PJ
SI $

vj
LO
O






i — 1
00
ro
01
ID
ID
ID
CM
CM
1
_^ pj
a> ^
OJ o
•3- o
— - LO
i — i "j^"
i — i














E
a.
LO "PJ
SI $

00
5
o






ro
CM
i — i
01
•=3-
Ol
ID
i — i
00
1 — 1
1
_^ PJ
a) i:
OJ o
00 CM
-— CT1
^H 00
i — i














a>
CM


i^
i — i






01
•=3-
ro
01
Ol
o
Ol
ID
LO
ID
1 __^
1 1
g j=
d CM
ro rt












a>
0
E
Q.
CM jPJ


i 	 j
LO
O
o
0
LO
o "-
ro
o
0
^
ID
LO
LO

1 — 1
Ol
ro
o x
' CM
jg --1 CM
a> 1 x
IF
00
c/)
a)
03 o ^
a) i: a)
Q_ ^ Q_
a)

00
Q_
Q_

i — i
O


E
a.
CM jPJ

ro ^
^ 0

o






0
ro
i — i
00
1 — 1
1 — 1
Ol
ro
"
o
1
c/) ,-— .
a> ^
O
00



mercial)
b
o
o








E
Q.
CM "Pi
01 -J
03 ^
CNJ
^
O






00
00
0
ro
i^
CM

^
|
l|
«"














E
Q.
CM "Pj
01 -J
^ 0>

"sj
^
O






0
CM
LO
CM
ID
LO
CM

^
|
l|
«^














E
Q.
CM jPJ


00
^
o






00
ro
00
LO
o
1 — 1
ro
ID
00

i£ o
0) •<=
Sro
00 rt














E
Q. __^
CM -^
CT1 0)
"03 l£)

LO "^^
O






CM
00
01
^
ro
o
ro
00
ro
I ^
« £
|1
10 00
d ^
00 ^












-------
           Q. W)  O
           Q. (0 O
           <  S
T3
 O)
 O
O

 t/)
 c
 o
-t—'
 CO
 CO
 >
 ao
 c
'5b
 E
 o
 O)
cr
 CO
 E
 I
CO

IT)
4

•B =1
0 d) &
o> '5 «
o E |
0 d) s

E

CNJ ^
Ol d)
0°
•3-
0
o
0
^^
oo £"
CO
0
0

^
01
CNJ

^

o x
' CNJ
£ •-' CNJ
d) 1 X
IF
co^
, — 1
1 — 1



i
<

LO

o

-a
.0 "o £
^ §" -

E
Q.
CNJ £
Ol d)
•tf- d)
z 5
ro 0
CO
o






0
ID
ID
ID
Ol
i — i

1 	 1
, 	 1
O
1


E
Q.
CNJ «
01 -J
•=*• d)
03
CO
O






CO
0
ID
ID
00
ID
CNJ
0
i — i

s
0 0
•r^ c
O d)
d> '5
§^

E
Q.
CNJ _«
m S
LO
O
o
0
LO
•* ^
•^J-
o
0
ID
00
01
CO
00
00
•=3-
Ol
ID
0
1
5 0
o -^
CNJ
1 — 1
CO
1 — 1
c/)
d)
Pleated
synthetic


CO
1 — 1
1

00



•ail
"O C (
TO (1) C
CD* ^ !
"O 5 •:
C
E
Q.
CNJ _«
03
LO
O






01
ID
ID
01
CO
CO

0
ID
1
d) i:
d) o
g j=
CNJ ID
-— CO
^H CO
i — i



box filter
ommercial)
o









I
D
2.
xb
D
E
Q.
CNJ «
01 -J
•=^ d)
™ s
LO
O






•^f
CNJ
ID
01
CNJ
00
ID
^
00
CO
1
d) i:
d) o
g .c
•^f CNJ
^H ID
1 — 1

















E
Q.
CNJ _«
™ CO
LO
o






CNJ
CO
01
LO
01
CO
LO
ID
ID
CO
1
_g "
d) o
00 5
"-" co
1 — 1
1 — 1 ' '

















E

CNJ ^
Ol d)
ro ID
oo d
LO
0






0
LO
00
01
00
^
CO
LO
LO
CNJ
1
1 1
g -C
2 00
_ ID
O CNJ"
1 — 1














C >s
0 0
•r^ c
O d)
d) '5
"o 3=
O d)

E
Q.
CNJ «
01 -J
•=^ d)
o S
ID
o
o
0
LO
o "-
ID
o
0
ID
00
01

Ol
00
CO
^
0
1
11
5 0
o -^
CNJ
1 — 1
S

-z.
Pleated
:rofiberglass

E
CO
o
Q_

O


c
>s C +
di £ I
> (75 c
C/) '(/) ^
^ fe-l
o :
T
E
Q.
CNJ _«
03
CNJ £l
ID
O






i — i
^.
01
01
LO
CNJ
Ol
0
Ol
1
d) ^
d) 0
g J=
CNJ ID
-— CO
•^f CO
1 — 1



ommercial)
o








u
«l Q.
E to
3 d)
3 *"
E
Q.
CNJ «
51
^
ID
O






ID
CNJ
ID
00
01
CO
O
Ol
CNJ
CO
1
d) ^
d) o
g j=
•^f CNJ
CO ID
i — i

















E
Q.
CNJ «
01 -J
•=^ d)
™ CO
ID
O






01
CO
^
00
01
Ol
, — 1
Ol
1 — 1
00
:
« S^
I!
i — i ' '

















E
Q.
§1
03 i£)
ID •-'
ID
O






ID
CO
01
01
CO
[^
Ol
00
CO
00
1
"di =3
ID 00
r-H 00
^- ID
•* CNj"
i — i













-------
            Q.  (0 CJ
           < s
T3
 a)
 o
O
 o

 03
 00 I
<

 o3
 E
 o
 a)
cr
 03
 E
 E
 ^
CO

IT)

4
                                 o
                                     CD
                                         c  'j:
                                         CD
                                            0)
                                                ai
                             O  CD
                             ^ 'cj  «  'iTi  00  a.
                             — LiZ  O3   C  .E  -t-J

                                'S      8  3  
CD 0
ID 00
r-H 00
^ ID
ID CM"
         
-------
        100

         90

         SO

   i   70
e
'o
    o
    01
    cc
         60

         50
         40
          0 01
—*— Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
-o— Aged 2 weeks - gained 1 g
—o— Aged 4 weeks - gained 8 g
 *  Aged 8 weeks - gained 7 g
 •  Aged 12 weeks - gained 5 g
                                  0.1                       1
                                       Particle Size (microns)
                                                                                  10
Figure 4-31. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8 During the Aging
            Evaluations
Pressure Drop (inches of water)
o o o e
bp-Phtptjp
ow-^wkiwUwlfc














^
&



I
//
M
^
™



A
//.
y/
s/
^










-i— MFF
-r,- Age<
-o-Age<
-o-Age<
-*-Age(
-«-Age<









L Data fora new filter
] 0 weeks - gained 0 g
] 2 weeks - gained 1 g
]4waeks- gained 8g
i 8 wxks - gained 7 g
J 12 \weks - gained 5 g







1 IOC 290 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-32. Measured Pressure Drop of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8 During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
  o
  c
  0>
  "o
  3=
  2
  O
  E
  o>
  cc
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
         0.01
Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
Aged 2 weeks - gained 2 g
Aged 4 weeks - gained 1 g
Aged 8 weeks - gained 3 g
Aged 12 weeks - gained 9 g

                           0.1                      1
                               Particle Size (microns)
                                                             10
Figure 4-33. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 8NM-10 During the Aging
            Evaluations
2.5 n
* 2
a
0
£ 1.5.
o
Q.
E 1 .
o
£
CO
£ 0.5 •
Q.
0
(














y

i^S^

f
/
/
/

^B
^*^"^
/
7



»
^^




-^*— Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
-o— Aged 2 weeks - gained 2 g
-a— Aged 4 weeks - pined I g
-*— Aged 8 \veeks - gained 3 g
-•— Aged 12 weeks - gained 9 g









-










> 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-34. Measured Pressure Drop of Residential Filter 8NM-10 During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
  o
  E
  LJJ
  •3   40
  1   X
  tt   20
       10
-i- Aged 0 vwKks- gainedO g - 24 x 12 filter
-x- Aged 0 weeks- gained 0 g - 24 x 24 filter
-o—Aged 2 weeks-gained 8 g
-o— Aged 4 weeks - gained 20 g
—*- Aged 8 weeks - gained 38 g
-«- Aged 16 weeks -gained 82 g
         0.01
                             0.1                        1
                                 Particle Size (microns)
                                                                       10
Figure 4-35. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C17FPP-8 During the Aging
             Evaluations
0.0 -,
n H -
9
^ 07-
i
1*.
O e\ fi
 02-
d) u •*
cu
01 _


	 Mfr.
—i— Aged
^i^Aged
— o— Aged
-*— Aged
Data - waged
0 weeks- gained Og- 24 x 1
0 weeks - gained 0 g - 24 x 2
2 weeks -gained 8 g
4 weeks -gained 20 g
8 weeks- gained 38 g

filler
4 filter


— *— Aged 16 weeks- gained 82 g












t^


X
^

^^




J*_
^^
^
^^



/^
^
^
W
S
^




^*
fi
t

f





0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
 Figure 4-36. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C17FPP-8 During the Aging
             Evaluations
-------
100
90
80
f U
o
i eo
'o
£ 50
in
« 40
| 30
cc
20
10
0
0.

—+— Aged 0 weeks- gainec
-HK— Aged 0 weeks - gainec
—o— Aged 2 weeks - gained
—o— Aged 4 weeks- gainet
-^*— Aged 8 wocks - gainec
— * — Aged Ifi \Msks -gaiiie


J\^
*T
+-4-iH|-~r V,
+^±5jC,

S*^^ ^*
^^sz
Gg- 12x24 filter
Og -24x24 filter
'3g
24 g
42 g
dR9g
+,



x

/f_
72
^%¥*^/

. ^T i _t---X,


i^*'*^ir^-v. «--•-*
'jf ^^^"^-W ^^^-d« "^'T N A
7* ^C+
^
M
/
~d$_
~J£_


31 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-37. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C15AAA-11 During the Agin^
            Evaluations
07
fl ft
t ue
B
*-
CO
* 05
0
(0
•
f 04 .
O
s
g- 03 -
Q
£
^ 02 -
g °"»
& ft 1 .

1
MC.
.VI IT,
— t— Aged
^^Aged
-o— Aged
-o- Agtd
—A— Aged
* Aged




l>ala - imaged
[) weeks- gaincdOg- 12 x 2
0 weeks - gained 0 g - 24 x 2
2 weeks - gained I3g
4 weeks - gained 24 g
R weeks - gained 42 g
US weeks -gained 89 g





^
*^^

4 filter
4 filter


S
/^
&



A

^


;
//-,
W
f/



s
/
$r
--•
j*





0 100 200 300 4QO 500 500 700
Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
Figure 4-38. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C15AAA-11 During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
     100
                                                      *— Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
                                                      °   Aged 2 weeks - gained 9 g
                                                      n— Aged 4 weeks - gained 14 g
                                                      *— Aged 8 weeks - gained 32 g
                                                      •— Aged 16 weeks - gained 50 g
       0.01
                           0.1                       1
                              Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-39. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C8GZ-13 During the
            Aging Evaluations
0.9


08


07


06


05
     04
  o
  £  0.3
  co
  $  0.2
  £
     0.1
             -  Mir. Data - unaged
                Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
                Aged 2 weeks - gained 9 g
                Aged 4 weeks - gained 14 g
                Aged 8 weeks - gained 32 g
                Aged 16 weeks - gained 50 g
                  100
                            200        300        400        500

                                   Air Row Velocity (fpm)
                                                                       600
                                                                            700
Figure 4-40. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C8GZ-13 During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
   u
   'o
   £
   HI

100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
         0.01
                                                      Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
                                                     • Aged 2 weeks - gained 17 g
                                                      Aged 4 weeks - gained 26 g
                                                     • Aged 8 weeks - gained 39 g
                                                     • Aged 16 weeks - gained 76 g
                           0.1                      1
                            Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-41. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C14PCS During the Aging
            Evaluations
       1

     09

     0.8
   9 06
   y
  £ 0.5
     0.4
  Q
   £ 0.3
   3
   | 0.2
  0.
     0.1
        	Mfr. data - imaged
        —*— Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
        —o— Aged 2 weeks - gained 17 g
        -o— Aged 4 weeks - gained 26 g
        -*— Aged 8 weeks - gained 39 g
        -*— Aged 16 weeks - gained 76 g
                  100       200        300        400        500
                                     Air Row Velocity (fpm)
                                                                600
                                                                          700
 Figure 4-42. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter C14PCS During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
100
90
BO
e 70
o
C 60
.£
'o
£ 50
UJ
"5 40
o
QC
20
10
0
O.I











•*££*£*****
-*• * •
















-*- Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
-o— Aged 2 weeks - gained 1 1 g
-o— Aged 4 weeks - gained 22 g
-*r- Aged 8 weeks - gained 42 g
-•— Aged 16 weeks - gained 81 g









31 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-43. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial  Filter C11GM-16 During the Agin£
            Evaluations
 o
 v>
 0>
 o
 s
                  100        200        300        400

                                    Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
                                                            500
                                                                      600
                                                                                 TOO
Figure 4-44. Measured Pressure Drop of Commercial Filter Cl 1GM-16 During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
4.3.2  Aging Evaluations - Electronic Air Cleaners
Table 4-6 summarizes the results from the EAC aging
evaluations. Figures 4-45 through 4-50 provide graphic
illustrations of the test results. In contrast to the filter aging, a
single EAC was evaluated over the aging period, eliminating
the contribution of unit variation into the measured pressure
drops and collection efficiencies. It should be noted that no
cleaning was performed over the entire aging duration. This
was consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations of
cleaning intervals between 1 and 6 months in duration. (In
general, according to the manufacturer's literature, cleaning
was recommended only when a visible inspection indicated
that cleaning was clearly required.)
The pressure drops of all three units remained consistent over
the entire aging period, demonstrating neither significant
changes nor any discernable pattern. Unit A appeared to
demonstrate a small drop in collection efficiency between
336 hours and 1,008 hours of use, as it dropped from a
MERV 15 to a MERV 14, but  it should be noted that this was
due to a minor decrease in the average efficiency for 0.3 to
1 um particles (from 87.6% to 83.2%), as the efficiencies
in the other particle size ranges were virtually identical.
The average efficiency for 0.3 to 1 um particles for Unit
A decreased slightly again between 1,008 and 2,016 hours
(from 83.2% to 80.7%), but again the efficiencies in the other
particle size ranges were virtually identical. By far, Unit A
demonstrated the least degradation in performance over the
aging period and appeared to be operating satisfactorily even
after 2,016 hours of use without any maintenance.
Unit H also performed reasonably well over the aging period
but showed more degradation than Unit A between 336
and 1,008 hours of aging, even though its MERV rating did
not change. Its average efficiency for 0.3 to 1  um particles
decreased from 93.4% to 86.8% between 336 and 1,008
hours of operation. As shown in Figure 4-47, the MERV
rating for Unit H decreased to 12  after 2,016 hours of
operation, corresponding to a decrease in average efficiency
for 0.3 to 1 um particles from 86.8% to 74.7%, as well
as decreases for larger particles. Cleaning of Unit H after
84 days of continuous operation appeared to be warranted.
In contrast, Unit P decreased slightly in collection efficiency
for particles smaller than 1 um between 168 and 336 hours
of use, and then dropped precipitously from a MERV 14
to a MERV 6 between 336 hours and 1,008 hours of use.
Despite the significant drop in collection efficiency for Unit P
between 336 hours and 1,008 hours, the visible buildup on
the unit was not substantial enough to warrant cleaning.
Unit P was not visibly dirtier than the other two units, so
the user would have no reason to  suspect that performance
had substantially degraded. However, based on its collection
efficiency, cleaning of Unit P would be recommended after
14 days of continuous use.
-------
 ao


'5b|

 E
 o
 O>
cr
 03
 E
 E
 ^
CO

(O
4
                  E


                IS
                lei

                  "S
                I  01
                  A
                  E
                  Q.
                  O
                  LO
                          00
                          00
                          00
                               00
                               00
                                   00
                                   00
                                        E
                                        Q.
                                       4—
                                       LO
                                       01
                                       C\J

                                       "S
                                       ID
                                       q

                                       d>
                                                oo
                                                    00
                                                    00
                                                    00
                                                         00
                                        E
                                        Q.

                                       C\J
                                       01
                                                                          01
                                                                              01
                                                                              ID
E
Q.

o
o
LO
                                                                      00
                                                                      00
                                                                          00
                                                                          00
                                                                          ID
                                                                              00
-------
  o
  *
  'o
  it
  LU
  O
  E
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 SO
 40
 30
 20
 10
  0
-»— Aged 0 Hours
-o—Aged 168 Hours
-a- Aged 336 Hours
-•-Aged 1,008 Hours
-»-Aged 2,016 Hours
         0.01
                           0.1
                                                                   10
                                     Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-45. Measured Collection Efficiency of Electronic Air Cleaner A During the Aging
            Evaluations
0 35 -r
f n 1
4)
1
0 ?S -
0
-------
£
o
I
o
§
1
o
      100
       90
       80
       70
       60
       50
       40
       30
       20
       10
         0.01
- Aged 0 Hours
•Aged 168 Hours
• Aged 336 Hours
•Aged 1,008 Hours
•Aged 2,016 Hours
                              0.1                      1
                                Particle Size (microns)
                10
Figure 4-47. Measured Collection Efficiency of Electronic Air Cleaner H During the Aging
            Evaluations
     0.25
      02
     015
  Q.
  I   -
  £
  g  0.05
  0.
              • Aged 0 hours
              • Aged 168 hours
              • Aged 336 hours
              Aged 1008 hours
              - Aged 2016 hours
              MfrData
                  100       200        300        400        500        600
                                   Air Row Velocity (fpm)
                                                                                700
Figure 4-48. Measured Pressure Drop of Electronic Air Cleaner H During the Aging Evaluations
-------
   100
    90
    80
—  70
§  60
"5
SE  so
LU
5  40
i
|  3°'
    20
    10
       0.01
                                                                 • Aged 0 Hours
                                                                  Aged 168 Hours
                                                                 - Aged 336 Hours
                                                                  Aged 1,008 Hours
                                                                  Aged 2,016 Hours
                               0.1                        1
                                 Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-49. Measured Collection Efficiency of Electronic Air Cleaner P During the Aging
            Evaluations
     0.12
      0.1
  O
  =- 0.06
  O
  « 0.04
     002
                                                               Aged 0 hours
                                                              •Aged 168 hours
                                                              •Aged 336 hours
                                                              • Aged 1JOOS hours
                                                              • Aged 2016 hours
                                                              • Mfr. Data
                   100
                             200
                                        300       400        500
                                      Air Flow Velocity (fpm)
                                                                        600
                                                                                  700
Figure 4-50. Measured Pressure Drop of Electronic Air Cleaner P During the Aging Evaluations
-------
4.4 Results from the Conditioning Evaluations
As described in Section 3.4, eight electrostatic niters
were evaluated using a modified inert aerosol test method
(Section 3.1) that involved conditioning to identify their
minimum collection efficiency, rather than their initial
collection efficiency. This modified inert aerosol test method
was performed in accordance with the latest recommendation
from ASHRAE, namely draft Addendum C for ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999.
Similarly, as described in Section 3.5, three EACs were
evaluated by the inert aerosol methods described in Section
3.1  both before and after exposure to silicon vapor. The
purpose of the exposure to silicon vapor was to compare the
results from exposure to silicon vapor to the results from
the  "in-use" tests to determine whether the silicon vapor
exposure resulted in a realistic assessment of the EACs'
likely performance after one month of actual use.
All of the inert aerosol tests of the  conditioned units were
performed at the same airflow rate, which was the maximum
flow rate the units would likely encounter in actual use. The
pressure drops of the devices were also evaluated at the
test flow rate. A complete listing of the results from these
evaluations for each air cleaner is provided in Appendix H. A
summary of the results is provided for the filters and EACs in
the  following sections.

4.4.1  Results from the Conditioning Evaluations -
       Filters
As discussed in Section 3.4, eight electrostatic filters were
evaluated before, during, and after a series of conditioning
steps. The conditioning was performed according to draft
Addendum C for ASHRAE 52.2-1999, which is aimed
at developing a repeatable test method for evaluating
the  performance of electrostatic filters in actual use.
(Electrostatic filters are generally known to decrease in
collection efficiency when initially loaded and to continue
this decrease until the dust cake that builds up is sufficient
to counteract the decrease in the efficiency of electrostatic
attraction as the available surface area on the filter fibers
decreases.) As discussed in Section 3.4, the test method
consisted of multiple collection efficiency evaluations
between loadings with submicron potassium chloride
particles. A summary of the results is provided in Table
4-7. Illustrations of the results are provided in Figures 4-51
through 4-63. For the convenience of the reader, charts of
selected results from the aging evaluations are included in
Figures 4-51 through 4-63 to allow a direct comparison.
As shown in Figure 4-51, for residential filter 6DDUE-8,
upon conditioning, the collection efficiency increased
significantly for particles larger than 1 um but appeared
to decrease slightly for particles smaller than 1 um.
This was consistent with the observations during the
aging tests shown in Figure 4-52, in which the collection
efficiency increased upon aging for particles larger than
4 um but decreased significantly for particles smaller
than 2 um, until approximately 12 weeks of aging had
occurred. Residential filters 5RM-11-1, 4FUA-12-3,
and 7AST-8-3, for which there are no aging test results
to compare, behaved similarly to  filter 6DDUE-8. As
shown in Figures 4-53, 4-54, and 4-55, upon conditioning,
the collection efficiency of all three residential filters
increased for particles larger than approximately 1 to
2 um but either decreased slightly or remained essentially
constant during the entire conditioning process.
As shown in Figure 4-56, for residential filter 8NM-10, the
collection efficiency decreased slightly for all particles upon
initial conditioning but increased for all particles once the
equivalent of one month of conditioning had been performed.
This is similar to the results observed during the aging tests
shown in Figure 4-57, although the decrease was more
substantial and required approximately 12 weeks of aging to
increase past the initial values.
-------
=
•B\
CO
'001
=
o
I
CD
cr
o I

-
0)
c
o
z
E
Q.
LO
Ol
C\J
K
*t
0
E
Q.
4—
LO
Ol

E
Q.

