Air Filtration, ASHRAE 52.2 2007-B - App J
Fine vs. course fiberHow filters are tested
Energy ImpactLCC
John GermanApril 20, 2012
©
Respirable ParticlesAre those that penetrate in to and are deposited in the non-ciliated portion of the lung. Particles larger than 10 microns aerodynamically are not respirable.
ASHRAE 62-2004
Urban Environment200,000 to over 2 million particles
Typical Offices100,000 to over 1 million
Hospital Surgery Room50,000 to 500,000
Semiconductor Cleanroom10 to 100
State of the Art Cleanroom0.1 to 1
Dr. Ken Goldstein, Lockwood Greene
Why we filter the Air – Fine Particlesan underestimated health risk
Ultra-, Nano- or Fine- Particles:• Clear connection between fine particles and health effects
(mortality and respiratory problems)• Underestimated risk (long term studies)• WHO – No harmless concentration limit• JAMA Vol 287 # 9, March 6, 2002
– Provides the strongest evidence to date that long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution common to many metropolitan areas is an important risk factor for cardiopulmonary mortality.
• Official requirements under review– Europe and U.S.A.– PM10 to PM2.5
Particles In Outdoor Air
©
> 99 % of the number < 1 m
70 % of weight comes from >1 m
Clean Air Dirty Air
(magnification 5,000x)
wet laid media at 500X magnification
M 11 ASHRAE
M14 ASHRAE
HEPA 99.97%
ULPA 99.999
Is Fiber Size an Issue?
6Glass Fibers Fine Fibers Synthetic coarse fibers
MV 13 glass media MV 13 synthetic media
particle clusters
What is a filter – used filter (SEM slide)
• Fine fibers catch all• Large fibers
– Support structure– They do little for efficiency
• Small particles – Grow into large– Coagulation in the air
In-Situ Testing per ASHRAE Guideline 26-2008• Measurements
– Air Velocity– Temperature/RH– Resistance to Airflow– Filter Efficiency
• Particle Counting– Consistent Repeatable Setup,
eliminates questions– Calibrated Met-One 237B
• 6 Channel laser counter• 0.3m-3.0m• 2,000,000c/ft3 coincidence
– Upstream Verification– 10:1 Dilution system it needed
9
©CA
MFIL
FARR
2012
-05-
14
Field Study Data – Large office building MERV 14 Filters
* 16 week /52 week• Tested AHU next to test AHU’s
• common intake•12 months in use
Office Building 16 Weeks
35 Filters(100% Outdoor
air)
Manufacturer
Type 4V Syn Box
Media fine coarse
Initial performanceP (inWG) 0.15 0.20
0.4m Eff. (%) 73 72
Final performanceP (inWG) 0.17 0.41
0.4m Eff. (%) 74 25/19*
MERV 14 Filter
1,500,000 Particles/ft3
420,000 Particles/ft3
Penetration
72% @ 0.3
Outside Air
72% @ 0.3
25% @ 0.31,125,000 Particles/ft3
Coarse Fiber Media
Fine Fiber Media
What is MERV?M…MinimumE…EfficiencyR…ReportingV…Value
This standard establishes a test procedure for evaluating the performance of air-cleaning devices as a function of particle size.
MERV is a single number value for the engineering community by which to select an air filter. It indicates how a filter performs at its lowest point of particle capture efficiency.
ASHRAE Standard ASHRAE Standard 52.252.2--20072007--BBWith Appendix JWith Appendix J
• Non Mandatory App J – SPECIFIABLE MERV-A– The filter should be tested per
ASHRAE 52.2 (including Appendix J)
– The resulting MERV-A must have the same (or higher) numerical value when compared to the MERV value.
• Also Added to 52.2– Dust Holding Capacity– Dust Weight Arrestance
ASHRAE 52.2 – 2007-B with appendix J• Two filters will be tested
– One per the current method – MERV – One per the Appendix J – MERV-A
• The MERV is still based on the E1, E2 and E3 values and Table 12.1 in the current standard
• The MERV-A is based on the E1-A, E2-A, E3-A values and uses the same table only with the discharged efficiency values
©
Range Size
Lower Limit
Range
Upper Limit Geometric Mean Particle Size (m)
1 0.30 .40 .35 2 0.40 .55 .47 3 0.55 .70 .62 4 0.70 1.00 .84 5 1.00 1.30 1.14 6 1.30 1.60 1.44 7 1.60 2.20 1.88 8 2.20 3.00 2.57 9 3.00 4.00 3.46
10 4.00 5.50 4.69 11 5.50 7.00 6.20 12 7.00 10.00 8.37
Allows the evaluation of a filter’s efficiency on respirable size particles
Allows selection of a filter based upon the most common particle size of a
contaminate.