00
01
1^
00
0
i~v
ID
•=3-
-------
                  E
                  Q.
                  §
     5?   co o
     ^-*   111 i—i
-a
 a>
 o
O
 o
-t— i
 03
 03
 >
 00 I
 o
o
 E
 o
 a)
cr
 03
 E

 E
 ^
CO
  0)

I Q-
                r?




<
^




ro
d
•=3-
iri
01
CM
0
00
ID
CM
ro
o


ro
ro
CM


o ^
-i 0
t 'i
D C
•i T
0 0
OJ 0
0) -^






<
^




d
ID
10
01

00

0
,-H
ro
o


00
ID
i — i


5
a
i
0
L>







<
^




i — i
i — i
•^
O1
CM
i — i
00

ro
ro
ro
O


1 — 1
1 — 1
CM







-
F
ti
un
01
"S
m
o
0
-
o
ro
i — i
ID
ID
CM
ID
0
CTi
i — i

_
( 1

'^


00
-a
"S
0)
Q_

ro
00
h^




<
^




ro
d
ID
10
00
0
CM


[^
i — i
O


CM
ro
i — i


2 -
£ '1
M
0 (.
0) C
0) -






<
^




d
00
cri
00
00
i^


i — i

o


01
ID
i — i


a
u
3
n
u







<
^




O
10
01
ID
1^
00

CM
ro
ro
O


o
1 — 1
CM







-------
in
«
      100
       90
       80
       70
       60
       50
       40
       30
       20
       10
                    - unloaded - initial
                    - after CT of 3.2 *
                    • after CT of 6,9* 10*7
                    • after CT of 1.0*10*8
          0.01
                              0,1                     1
                                 Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-51. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 6DDUE-8-11 During the Conditioning
            Evaluations
        100
         90

         80
     £  70
     &
     £  60
     ._
     £  50
     UJ
     5  40
     o
     §  30
         20

         10
                  • Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
                   Aged 2 weeks - gained 1 g
                   Aged 4 weeks - gained 8 g
                   Aged 8 weeks - gained 7 g
                   Aged 12 weeks - gained 5 g
          0.01
                                  0.1                      1
                                    Particle Size (microns)
                                                                                10
Figure 4-52. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8 During the Aging
            Evaluations
-------
   o
   c
   
   oc
         0.01
            0.1                     1

               Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-53. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 5RM-11-1 During the Conditioning
            Evaluations
      100
       80

  £   70
  o
  ui
  «   40
  o
  E   30
  (D
  '   20
         0.01
 unloaded - initial
 after CTof3J*10A7
 after CT of 6.8 *10A7
• after CT of 1.1 *IOA8
            0,1                      1

               Particle Size (microns)
10
Figure 4-54. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 4FUA-12-3 During the Conditioning
            Evaluations
-------
   0>
   "o
   0
  Of
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
  0
         0.01
                         unloaded - initial
                         after CT of 3.2*10*7
                         after CT of 6.9* 10*7
                         after CTofl .0*10*8
                            0.1                       1
                               Particle Size (microns)
   10
Figure 4-55. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 7AST-8-3 During the Conditioning Evaluations
     y
    LU
    15
     o
    i
  100
   90
   80
   70
   60
           0.01
                      unloaded - initial
                     • after CT of 5.0* 10*7
                      after CT of 7.5 *10A7
                     • after CTofl. 1*10*8
                            0.1                     1
                             Particle Size (microns)
10
  Figure
  4-56. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter 8NM-10-11 During the Conditioning
       Evaluations
-------
   a>
  £
  ui
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
  0
            • Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
            • Aged 2 weeks - gained 2 g
            • Aged 4 weeks - gained 1 g
            • Aged 8 weeks - gained 3 g
            • Aged 12 weeks - gained 9 g
         0.01
                          0.1                     1
                            Particle Size (microns)
                                                                        10
Figure 4-57. Measured Collection Efficiency of Residential Filter 8NM-10 During the Aging
            Evaluations
  .1
   o
  £
  HI
   5
   o
   o
  a:
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
  0
         0.01
                -x- unloaded -12 x 24 filter
                -H— unloaded - initial
                -o-after CT of 3.2 *10A7
                -6-afterCTofg,0*10A7
                -o-afterCrofl.l*l(r8
                          0.1                     1
                            Particle Size (microns)
                                                                        10
Figure 4-58. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter C15AAA-11 During the Conditioning
            Evaluations
-------
   £
    o
   i
 100
  90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
   0
                   Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g - 12 x 24 filter
                   Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g - 24 x 24 filter
                  • Aged 2 weeks - gained 13 g
                   Aged 4 weeks - gained 24 g
                   Aged 8 weeks - gained 42 g
                  • Aged 16 weeks - gained 89 g
    0.01
0.1                      1
 Particle Size (microns)
                                                                                10
 Figure 4-59. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C15AAA-11 During the Aging
             Evaluations
   I
   5
   o
   I
100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
  0
         0.01
                 -x- unloaded -12 x 24 filter
                 -i— unloaded - initial
                 -o- after CT of 3.2* 10*7
                 -ft- after CT of 6.6* 10*7
                           0,1                      1
                            Particle Size (microns)
                                              10
Figure 4-60. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter C17FPP-8 During the Conditioning
            Evaluations
-------
      100
       90
       "
ie
LU
      60
      so
  »  40
      20
      10
Aged Ovwsks - gained Og-24 x 12 filter
Aged Oweeks - gained Og- 24 x 24 filter
Aged 2vwKks - gained 8g
Aged 4w«ks - gained 20g
Aged Suceks - gained 38g
Aged I6\wdts - gained 82g
        0.01
                               0.1                      1
                                  Particle Size (microns)
                                                                 10
Figure 4-61. Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C17FPP-8 During the Aging
            Evaluations
   o
   ,3*
   '
   CD
   O
    100
     90
     80
     70
     60
     50
     40
     30
     20
     10
   unloaded - initial
   after CTof3,2*)0A7
   after CT of 6.4 *10A7
   after CT of 9.6 *10A7
         0.01
                                0.1                      1
                                  Particle Size (microns)
                                                                10
Figure 4-62. Measured Collection Efficiency of Filter C8GZ-13 During the Conditioning
            Evaluations
-------
                                                                         Aged 0 weeks - gained 0 g
                                                                         Aged 2 weeks - gained 9 g
                                                                         Aged 4 weeks - gained 14 g
                                                                         Aged 8 weeks - gained 32 g
                                                                         Aged 16 weeks - gained 50 g
                   0.01
0.1                         1
   Particle Size (microns)
                                                                                                   10
            Figure 4-63.  Measured Collection Efficiency of Commercial Filter C8GZ-13 During the Aging
                         Evaluations
Similar to the residential filters, the aging and conditioning
tests of commercial prefilter C15AAA-11 appeared to be
consistent. As shown in Figure 4-58, the conditioning of
commercial prefilter C15AAA-11 resulted in a noticeable
decrease in collection efficiency for all particles less
than approximately 1 um, with no recovery during the
approximately one month equivalent of conditioning. The
aging of prefilter C15AAA-11 also resulted in a decrease
(although more substantial) in collection efficiency for all
particles smaller than approximately 4 um, with no recovery
over 16 weeks of aging, as depicted in Figure 4-59.
In contrast, the aging and conditioning tests of the remaining
two commercial filters (C17FPP-8 and C8GZ-13) did
not produce consistent results. For commercial prefilter
C17FPP-8, the collection efficiency increased slightly for
all particles upon initial conditioning and remained at the
same level with further conditioning (Figure 4-60). This
result noticeably contrasted with the results from the aging
evaluations (Figure 4-61), in which the collection efficiency
decreased substantially for particles smaller than 4 um
with aging and did not increase over 16 weeks of use. For
commercial box filter C8GZ-13, the results  from the aging
and conditioning evaluations contrasted  even more strongly.
In the conditioning evaluation shown in  Figure 4-62, the
collection efficiency of filter C8GZ-13 remained essentially
constant during the approximately one month equivalent of
conditioning, even increasing slightly for particles smaller
than 0.3 um. However, during the 16 weeks of aging, filter
C8GZ-13 consistently and continually decreased in collection
efficiency for all particles during the entire period, as shown
in Figure 4-63.
             It is not known why the trends in the results from the
             conditioning evaluations are consistent with the aging
             results for three of the filters but inconsistent with the aging
             results for the other two filters. Further investigation of these
             contrasting results seems warranted but is beyond the scope
             of the present effort. It should again be noted that during the
             conditioning evaluations, a single filter was used. In contrast,
             the aging evaluations were performed with five different
             filters of identical make, model, and size. Therefore, some
             variability is present in the aging evaluations due to the
             different performance levels of the individual filters, as well
             as between the filters used in the conditioning evaluation and
             the aging evaluations.

             4.4.2  Results from the Conditioning Evaluations -
             Electronic Air Cleaners
             As described in Section 3.5, three EACs were evaluated
             by the  inert aerosol methods described in Section 3.1 both
             before and after exposure to silicon vapor. The purpose of
             the exposure to silicon vapor was to compare the results from
             exposure to silicon vapor to the results from the "in-use" tests
             to determine whether the silicon vapor exposure resulted in
             a realistic assessment of their likely performance after one
             month of actual use.
             A summary of the results is provided in Table 4-8. Individual
             results, along with a comparison to the results from the
             aging tests of the EACs are provided in Figures 4-64, 4-65,
             and 4-66. As shown in Figures 4-64 and 4-66, the silicon
             vapor exposure of Units A and P appeared to cause a very
             similar degradation to that likely to be observed after one
             month of ambient aging (672 hours of use). In both Figures
-------
4-64 and 4-66, the collection efficiency of the electronic air
cleaner degraded more than that observed during 336 hours
(2 weeks) of ambient use but less than that observed after
1,008 hours (6 weeks) of ambient use. For Unit H, however,
the silicon vapor exposure degraded the unit's performance
well beyond that observed after even 2,016 hours of ambient
aging (12 weeks of continuous operation).
It is not known why the results from the aging and
conditioning evaluations are consistent for units A and P but
inconsistent for Unit H. It could be a result of a large number
of design and component differences between the three units.
Given the approximately 50% decrease in pressure drop in
Unit H after silicon vapor exposure, and the alteration in the
                                         shape of the collection efficiency curve, it is possible that the
                                         exposure allowed leakage to occur within the unit. Further
                                         investigation of the contrasting results for Unit H seems
                                         warranted but is beyond the scope of the present effort.
                                         It should be noted that in contrast to the filter evaluations,
                                         during the EAC aging evaluations, a single unit was used.
                                         Therefore, no variability was present within the EAC aging
                                         evaluations due to the different performance levels of
                                         individual units. In addition, the initial collection efficiency
                                         tests (shown in Table 4-3 and Figure 4-19) indicated that
                                         the variability between the EACs used in the conditioning
                                         evaluation versus those used in the aging evaluations was
                                         very small.
Table 4-8. Summary of the Results from the Silicon Vapor Exposures of the Electronic Air Cleaners
         MERV
         Rating
         from
         Vendor
MERV Rating
from Testing
  (Exposure
   Status)
                                  Average Collection Efficiencies (%)
   El
0.3-1.0
  E2
1.0-3.0
  E3
3.0-10
  Literature
Pressure Drop
  (in. w.g.)
  Measured
Pressure Drop
  (in. w.g.)
A
H
P
15
Up to 12
NA
15 (before)
15 (after)
15 (before)
6 (after)
14 (before)
7 (after)
90.8
86.6
91.5
52.3
82.5
33.3
94.4
93.9
97.2
53.8
95.3
43.6
96.6
98.1
98.8
47.1
96.9
50.5
0.17@504fpm
0.06 at 295 fpm
0.11 at 504 fpm
0.11 @ 295 fpm
0.13® 295 fpm
0.11® 295 fpm
0.05® 295 fpm
0.08® 295 fpm
0.06® 295 fpm
Very
consistent
with aging
tests
Not
consistent
with aging
tests
Very
consistent
with aging
tests
-------
tf\f\
1UU
fill
90
80
70
t 60
c
03 *;n
u 50
IU Af\
in 40
15
S in
O JU
E
iS on
Q£ /U
10
^-o^O-n r-
i|Liii~JrKr
" - - , - - «
'-»* • *•• •

.
•


i Before Silicon Vapor Exposure
• After Silicon Vapor Exposure
After Ambient Attina of 336 hours
Alter Amhu*nl At'ini? (if 1 0(1R hours



0
0.01 0.1 1
Particle Size (microns)

->r^-^T=""^T^7
s+r^""







10
Figure 4-64. Measured Collection Efficiencies for Electronic Air Cleaner A Before and After Exposure to
             Silicon Vapor
                        Before Silicon Vapor exposure

                        After Silicon Vapor exposure

                        Alter 1,008  Hours of Ambient Aging
                        After 2,016  Hours of Ambient Aging
          0.01
10
                                          Particle Size (microns)
Figure 4-65. Measured Collection Efficiencies for Electronic Air Cleaner H Before and After Exposure to
             Silicon Vapor
-------
.a
o
LU
                                                                                 Before Silicon Vapor
                                                                                 Exposure
                                                                                 After Silicon Vapor
                                                                                 Kxposune
                                                                                 After Ambient Aging or
                                                                                 336 tain
                                                                                 After Ambient Aging of
                                                                                 1.003 hours
        0.01
                                      0.1                1
                                     Particle Size (microns)
          Figure 4-66. Measured Collection  Efficiencies for Electronic Air Cleaner P Before and After
                       Exposure to Silicon Vapor
4.5 Quality Assurance
Work under this task was completed in accordance with a
pair of EPA-approved quality assurance test plans (QAPPs)
entitled "Research on Air Cleaning and HVAC Systems for
Protecting Buildings from Terrorist Attacks; Test/Quality
Assurance Plan for Task 2: Development of Performance
Information for Common Ventilation Filters" (Battelle,
2005a), and "Research on Air Cleaning and HVAC Systems
for Protecting Buildings from Terrorist Attacks; Test/Quality
Assurance Plan for Task 3: Development of Performance
Information for Electronic Air Cleaners" (Battelle, 2005b).
The text from these two QAPPs was included in the relevant
portions of this report, for example, the development of the
filter and electronic air cleaner tests matrices (Section 2), the
inert aerosol and bioaerosol test procedures (Sections 3.1.1
and 3.2.1), and the  data analysis procedures (Sections 3.1.2
and 3.2.2).
                                               In accordance with the QAPPs (Battelle 2005a; Battelle,
                                               2005b), an external quality assurance (QA) audit of Tasks
                                               2/3 was performed by an EPA staff member and a designated
                                               representative on 9 August 2006 at Battelle's Columbus
                                               facility. The quality assurance inspectors reviewed the
                                               sample handling logs, standard operating procedures, test
                                               record sheets, instrument calibration sheets, data logs and
                                               data sheets from the inert and bioaerosol tests, and various
                                               other documentation. In addition, the quality assurance
                                               inspectors witnessed the performance of a bioaerosol test.
                                               Official documentation from the QA inspectors was received
                                               on 8 September 2006. No corrective actions were deemed
                                               necessary. Additional information on the quality assurance
                                               procedures and results  can be found in Appendix I.
-------
-------
                                                                                                    5.0
                              Curve  Fitting  to  the  "Off-the-Shelf"
                                                                  Air Cleaner  Results
As clearly evidenced by this study, a variety of options exist
for the removal of particles in residential and commercial
HVAC systems. There are a number of selection criteria to
be considered when choosing an air cleaner for a specific
HVAC system, including (but not limited to) cost, pressure
drop, service life, maintenance requirements, collection
efficiency, power requirements, and required/desired clean
air specifications. In order to choose the optimal air cleaner
for a specific HVAC system, all of these factors need to be
considered and, in some cases, modeled. Therefore, empirical
equations were developed based on the data acquired during
this effort relating particle collection efficiency to particle
physical diameter over the range of 0.03 to 10 um. These
equations can be incorporated into indoor air quality models.
The results from these modeling efforts are provided below.

5.1 Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol  Filter Evaluations
Empirical equations were developed based on the data
acquired during the evaluations of the  "off-the-shelf"
filters relating particle collection efficiency to particle
physical diameter over the range of 0.03 to 10 um. These
equations were developed only for unaged, unconditioned
filters, and one curve was fit to all of the filters whose test
results resulted in a given MERV rating. The curves were
fit using TableCurve 2D software (SYSTAT Software Inc.).
To generate the curves, all of the experimental collection
efficiency results for a given MERV rating were combined
into one spreadsheet. When more than one set of data was
used, the data were combined by averaging the penetrations
and weighting the mean values proportionally to the inverse
of the standard deviation of the values. At the direction of the
sponsor, a 3rd order polynomial was fit between the log of
the penetration and the log of the particle diameter. To avoid
difficulties with taking logarithmic values of penetrations
of 0%, the curves for the MERV 16 and HEPA filters had to
be fit to the natural logarithm and the numerical penetration,
respectively, versus the log of the particle diameter. The
results from the curve fits are summarized in Table 5-1  and
illustrated in Figures 5-1 through 5-9. As shown in Table
5-1 and the various figures, all but one of the curve fits
possessed correlation coefficients (r squared) greater than
0.89, indicating an excellent representation of the data.  The
MERV 6 curve fit possessed a lower correlation value (0.83),
but as shown in Figure 5-2, the fitted curve matched the data
well. In all cases, it is not recommended that the curve fits be
extrapolated outside of the particle size range used to develop
them (0.03 to 10 um). It should be noted that the curve  fits
will provide an empirically validated prediction for the
performance of a filter that performs at a given MERV rating,
not a prediction for a particular make and model of filter.
-------
Table 5-1. Summary of the Results from the Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of Unaged Unconditioned Air Filters
MERV Rating Equation Parameters Correlation Coefficient (r2)
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
16+(HEPA)
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
(l/Y) = a + bx + cx2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Ln Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3 + ex4
where Y = percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
a= 1.8906
b =-0.1722
c = 0.0307
d = 0.0793
a= 1.9311
b =-0.1441
c =-0.1243
d= -0.0234
a= 1.7467
b =-0.3314
c= -0.0036
d= 0.1381
a = 0.5839
b= 0.1675
c= 0.1289
d= 0.0188
a= 1.7083
b =-0.5759
c =-0.6721
d =-0.1775
a= 1.3943
b= -0.9080
c= -0.6240
d= -0.0404
a= 0.9531
b =-1.4941
c= -0.8443
d =-0.0013
a = 0.3855
b=-2.0698
c = 0.5326
d= 1.3895
a = 0.0361
b= -0.3506
c= 0.5119
d = 0.0481
e =-0.1816
0.8935
0.8332
0.9064
0.9658
0.9852
0.9902
0.9668
0.9728
0.8917
-------
100
90
60
g 70
£ 60
5 SO
T5 4°
0 30
S. 20
10
0
-10
0.

-A-C1APP-7
-MERV5MR
- MERV 5 MA
Curve Fit Res



•\
*******_
flMUM (AVERAGE)
JCIMUM (AVERAGE)
ults

^



«^*^
i* ^>_ __
^^
~***^'^*-*^

D1 0.1 1
Particle Size (microns)

10
 Figure 5-1. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Single Unaged,  Unconditioned MERV 5
           Filter
100
90
80
70
51 60
ie 50
LLJ
1 40
E
* 30
20
10
0
O.C







-^-2NS-8-l
-•-C1APP-7-1
	 IVIr.K \ O 1\ 1LLN J
T TFPV ^ T.T \A'
("'iii-\-e Fit "Re^iJ





5v.


)1
V*^.r
**,, ^...^

MUM ( AMHL4GE)
Bv-ILM (AVERAGE)
ts










m F^*^\
A^j— -A^\^>^<^
0.1
Piii tide Size (micro us)




^35
~~Z*
f /*•/
/ /.-''
//
^ /
^

1 10
Figure 5-2. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Two Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 6 Filters
-------
         100


         90


         80
       5 60
       ,1
       O
       E 50
         40
         30
         20
         10
           0.01
                                I
                   -ClTW-S-l
                   -5RM-11-1
                   -6DDUE-8-11
                   - 7AST-8-3
                   -C17FPP-8-sniaU2
                   -C15AAA-11-10
                   -MERY 7 MINIMUM (AVERAGE)
                   -MERV 7 MAXIMUM (AVERAGE)
                   Cinve Fit Results
                                                    r/   !i.ff   /
                                                   //  ¥  /
                                                                             \
                               0.1                      1

                                    Particle Size (microns)
10
    Figure 5-3. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Six Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 1 Filters
     100

      90

      BO

      70

      60
   u
  'u
  fc   50
>
o
   41
  o:
      40
      30
      20
      10
       0.01
               -3PAF-11-1
               -C4FPC-11-1

                C15AAA-ll-smalll
               -C17FPP-8-11
               • MERV 8 MINIMUM (AVERAGE)
                Curve Fit
                              D.1                        1

                                    Particle Size (microns)
    10
Figure 5-4. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Four Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 8 Filters
-------
100
90
80
_ 70
51 60
it 50
HI
I 40
3
tt 30
20
10
0
O.t






^^C3 AY- 11-1
	 MKRY 1 0 1\ rTNTTTV FT
MERY 10 Musran
T, TFT?V 1 0 IS F \^TT F
— Cm"\ie Fit Results


X
^\
%^



]i

.TME3 (A\"ERAGE)
.TME2 (A\"ERAGE)
UME2(AVERAQ^






z
^<*^ ^
^v


^*
J
Figure 5-6. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Five Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 12 Filters
-------
100
90
BO
70
-.0
& 60
i
'0
E 50
Lll
•m
| 40
01
" 30
20
10
0
0.


V
^^
A- 3
"-~Va





<&

P^F
^ff
W
J$
te***#*ff
Q-^oA^





^>— C7CFER-13
-•— C10CFS-14-
-°— C6-ADP-15
-^C8GZ-13-1 (
T iTTTTT?" 1 1 T
T VTT7PT?" 1 1 T
-MERV 14 I*
-MERV 14 I*
Curve Fit Re
-^ ^^
af-




-1
1
-1
Test 2)
ONIMUM E3 (AVERAGE)
IINIMUM E2 (AVERAGE)
flNTMUM El (AVERAGE)
IAXMUME1 (AVERAGE)
suits

01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 5-7. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Four Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 14 Filters
100
90
BO
70
S1 60
g 50
LU
1 40
E
X 30
20
10
0
01

*-g_^







-•-C12AB-16-1
A i KkV 1 f\ "MTMTIV
7l 1 L1 1 V\ " 1 /C TV ITMTN
MER\" 16 MDS1TA





• • • • •H*-"-*^


IUME3 (AA^EL4CiE)
RME2 (A\7EEtAGE)
JIM El (A^•ER,i(JE)









-& — & — &- — i — & — & — & "











]1 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (microns)
Figure 5-8. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Three Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 16 Filters
-------
100
90
80
~ 70
0^
& 60
5
'o
i 50
LU
1 40
*
* 30
20
10
0
O.C







^-C114FA-H-1
I1 TFTPl " 1 Ci Ti UNIT

	 MtLKA 1C> MINI
MERY 16 MINI
f Sin v»> TTif Pjhtiilta









MUM E3( AVERAGE)
MUM E2( AVERAGE)
MUM El( AVERAGE)






















)1 0.1 1 10
Pill tide Size (micro list
         Figure 5-9. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Single Unaged, Unconditioned MERV 16+
                     (HEPA) Filter
5.2  Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Electronic Air
     Cleaner Evaluations
In contrast to the curve fitting of the filter results, a single
curve was fit to all of the "off-the-shelf" electronic air
cleaner results. The results are illustrated in Table 5-2 and
Figure 5-10. As shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-10, an
excellent correlation between the collected data and the curve
fit was obtained, as the EACs all had very similar MERV
ratings (either 14 or 15) and similar collection efficiency
curves.
Table 5-2. Summary of the Results from the Curve Fits to the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of Unaged Unconditioned
           Electronic Air Cleaners
MERV Rating Equation Parameters Correlation Coefficient (r2)
14 and 15 (all unaged
unconditioned EACs)
Y = a + bx + ex2 + dx3
where Y = log of percent penetration
x = log of particle diameter
a= 0.8422
b= -0.6469
c =-0.2157
d= 0.1645
0.9600
-------
  o
  HI
  OL
100

 90

 80

 70

 60

 50

 40

 30

 20

 10
       0.01
• Unit P - Used for aging
• Unit P - Used for silicon vapor exposure
• Unit H - Used for aging
• Unit H - Used for silicon vapor exposure
• Unit A - Used for aging
• Unit A - Used for silicon vapor exposure
 Curve Fit Results
                                  0.1                         1
                                       Particle Size (microns)
                                                                                       10
Figure 5-10. Curve Fit to the Empirical Data for the Six Unaged, Unconditioned Electronic Air
             Cleaners
-------
                                                                        6.0
Conclusions  and   Recommendations
As described in the initial sections of this report, four distinct
types of testing were performed under this effort. First, a
total of 27 commonly used air cleaning devices (24 filters
and 3 EACs) were acquired and evaluated for their pressure
drop and collection efficiency, as received ("off-the-shelf").
Empirical equations were developed for the data collected
during these tests relating particle collection efficiency to
particle physical diameter over the range of 0.03 to 10 um.
Second, ten devices (seven filters and three EACs) were
evaluated for their bioaerosol collection efficiency. Third,
a different subset of ten devices (seven filters and three
EACs) were evaluated for their pressure drop and collection
efficiency after approximately 1 or 2 weeks, 2 or 4 weeks, 6
or 8 weeks, and 12 or 16 weeks of normal use. Fourth, eight
filters and three EACs were "conditioned" via methodologies
anticipated to simulate an actual use environment. Eight
electrostatic filters were conditioned by loading with a
submicrometer inert aerosol, while the three EACs were
evaluated both before and after exposure to silicon vapor.
Summaries  of the results and conclusions from each of these
efforts are provided below.

6.1  Results from Inert Aerosol Evaluations of
     "Off-the-Shelf"  Filters
The measured pressure drops of the "off-the-shelf" filters
generally corresponded quite well (± 30%) with the
information provided by the vendors, although, in a few
cases, the measured pressure drops were  somewhat greater.
With the exception of several MERV 11 filters, the MERV
ratings that were determined from the tests were generally
equivalent or within one or two MERV ratings of the
manufacturer data. The testing during this study consisted
of evaluating single filters; therefore, the results may not be
representative of typical performance.
Except for the MERV 8 filters, the collection efficiency
curves obtained for the filters with identical MERV ratings
were similar in shape. Two of the MERV 8 filters possessed
curves with shapes similar to those of lower MERV ratings
(MERV 5 through 7), and two of the MERV 8 filters
possessed curves similar to those with greater MERV
ratings (MERV 9 through 16). For all of the MERV ratings,
collection efficiencies measured with the Climet model 500
Spectrometer (OPC) (0.3 to 10 um) generally corresponded
                           very well to the collection efficiencies measured with the
                           TSI SMPS (0.03 to 0.3 um). The most penetrating particle
                           size was consistently in the 0.1 to 0.3 um range, which is
                           consistent with typical filtration efficiency curves.
                           Table 6-1 provides a summary of the results from the inert
                           aerosol evaluations of unconditioned, imaged ("off-the-
                           shelf") filters. As shown in Table 6-1, the pressure drops of
                           the filters between MERV 5 and  10 at 370 fpm did not appear
                           to be substantially different, with a good deal of overlap
                           between the average pressure drops. However,  there was a
                           significant increase in pressure drops between the MERV 10
                           and MERV 12 filters, between the MERV 14 and MERV 16
                           filters, and between the MERV 16 filters and the HEPA filter.
                           As expected, the collection efficiency of the filters generally
                           increased with MERV rating. Therefore, consumers of air
                           filters will need to balance the higher pressure drops and
                           costs of MERV 12 to MERV 16 filters with the expected
                           increase in performance. (MERV 12 was the highest MERV
                           rating found for a residential filter.)
                           In contrast to procurement of the residential filters, during
                           procurement of the commercial filters, difficulties in
                           obtaining serviceable filters of the correct model and size
                           were experienced with nearly one-third  of the procured test
                           filters. These difficulties included shipment of incorrect (but
                           similar) models, incorrect sizes, incorrect frame types and
                           materials, and damaged or improperly constructed filters. For
                           consumers concerned with filter performance, care must be
                           taken to inspect filters before use to ensure that the filters are
                           appropriate for use.
                           As described in Section 5 and Table 5-1, curves were fit to
                           the collection efficiencies that were measured for the "off-
                           the-shelf" filters. All but one of the curve fits possessed
                           correlation coefficients (r squared) greater than 0.89,
                           indicating an excellent representation of the data. The MERV
                           6 curve fit possessed a lower correlation value (0.83) but
                           matched the data well. In all cases, it is not recommended
                           that the curve fits be extrapolated outside of the particle size
                           range used to develop the curve fits (0.03 to 10 um). These
                           curve fits provide a valuable tool that will enable consumers
                           to accurately estimate the collection efficiency  of a filter
                           with a given MERV rating to determine whether its likely
                           performance will justify its increased cost and pressure drop.
-------
Table 6-1. Summary of the Results from the Inert Aerosol  Evaluations and Curve Fits of Unaged
           Unconditioned Air Filters
Number Average Pressure Drop 0 ....-,, .. ,-«. , - ,-.. ,0/,
..•-r.ti i. i-ii ,- i. * ^ Predicted Collection Efficiencies from Curve Fits (%)
MERV of Filters (in. of water)
Rating Tested at 370 fpm 0.03 urn 0.1 urn 0.3 urn 1.1 urn 3.5 urn 8.4 urn
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
16+(HEPA)
1
2
6
4
1
5
4
3
1
0.24
0.22 ± 0.06
0.30 ± 0.08
0.26 ± 0.03
0.29
0.46a ± 0.09
0.48b ± 0.11
0.73 ± 0.15
0.97
13
12
44
40
55
71
82
99
>99
0
6
13
20
37
47
59
95
>99
5
5
20
22
29
49
68
96
>99
24
16
47
52
53
78
93
99
>99
34
35
61
75
85
95
99
99
>99
34
53
65
86
97
99
99
99
>99
1 - neglecting electrostatic filter 4FUA-12-3, which had a pressure drop of only 0.13 inches of water
3 - neglecting filter C6-ADP-15-1, which was evaluated well above its nominal flow rate
6.2 Results from Inert Aerosol Evaluations of "Off-
the-Shelf" Electronic Air Cleaners
The measured pressure drops of two of the three tested units
(A and P) corresponded well with the information provided
by the manufacturers, while the pressure drop for Unit H was
nearly double the expected value. However, the measured
pressure drops for the EACs averaged 0.14 + 0.03 inches of
water at 370 feet per minute, which is approximately one-half
that of the average pressure drop for MERV 5 to 10 filters.
In terms of collection efficiency, the MERV ratings that were
determined from the tests ranged from one MERV rating
below to three MERV ratings above the manufacturer data.
The MERV ratings were also consistent with the two samples
of each unit that were evaluated. As with the filter testing,
the  testing during this study consisted of evaluations of pairs
of the units; therefore, the results may not be representative
of typical performance. (ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999 does
not provide any guidance regarding the number of samples
of an EAC that should be tested to provide a statistically
reasonable representation of their typical performance.)
As with the filters, the collection efficiency curves obtained
for the EACs were quite similar in shape. In addition,
collection efficiencies measured with the OPC (0.3 to 10
um) generally corresponded very well with the collection
efficiencies measured with the SMPS (0.03 to 0.3 um). Given
that the EACs possessed MERV ratings of 14 and 15, at least
initially, they appeared to offer considerably higher collection
efficiencies than air  filters for a given pressure drop.
As described in Section 5 and Table 5-2, a single curve was
fit to all of the "off-the-shelf" EAC results. An excellent
correlation between the collected data and the curve fit was
obtained (r squared value of 0.96), providing the reader with
an excellent tool for predicting the likely collection efficiency
of an EAC as a function of particle size.
6.3 Results from Bioaerosol Evaluations of "Off-
     the-Shelf" Filters and Electronic Air Cleaners
A select group of filters (seven) and EACs (three) were
evaluated against a bioaerosol challenge. The purpose of
the bioaerosol tests was to compare the penetration of a
bioaerosol to the penetration of a similarly sized inert aerosol
to determine whether there were any significant differences
between the penetration of bioaerosol and inert particles.
Similar to previously reported results (RTI, 2004), in nine of
the ten tests, the measured bioaerosol collection efficiencies
generally exceeded the average collection efficiency for
inert particles with physical particle diameters between 0.3
and 1 um (El) but were generally less than or equivalent to
the inert aerosol collection efficiency results for 1 to 3 um
particles (E2). For the remaining filter (6DDUE-8), a low
(6%) bioaerosol collection efficiency was measured with a
significant standard deviation. When the standard deviation
is taken into consideration, the test results are likely in
reasonable agreement. Overall, the results indicate that
bioaerosol particles are collected similarly to comparably
sized inert particles.

6.4 Results from Aging Evaluations of  "Off-the-
     Shelf" Filters
For a select group of filters (seven), aging was  performed in
conjunction with inert aerosol testing to examine the effect
of dust loading in actual use environments on the collection
efficiencies and pressure drops of the units.
For the two electrostatic residential filters (6DDUE-8 and
8NM-10), the collection efficiencies for larger particles (3.0
to 10.0 um) either increased significantly (6DDUE-8) or
remained the same (8NM-10) after the filters started to be
loaded with particles. However, for both filters, a substantial
decrease in collection efficiencies was noted for smaller
particles (0.3 to 3  um) after the filters were loaded. The
-------
collection efficiencies of the filters for smaller particles did
not exceed the initial efficiencies until between 8 and 12
weeks of loading had occurred. The pressure drops of both
residential filters remained fairly consistent through the first
8 weeks of use; the pressure drops then increased greatly
between Weeks 8 and 12. It should be noted that 12 weeks
of use constitutes 100% of the manufacturer-recommended
service time for these two filters.
Similarly, the two electrostatic commercial prefilters
(C17FPP-8 and C15AAA-11) demonstrated consistent
average collection efficiencies over the entire 16-week aging
duration for larger particles (4.0 to 10.0 um). However,
there was a very substantial drop in collection efficiencies
for particles smaller than approximately 4 um once the
loading began, and the collection efficiencies for the smaller
particles never returned to the measured initial values. The
pressure drops of the prefilters did not demonstrate any
noticeable increase over the aging period. It should be noted
that the typical service life for prefilters in the HVAC system
of interest range from 3 to 6 months, so the 4 months of
aging that was performed represented between 67% and
133% of a typical service period. The performance of Filter
C15AAA-11 was considerably poorer than was specified in
the manufacturer's literature.
In contrast, the 12-inch deep electrostatic commercial
box filter (C8GZ-13) substantially degraded in collection
efficiency for all particle sizes over the entire aging period,
dropping steadily from MERV 12 to MERV 10. No change
in pressure drop occurred over this period, implying that a
suitable dust cake did not form during loading, which would
likely have caused the degradation of collection efficiency to
slow.  It should be noted that the typical service life for filter
C8GZ-13 in the application of interest is 6 to 12 months,
typically closer to 12 months, so the aging period represented
only 33% to 67% of the typical service life.
As expected, the two commercial,  12-inch deep, non-
electrostatic, traditional fiberglass media deep-pleated
filters (C14PCS and C11GM-16) did not demonstrate any
degradation in collection efficiencies during the aging period.
In fact, the collection efficiency  of Filter C14PCS clearly
increased as dust was collected on the filter during aging. No
change in pressure  drops was noted over the aging period for
these two filters. The typical service life for these two filters
in the application of interest is 6 to 12 months (typically
closer to  12 months), so the aging period represented only
33% to 67% of the typical service life.

6.5 Results from Aging  Evaluations of "Off-the-
     Shelf" Electronic  Air Cleaners
For a  select group of EACs (three), aging was performed in
conjunction with inert aerosol testing to examine the effect
of dust loading in actual use environments on the collection
efficiencies and pressure drops of the units. Cleaning was not
performed over the entire aging  duration. This was consistent
with the manufacturers' recommendations of cleaning
intervals between 1 and 6 months in duration. Cleaning was
recommended in the manufacturers' literature only
when a visible inspection indicated that cleaning was
clearly required.
As expected, the pressure drops of all three units remained
consistent over the entire aging period. By far, Unit A
demonstrated the least degradation in performance over the
aging period as it appeared to be operating satisfactorily even
after 2,016 hours of use without any maintenance. Although
Unit A did decrease from a MERV 15 to a MERV 14 over the
aging period, this was due to a minor decrease in the average
efficiency for 0.3 to 1 urn particles (from 87.6% to 80.7%),
as the efficiencies in the other particle size ranges remained
virtually identical.
Unit H also performed reasonably well over the aging
period but showed more degradation than Unit A, dropping
from a MERV 15 to a MERV 12. However, the MERV
rating remained consistent for the first 1,008 hours of
aging, even though its average efficiency for 0.3 to  1 um
particles decreased from 93.4% to 86.8% between 336 and
1,008 hours  of operation. After 2,016 hours of operation,
its average efficiency for 0.3 to 1 um particles dropped to
74.7% and decreased for larger particles as well. Cleaning of
Unit H after 84 days of continuous operation appeared to be
warranted.
In contrast, Unit P decreased slightly in collection efficiency
for particles  smaller than 1 um between 168 and 336 hours
of use and then dropped precipitously from a MERV 14
to a MERV 6 between 336 hours and 1,008 hours of use.
Despite the significant drop in collection efficiency  for Unit
P between 336 hours and 1,008 hours, the visible buildup
on the unit was not substantial enough to warrant cleaning.
Unit P was not visibly dirtier than the other two units, so
the user would have no reason to suspect that  performance
had substantially degraded. However, based on its collection
efficiency, cleaning of Unit P would be recommended after
14 days of continuous use.

6.6 Results from  Conditioning Evaluations of "Off-
     the-Shelf" Filters
Eight electrostatic filters were evaluated using a modified
inert aerosol test method that involved conditioning with
submicron potassium chloride particles to identify their
minimum collection efficiencies, rather than their initial
collection efficiencies. This modified inert aerosol test
method was  performed in accordance with the latest
recommendation from ASHRAE, namely draft Addendum
C to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999. The purpose of
these tests was to compare the results from the aging and
conditioning tests to determine whether draft Addendum C
provides a means for accurately simulating the performance
of an electrostatic filter in a typical use environment.
Four of the residential electrostatic filters performed similarly
during the conditioning evaluations. Upon conditioning, the
collection efficiencies increased significantly for particles
larger than approximately 1 to 2 um but appeared to decrease
slightly or remain constant for particles smaller than 1 to
-------
2 um. This was consistent with the observed trend during
the aging tests of one of the residential filters, in which the
collection efficiency increased upon aging for particles larger
than 4 um but decreased significantly for particles smaller
than 2 um. Aging results were not available for comparison
for the remaining three residential filters.
For a fifth residential filter, the collection efficiency
decreased slightly for all particles upon initial conditioning
but increased for all particles once the equivalent of one
month of conditioning had been performed. This trend
was similar to the results observed during the aging tests,
although the decrease was more substantial and required
approximately 12 weeks of aging to increase past  the
initial values.
Similar to those of the residential filters, the aging and
conditioning tests of a commercial prefilter appeared to
be consistent. Conditioning of the commercial prefilter
resulted in a noticeable decrease in collection efficiency
for all particles less than approximately 1 um, with no
recovery during the approximately one month equivalent of
conditioning. Aging of the prefilter also resulted in a decrease
(although more substantial)  in collection efficiency for all
particles smaller than approximately 4 um, with no recovery
over 16 weeks of aging.
In contrast, the aging and conditioning tests of the remaining
two commercial filters did not produce consistent  results. For
a commercial prefilter, the collection efficiency  increased
slightly for all particles upon initial conditioning and
remained at the same level with further conditioning. This
result noticeably contrasted with the results from the aging
evaluations, in which the collection efficiency decreased
substantially for particles smaller than 4 um with aging and
did not increase over 16 weeks of use. For a commercial box
filter, the results  from the aging and conditioning evaluations
contrasted even more strongly. In the conditioning evaluation,
the collection efficiency remained essentially constant during
the approximately one month equivalent of conditioning,
even increasing slightly for particles smaller than  0.3 um.
However, during the entire 16 weeks of aging, the box
filter consistently and continually decreased in collection
efficiency for all particles.
It is not known why the trends in the results from  the
conditioning evaluations are consistent with the aging
results for three of the filters but inconsistent with the aging
results for the other two filters. Further investigation of
these contrasting results seems warranted but is beyond the
scope of the present effort. It should be noted that during the
conditioning evaluations, a single filter was used.  In contrast,
the aging evaluations were performed with five  different
filters of identical make, model, and size. Therefore, some
variability is present in the aging evaluations due to the
different performance levels of the individual filters, as well
as between the filters used in the conditioning evaluation and
the aging evaluations.
6.7 Results from Conditioning Evaluations of "Off-
     the-Shelf" Electronic Air Cleaners
Three EACs were evaluated both before and after
exposure to silicon vapor. The purpose of the exposure to
silicon vapor was to compare the results from exposure
to silicon vapor to the results from the aging tests to
determine whether the silicon vapor exposure resulted
in a realistic assessment of the likely performance
of the EACs after one month of actual use.
The exposure of Units A and P to silicon vapor appeared to
cause a very similar degradation to that likely observed after
one month of ambient aging (672 hours of use). For both
of these units, the collection efficiency of the electronic air
cleaner degraded more than that observed during 336 hours
(2 weeks) of ambient use but less than that observed after
1,008 hours  (6 weeks) of ambient use.
For Unit H, however, the silicon vapor exposure degraded
the  unit's performance well beyond that observed after
even 2,016 hours of ambient aging (12 weeks of continuous
operation).
It is not known why the results from the aging and
conditioning evaluations are consistent for units A and P
but inconsistent for Unit H. It could be the result of design
and component differences between the three units. Given
the  approximately 50% decrease in pressure drop in Unit H
after silicon vapor exposure, and the alteration in the shape
of the collection efficiency curve, it is possible that the
exposure allowed leakage to occur within the unit. Further
investigation of the contrasting results for Unit H seems
warranted but was beyond the scope of this effort.
It should be noted that in contrast to the filter evaluations,
during the EAC aging evaluations, a single unit was used.
Therefore, no variability was present within the EAC aging
evaluations due to the different performance levels of
individual units.

6.8 Recommendations
As a result of this effort, curve fits are now available that
provide a valuable tool enabling researchers/consumers to
accurately estimate the collection efficiency of a filter or EAC
(by particle size) with a given MERV rating to determine
whether its likely performance will justify its increased cost
and pressure drop. Unfortunately, due to a combination of
a limited test matrix and some filters that did not perform
as anticipated, data for filters performing at MERV ratings
of 9, 11, 13,  and 15 were not acquired. Therefore, future
efforts should be performed to capture data for these MERV
ratings.  In addition, acquiring additional data for filters with
MERV ratings of 5 and 10 is desirable as only one filter was
available at that performance rating in the current study.
Also, it was  observed during this study that a number of
filters did not perform in accordance with the MERV ratings
provided by  the filter vendors. Although in many cases, the
performance was only a few percentage points below the
-------
vendor-provided rating, in some cases, the performance
was three or four MERV ratings below. The standard for
establishing MERV ratings (ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999)
does not currently provide any guidance as to the number of
samples of a filter type that should be tested to ensure that the
manufacturer-reported MERV rating provides a statistically
reasonable representation of their performance. Therefore,
currently, an evaluation of a single filter could be used to
characterize the performance of a very large  number of
filters. A study investigating the consistency  of performance
for filters at a given MERV rating is recommended to enable
consumers to make better-informed decisions about the likely
performance of purchased filters.
In this study, EACs appeared to be an excellent choice for
residential air cleaning as they provided substantially higher
collection efficiencies than are available from residential
filters, at a fraction of the pressure drop. Evaluations of their
performance to better define the likely frequency of cleaning
and the collection efficiency performance as a function of the
number of cleaning cycles are needed to compare the long-
term operational costs of EACs to that of air filters.
The results from this study indicated that the conditioning
procedures for electrostatic filters described in Addendum C
of ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999 warrant additional
investigation. Although the results from aging and
conditioning via Addendum C demonstrated similar trends
for residential electrostatic filters, the results from the
commercial filters contrasted strongly.
Similarly, the silicon vapor exposure conditioning method
that was investigated for EACs would benefit from additional
study. For two of the three units evaluated, the results
between the aging and conditioning methodology showed
very good agreement; however, for the third unit, the results
contrasted significantly. While these results seem promising
for the silicon vapor exposure method, additional study and
refinement  seem warranted.
For the inert particles, size measurements were made using
a light-scattering technique (0.3 to 10 um) and a technique
based on electrical mobility (0.03 to 0.3 um). In general,
the collection efficiency measured at the lowest size bin
for the larger range (0.35  um midpoint) was within 10%
of the highest size bin of the smaller size range (0.294 um
midpoint). Often, the agreement was much closer. However,
to our knowledge a study to assess the agreement between
the two measurement methods in a range of overlapping
particle sizes has not been performed. It is recommended that
research be performed to investigate the differences between
these different measurement techniques in the overlapping
size range.
-------
-------
                                                                                                     7.0
                                                                                    References
ANSI/ASHRAE (American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers), 1999. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1999, Method of Testing General Ventilation
Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size, Atlanta, GA.

Battelle Memorial Institute, 2005a. "Test/Quality Assurance Plan for Task 2:  Development of Performance
Information for Common Ventilation Filters." Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(April 4, 2005).

Battelle Memorial Institute, 2005b. "Test/Quality Assurance Plan for Task 3:  Development of Performance
Information for Electronic Air Cleaners." Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (June 21, 2005).

Hanley, J.T., D.S. Ensor, and D.L. Franke. "Environmental Technology Verification Draft Test Protocol for
Electronic Air Cleaners." Performed by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
under EPA Cooperative Agreement CR 822870 (2002).

Hanley, J.T., and M.K. Owen. "Develop a New Loading Dust and Dust Loading Procedures for the ASHRAE
Filter Test Standards 52.1 and 52.2." Performed by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina under ASHRAE Project Number 1190-RP (2003).

The Mcllvaine Company, 2002, "World Air Filiation and Purification Market 1999-2004." The Mcllvaine
Company, Northbrook, Illinois, U.S.A. (www.mcilvainecompany.com).

RTI, 2004. "Environmental Technology Verification: Test Report of Filtration Efficiency of Bioaerosols in
HVAC Systems." Performed by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina under EPA
Contract Number GS10F0283K-BPA-1, Task Order 1101.
-------
-------
                                           Appendix A
  Sample Calculations From the Inert Aerosol Tests
Table A-l. Example Correlation Ratio Calculation (Filter IPP-6-1)
OPC Channel # 1
Geo. Mean Dia. (|jm) 0.35
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg

Average Ub
Std. Dev Ub
ub,uc,
Avg. Uc
Ub,ud/Avg. U0

Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg

Average Db
Std. Dev Db
Db,uci
DbiUC,/Avg. Uc

R
Std Dev. R
Std. Dev. R*t/n0.5
22
27
12
4
7
3
6057
6601
6812
6906
7022
7174
7324
7255
7299
7318
7176
16
18
3
14
15
12

12.75
7.59
17.57
6995
0.0025

9
1
3
8
8
3
6206
6543
6758
7162
7155
7051
7158
7231
7103
7356
7025
7
2
2
3
2
13

5.08
3.78
7.48
0.0011

0.999
0.0212
0.0142
r^K^VH
0.47 0.62 0.84
31
70
28
8
6
17
6920
7633
7968
8068
8022
7969
8208
8322
8439
8376
8167
30
35
0
15
21
32

24.42
18.33
36.06
8008
0.0045

14
1
7
21
12
10
6849
7481
7576
8011
8106
7978
8151
8246
8176
8516
7877
12
4
0
5
2
10

8.17
6.18
12.09
0.0015

0.989
0.0199
0.0133
22
50
18
4
5
11
3710
4069
4113
4145
4240
4236
4279
4361
4366
4344
4370
26
48
1
3
19
13

18.33
16.39
28.75
4203
0.0068

9
1
5
19
10
5
3638
3993
4028
4195
4131
4124
4203
4385
4177
4338
4222
5
1
2
6
3
5

5.92
4.98
9.08
0.0022

0.986
0.0167
0.0112
49
96
18
6
9
19
8115
8856
9175
9329
9414
9583
9794
9747
9905
9784
9591
50
75
5
13
16
36

32.67
29.36
51.32
9390
0.0055

21
7
11
44
12
9
8126
8798
9255
9447
9281
9198
9406
9598
9407
10027
9283
15
7
2
4
1
4

11.42
11.75
18.88
0.0020

0.989
0.0247
0.0166
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.14 1.44 1.88 2.57 3.46 4.69 6.20 8.37
21
29
10
3
0
6
3000
3256
3279
3375
3458
3411
3482
3558
3549
3482
3461
6
23
3
7
9
22

11.58
9.56
17.66
3392
0.0052

5
0
4
12
8
2
3085
3260
3239
3445
3447
3394
3535
3499
3371
3612
3349
3
2
2
0
1
6

3.75
3.55
6.00
0.0018

1.001
0.0263
0.0177
12
19
5
3
0
8
1694
1875
1937
2004
1990
1993
2095
2061
2063
2029
1998
7
12
2
3
1
11

6.92
5.70
10.54
1976
0.0053

4
1
1
18
3
4
1696
1937
1913
1996
2014
1958
2017
2093
2021
2028
1935
2
1
0
1
2
2

3.25
4.81
6.30
0.0032

0.996
0.0211
0.0142
34
23
6
5
5
4
2389
2667
2758
2764
2773
2769
2833
2860
2882
2902
2915
9
22
5
9
8
8

11.50
9.53
17.55
2774
0.0063

3
0
5
27
6
2
2503
2580
2648
2922
2818
2722
2919
2737
2813
2960
2798
2
1
6
1
4
3

5.00
7.20
9.57
0.0035

1.000
0.0377
0.0253
18
32
6
5
2
12
2827
3186
3252
3243
3242
3311
3469
3406
3397
3428
3398
11
40
2
10
6
8

12.67
11.90
20.23
3287
0.0062

0
0
3
22
8
3
2901
3244
3234
3304
3313
3298
3346
3351
3221
3472
3325
3
1
2
1
3
2

4.00
6.05
7.84
0.0024

0.999
0.0260
0.0174
13
17
5
9
3
6
1615
1844
1890
1881
1866
1910
1985
1967
1966
1984
1956
6
16
4
7
5
1

7.67
5.10
10.91
1896
0.0058

4
0
3
14
4
1
1672
1832
1863
1888
1861
1907
1932
1859
1844
2000
1881
2
1
0
0
0
0

2.42
3.96
4.94
0.0026

0.988
0.0290
0.0195
13
9
4
4
3
2
901
1049
1116
1114
1114
1093
1074
1097
1114
1099
1071
2
14
3
4
3
2

5.25
4.29
7.97
1076
0.0074

0
0
1
11
2
2
959
1031
1055
1141
1080
1090
1112
1090
1028
1105
1070
1
0
1
0
0
1

1.58
3.06
3.53
0.0033

0.998
0.0401
0.0269
2
2
1
1
0
0
235
285
299
305
302
286
304
318
303
295
298
3
7
1
2
2
0

1.75
1.91
2.97
293
0.0101

0
0
1
1
2
0
250
296
296
289
286
295
297
307
290
320
291
0
0
0
1
0
0

0.42
0.67
0.84
0.0029

1.004
0.0491
0.0330
5
3
3
1
0
1
91
116
113
109
118
119
115
115
114
111
117
1
9
0
1
3
1

2.33
2.57
3.97
112
0.0354

0
0
0
6
0
1
103
116
132
112
113
104
138
132
133
130
138
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.58
1.73
1.68
0.0150

1.115
0.1131
0.0760
-------
Table A-2. Example Penetration Calculation (Filter IPP-6-1)
OPC Channel #
Geo. Mean Dia. (|jm)
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream -Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg
Upstream - Bkg

Average Ub
Std. Dev Ub
ub,uc,
Avg. U,
Ub,uo,/Avg. U,

Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg
Downstream - Bkg

Average Db
Std. Dev Db
Db, ucl
Db,uc,/Avg. U,

Poteerved
Std Dev. Pobsmed
R (from Table A-l)
r corrected
Filtration Efficiency (%)

0.35 0.47 0.62 0.84
167
27
13
4
3
11
6034
6836
6909
6804
6733
6787
6936
7027
6983
6972
6973
12
5
6
4
5
4

21.75
46.24
51.13
6817
0.0075

9
5
4
5
14
6
5655
6569
6727
6470
6310
6541
6606
6912
6983
6675
6783
6
6
5
6
6
8

6.67
2.67
8.37
0.0012

0.9649
0.0190
0.999
0.9657
3.4
239
36
13
3
17
8
6713
7655
7778
7680
7650
7640
7656
7784
7838
7855
7833
9
16
4
4
6
2

29.75
66.56
72.04
7644
0.0094

3
8
0
7
4
3
6366
7358
7461
7205
6957
7565
7273
7855
7828
7395
7589
3
5
5
1
2
4

3.75
2.30
5.21
0.0007

0.9646
0.0292
0.989
0.9751
2.5
163
20
10
3
7
3
3534
4007
4085
4049
4015
3940
4012
4208
4220
4196
4171
10
8
0
0
6
5

19.58
45.49
48.48
4040
0.0120

1
5
0
4
3
1
3420
3873
3800
3825
3646
3746
3635
3930
3980
3792
3965
2
4
3
1
2
6

2.67
1.83
3.83
0.0009

0.9408
0.0231
0.986
0.9544
4.6
248
47
26
2
9
6
7736
8799
8947
8942
8813
8786
8874
8886
9002
9163
9070
18
15
5
4
6
9

32.92
68.90
76.69
8820
0.0087

3
10
2
6
2
0
6695
7574
7679
7618
7256
7600
7447
8119
8035
HI'S,
7702
7
7
6
2
3
3

4.25
2.90
6.09
0.0007

0.8635
0.0248
0.989
0.8735
12.7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.14 1.44 1.88 2.57 3.46 4.69 6.20 8.37
112
13
4
1
5
4
2911
3310
3380
3247
3175
3267
3312
3375
3406
3385
3322
8
6
1
2
4
2

13.50
31.20
33.32
3281
0.0102

1
2
0
1
0
0
2288
2502
2571
2533
2397
2529
2454
2686
2655
2486
2486
1
0
0
1
1
0

0.58
0.67
1.01
0.0003

0.7677
0.0199
1.001
0.7670
23.3
82
13
11
0
1
1
1639
1843
1915
1903
1803
1770
1776
1881
1940
1887
1885
4
6
1
3
2
2

10.50
22.89
25.04
1840
0.0136

2
5
1
1
0
1
1161
1253
1315
1249
1192
1283
1245
1374
1359
1237
1247
1
2
1
1
0
0

1.25
1.36
2.11
0.0011

0.6912
0.0275
0.996
0.6938
30.6
84
13
7
2
3
3
2111
2395
2413
2379
2335
2343
2349
2377
2412
2415
2369
12
7
1
0
3
2

11.42
23.24
26.18
2354
0.0111

4
1
0
3
0
1
1346
1526
1541
1476
1397
1528
1427
1502
1511
1495
1470
1
1
0
0
0
1

1.00
1.28
1.81
0.0008

0.6290
0.0154
1.000
0.6289
37.1
84
15
5
3
3
3
2225
2604
2656
2570
2523
2504
2536
2571
2596
2603
2573
8
4
2
2
6
2

11.42
23.15
26.13
2542
0.0103

7
0
0
1
1
2
1325
1601
1603
1472
1383
1488
1460
1610
1633
1465
1459
3
2
0
0
0
1

1.42
2.02
2.70
0.0011

0.5922
0.0269
0.999
0.5925
40.8
48
8
0
2
0
0
1080
1275
1302
1262
1252
1261
1237
1244
1307
1293
1250
1
2
1
1
0
6

5.75
13.55
14.36
1251
0.0115

2
1
0
0
0
0
727
765
830
789
704
773
745
792
872
735
787
1
0
0
0
0
0

0.33
0.65
0.75
0.0006

0.6223
0.0356
0.988
0.6296
37.0
18
5
2
0
1
0
505
564
568
569
556
570
556
549
567
565
568
0
0
0
0
0
4

2.50
5.18
5.79
558
0.0104

0
0
0
0
0
0
330
404
372
361
363
387
346
387
351
359
388
1
0
0
0
0
0

0.08
0.29
0.27
0.0005

0.6629
0.0326
0.998
0.6641
33.6
2
1
1
0
1
0
120
137
138
123
118
137
145
143
138
136
134
1
1
0
0
0
0

0.58
0.67
1.01
133
0.0076

0
0
0
0
0
0
94
91
92
81
89
78
92
105
116
101
81
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000

0.6998
0.0828
1.004
0.6972
30.3
11
2
0
0
0
0
38
44
40
38
34
42
52
41
37
45
44
0
0
0
0
0
1

1.17
3.16
3.17
41
0.0771

0
0
0
0
0
0
25
25
31
28
22
41
35
37
36
24
26
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000

0.7558
0.1634
1.115
0.6779
32.2
-------
                                                 Appendix B
   Sample  Calculations  From the Bioaerosol Tests
Table B-l. Example Bioaerosol P10o Calculation (820 cfm flow rate) with no filter in the system
Sampling Sampling Average
CFU/mL in Total CPU in flow rate Duration CPU/liter of Concentration Coefficent of
Sample sample sample (Ipm) (min) air (CPU/liter of air) Std. Dev. Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background

P™»=d
4.23*104
4.18*104
4.15*104
3.43*104
3.35*104
3.78*104
3.49*104
3.63*104
4.26*104
3.87*104
3.88*104
3.86*104
3.95*104
4.05*104
4.20*104
3.56*104
3.22*104
3.94*104

<2*101
<2*101


4.23*105
4.18*105
4.15*105
3.43*106
3.35*105
3.78*105
3.49*105
3.63*105
4.26*105
3.87*106
3.88*105
3.86*105
3.95*105
4.05*105
4.20*106
3.56*105
3.22*105
3.94*105

<2*102
<2*102


7.342
7.368
7.380
7.275
7.347
7.271
7.420
7.325
7.164
7.211
7.439
7.415
7.415
7.602
7.321
7.362
7.257
7.234

-7.4
-7.2


10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10


5.76*103
5.68*103
5.63*103
4.72*103
4.56*103
5.20*103
4.70*103
4.96*103
5.95*103
5.37*103
5.22*103
5.21*103
5.33*103
5.33*103
5.74*103
4.84*103
4.44*103
5.45*103

<2.7
<2.8


5.24*103
5.21*103




0.995
5.3*102
3.7*102





10%
7%





Table B-2. Example Bioaerosol Calculation (Filter 8NM-10-12)
Sampling Sampling Average
CFU/mL Total CPU flow rate Duration CPU/liter Concentration Coefficient of
Sample in sample in sample (Ipm) (min) of air (CPU/liter of air) Std. Dev. Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background

Pmeisured
Pioo (from Table B-l)
Pooled
Filtration Efficiency
Combined Standard
Deviation
4.02*104
3.44*104
4.26*104
3.68*104
3.43*104
3.52*104
3.64*104
3.20*104
3.59*104
2.18*104
2.19*104
2.13*104
1.99*104
2.24*104
2.19*104
2.17*104
2.37*104
2.30*104

<2*101
<2*101






4.02*105
3.44*105
4.26*105
3.68*105
3.43*106
3.52*106
3.64*105
3.20*105
3.59*105
2.18*105
2.19*106
2.13*105
1.99*105
2.24*105
2.19*105
2.17*106
2.37*105
2.30*105

<2*102
<2*102






7.468
7.496
7.417
7.348
7.443
7.358
7.534
7.476
7.298
7.355
7.601
7.564
7.571
7.677
7.467
7.488
7.376
7.365

7.564
7.358






10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10






5.38*103
4.59*103
5.75*103
5.01*103
4.61*103
4.78*103
4.83*103
4.28*103
4.92*103
2.97*103
2.88*103
2.82*103
2.62*103
2.92*103
2.93*103
2.90*103
3.21*103
3.12*103

<2.7
<2.8






4.91*103
2.93*103




0.597
0.995
0.600
40%
6%
4.40*102
1.68*102









9%
6%









-------
-------
                                                 Appendix C
            Additional  Information on Aging of Filters
                                  During The  In-Use Tests
          Filter
              Figure C-l. Photograph of Residential HVAC System Used to Age
                     Filter 6DDUE-8
Table C-l. Basic Information on Residential HVAC System Used to Age Filter 6DDUE-8
Approximate House Size (sq. ft)
HVAC System Make/Model
Approximate Age of HVAC System
Type of Flooring
Number and Type of Pets
Number of Adults/Kids in Household
-2200 sq.ft.
Atlas Butler
1 year
Carpet
1 mid-size dog
2 adults/0 children
-------
        Filter
                        Figure C-2. Photograph of Residential HVAC System Used to
                                  Age Filter 8NM-10
Table C-2. Basic Information on Residential HVAC System Used to Age Filter 8NM-10
Approximate House Size (sq. ft)
HVAC System Make/Model
Approximate Age of HVAC System
Type of Flooring
Number and Type of Pets
Number of Adults/Kids in Household
2800 sq ft.
Carrier
33 years
Carpet
None
2 adults/3 children
-------
Figure C-3. Photograph of 40-Filter Commercial  HVAC System Used to Age Filters C17FPP-8,
          C15AAA-11, and C8GZ-13 (C8GZ-13 Filters were inserted behind the prefilters in the
          gaps shown.)
-------
Figure C-4. Photograph of 40-Filter Commercial HVAC System Used to Age Filters C17FPP-8,
          C15AAA-11, and C8GZ-13 (The five C17FPP-8 and five C15AAA-11 filters are in the center.)
-------
Figure C-5. Photograph of the 9-Filter Commercial HVAC System Used to Age Filters C14PCS and
           C11GM-16 (The test filters are shown before the prefilters were installed.)
-------
Figure C-6. Photograph of the 9-Filter Commercial  HVAC System Used to Age Filters C14PCS and
           C11GM-16 (The test filters are behind  the prefilters.)
-------
                                          Appendix D
 Photographs of the Various Test Systems Utilized
  During Inert Aerosol Testing, Bioaerosol Testing,
Aging of Electronic Air Cleaners, and Exposure of
                              Electronic Air Cleaners
    Figure D-l. Photograph of the Upstream Side of Intertek's ASHRAE 52.2-1999 Inert
          Aerosol Test System Used During the Inert Aerosol Tests and Electrostatic
          Conditioning Tests
-------
Figure D-2. Photograph of the Downstream Side of Intertek's ASHRAE 52.2-1999
           Inert Aerosol Test System Used During the Inert Aerosol Tests and
           Electrostatic Conditioning Tests
Figure D-3. Photograph of the Test Fixture Used During the Bioaerosol Tests
-------
Figure D-4. Photograph of the Air Intake of the Bioaerosol Test Fixture
Figure D-5. Photograph (side view) of the Test Fixture Used During the Silicon
           Vapor Exposures of the Electronic Air Cleaners
-------
Figure D-6. Photograph (interior) of the Test Fixture Used During the Silicon Vapor
           Exposures of the Electronic Air Cleaners
Figure D-7. Photograph of the Downstream Side and Blower of the Test Fixture Used
           During the Ambient Aging of the Electronic Air Cleaners
-------
Figure D-8. Photograph of the Upstream Side of the Test Fixture and Airflow
           Controllers Used During the Ambient Aging of the Electronic Air Cleaners
-------
-------
                                               Appendix E
       Results From the Inert Aerosol Evaluations of
                            "Off-the-Shelf" Air Cleaners
Table E-l. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
      Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (IPP-6-1)
Particle Size Measured Manufacturer's
Range or Midpoint Particle Size Pressure Drop (in. Pressure Drop
of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) Airflow Rate (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70- 1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30- 1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30- 1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3.0-10.0)

MERV rating from
vendor
MERV rating from
testing
7.6
8.6
2.2
3.1
3.8
1.1
0
2.0
0
0
1.8
2.7
0.9
2.7
0
0
0
3.4
2.5
4.6
12.7
23.3
30.6
37.1
40.8
37
33.6
30.3
32.2
5.8
33.0
33.3

6
5
430
625
833
1041































155
225
300
375































0.08
0.12
0.18
0.24































0.07 @ 147 fpm
0.13® 221 fpm
0.18® 295 fpm
0.25® 368 fpm































-------
Table E-2.  Initial Measured Collection  Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (2NS-8-1)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
1.7
2.2
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.9
4.8
0.4
1.9
0.0
1.0
4.8
1.9
5.1
8.0
9.7
4.9
0.8
5.0
8.3
18.2
31.1
39.2
43.0
42.6
40.4
5.9
15.7
41.3

8
6
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.07
0.13
0.19
0.26































NA
NA
NA
NA































-------
Table E-3.  Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (3PAF-11-1)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3.0 -10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
44.2
42.8
42.6
40.1
37.0
34.8
33.2
31.2
29.2
28.0
27.8
26.1
26.2
23.6
24.1
25.9
26.0
23.1
24.5
23.3
22.4
26.3
30.6
39.8
55.1
68.0
79.6
88.5
92.5
23.3
37.9
82.1

11
8
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.04
0.12
0.18
0.26































NA
NA
0.20 @ 306 fpm
0.32 @ 504 fpm































-------
Table E-4.  Initial Measured Collection  Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (4FUA-12-1)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
48.3
50.8
49.3
48.2
46.0
43.9
42.1
40.7
40.1
38.3
36.5
34.8
33.0
32.0
34.7
32.4
34.8
30.4
32.1
41.2
55.0
69.8
77.7
86.2
89.5
90.4
90.4
93.3
94.3
39.7
80.8
92.1

12
12
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.04
0.07
0.09
0.13































NA
NA
NA
NA































-------
Table E-5. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (5RM-11-1)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3.0 -10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
35.5
31.8
27.5
26.5
23.6
22.3
19.7
17.5
16.0
15.7
14.9
11.8
12.3
9.4
12.6
8.7
15.7
14.7
11.7
17.1
33.3
52.9
62.5
71.2
72.9
69.4
66.5
68.2
70.4
19.2
64.9
68.7

11
7
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.10
0.17
0.25
0.34































0.06® 125 fpm
0.12® 250 fpm
NA
0.19® 375 fpm































-------
Table E-6. Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (6DDUE-8)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
25.0
33.8
30.8
28.0
27.1
25.7
23.0
22.3
22.3
23.6
23.3
23.2
21.8
25.4
25.3
18.2
18.1
16.1
14.0
21.4
31.1
44.8
50.6
55.6
56.8
57.6
55.5
59.2
54.9
20.6
51.9
56.8

8
7
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.06
0.10
0.14
0.19































0.07 @ 148 fpm
0.12® 221 fpm
0.17® 295 fpm
0.23® 369 fpm































-------
Table E-7. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated  Electrostatic Filter (7AST-8-3)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3.0 -10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
37.2
36.6
33.7
31.8
30.3
28.6
26.7
23.9
22.6
22.8
20.4
20.5
22.5
21.6
21.0
23.8
18.3
9.4
10.8
19.6
36.2
54.2
61.7
67.5
66.9
64.2
60.4
62.9
57.8
19.0
62.6
61.3

8
7
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.11
0.19
0.29
0.41































NA
NA
NA
NA































-------
Table E-8. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (8NM-10)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Air Velocity Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
22.7
20.2
18.5
17.9
15.5
13.8
13.1
13.1
11.8
10.8
9.4
10.6
10.0
7.9
13.6
12.6
18.0
16.9
20.5
33.8
53.7
72.4
80.4
86.8
89.8
91.0
91.5
91.3
91.8
31.2
82.4
91.4

10
12
410
615
820
1025































148
221
295
369































0.17
0.29
0.43
0.59































NA
NA
NA
NA































-------
Table E-9. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
          Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C1APP-7)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
22.1
19.5
18.1
15.4
13.7
13.3
12.6
10.2
10.0
11.6
8.7
12.1
9.9
12.9
11.6
12.7
16.4
1.7
4.5
2.2
9.2
15.5
18.7
26.0
37.2
44.8
48.8
53.1
52.2
4.4
24.3
49.7

7
6
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.10
0.18
0.28
0.41































NA
0.12® 300 fpm
0.28® 500 fpm
0.43® 625 fpm































-------
Table E-10. Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
            Non-Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C2T90-8)
            (a - No appreciable collection efficiency was measured in three separate tests.)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
0.0a
o.oa
0.0a
0.0a
o.oa
0.0a
o.oa
5.4
10.4
17.7
26.4
32.3
38.1
48.1
61.3
63.8
56.7
50.0
35.2
15.0
44.9
51.4

8
7
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.15
0.27
0.41
0.57































NA
0.25® 300 fpm
0.50® 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-ll. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 4"
            Pleated Non-Electrostatic Box Filter (C3AV-11)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
59.5
56.0
53.1
47.9
43.6
41.2
38.5
36.5
37.0
35.4
36.2
34.0
35.6
36.1
36.6
36.3
37.5
25.0
33.2
34.2
45.0
52.2
55.3
61.0
77.6
86.1
91.6
95.7
96.4
34.3
61.5
92.5

11
10
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.16
0.29
0.46
0.65































0.16® 250 fpm
0.29® 375 fpm
0.45 @ 500 fpm
0.63 @ 625 fpm































-------
Table E-12.  Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C4FPC-11)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
41.7
36.6
30.3
27.4
23.1
23.3
17.9
17.1
14.6
14.0
12.9
12.6
14.8
11.3
13.5
11.0
15.9
20.6
25.5
24.6
32.2
37.3
38.8
41.8
57.1
67.9
75.4
83.7
88.4
25.7
43.7
78.9

11
8
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.13
0.23
0.36
0.52































0.15 @ 250 fpm
0.20® 375 fpm
0.30 @ 500 fpm
0.40 @ 625 fpm































-------
Table E-13.  Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C5PSC-11)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Air Velocity Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
77.1
74.0
69.4
66.9
62.7
59.3
55.4
52.9
50.7
49.8
48.5
48.5
48.7
50.2
51.9
51.1
51.2
49.0
56.5
62.8
71.0
75.5
80.4
85.9
92.4
95.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
59.8
83.6
97.2

13
12
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.25
0.43
0.64
0.90































NA
NA
0.60® 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-14. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 10"
            6-Pocket Non-Electrostatic Bag Filter (C6ADP-15)
  Particle Size Range or     Particle Size     Airflow Rate     Air Velocity
  Midpoint of Range (urn)   Efficiency (%)        (cfm)           (fpm)
  Measured
Pressure Drop
  (in. w.g.)
Manufacturer's Pressure
  Drop Data (in. w.g.)
  (based on 24" x 24"
   x 30" filter with 8
       pockets)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
75.9
75.1
73.9
72.7
70.8
68.9
66.6
65.1
63.1
61.8
61.9
61.0
60.0
60.2
61.9
63.4
62.1
68.0
80.0
86.5
93.9
96.6
97.7
98.6
99.3
99.4
99.2
99.5
99.5
82.1
98.1
99.4

14
14
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.77
1.21
1.68
2.18































0.68® 250 fpm
1.10® 375 fpm
1.48® 500 fpm
1.76® 560 fpm































-------
Table E-15.  Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Electrostatic Box Filter (C7CFER-13)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
86.5
83.7
80.0
77.6
75.2
71.8
68.5
66.6
65.0
63.7
62.8
62.9
63.1
63.4
64.9
65.9
67.7
69.7
79.2
84.3
91.0
94.1
95.9
97.7
99.3
99.7
99.7
99.8
99.8
81.1
96.8
99.8

14
14
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.38
0.60
0.85
1.12































0.22® 250 fpm
0.38® 375 fpm
0.58 @ 500 fpm
0.80 @ 625 fpm































-------
Table E-16. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Electrostatic Box Filter (C8GZ-13) (Test #1)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
74.8
73.0
72.9
73.2
72.2
70.8
69.6
68.2
68.8
66.1
65.4
65.4
64.7
63.7
63.2
63.2
60.3
60.9
66.4
72.5
77.7
82.3
85.5
90.1
95.2
97.3
98.5
99.2
99.6
69.4
88.3
98.6

13
12
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.25
0.40
0.59
0.80































NA
NA
0.44 @ 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-17. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Electrostatic Box Filter (C8GZ-13) (Test #2)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
65.5
64.7
60.1
61.5
58.3
59.4
58.8
55.4
56.3
53.6
53.8
52.0
52.5
53.7
50.4
53.4
53.9
66.3
73.8
81.7
88.3
94.0
96.1
97.2
97.9
98.2
98.4
98.2
100.0
77.5
96.3
98.7

13
14
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.26
0.43
0.63
0.89































NA
NA
0.44 @ 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-18.  Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24"x 12"
            Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C14PCS)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
85.4
83.6
80.3
77.1
73.7
71.5
67.5
65.3
63.6
61.1
60.6
61.7
61.6
60.0
63.8
64.3
66.6
62.0
68.6
74.4
80.2
84.0
86.7
91.3
95.7
97.6
98.6
99.1
99.3
71.3
89.4
98.6

14
12
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.24
0.41
0.60
0.83































0.25 @ 250 fpm
0.40® 375 fpm
0.60 @ 500 fpm
0.78® 625 fpm































-------
Table E-19. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 15"
            8-Pocket Electrostatic Bag Filter (C10CFS-14)
   Particle Size Range or      Particle Size      Airflow Rate     Air Velocity
  Midpoint of Range (urn)    Efficiency (%)        (cfm)            (fpm)
  Measured
Pressure Drop
  (in. w.g.)
   Manufacturer's
 Pressure Drop Data
for a 12 pocket filter
     (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
73.0
71.8
71.6
69.9
69.9
68.8
69.2
66.8
66.9
65.0
63.8
62.9
62.0
62.5
63.5
64.9
65.4
72.2
79.3
83.3
89.1
92.1
93.9
96.1
98.1
98.7
98.9
99.0
99.1
81.0
95.0
98.9

14
14
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.25
0.40
0.57
0.74































0.21® 250 fpm
0.35® 375 fpm
0.50® 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-20. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C11GM-16)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Air Velocity Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
99.9
99.8
99.7
99.4
99.0
98.4
97.7
96.9
96.2
95.6
95.0
94.9
94.9
95.2
94.9
95.1
96.3
97.0
98.4
99.2
99.6
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.6
99.9
100

16
16
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.37
0.59
0.85
1.14































0.42 @ 250 fpm
0.55® 375 fpm
0.61 @ 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-21.  Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C12AB-16)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Air Velocity Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
99.0
98.9
98.4
97.7
96.8
96.1
94.8
93.9
93.3
92.8
92.4
92.5
92.5
93.0
94.0
93.8
94.6
96.1
97.7
98.7
99.3
99.4
99.6
99.8
99.8
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
99.7
99.9

16
16
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.44
0.71
1.01
1.35































0.40 @ 250 fpm
NA
0.95 @ 500 fpm
NA































-------
Table E-22. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C13AMG-16)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
97.1
97.3
97.2
97.1
96.9
96.5
96.4
96.2
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.1
96.3
96.5
96.8
96.5
96.8
95.5
96.6
96.4
96.9
97.0
96.5
96.3
97.2
97.0
97.2
97.9
98.0
96.4
96.8
97.5

16
16
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.55
0.90
1.29
1.71































0.40 @ 238 fpm
0.65® 325 fpm
0.95 @475 fpm
1.35® 605 fpm































-------
Table E-23. Initial Measured Collection  Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic HEPA Filter (C114FA-H)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.4
99.4
99.4
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.4
99.4
99.4
99.4
99.5
99.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100
100
100

16+
16+
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.62
0.97
1.34
1.74































NA
0.90 @ 344 fpm
1.45® 500 fpm
1.90® 640 fpm































-------
Table E-24.  Initial  Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
            Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C15AAA-11)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3.0 -10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
45.1
50.7
48.1
44.1
42.1
39.5
34.4
32.1
29.3
29.1
26.1
25.1
21.8
22.9
22.2
16.1
17.3
29.0
35.6
47.1
52.6
66.4
71.4
76.5
73.4
71.3
70.9
65.4
58.9
41.1
71.9
66.6

11
7
984
1476
1968
2460































246
369
492
615































0.13
0.22
0.34
0.47































0.12® 250 fpm
0.23® 375 fpm
0.38 @ 500 fpm
0.51 @ 625 fpm































-------
Table E-25. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 12" x 24" x 2"
            Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C15AAA-11)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
36.2
35.2
35.4
36.3
32.9
30.7
31.0
29.7
27.0
26.2
25.1
23.9
20.8
22.1
22.4
22.4
20.9
39.6
40.5
50.6
59.1
67.6
73.0
75.2
75.9
74.7
71.5
73.0
66.5
47.5
72.9
71.4

11
8
492
738
984
1230































246
369
492
615































0.14
0.25
0.40
0.59































0.12® 250 fpm
0.23® 375 fpm
0.38 @ 500 fpm
0.51 @ 625 fpm































-------
Table E-26. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
            Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C17FPP-8)
Particle Size Range Measured Manufacturer's
or Midpoint of Range Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop (in. Pressure Drop
(urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
29.7
34.8
30.1
28.0
22.0
20.9
17.5
18.4
14.4
12.7
11.9
15.3
12.0
13.5
8.1
15.0
16.4
34.5
39.9
52.3
66.7
86.7
90.6
93.3
93.8
92.2
89.0
62.7
NA
48.3
91.1
81.3

11
8
984
1476
1968
2460
























<500 particles






246
369
492
615































0.17
0.29
0.44
0.63































0.10® 250 fpm
0.18® 375 fpm
0.30® 500 fpm
0.45® 625 fpm































-------
Table E-27. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Commercial 12" x 24" x 2"
            Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C17FPP-8)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
40.8
36.7
33.6
30.4
26.2
22.1
20.8
18.3
17.1
17.9
15.9
14.2
11.5
13.9
16.8
17.3
15.5
30.2
29.6
41.4
55.0
69.4
76.0
79.2
77.4
73.2
66.2
63.8
55.7
39.1
75.5
64.7

11
7
492
738
984
1230































246
369
492
615































0.20
0.35
0.55
0.75































0.10® 250 fpm
0.18® 375 fpm
0.30® 500 fpm
0.45® 625 fpm































-------
Table E-28. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 16" x 25"
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit A - used for ambient aging)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
93.1
92.5
92.3
91.6
91.0
90.5
89.7
89.0
88.3
88.1
87.3
86.8
85.6
85.0
84.2
84.7
83.5
80.8
82.8
85.4
87.7
90.6
91.9
94.1
95.6
96.7
97.8
98.0
99.2
84.2
93.1
97.9

15
14
410
614
819
1024































148
221
295
369































0.05
0.08
0.12
0.17































NA
NA
0.10® 360 fpm
0.14® 432 fpm
0.17® 504 fpm
0.29® 720 fpm





























-------
Table E-29. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential  16" x 25"
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit A - used for silicon vapor tests)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
95.1
95.1
95.4
95.2
94.9
94.6
94.6
94.2
94.3
94.2
93.9
93.7
93.3
93.1
92.8
93.7
93.3
89.3
90.3
91.4
92.2
93.4
94.0
94.8
95.4
96.1
96.9
97.0
96.3
90.8
94.4
96.6

15
15
410
614
819
1024































148
221
295
369































0.05
0.07
0.11
0.15































NA
NA
0.10® 360 fpm
0.14® 432 fpm
0.17® 504 fpm
0.29® 720 fpm





























-------
Table E-30. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 20" x 20"
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit H - used for ambient aging)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3.0 -10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
93.8
94.5
94.8
94.4
93.6
92.8
91.9
91.4
90.2
89.4
88.8
88.5
87.2
88.5
87.8
87.5
87.1
89.3
91.9
94.0
95.5
96.5
96.6
97.1
97.4
97.6
98.0
98.0
98.8
92.7
96.9
98.1

Up to 12
15
410
614
819
1024































148
221
295
369































0.03
0.06
0.11
0.17































0.03® 148 fpm
0.04® 221 fpm
0.06® 295 fpm
0.09® 369 fpm































-------
Table E-31. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 20" x 20"
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit H - used for silicon vapor tests)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
92.2
94.0
94.2
93.8
93.4
92.5
91.5
90.5
89.4
88.3
87.7
86.6
86.9
87.0
87.1
87.3
87.9
86.8
90.5
93.3
95.2
96.5
97.1
97.4
97.7
98.3
98.5
98.9
99.5
91.5
97.2
98.8

Up to 12
15
410
614
819
1024































148
221
295
369































0.03
0.06
0.11
0.17































0.03® 148 fpm
0.04® 221 fpm
0.06 @ 295 fpm
0.09 @ 369 fpm































-------
Table £-32. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 20" x 20"
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit P - used for ambient aging)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) Air Velocity (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
81.2
84.4
88.2
88.5
87.9
86.7
85.5
83.7
81.7
80.9
80.1
78.5
79.0
77.5
80.0
79.7
80.8
76.7
82.1
86.5
90.5
93.6
94.9
95.7
96.2
96.6
97.0
97.6
97.1
84.0
95.1
97.1

NA
14
410
614
819
1024































148
221
295
369































0.02
0.04
0.06
0.09































NA
NA
NA
0.11 @ 504 fpm































-------
Table E-33. Initial Measured Collection Efficiency and Pressure Drop of a Residential 20" x 20"
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit P - used for silicon vapor tests)
Measured Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Airflow Rate Air Velocity Pressure Drop Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Efficiency (%) (cfm) (fpm) (in. w.g.) Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
86.4
88.2
89.1
88.8
87.3
86.1
84.1
83.1
80.6
80.0
78.4
76.9
74.5
74.3
73.9
72.9
72.5
73.9
80.3
85.7
90.0
93.7
95.0
96.0
96.8
96.9
97.4
97.0
96.4
82.5
95.3
96.9

NA
14
410
614
819
1024































148
221
295
369































0.03
0.05
0.08
0.13































NA
NA
NA
0.11 @ 504 fpm































-------
-------
                                                       Appendix F
              Results from the Bioaerosol  Evaluations
                          of "Off-the-Shelf77 Air Cleaners
Table F-l. Results from Bioaerosol Evaluation of Residential Filter 2NS-8-1
   Sample
Airflow
Velocity
 (fpm)
Average
Airflow
Velocity
 (fpm)
                         Airflow    Airflow
                         Velocity    Velocity
                        Standard  Coefficient
                        Deviation  of Variance  CPU/liter
  Average
 Concentration
(CPU/liter of air)
Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
 Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pm«s»,d
r 100
Pooled
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
203
253
189
221
267
224
175
206
135
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
0.20





208
(832 cfm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






37.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






18.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






4.99*103
3.52*103
4.30*103
6.00*103
5.27*103
5.28*103
5.07*103
4.82*103
4.56*103
3.66*103
4.14*103
4.37*103
3.34*103
3.96*103
5.06*103
4.91*103
3.28*103
4.63*103

<2.7
<2.8






4.87*103
4.15*103




0.853
0.995
0.857
14%
18%
6.97*102
6.50*102









14%
16%


















-------
Table F-2. Results from Bioaerosol  Evaluation of Residential Filter 4FUA-12-1
   Sample
Airflow
Velocity
 (fpm)
Average
Airflow
Velocity
 (fpm)
 Airflow
 Velocity
Standard
Deviation
  (fpm)
   Airflow
   Velocity
Coefficient of  CPU/liter of
Variance (%)       air
    Average
 Concentration
(CPU/liter of air)  Std.  Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pm=asu,=d
PIOO
Poo,,«c,ed
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
220
274
188
197
262
210
165
224
126

-
-

-


-


-

0.15





207 (828 cfm)

-
-

-


-


-







43.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






20.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






5.93*103
5.25*103
4.22*103
5.58*103
3.89*102A
5.48*103
5.47*103
5.29*103
5.03*103
3.06*103
2.90*103
2.99*103
3.47*103
1.63*103
2.24*102A
2.32*103
2.97*103
1.50*103

<2.7
<2.8






5.28*103
2.61*103












0.493
0.995
0.496
50%
14%
5.05*102
7.15*102

















10%
27%

















( - Excluded from calculations due to difference of an order of magnitude from the average.
-------
Table F-3. Results from  Bioaerosol Evaluation of Residential Filter 8NM-10-1
   Sample
Airflow     Average
Velocity     Airflow
 (fpm)   Velocity (fpm)
                                        Airflow
                                        Velocity
                                       Standard
              Airflow
             Velocity
Deviation   Coefficient of CPU/liter of
  (fpm)     Variance (%)      air
    Average
 Concentration
(CPU/liter of air)
Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pmeasured
PIOO
Pooled
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
165
280
186
153
299
225
167
252
156
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
0.15





209 (836 cfm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






53.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






25.4

-
-

-


-


-







5.38*103
4.59*103
5.75*103
5.01*103
4.61*103
4.78*103
4.83*103
4.28*103
4.92*103
2.97*103
2.88*103
2.82*103
2.62*103
2.92*103
2.93*103
2.90*103
3.21*103
3.12*103

<2.7
<2.8






4.91*103
2.93*103




0.597
0.995
0.600
40%
6%
4.40*102
1.68*102









9%
6%


















-------
Table F-4. Results from Bioaerosol Evaluation of Residential Filter 6DDUE-8-12
   Sample
Airflow
Velocity   Average Airflow
 (fpm)     Velocity (fpm)
                                           Airflow
                                           Velocity
                                          Standard
  Airflow
 Velocity
Coefficient
                                          Deviation   of Variance
             CPU/liter
              of air
    Average
 Concentration
(CPU/liter of air)  Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
P™»ed
r 100
Pooled
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
184
257
191
231
288
203
178
232
131
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
0.13





211 (844 cfm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






44.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






21.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






5.41*103
4.58*103
4.31*103
5.42*103
4.12*103
4.42*103
3.82*103
4.09*103
3.86*103
4.46*103
4.09*103
3.20*103
5.34*103
4.75*103
3.46*103
4.07*103
3.85*103
4.11*103

<2.7
<2.8






4.45*103
4.15*103




0.932
0.995
0.937
6%
19%
5.98*102
6.48*102









13%
16%


















-------
Table F-5. Results from Bioaerosol Evaluation of Electronic Air Cleaner Unit A
   Sample
Airflow     Average
Velocity      Airflow
 (fpm)    Velocity (fpm)
 Airflow
 Velocity      Airflow
Standard     Velocity
Deviation  Coefficient of CPU/liter of
  (fpm)   Variance (%)      air
   Average
Concentration
 (CPU/liter of
     air)        Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pm«,»«d
r 100
Pooled
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
173
247
177
173
266
206
167
222
165
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
0.06





200 (800 cfm)

-


-


-


-







35.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






17.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






7.21*103
4.16*103
3.51*103
4.78*103
4.55*103
3.60*103
5.77*103
4.31*103
3.17*103
1.94*102
2.42*10!
5.40*10°
1.07*103
7.36*102
3.88*102
3.19*102
4.34*10!
8. 69*10!

<2.7
<2.8






4.56*103
3.19*102












0.069
0.995
0.070
93%
8%
1.26*103
3.66*102

















28%
115%


















-------
Table F-6. Results from Bioaerosol  Evaluation of Electronic Air Cleaner Unit H
    Sample
Airflow     Average
Velocity     Airflow
 (fpm)   Velocity (fpm)
 Airflow
 Velocity
Standard
Deviation
  (fpm)
                                                       Airflow
                                                      Velocity
                                                     Coefficient
                                                     of Variance
               Average
CPU/liter    Concentration
  of air     (CPU/liter of air)   Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pmessured
r 100
Poora,ed
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
209
275
223
210
274
208
158
206
128
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
0.05





210 (840 cfm)

-


-


-


-







44.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






21.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






5.74*103
4.44*103
3.75*103
4.80*103
3.87*103
3.72*103
2.58*103
4.28*103
3.70*103
5.85*102
1.43*102
7.91*102
2.62*102
6. 48*10!
4.96*102
6.82*102
3.28*102
5.89*102

<2.7
<2.8






4.10*103








4.38*102












0.107
0.995
0.107
89%
7%
8.74*102








2.50*102

















21%
57%


















-------
Table F-7. Results from Bioaerosol Evaluation of Electronic Air Cleaner  Unit P
   Sample
Airflow     Average
Velocity     Airflow
 (fpm)   Velocity (fpm)
 Airflow      Airflow
 Velocity     Velocity
Standard   Coefficient
Deviation   of Variance
  (fpm)       (%)
CPU/liter
  of air
    Average
 Concentration
(CPU/liter of air)
Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pm«,»«d
r 100
Pooled
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
190
258
187
202
260
208
162
207
138

-


-


-


-

0.03





201 (804 cfm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






37.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






18.6

-


-


-


-







6.22*103
4.49*103
3.42*103
5.78*103
4.72*103
4.57*103
5.02*103
4.45*103
4.01*103
4.36*102
3.58*10!
3.15*102
3.87*102
5. SSnO1
3.65*102
4.82*102
6.47*101
1.85*102

<2.7
<2.8






4.74*103
2.58*102












0.054
0.995
0.054
95%
4%
8.53*102
1.76*102

















18%
68%


















-------
Table F-8. Results from  Bioaerosol Evaluation of Filter C15AAA-11-BIO (12" x 24" x 2")
    Sample
Airflow     Average
Velocity      Airflow
 (fpm)    Velocity (fpm)
                                         Airflow
                                         Velocity
                                        Standard
  Airflow
 Velocity
Coefficient
                                        Deviation   of Variance
            CPU/liter of air
   Average
Concentration
  (CPU/liter
    of air)
Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pmessured
r 100
Poora,ed
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
225
263
180
208
296
240
179
269
206

-


-


-


-

0.35





230 (920 cfm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






38.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






16.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






4.94*103
4.19*103
4.78*103
3.85*103
3.88*103
4.23*103
4.80*103
4.69*103
5.18*103
1.71*103
1.87*103
1.69*103
1.67*103
1.74*103
1.79*103
1.80*103
1.71*103
1.80*103

<2.7
<2.8






4.50*103
1.75*103




0.389
1.034
0.376
62%
4%
4.79*102
6. 53*10!









11%
4%


















-------
Table F-9. Results from  Bioaerosol Evaluation of Filter C17FPP-8-BIO (12" x 24" x 2")
                                        Airflow     Airflow
                                        Velocity     Velocity
               Airflow                  Standard   Coefficient                   Average
              Velocity  Average Airflow  Deviation   of Variance   CFU/liter     Concentration
   Sample     (fpm)    Velocity (fpm)     (fpm)        (%)        of air     (CFU/liter of air)
Std. Dev.
Coefficient of
  Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pme,»ed
r 100
Pooled
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
238
356
249
237
344
214
195
287
170

-


-


-


-

0.45





254 (1016 cfm)

-


-


-


-







59.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






23.5

-


-


-


-







4.66*103
4.66*103
4.48*103
3.06*103
3.68*103
3.49*103
4.19*103
3.46*103
3.45*103
2.42*103
2.49*103
2.37*103
2.09*103
2.80*103
2.23*103
2.56*103
2.33*103
2.28*103

<2.7
<2.8






3.90*103
2.40*103




0.614
1.034
0.594
41%
11%
6.01*102
2.06*102









15%
9%


















-------
Table F-10. Results from  Bioaerosol  Evaluation of Filter C11GM-16-BIO (12"x24"x 12")
   Sample
Airflow
Velocity   Average Airflow
 (fpm)    Velocity (fpm)
 Airflow
 Velocity
Standard
Deviation
  (fpm)
   Airflow
  Velocity
Coefficient of
Variance (%)
              Average
CPU/liter    Concentration              Coefficient
  of air    (CPU/liter of air)  Std. Dev.   of Variance
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream

Background
Background
Pressure Drop
(in. w.g.)
Pmessured
r 100
Poora,ed
Filtration
Efficiency
Combined
Standard
Deviation
258
327
253
272
313
214
169
257
193
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
0.65





251 (1004 cfm)

-


-


-


-







49.0

-


-


-


-







19.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-






3.95*103
5.05*103
5.02*103
3.67*103
4.36*103
4.82*103
3.68*103
4.44*103
5.04*103
1. 02*10!
2.63*10°
1.53*10!
1. 26*10!
1.42*10!
1.37*10!
5.46*10°
2.77*10°
8.33*10°

<2.7
<2.8






4.45*103
9.47*10°












0.002
1.034
0.002
99.8%
0.1%
5.74*102
4.92*10°









13%
52%


















-------
                                             Appendix G
        Results From  the  Inert Aerosol  Evaluations
                              of the Aged Air Cleaners
Table G-l. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
      Pleated Electrostatic Filter (6DDUE-8)
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Midpoint of Range (\im) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 12 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
25.0
33.8
30.8
28.0
27.1
25.7
23.0
22.3
22.3
23.6
23.3
23.2
21.8
25.4
25.3
18.2
18.1
16.1
14.0
21.4
31.1
44.8
50.6
55.6
56.8
57.6
55.5
59.2
54.9
20.6
51.9
56.8

8
7
16.8
16.6
15.7
12.8
11.2
10.5
7.7
7.3
6.6
8.8
7.3
6.4
5.2
5.6
3.8
2.5
3.8
4.7
7.1
7.5
9.8
15.2
17.4
26.1
44.6
59.5
72.7
82.6
86.2
7.3
25.8
75.3

8
8
6.8
3.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.4
11.1
12.6
16.3
22.9
27.6
39.8
62.8
75.6
86.6
93.2
95.1
12.1
38.3
87.6

8
9
13.9
16.5
2.9
2.8
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
8.2
0.0
1.9
5.3
10.6
19.3
27.7
40.7
54.6
64.9
69.5
69.9
64.4
4.5
35.6
67.2

8
7
27.9
24.5
21.3
23.1
19.9
20.3
19.9
20.5
20.6
22.1
21.7
22.0
22.9
24.0
22.5
24.7
29.1
2.3
5.7
11.8
24.0
43.2
57.2
72.7
84.9
90.4
93.6
94.6
94.3
11.0
64.5
93.2

8
10
-------
Table G-2. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (6DDUE-8)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use Mass Gained 410 cfm 614 cfm 819 cfm l,024cfm
(hours of operation) (g) (148 fpm) (221 fpm) (295 fpm) (369 fpm)
0(0)
2(199)
4 (544)
8(1,040)
12 (1,307)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
1
8
7
5


0.06
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.11

0.07 @ 148 fpm
0.1
0.11
0.16
0.13
0.17

0.12® 221 fpm
0.14
0.16
0.23
0.19
0.26

0.17® 295 fpm
0.19
0.23
0.31
0.26
0.34

0.23® 369 fpm
-------
Table G-3. Measured Collection  Efficiencies During Aging of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (8NM-10)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or
Midpoint of Range (\im) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 12 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
22.7
20.2
18.5
17.9
15.5
13.8
13.1
13.1
11.8
10.8
9.4
10.6
10.0
7.9
13.6
12.6
18.0
16.9
20.5
33.8
53.7
72.4
80.4
86.8
89.8
91.0
91.5
91.3
91.8
31.2
82.4
91.4

10
12
30.0
26.0
25.0
23.3
20.0
18.3
18.1
17.5
20.1
18.3
18.7
16.8
17.6
19.6
21.0
21.8
17.2
6.8
16.4
21.8
33.1
42.3
50.3
63.9
80.8
87.5
91.7
94.1
94.9
19.5
59.3
92.1

10
10
29.9
28.7
23.2
21.5
20.1
15.9
16.8
17.0
17.2
16.0
14.9
13.9
15.2
13.8
14.2
13.6
15.8
16.5
22.8
29.3
40.4
51.3
59.1
71.0
85.0
90.4
93.6
95.3
96.0
27.2
66.6
93.8

10
11
21.0
23.7
18.6
17.6
14.3
13.6
12.8
9.2
7.8
8.3
9.2
10.4
8.7
7.9
11.0
10.6
13.7
3.5
11.8
20.6
36.3
53.6
64.0
76.0
84.1
89.7
91.9
92.3
90.8
18.1
69.4
91.2

10
11
31.0
29.0
27.8
25.6
23.6
22.6
19.9
22.0
22.4
23.9
26.1
27.9
31.0
33.9
36.2
43.6
47.2
48.1
59.5
72.8
82.1
88.2
90.3
92.0
93.1
93.6
94.1
93.5
92.5
65.6
90.9
93.4

10
13
-------
Table G-4. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (8NM-10)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use Mass Gained 410 cfm 614 cfm 819 cfm l,024cfm
(hours of operation) (g) (148 fpm) (221 fpm) (295 fpm) (369 fpm)
0(0)
2 (250)
4 (450)
8 (892)
12 (1,272)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
2
1
3
9


0.17
0.20
0.23
0.20
0.67

NA
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.33
1.19

NA
0.43
0.50
0.58
0.49
1.75

NA
0.59
0.69
0.80
0.68
2.38

NA
-------
Table G-5. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C17FPP-8)
Particle Size Range Particle Size Efficiency (%)
or Midpoint of Range 0 weeks
(\im) (12 x 24 filter) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
40.8
36.7
33.6
30.4
26.2
22.1
20.8
18.3
17.1
17.9
15.9
14.2
11.5
13.9
16.8
17.3
15.5
30.2
29.6
41.4
55.0
69.4
76.0
79.2
77.4
73.2
66.2
63.8
55.7
39.1
75.5
64.7

8
7
29.7
34.8
30.1
28.0
22.0
20.9
17.5
18.4
14.4
12.7
11.9
15.3
12.0
13.5
8.1
15.0
16.4
34.0
37.1
52.7
65.5
85.3
90.3
93.0
93.8
92.9
90.1
79.2
60.9
48.3
91.1
81.3

8
8
22.5
24.2
21.1
18.0
16.2
16.5
15.0
11.5
9.9
10.4
11.6
11.3
8.1
7.5
12.3
9.7
14.2
1.5
2.3
3.7
11.3
13.0
19.3
29.8
47.2
60.1
72.7
77.0
73.4
4.7
27.3
70.8

8
8
25.5
24.6
21.7
19.7
16.1
14.2
15.0
12.0
9.1
8.8
7.4
5.6
3.4
0.3
3.5
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.6
4.4
10.5
11.5
17.6
27.5
45.6
59.7
73.4
79.0
78.0
4.7
25.6
72.5

8
8
10.2
11.3
11.4
10.9
10.6
8.9
8.6
7.3
6.5
6.5
7.8
6.9
10.9
10.7
11.0
12.9
15.8
4.7
6.6
7.7
15.1
16.8
22.4
33.5
51.2
64.9
76.6
82.3
79.5
8.6
31.0
75.8

8
8
21.4
19.0
16.9
11.0
7.5
4.7
5.9
4.5
1.7
1.3
2.4
2.8
1.9
1.4
0.0
1.1
4.5
0.0
0.3
2.3
12.5
14.5
20.6
33.8
52.4
66.0
76.3
81.1
76.2
3.8
30.3
74.9

8
8
-------
Table G-6. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C17FPP-8)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use Mass Gained 984 cfm 1476 cfm 1968 cfm 2460 cfm
(hours of operation) (g) (246 fpm) (369 fpm) (492 fpm) (615 fpm)
0 (0) (12" x 24" filter)
0(0)
2 (336)
4 (672)
8(1,344)
16 (2,688)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
0
8
20
38
82


0.20
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.22

0.10 at 250 fpm
0.35
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.37

0.18 at 375 fpm
0.55
0.44
0.45
0.45
0.47
0.57

0.30 at 500 fpm
0.75
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.79

0.45 at 625 fpm
-------
Table G-7. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C15AAA-11)
Particle Size Range Particle Size Efficiency (%)
or Midpoint of Range 0 weeks
(\im) (12 x 24 filter) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3.0 -10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
36.2
35.2
35.4
36.3
32.9
30.7
31.0
29.7
27.0
26.2
25.1
23.9
20.8
22.1
22.4
22.4
20.9
39.6
40.5
50.6
59.1
67.6
73.0
75.2
75.9
74.7
71.5
73.0
66.5
47.5
72.9
71.4

11
8
45.1
50.7
48.1
44.1
42.1
39.5
34.4
32.1
29.3
29.1
26.1
25.1
21.8
22.9
22.2
16.1
17.3
29.0
35.6
47.1
52.6
66.4
71.4
76.5
73.4
71.3
70.9
65.4
58.9
41.1
71.9
66.6

11
7
16.3
10.6
9.2
6.7
3.9
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
8.8
11.6
15.4
16.5
23.4
28.0
39.5
50.3
64.3
73.4
76.0
11.0
26.8
66.0

11
7
15.1
10.0
8.8
4.4
5.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
8.0
11.3
14.8
14.2
22.4
27.1
37.4
47.4
60.5
68.1
71.9
10.3
25.3
62.0

11
7
11.9
14.3
12.1
11.1
11.4
9.1
10.8
11.7
12.0
11.8
11.1
12.3
14.4
14.3
11.6
14.6
13.6
0.9
0.8
2.1
9.4
10.4
15.1
23.7
37.6
49.9
62.0
70.6
71.8
3.3
21.7
63.6

11
7
14.8
13.0
10.8
5.7
5.8
3.9
2.8
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
4.5
5.2
12.7
13.2
19.4
28.1
43.4
54.2
65.2
73.1
74.4
6.3
26.0
66.7

11
7
-------
Table G-8. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
          Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C15AAA-11)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use Mass 984 cfm 1476 cfm 1968 cfm 2460 cfm
(hours of operation) Gained (g) (246 fpm) (369 fpm) (492 fpm) (615 fpm)
0 (0) (12" x 24" filter)
0(0)
2 (336)
4 (672)
8(1,344)
16 (2,688)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
0
13
24
42
89


0.14
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.18

0.12 at 250 fpm
0.25
0.22
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.30

0.23 at 375 fpm
0.40
0.34
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.46

0.38 at 500 fpm
0.59
0.47
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.64

0.51 at 625 fpm
-------
Table G-9. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
          Pleated Electrostatic Box Filter (C8GZ-13)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or 0 weeks 0 weeks
Midpoint of Range (\im) (Test 1) (Test 2) 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
74.8
73.0
72.9
73.2
72.2
70.8
69.6
68.2
68.8
66.1
65.4
65.4
64.7
63.7
63.2
63.2
60.3
60.9
66.4
72.5
77.7
82.3
85.5
90.1
95.2
97.3
98.5
99.2
99.6
69.4
88.3
98.6

13
12
65.5
64.7
60.1
61.5
58.3
59.4
58.8
55.4
56.3
53.6
53.8
52.0
52.5
53.7
50.4
53.4
53.9
66.3
73.8
81.7
88.3
94.0
96.1
97.2
97.9
98.2
98.4
98.2
100.0
77.5
96.3
98.7

13
14
70.4
65.4
63.1
61.1
58.1
55.5
51.7
49.7
47.1
44.6
42.3
41.8
41.1
38.2
40.5
38.8
37.7
36.2
42.8
48.9
56.2
62.3
67.1
76.5
87.3
93.0
96.7
98.1
98.8
46.0
73.3
96.6

13
11
66.3
61.8
57.2
53.4
48.7
46.7
42.1
39.3
36.4
32.6
32.0
30.8
29.5
28.9
29.4
27.2
33.1
30.0
34.8
41.5
48.4
54.9
61.0
71.8
85.0
91.5
96.3
98.0
98.8
38.7
68.2
69.2

13
11
59.9
53.9
50.8
46.6
42.0
39.4
36.2
32.4
31.1
30.0
29.1
30.3
29.3
30.9
31.8
31.8
32.7
25.4
31.5
37.2
44.5
51.9
57.4
68.8
83.2
90.7
95.8
98.0
99.0
34.6
65.3
95.9

13
11
56.8
52.4
47.7
42.3
37.2
34.1
32.3
28.4
25.9
23.9
23.9
22.8
20.9
20.0
21.5
24.5
28.1
20.6
23.8
29.7
35.8
41.9
46.9
56.9
69.0
77.2
89.1
95.5
97.5
27.5
53.7
89.8

13
10
-------
Table G-10. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Electrostatic Box Filter (C8GZ-13)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use Mass Gained 984 cfm 1476 cfm 1968 cfm 2460 cfm
(hours of operation) (g) (246 fpm) (369 fpm) (492 fpm) (615 fpm)
0 (0) (Test 1)
0 (0) (Test 2)
2 (336)
4 (672)
8(1,344)
16 (2,688)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
0
9
14
32
50


0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

NA
0.40
0.43
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.40

NA
0.59
0.63
0.59
0.57
0.57
0.58

0.44 at 500 fpm
0.80
0.89
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.78

NA
-------
Table G-ll. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
            Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C14PCS)
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Midpoint of Range (Mm) Q weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks g weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70- 1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30- 1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3.0- 10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
85.4
83.6
80.3
77.1
73.7
71.5
67.5
65.3
63.6
61.1
60.6
61.7
61.6
60.0
63.8
64.3
66.6
62.0
68.6
74.4
80.2
84.0
86.7
91.3
95.7
97.6
98.6
99.1
99.3
71.3
89.4
98.6

14
12
85.9
83.3
80.8
78.0
74.8
71.7
69.3
66.6
64.6
63.5
63.5
63.5
65.1
65.3
69.0
67.8
68.5
72.1
76.9
81.3
85.5
88.4
90.6
93.8
97.1
98.4
99.2
99.9
100.0
79.0
92.5
99.4

14
14
82.9
81.4
77.9
76.0
72.1
69.3
66.1
63.3
62.0
60.8
60.5
60.3
62.0
61.6
65.5
64.6
64.7
64.5
70.7
75.9
81.5
85.7
87.9
91.8
95.8
97.6
98.5
99.0
99.4
73.2
90.3
98.6

14
13
88.3
86.2
83.9
80.7
78.3
75.7
73.0
70.3
69.2
68.2
67.3
68.2
68.5
69.1
72.1
72.9
75.0
70.8
75.9
80.5
85.1
87.9
90.0
93.2
96.5
97.9
98.6
99.1
99.3
78.1
91.9
98.7

14
14
88.8
88.1
87.4
85.5
84.3
82.5
81.9
81.1
80.0
79.9
80.6
81.4
82.5
82.8
83.9
85.4
86.9
77.0
80.7
86.4
91.2
95.5
96.8
98.1
98.7
98.9
99.1
99.4
100.0
83.8
97.3
99.3

14
14
-------
Table G-12. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C14PCS)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use Mass Gained 984 cfm 1476 cfm 1968 cfm 2460 cfm
(hours of operation) (g) (246 fpm) (369 fpm) (492 fpm) (615 fpm)
0(0)
2 (336)
4 (672)
8(1,344)
16 (2,688)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
17
26
39
76


0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28

0.25 at 250 fpm
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.44
0.46

0.40 at 375 fpm
0.60
0.62
0.62
0.64
0.66

0.60 at 500 fpm
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.87
0.89

0.78 at 625 fpm
-------
Table G-13. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C11GM-16)
Particle Size Range or Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Midpoint of Range (\im) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
99.9
99.8
99.7
99.4
99.0
98.4
97.7
96.9
96.2
95.6
95.0
94.9
94.9
95.2
94.9
95.1
96.3
97.0
98.4
99.2
99.6
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.6
99.9
100

16
16
99.7
99.6
99.5
99.4
99.3
99.0
98.7
98.5
98.1
98.0
97.6
97.5
97.3
97.3
97.5
97.3
97.6
97.0
98.4
99.2
99.6
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.5
99.9
100

16
16
99.8
99.8
99.5
99.3
98.9
98.5
97.8
97.1
96.5
95.9
95.1
95.0
95.1
95.0
95.5
95.6
95.9
97.2
98.6
99.3
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.7
99.9
100

16
16
99.8
99.6
99.5
99.3
98.8
98.3
97.6
96.8
96.1
95.4
94.8
94.3
94.8
95.1
95.4
96.0
95.9
97.5
98.6
99.2
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
98.7
99.9
99.9

16
16
99.9
99.8
99.5
99.4
98.9
98.4
97.8
97.2
96.4
95.9
95.2
94.9
94.9
95.0
95.6
95.7
96.7
98.1
99.2
99.7
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.2
100
100

16
16
-------
Table G-14. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Non-Electrostatic Filter (C11GM-16)
      Weeks of Use
   (hours of operation)
                                Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Mass Gained      984 cfm          1476 cfm         1968 cfm         2460 cfm
      )          (246 fpm)         (369 fpm)         (492 fpm)         (615 fpm)
0(0)
2 (336)
4 (672)
8(1,344)
16 (2,688)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0
11
22
42
81


0.37
0.36
0.35
0.36
0.37

0.42 at 250 fpm
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.58
0.60

0.55 at 375 fpm
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.86

0.61 at 500 fpm
1.14
1.13
1.11
1.12
1.16

NA
-------
Table G-15. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Residential Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit A)
Particle Size Range Particle Size Efficiency (%)
or Midpoint of Range
(\im) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
93.1
92.5
92.3
91.6
91.0
90.5
89.7
89.0
88.3
88.1
87.3
86.8
85.6
85.0
84.2
84.7
83.5
80.8
82.8
85.4
87.7
90.6
91.9
94.1
95.6
96.7
97.8
98.0
99.2
84.2
93.1
97.9

15
14
91.7
90.6
90.7
90.4
89.3
88.9
87.5
87.2
86.2
86.1
85.9
85.7
84.8
84.6
83.2
83.4
84.3
85.6
87.2
89.2
91.1
93.0
94.0
95.0
96.1
96.9
97.3
97.9
97.0
88.3
94.5
97.3

15
15
90.8
90.7
90.8
91.3
91.3
91.1
91.3
90.8
90.4
90.3
90.2
90.2
89.8
89.4
89.4
89.2
88.8
84.4
86.4
88.6
90.8
93.2
94.3
95.4
96.2
97.0
98.0
98.4
99.5
87.6
94.8
98.2

15
15
84.0
82.3
81.8
80.8
79.7
77.8
77.1
75.8
74.7
72.2
71.6
69.7
69.5
69.3
70.3
70.3
70.6
77.5
81.6
85.2
88.7
91.8
92.9
94.2
95.5
96.3
96.8
97.7
96.4
83.2
93.6
96.8

15
14
81.4
81.1
80.6
80.2
79.6
78.5
77.5
76.7
76.5
76.1
75.4
75.5
76.5
76.9
77.4
79.2
79.2
73.4
77.8
83.3
88.1
92.0
93.4
94.5
95.1
95.9
96.8
96.7
97.6
80.7
93.8
96.8

15
14
-------
Table G-16. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Residential Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit A)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use 410 cfm 614 cfm 820 cfm 1024 cfm
(hours of operation) (148 fpm) (221 fpm) (295 fpm) (369 fpm)
0(0)
1 (168)
2 (336)
6(1,008)
12 (2,016)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08

NA
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.11

NA
0.12
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.15

0.10 at 360 fpm
0.17
0.24
0.17
0.22
0.17

0.1 7 at 504 fpm
-------
Table G-17. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Residential  Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit H)
Particle Size Range Partide Sjze Efficiency (%)
or Midpoint of Range
(ijm) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70- 1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30- 1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
93.8
94.5
94.8
94.4
93.6
92.8
91.9
91.4
90.2
89.4
88.8
88.5
87.2
88.5
87.8
87.5
87.1
89.3
91.9
94.0
95.5
96.5
96.6
97.1
97.4
97.6
98.0
98.0
98.8
92.7
96.9
98.1

12 at 492 fpm
15
93.0
94.3
94.1
93.5
92.6
91.9
90.2
88.3
86.8
86.0
85.7
86.5
86.4
86.7
85.7
85.8
86.0
88.7
91.7
94.3
95.8
96.8
97.1
97.4
97.7
97.9
98.1
98.2
99.1
92.6
97.3
98.3

12 at 492 fpm
15
91.8
92.3
92.0
91.1
90.0
89.0
88.6
87.1
86.4
86.1
85.9
85.3
85.9
86.4
86.1
87.1
87.3
90.0
92.9
94.9
96.0
96.8
97.1
97.2
97.7
98.1
98.4
98.3
98.0
93.4
97.2
98.2

12 at 492 fpm
15
77.6
82.4
84.5
85.1
84.2
82.9
82.1
80.8
79.8
78.1
77.5
76.4
77.2
77.2
78.1
79.0
79.9
80.0
85.3
89.5
92.5
94.4
95.1
95.9
96.7
97.5
97.9
99.1
97.8
86.8
95.6
98.1

12 at 492 fpm
15
64.5
67.7
71.5
72.4
71.4
70.3
67.9
66.2
64.2
62.8
61.5
60.5
60.0
61.0
59.8
62.0
62.3
67.9
71.4
77.3
82.3
86.6
88.8
90.4
91.9
93.6
94.6
94.8
95.3
74.7
89.4
94.6

12 at 492 fpm
12
-------
Table G-18. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a  Residential  Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit H)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use 410 cfm 614 cfm 820 cfm 1024 cfm
(hours of operation) (148 fpm) (221 fpm) (295 fpm) (369 fpm)
0(0)
1 (168)
2 (336)
6(1,008)
12(2,016)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05

0.03 at 148 fpm
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.08

0.04 at 221 fpm
0.11
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.13

0.06 at 295 fpm
0.17
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.19

0.09 at 369 fpm
-------
Table G-19. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Aging of a Residential Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit P)
Particle Size Range Particle Size Efficiency (%)
or Midpoint of Range
(\im) 0 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 8 weeks 16 weeks
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
81.2
84.4
88.2
88.5
87.9
86.7
85.5
83.7
81.7
80.9
80.1
78.5
79.0
77.5
80.0
79.7
80.8
76.7
82.1
86.5
90.5
93.6
94.9
95.7
96.2
96.6
97.0
97.6
97.1
84.0
95.1
97.1

NA
14
83.9
86.6
87.6
87.0
86.0
85.3
82.7
81.0
78.7
77.3
76.3
76.1
75.1
74.3
73.2
74.3
72.2
74.1
80.0
85.4
89.5
93.0
94.3
95.3
96.4
97.1
97.2
97.9
98.4
82.3
94.7
97.6

NA
14
76.3
77.9
78.0
77.6
76.5
74.0
72.7
70.9
68.7
67.7
67.1
66.8
66.3
67.1
67.5
67.1
67.9
69.6
76.0
81.7
86.7
90.8
92.6
94.1
95.3
96.1
96.7
96.9
97.4
78.5
93.2
96.8

NA
14
47.7
47.4
48.5
45.4
41.4
37.8
34.6
30.8
26.2
24.7
22.6
18.3
17.7
14.4
13.6
10.5
10.1
15.6
17.4
19.0
21.5
24.8
25.6
28.3
32.1
37.8
44.8
48.0
56.5
18.4
27.7
46.8

NA
6
21.7
26.1
23.0
24.0
20.8
17.9
13.4
9.7
8.1
7.1
6.4
4.1
4.9
3.7
2.7
2.7
0.0
5.1
4.3
3.3
3.9
5.4
4.9
6.5
5.6
12.8
18.6
24.9
31.0
4.1
5.6
21.8

NA
5
-------
Table G-20. Measured Pressure Drops During Aging of a Residential Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit P)
Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
Weeks of Use 410 cfm 614 cfm 820 cfm 1024 cfm
(hours of operation) (148 fpm) (221 fpm) (295 fpm) (369 fpm)
0(0)
1 (168)
2 (336)
6(1,008)
12 (2,016)

Manufacturer's Pressure
Drop Data (in. w.g.)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02

NA
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04

NA
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.06

NA
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.08

0.11 at 504 fpm
-------
                                             Appendix H
        Results  From the Inert Aerosol  Evaluations
                      of the Conditioned  Air Cleaners
Table H-l. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
      Pleated Electrostatic Filter (6DDUE-8)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.2 * 107 After CT of 6.9 * 107 After CT of 1.0 * 108
Midpoint of Range (\im) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
25.0
33.8
30.8
28.0
27.1
25.7
23.0
22.3
22.3
23.6
23.3
23.2
21.8
25.4
25.3
18.2
18.1
16.1
14.0
21.4
31.1
44.8
50.6
55.6
56.8
57.6
55.5
59.2
54.9
20.6
51.9
56.8

8
7
16.9
27.4
26.6
22.9
22.6
21.3
18.8
17.0
17.0
18.2
17.2
15.1
14.3
16.1
13.8
8.0
4.3
12.0
10.4
16.3
30.8
51.0
64.6
77.6
86.2
90.3
90.0
88.4
86.5
17.4
69.9
88.8

8
11
20.6
32.4
29.1
26.8
24.0
23.5
23.4
21.5
21.2
22.6
22.9
22.4
21.5
23.1
23.9
17.3
14.2
9.0
9.1
14.9
29.4
50.1
63.6
77.7
85.4
87.8
89.0
87.7
84.8
15.6
69.2
87.3

8
11
14.7
24.2
20.4
17.6
17.2
17.0
14.8
15.7
15.4
15.8
15.5
16.1
14.0
17.3
15.3
8.0
7.9
12.3
12.9
21.6
36.7
59.3
70.3
83.2
88.9
91.3
92.3
93.0
92.9
20.9
75.4
92.4

8
11
-------
Table H-2. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Residential 16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (8NM-10)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 5.0 * 107 After CT of 7.5 * 107 After CT of 1.1 * 108
Midpoint of Range (\im) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
22.7
20.2
18.5
17.9
15.5
13.8
13.1
13.1
11.8
10.8
9.4
10.6
10.0
7.9
13.6
12.6
18.0
16.9
20.5
33.8
53.7
72.4
80.4
86.8
89.8
91.0
91.5
91.3
91.8
31.2
82.4
91.4

10
12
12.7
9.8
6.9
7.4
5.9
4.7
2.8
2.9
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
5.8
0.5
7.2
5.9
15.0
28.8
49.0
68.3
76.8
84.1
86.8
87.7
86.8
85.5
83.0
24.7
79.0
85.8

10
11
18.8
17.4
15.0
13.9
14.0
12.7
11.5
10.1
11.2
9.5
6.8
9.1
9.1
10.9
13.4
13.5
20.0
16.5
20.6
34.4
54.5
73.2
80.5
85.7
88.2
88.3
87.7
87.3
84.4
31.5
81.9
86.9

10
11

















33.3
33.9
49.2
68.1
83.3
87.8
91.9
94.0
95.2
94.8
93.6
93.2
46.1
89.3
94.2

10
12
-------
Table H-3. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C17FPP-8)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.2 * 107 After CT of 6.6 * 107
Midpoint of Range (\im) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
29.7
34.8
30.1
28.0
22.0
20.9
17.5
18.4
14.4
12.7
11.9
15.3
12.0
13.5
8.1
15.0
16.4
34.5
39.9
52.3
66.7
86.7
90.6
93.3
93.8
92.2
89.0
62.7
NA
48.3
91.1
81.3

8
8
38.6
31.0
33.1
30.3
26.7
29.5
24.5
24.8
21.5
21.2
22.9
17.5
13.6
25.1
16.3
24.9
22.2
37.9
41.1
55.9
72.0
90.0
94.3
96.7
97.5
97.9
98.5
NA
NA
51.7
94.6
98.2

8
13
17.0
13.2
16.6
12.0
14.3
17.1
15.3
16.7
18.6
19.9
16.4
18.6
19.8
24.4
15.4
28.8
26.0
39.6
40.7
54.2
72.3
90.1
93.6
96.3
98.2
98.2
97.9
NA
NA
51.7
94.6
98.0

8
13
-------
Table H-4.  Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 2"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (C15AAA-11)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.2 * 107 After CT of 8.0 * 107 After CT of 1.1 * 10s
Midpoint of Range (\im) Unloaded (particles*min)/cm3 (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min)/cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
45.1
50.7
48.1
44.1
42.1
39.5
34.4
32.1
29.3
29.1
26.1
25.1
21.8
22.9
22.2
16.1
17.3
29.0
35.6
47.1
52.6
66.4
71.4
76.5
73.4
71.3
70.9
65.4
58.9
41.1
71.9
66.6

11
7
9.9
11.4
11.7
9.6
11.7
10.9
9.5
9.7
11.8
10.7
9.4
10.3
8.3
10.6
10.0
12.7
11.7
13.7
23.6
36.6
44.2
63.1
72.6
83.4
85.6
86.6
88.2
88.8
90.7
29.5
76.2
88.6

11
11
23.2
23.8
22.8
18.2
15.0
12.6
11.5
9.9
10.6
8.8
6.9
3.8
2.0
3.1
2.4
0.0
0.0
10.8
18.9
31.1
37.8
56.8
67.7
78.3
80.4
80.8
81.0
78.9
78.5
24.6
70.8
79.8

11
8
16.8
24.9
24.8
22.1
19.3
18.1
16.5
15.3
14.9
15.9
14.4
13.5
10.3
12.1
10.5
2.6
0.0
8.1
20.0
33.6
41.1
60.6
69.8
81.0
81.8
82.7
83.4
86.2
87.7
25.7
73.3
85.0

11
11
-------
Table H-5.  Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Commercial 24" x 24" x 12"
           Pleated Electrostatic Box Filter (C8GZ-13)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.2 * 107 After CT of 6.4 * 107 After CT of 9.6 * 107
Midpoint of Range (|jm) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
65.5
64.7
60.1
61.5
58.3
59.4
58.8
55.4
56.3
53.6
53.8
52.0
52.5
53.7
50.4
53.4
53.9
66.3
73.8
81.7
88.3
94.0
96.1
97.2
97.9
98.2
98.4
98.2
100.0
77.5
96.3
98.7

13
14
72.7
74.3
72.9
72.3
72.2
69.2
72.0
70.3
65.2
66.2
64.2
63.0
61.7
61.2
62.9
58.4
56.7
59.5
69.4
79.0
87.0
93.9
96.3
97.9
98.6
98.8
98.9
98.2

73.7
96.7
98.6

13
13
76.4
75.0
72.2
72.1
68.8
69.1
69.3
65.6
64.7
63.5
61.7
61.3
60.7
59.7
59.7
59.9
58.6
63.7
70.7
80.1
87.7
94.4
96.6
98.1
98.5
98.7
98.8
96.9

75.6
96.9
98.1

13
14
77.6
76.9
76.4
76.7
73.1
73.8
74.1
71.6
70.5
69.8
67.7
70.1
66.5
66.4
69.7
65.2
67.2
60.0
68.6
78.3
86.5
93.8
96.5
98.0
98.5
98.6
98.6
99.1

73.4
96.7
98.8

13
13
-------
Table H-6. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (5RM-11-1)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.4 * 107 After CT of 6.6 * 107
Midpoint of Range (\im) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
35.5
31.8
27.5
26.5
23.6
22.3
19.7
17.5
16.0
15.7
14.9
11.8
12.3
9.4
12.6
8.7
15.7
14.7
11.7
17.1
33.3
52.9
62.5
71.2
72.9
69.4
66.5
68.2
70.4
19.2
64.9
68.7

11
7
5.9
9.6
11.4
11.7
10.0
10.1
10.8
11.4
11.5
13.2
11.4
11.8
11.1
10.2
16.5
14.6
19.5
11.5
8.9
13.9
28.9
50.3
63.4
77.5
84.2
85.4
86.0
87.9
87.9
15.8
68.8
86.8

11
11
24.0
26.4
26.9
27.4
28.1
28.0
29.7
31.6
31.7
32.4
33.8
34.3
36.2
36.2
40.3
40.3
45.0
14.2
10.4
17.3
34.3
56.8
69.2
83.8
90.7
92.4
93.9
94.9
95.2
19.1
75.1
94.1

11
11
-------
Table H-7. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (4FUA-12-3)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.3 * 107 After CT of 6.8* 107 After CT of 1.1 * 108
Midpoint of Range (\im) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3C3.0- 10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
48.3
50.8
49.3
48.2
46.0
43.9
42.1
40.7
40.1
38.3
36.5
34.8
33.0
32.0
34.7
32.4
34.8
30.4
32.1
41.2
55.0
69.8
77.7
86.2
89.5
90.4
90.4
93.3
94.3
39.7
80.8
92.1

12
12
51.4
49.6
48.5
47.3
46.4
46.4
45.8
44.8
45.7
45.1
45.2
45.9
47.3
47.6
50.2
48.6
52.4
23.8
25.6
33.5
47.6
65.6
75.2
87.3
92.7
94.4
96.2
97.4
97.4
32.6
80.2
96.4

12
12
30.0
28.9
28.6
26.6
23.4
22.7
21.0
19.3
17.9
17.7
18.5
18.4
17.4
17.3
24.5
23.2
28.0
23.5
23.9
31.1
45.4
62.7
73.7
86.1
92.3
94.3
96.0
97.8
98.3
31.0
78.7
96.6

12
11
43.4
41.0
37.2
35.5
32.2
29.4
27.5
25.5
24.8
24.0
22.7
22.3
22.2
21.7
25.9
27.7
30.8
27.3
26.0
33.4
48.2
66.0
77.2
87.9
93.8
95.5
96.6
97.6
99.7
33.7
81.2
97.4

12
12
-------
Table H-8. Measured Collection Efficiencies During Conditioning of a Residential  16" x 25" x 1"
           Pleated Electrostatic Filter (7AST-8-3)
Particle Size Efficiency (%)
Particle Size Range or After CT of 3.2 * 107 After CT of 6.9* 107 After CT of 1 .0 * 108
Midpoint of Range (\m\) Unloaded (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3 (particles*min) / cm3
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70- 1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30- 1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30- 1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3.0- 10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
37.2
36.6
33.7
31.8
30.3
28.6
26.7
23.9
22.6
22.8
20.4
20.5
22.5
21.6
21.0
23.8
18.3
9.4
10.8
19.6
36.2
54.2
61.7
67.5
66.9
64.2
60.4
62.9
57.8
19.0
62.6
61.3

8
7
15.0
16.1
11.5
10.1
7.6
4.1
2.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
9.5
17.7
35.1
56.4
67.9
78.9
84.7
86.4
86.3
85.4
88.4
17.2
72.0
86.6

8
11
26.2
26.4
23.7
18.8
14.7
15.6
14.7
12.0
12.1
11.8
11.1
10.7
10.2
11.2
9.4
10.6
7.5
13.0
12.5
20.9
40.4
63.4
74.1
84.0
89.5
91.1
90.3
89.2
88.5
21.7
77.8
89.8

8
11
32.0
32.3
27.9
26.3
25.5
23.2
23.2
21.5
21.0
21.8
20.8
20.0
22.7
23.7
23.6
25.4
24.7
19.4
21.3
33.8
56.4
76.9
85.7
92.2
95.5
96.7
97.8
99.1
93.0
32.7
87.6
96.7

8
12
-------
Table H-9. Measured Collection Efficiencies and Pressure Drops During Conditioning of a Residential
           Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit A)
                            Particle Size Efficiency (%)        Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.)
   Particle Size Range        Before                                                                 Manufacturer's
  or Midpoint of Range    Silicon Vapor  After Silicon Vapor    Before Silicon    After Silicon Vapor    Pressure Drop
          (urn)              Exposure         Exposure        Vapor Exposure        Exposure         Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00-1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0 -3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
95.1
95.1
95.4
95.2
94.9
94.6
94.6
94.2
94.3
94.2
93.9
93.7
93.3
93.1
92.8
93.7
93.3
89.3
90.3
91.4
92.2
93.4
94.0
94.8
95.4
96.1
96.9
97.0
96.3
90.8
94.4
96.6

15
15
87.6
87.9
88.4
88.4
88.8
87.1
87.3
86.9
84.9
85.2
84.4
84.5
83.2
84.0
84.1
84.5
83.2
83.9
85.7
87.3
89.6
91.8
93.2
94.6
96.2
97.3
98.0
98.8
NA
86.6
93.9
98.1

15
15
0.05® 148 fpm
0.07® 221 fpm
0.11® 295 fpm
0.15® 369 fpm































0.06 @ 148 fpm
0.09® 221 fpm
0.13® 295 fpm
0.19® 369 fpm































NA
NA
0.10 @360 fpm
0.17 @ 504 fpm































-------
Table H-10. Measured Collection Efficiencies and Pressure Drops During Conditioning of a Residential
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit H)
Particle Size Efficiency (%) Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.) Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Before Silicon After Silicon Before Silicon After Silicon Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Vapor Exposure Vapor Exposure Vapor Exposure Vapor Exposure Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00-10.00
El (0.30- 1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
92.2
94.0
94.2
93.8
93.4
92.5
91.5
90.5
89.4
88.3
87.7
86.6
86.9
87.0
87.1
87.3
87.9
86.8
90.5
93.3
95.2
96.5
97.1
97.4
97.7
98.3
98.5
98.9
99.5
91.5
97.2
98.8

Up to 12
15
67.8
69.2
68.7
68.1
67.7
63.8
61.2
59.1
57.1
57.2
55.3
57.8
51.7
56.8
53.1
52.5
44.4
49.3
52.8
54.2
53.1
53.3
54.6
55.8
51.4
50.3
47.1
44.0
NA
52.3
53.8
47.1

Up to 12
6
0.03® 148 fpm
0.06® 221 fpm
0.11® 295 fpm
0.17® 369 fpm































0.02 @ 148 fpm
0.03® 221 fpm
0.05® 295 fpm
0.07 @369 fpm































0.03 at 148 fpm
0.04 at 221 fpm
0.06 at 295 fpm
0.09 at 369 fpm































-------
Table H-ll. Measured Collection Efficiencies and Pressure Drops During Conditioning of a Residential
            Electronic Air Cleaner (Unit P)
Particle Size Efficiency (%) Measured Pressure Drop (in. w.g.) Manufacturer's
Particle Size Range or Before Silicon After Silicon Before Silicon After Silicon Pressure Drop
Midpoint of Range (urn) Vapor Exposure Vapor Exposure Vapor Exposure Vapor Exposure Data (in. w.g.)
0.029
0.034
0.039
0.045
0.052
0.060
0.070
0.081
0.093
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.26
0.29
0.30-0.40
0.40-0.55
0.55-0.70
0.70-1.00
1.00- 1.30
1.30-1.60
1.60-2.20
2.20-3.00
3.00-4.00
4.00-5.50
5.50-7.00
7.00- 10.00
El (0.30-1.0)
E2 (1.0-3.0)
E3 (3. 0-10.0)

MERV rating from vendor
MERV rating from testing
86.4
88.2
89.1
88.8
87.3
86.1
84.1
83.1
80.6
80.0
78.4
76.9
74.5
74.3
73.9
72.9
72.5
73.9
80.3
85.7
90.0
93.7
95.0
96.0
96.8
96.9
97.4
97.0
96.4
82.5
95.3
96.9

NA
14
45.2
50.3
47.0
50.6
46.4
42.2
38.0
39.5
31.1
35.6
33.5
28.4
30.7
32.0
31.4
32.4
23.5
28.2
31.7
35.5
37.7
39.7
42.3
45.1
47.2
47.9
52.2
51.5
NA
33.3
43.6
50.5

NA
7
0.03® 148 fpm
0.05® 221 fpm
0.08® 295 fpm
0.13® 369 fpm































0.02 @ 148 fpm
0.04® 221 fpm
0.06 @ 295 fpm
0.09 @369 fpm































NA
NA
NA
0.11 at 504 fpm































-------
-------
                                                                                      Appendix  I
                                                                      Quality  Assurance
Work under this task was completed in accordance with a
pair of EPA approved quality assurance test plans (QAPPs)
entitled "Research on Air Cleaning and HVAC Systems for
Protecting Buildings from Terrorist Attacks; Test/Quality
Assurance Plan for Task 2: Development of Performance
Information for Common Ventilation Filters," and "Research
on Air Cleaning and HVAC Systems for Protecting Buildings
from Terrorist Attacks; Test/Quality Assurance Plan for Task
3:  Development of Performance Information for Electronic
Air Cleaners." These two QAPPs described the development
of the filter and electronic air cleaner tests matrices, sample
acquisition and handling procedures, the inert aerosol and
bioaerosol test procedures, the aging and conditioning
test procedures, and the data analysis procedures. The text
from the two relevant QAPPs was included in the relevant
portions of this draft final comprehensive report. For
example, development of the test matrices was described in
Section 2. The inert aerosol and bioaerosol test procedures
were described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1, respectively. The
inert aerosol and bioaerosol data analysis procedures were
described in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2, respectively. Sample
acquisition and handling, as well as the various aging and
conditioning procedures were described in Sections 3.3, 3.4,
and 3.5.
In accordance with the QAPPs, an external quality assurance
(QA) audit of Tasks 2/3 was performed by an EPA staff
member and a designated representative on 9 August 2006 at
Battelle's Columbus facility. The quality assurance inspectors
reviewed the sample handling logs, standard operating
procedures, test record sheets, instrument calibration sheets,
data logs and data sheets from the inert and bioaerosol
tests, and various other documentation. In addition, the
quality assurance inspectors witnessed the performance
of a bioaerosol test. Official documentation from the QA
inspectors was received on 8  September 2006. In general,
the auditors were pleased with the conduct of the work and
had no significant findings that affected the execution of
tests. A final memo was sent on 6 October 2006 in response
to the findings of the auditors. No corrective actions were
deemed necessary. At the completion of Tasks 2/3, all quality
objectives had been achieved.
In general, the required QA calculations can be found
throughout the body of this report or in the attached data
CD. Three QA calculations that cannot be found in their
entirety elsewhere in this report are provided below. First,
as described in Section 3.2.1, for the bioaerosol tests, it
was required that the air velocity uniformity and bioaerosol
concentration uniformity in the text duct possess  coefficients
of variance of less than 25% and 30%, respectively. Table 1-1
demonstrates a sample calculation showing that the air
velocity unformity CV was within 25%. Tables 1-2 and 1-3
demonstrate a sample calculation showing that the aerosol
concentration CVs were less than 25% at both the upstream
and downstream sampling locations. In addition, it was
required that the downstream and upstream bioaerosol
mean concentrations agree within 20%. Using the ratio of
the overall averages from Tables 1-2 and 1-3, it can be seen
that the mean concentrations agreed to were within 0.5%.
Lastly, for the non-standard portion of the inert aerosol tests
(0.03 to 0.3 um particle size), it was required that the aerosol
concentration uniformity of the test duct possess a coefficient
of variance of less than 15%. Tables 1-4 and 1-5 demonstrate
the results from measurements of the aerosol  concentration
uniformity with no filter present. As shown in Tables 1-4 and
1-5, the results indicated that the aerosol uniformity met the
requirement of a CV of less than 15% for all particle size
ranges at both test velocities.

Table 1-1. Air Velocity Uniformity of the Bioaerosol
          Test Rig average = 210 fpm, CV = 43 fpm or
          20.5%)
Air Velocity (feet per minute)
192
262
209
239
268
209
135
218
162
Table 1-2. Upstream Bioaerosol Concentration
          Uniformity of the Bioaerosol Test Rig
          (average = 5,240 CFU/L, CV = 527 CFU/L
          or 10.1%)
Concentration (CFU/L of air)
5,761
5,678
5,628
4,719
4,564
5,203
4,699
4,956
5,951
Table 1-3. Downstream Bioaerosol Concentration
          Uniformity of the Bioaerosol Test Rig
          (average = 5,214 CFU/L, CV = 373 CFU/L
          or 7.2%)
Concentration (CFU/L)
5,367
5,220
5,210
5,332
5,328
5,737
4,840
4,442
5,451
-------
01
O)
O)
1—I
C\J
c\i
LO
cr

co

j"
 O)
 ^_
 O)
 o

"ro
 ^
 03
 E
 o
 o

 03
 O)
 o
 o
O
 CD  O
<  C^
 E  ro
 £  "o
H—  C
   JS
—  co


ll
CM
Ol
CD
d
O
sj-
CD
d
•5J-
01
(M
d
in
in
(M

(M
CM

01
1 — 1
d
in
ID
d
CD
sj-
d
si-
(M
d
i--
0
i — i
o
CD
Ol
0
d
ID
o
co
o
d
co
01
ID
o
d
sj-
0
ID
0
d
CD
(M
in
q
o
CD
in
sj-
0
d
(M
01
CD
o
d
0
si-
CD
o
d
sj-
01
(M
0
d
in
in
(M
q
o
a, 'E
DO .3
TO
g N
< CO










•o
£Z
Z3
0
o
(/)
CD
<_)
t
ro
Q_
ro
^








£=
£
•o
CJ
ID
sj-
sj-
r-,
0
ID
o
co
r-~
si-
10
o

si-

co
r-~
r-~
sj-
co
(M
(M
(M
r-,
(M
in
co
CD
(M
co
in
CD
co
ID
01
CD
r-,
sj-
(M
•5J-
o
(M
sj-
01
ID
sj-
o
CD
01
CD
ID
CD
in
CD
CD
CO
sj-
ID
(M
ID
O
(M
Ol
ID
in

01
01
sj-
O
sj-
10
in
ID
co
si-
01
o

co
ID
sj-

in
i-.
co
i--
CD
CD
(M
CO
Ol
I--
CM
ID
CD
CD
CD
I-.
sj-
I-.
CD
CO
i — i
sj-
(M
ID
CD
sj-
i — i
in
sj-
i-.
co
(M
sj-
o
01
0
sj-
CD
I--
I-.
CD
(M
I--
(M
CD
CD
(M
CO
(M
01
(M
(M
in
I-.
ID
(M
01
CD
in
I--
I-.
ID
I--
Ol
CO
CO
1 — 1
(M

0
ID
in

1 — 1
01
in
Ol
CD
(M
0
co
Ol
(M
01
in
sj-
CD
I-.
(M
01
CD
sj-
in
(M
si-
(M
o
in
si-
01
co
in
sj-
i — i
i-.
in
sj-
CM
in
(M
sj-
co
ID
01
CD
in
in
CD
0
ID
o
CD
0
01
in
(M
co
ID
(M
(M
CD
CO
0
in
(M
(M
ID
ID
sj-
CO
CD

in
01
•5J-

sj-
co
co
co
sj-
CD
(M
•5J-
o
co
(M
•5J-
CD
CD
CD
ID
sj-
r-~
CD
ID
O
sj-
sj-
sj-
CD
sj-
10
CD
CD
sj-
CO
01
CD
sj-
(M
CD
sj-
Ol
(M
r-~
CD
Ol
in
CD
CD
CO
r-,
co
(M
CD
CO
CD
(M
r-,
in
0
(M
sj-
0
(M
in
co
in
ID
ID
o
01
0
i — i
(M

i — i
(M
in

sj-
i — i
01
CD
CD
sj-
CM
in
sj-
Ol
(M
ID
ID
CD
CD
01
CO
CO
CD
ID
CD
(M
sj-
CD
ID
sj-
sj-
in
Ol
CD
sj-
0
CO
CD
sj-
ID
(M
i — i
sj-
I--
o
I-.
CD
CD
(M
CD
(M
O
ID
(M
sj-
CD
O
(M
Ol
0
ID
in
r-~
si-
in
o
0
r-~
in
CD
01
si-
01

in
(M
in

r-,
co
01
Ol
CD
in
(M
ID
(M
o
CD
in
in
in
CD
in
0
sj-
sj-
si-
si-
(M
co
in
si-
ID
r-,
sj-
10
CD
ID
sj-
ID
ID
sj-
sj-
CD
sj-
sj-
1--,
ID
CD
CO
CD
O
CD
01
01
CD
(M
in
01
ID
01
in
co
01
ID
in
o
01
in
01

01
(M
in

CD
01
sj-
sj-
sj-
CM
in
o
Ol
(M
in
sj-
CD
CD
co
CD
sj-
Ol
0
•5J-
Ol
sj-
•5J-
0
o
sj-
sj-
10
in
sj-
sj-
o
ID
sj-
(M
ID
01
CD
I--,
ID
ID
CD
CO
in
o
CD
0
co
sj-
CM
ID
sj-
01
1--,
CD
i — i
in
(M
01
ID
I--
I--
co
i-.
si-

CD
CD
in

ID
in
01
in
CD
sj-
(M
i — i
Ol
co
(M
I-.
in
CD
CD
01
0
01
CD
in
ID
1 — 1
•5J-
o
(M
in
•5J-
(M
CD
sj-
sj-
•5J-
(M
sj-
sj-
(M
CD
(M
sj-
in
in
co
CD
(M
sj-
CD
co
I--
co
(M
CD
I-.
(M
in
1 — 1
I-.
co
01
in
ID
01
ID
co
in
01
01
si-
(M

CD
co
in

in
(M
0
co
o
in
(M
ID
(M
CD
0
CD
in
CD
r-~
r-~
01
CD
in
ID
CD
•5J-
Ol
Ol
sj-
^t
ID
CD
in
sj-
in
co
in
sj-
(M
^t
CD
sj-
sj-
co
co
CD
sj-
in
CD
CD
ID
CD
CO
(M
CO
in
(M
(M
sj-
co
r-~
Ol























(M
1 — 1
in
ID
ID
ID
in
co
co
i-.
ID
' '
sj-
i — i
in
• '
ID
i — i
01
sj-
si-
(M
i — i
Ol
(M
I-.
01
CD
CD
i — i
in
co
CD
Ol
1 — 1
•5J-
I--
CD
•5)-
^t
CM
ID
si-
si-
^t
CD
si-
si-
(M
01
i — i
sj-
I--
si-
co
CD
O
O
sj-
CD
01
ID
CO
(M
CO
I--
(M
(M
(M
sj-
CO
£=
ro
CD
S
01
(M
in
CD
(M
in
(M



i 	 !
(M
CO
ID
(M
sj-
(M
^t
^t
sj-
O
ID
0
in
sj-
in
o
ID
Ol
co
1--,
ID
in
Ol
CD
(M
>
CD
Q
CO























5S
ID
in
5S
CD
in
5S
Ol
in
xO
c>
CD
in
xO
C>
Sf

5S
I--
CD
5S
sj-
CD
5S
CD
^t
xO
c>
•5)-
CD
xO
c>
I--
CD
5S
•5J-
CD
5S
sj-
CM
xO
c>
ID
CD
xO
c>
^t
CD
xO
c>
I-.
CD
5S
(M
^t
5S
in
in
xO
c>
co
in
xO
c>
ID
co
5S
in
CM
>
o
                                                                  O)
                                                                  O)
                                                                  O)
                                                                  1—I

                                                                  C\J


                                                                  LO
                                                                  Ld

                                                                  01

                                                                  CO


                                                                  J"

                                                                   O>
                                                                   i_
                                                                   O>
                                                                   o

                                                                   "03
                                                                   ^
                                                                   03
                                                                   E
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                                                   03
                                                                   i_
                                                                   c
                                                                   O>
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                                                  o
                                                                   oS
                                                                   (/) Li_
                                                                   £ o
                                                                  «| °°
                                                                   O> O)
                                                                   o
                                                                  H—
                                                                  — CO
                                                                   o>
                                                                  Ol
                                                                  IT)
CM
Ol
CD
d
0
sj-
CD
d
^t
01
CM

in
in
CM
o
CM
CM
d
1 — 1
Ol
d
in
ID
d
CD
•5J-
1 — 1
o
sj-
CM
1 — 1
d
I-.
o
d
CD
01
o
d
ID
o
co
q
o
co
Ol
ID
0
d
si-
0
ID
o
d
CD
CM
in
o
d
CD
in
si-
q
o
CM
Ol
CD
o
d
0
si-
CD
o
d
sj-
01
CM
0
d
in
in
CM
0
d
CD 'E
DO 3:
TO
g N
< CO









-o
£=
=3
O
O
in
CD
o
t
ro
D_
ro
^








£=
£
•o
CJ
in
0
co
CM
0
P-,

co
CM
co
co
CM
Ol
ID
CD
CM
sj-
sj-
|--~
CM
in
o
in
ID
r-,
CD
r-~
CD
CM
CO
ID
ID
CO
O
CO
co
in
in
co
01
co
0
P-,
CD
r-~
ID
sj-
sj-
in
co
sj-
sj-
r-~
CM
CD

ID
01
I--
CD
sj-
CO

0
CD
CM
ID
0
CD
CM
Ol
CD
CD
CO
sj-
in
i--
in
CM
i--
CD
co
I-.
CM
co
co
ID
1 — 1
Ol
CM
•5J-
01
co
CM
01
0
sj-
co
ID
CD
co
CM
01
ID
CM
ID
in
o
in
01
01
CD
CM
in
co
I--
CD
0
co

I-.
CM
CM
Ol
01
CM
sj-
^t
0
co
sj-
01
1 — 1
ID
I--
CD
I--
O
in
co
i-.
in
co
co
in
Ol
o
sj-
0
i — i
Ol
sj-
01
CM
CM
Ol
CD
CO
CO
in
co
i-.
sj-
CD
ID
in
in
i — i
CM
•5J-
CD
0
01
CD
CO
r-.

CM
CM
ID
01
CM
O
co
CD
sj-
1--,
sj-
co
in
in
co
r-~
ID
CD
ID
r-~
ID
CM
co
ID
ID
co
ID
r-~
co
o
r-,
co
CM
sj-
co
^t
co
1--,
co
CM
|--~
ID
01
O
in
r-~
CM
CD
sj-
co
co
i--
CM
i — i
Ol

CD
sj-
CM
i — i
CD
in
o
^t
01
Ol
sj-
co
co
in
ID
01
ID
co
o
co
0
co
co
i-.
CM
Ol
I--
CM
01
CO
in
01
CM
Ol
co
01
si-
co
sj-
CM
I--
ID
CD
ID
sj-
I--
CD
CD
in
CD
i — i
i — i
O
sj-
I--
Ol

I--
CD
CM
si-
sj-
CD
CM
CM
^t
I--
CM
in
CD
^t
ID
CO
^t
I--
in
Ol
I-.
in
Ol
co
01
Ol
ID
o
0
1 — 1
co
CM
o
1 — 1
in
CD
Ol
01
co
co
CM
ID
I-.
co
in
ID
CM
CD
in
CM
1 — 1
•5J-
ID
CM
0
Ol
CM
ID
ID

CD
CM
CM
01
CM
CM
r-,
CD
0
sj-
sj-
0
in
in
CM
in
ID
CM
in
r-~
CD
r-,
co
r-~
01
co
in
01
co
in
sj-
01
01
CM
co
co
ID
P-,
CM
in
ID
Ol
CM
in
co
sj-
sj-
in
CD
1--,
CD
0
1 — 1
Ol
sj-
^t
o

co
^t
CM
O
1 — 1
CD
I--
Ol
CD
ID
O
in
•5J-
1 — 1
ID
ID
0
I-.
Ol
ID
I--
in
I--
co
ID
CM
Ol
co
CM
01
ID
in
01
CD
ID
co
1 — 1
1 — 1
co
I--
0
I-.
co
I--
in
CD
CM
in
co
0
•5J-
co
in
0
co
in
co
r-.

co
si-
CM
ID
CM
CD
sj-
^t
|--~
CD
in
r-~
01
in
CM
CD
r-~
co
CD
co
01
CD
Ol
•5J-
^t
Ol
1--,
^t
01
sj-
ID
01
CM
1--,
Ol
0
in
co
Ol
ID
r-~
CM
sj-
ID
CM
CM
in
0
ID
CD
Ol






















01
01
ID
CD
CD
CO

sj-
CD
CM
CO
0
CD
ID
Ol
CD
I-.
CO
sj-
ID
CO
in
CM
0
I-.
co
co
i--
in
i--
co
CM
CM
Ol
co
CD
01
Ol
CD
01
01
I--
co
0
CM
co
CM
I-.
CM
O
ID
ID
Ol
sj-
I--
ID
CD
£=
ro
CD
S
01
CD
CM

^H
CO
Ol
sj-
CD
|--~
CD
ID
CD
CO
CD
P-,
CD
CD
sj-
in
in
CM
in
sj-
in
co
in
in
^t
sj-
^t
sj-
CD
CD
^t
>
CD
Q
C/5






















5S
in
oi
5S
ID
oi
xO
C>
I--

xO
C>
I--
^t
5S
co
in
5S
Ol
^t
xO
C>
Ol
ID
xO
c>
CD
ID
5S
i — i
in
5S
co
^t
xO
C>
CD
^t
xO
c>
I--
^t
5S
01
in
5S
in
in
xO
c>
ID
xO
c>
i — i
I--
5S
CD
ID
5S
CD
1-^
xO
c>
CO
ID
5S
ID
i — i
i — i
>
O
-------
-------
&EPA
     United States
     Environmental Protection
     Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
 POSTAGES FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT NO. G-35
     Office of Research and Development
     National Homeland Security Research Center
     Cincinnati, OH 45268

     Official Business
     Penalty for Private Use
     $300
             Recycled/Recyclable
             Printed with vegetable-based ink on
             paper that contains a minimum of
             50% post-consumer fiber content
             processed chlorine free
-------