ASHRAE 52.2 B appendix J
©
52.2 Equivalent
0102030405060708090
100
0.30
0.47
0.84
1.44
2.57
4.69
8.37
Particle Size,m
Effic
ienc
y, %
M 14
M 13
M 11
M 8
M 4
Typical Minimum Efficiency Curves
18
©
19
©
Does Lower Resistance Compromise Air Quality?
Fine Fiber Media
- Maintained Performance
- Maintained Low Resistance
Coarse Fiber Media
- Declining Performance
- Higher Resistance
Coarse Fiber vs. Fine FiberFilter Pressure Drop
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Pres
sure
Dro
pTime
Filter Pressure Drop
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Pres
uure
Dro
p
Time
22
23
24
25
©CA
MFIL
FARR
2012
-05-
14
Note: CO2 Emiss ions based GCO2 and Tree Canada web s i tes
Energy Usage Calculation
Kwh Cost 0.076 Hrs. 8760 CO2/100 Kwh 90.0
Enter (CFM) 2000 Enter Fan Effic. (In decimal) 0.60
in/w.g. Cost /Yr.
Kg/CO2/Yr. in/w.g. Cost /Yr.
Kg/CO2/Yr. in/w.g. Cost /Yr.
Kg/CO2/Yr. in/w.g. Cost /Yr.
Kg/CO2/Yr. Prov./State CO2/100Kwh Kwh Cost
0.1 $26.06 309 0.49 $127.70 1,512 0.88 $229.35 2,716 1.27 $330.99 3,920 Alabama 60 0.0710.11 $28.67 339 0.5 $130.31 1,543 0.89 $231.95 2,747 1.28 $333.60 3,950 Alaska 50 0.1280.12 $31.27 370 0.51 $132.92 1,574 0.9 $234.56 2,778 1.29 $336.20 3,981 Alberta 98 0.1210.13 $33.88 401 0.52 $135.52 1,605 0.91 $237.17 2,809 1.3 $338.81 4,012 Arizona 60 0.0820.14 $36.49 432 0.53 $138.13 1,636 0.92 $239.77 2,839 1.31 $341.42 4,043 Arkansas 60 0.0690.15 $39.09 463 0.54 $140.74 1,667 0.93 $242.38 2,870 1.32 $344.02 4,074 British Columbia 3 0.0720.16 $41.70 494 0.55 $143.34 1,697 0.94 $244.99 2,901 1.33 $346.63 4,105 California 30 0.1280.17 $44.31 525 0.56 $145.95 1,728 0.95 $247.59 2,932 1.34 $349.23 4,136 Colorado 90 0.0760.18 $46.91 556 0.57 $148.55 1,759 0.96 $250.20 2,963 1.35 $351.84 4,167 Connecticut 30 0.1480.19 $49.52 586 0.58 $151.16 1,790 0.97 $252.80 2,994 1.36 $354.45 4,197 Delaware 80 0.1010.2 $52.12 617 0.59 $153.77 1,821 0.98 $255.41 3,025 1.37 $357.05 4,228 District of Colum 160 0.1110.21 $54.73 648 0.6 $156.37 1,852 0.99 $258.02 3,055 1.38 $359.66 4,259 Florida 60 0.1050.22 $57.34 679 0.61 $158.98 1,883 1 $260.62 3,086 1.39 $362.27 4,290 Georgia 60 0.0760.23 $59.94 710 0.62 $161.59 1,914 1.01 $263.23 3,117 1.4 $364.87 4,321 Hawaii 80 0.2070.24 $62.55 741 0.63 $164.19 1,944 1.02 $265.83 3,148 1.41 $367.48 4,352 Idaho 10 0.0490.25 $65.16 772 0.64 $166.80 1,975 1.03 $268.44 3,179 1.42 $370.08 4,383 Illinois 50 0.0710.26 $67.76 802 0.65 $169.40 2,006 1.04 $271.05 3,210 1.43 $372.69 4,413 Indiana 100 0.0650.27 $70.37 833 0.66 $172.01 2,037 1.05 $273.65 3,241 1.44 $375.30 4,444 Iowa 90 0.0690.28 $72.97 864 0.67 $174.62 2,068 1.06 $276.26 3,271 1.45 $377.90 4,475 Kansas 80 0.0690.29 $75.58 895 0.68 $177.22 2,099 1.07 $278.87 3,302 1.46 $380.51 4,506 Kentucky 90 0.0540.3 $78.19 926 0.69 $179.83 2,130 1.08 $281.47 3,333 1.47 $383.11 4,537 Louisiana 50 0.083
List of Selections
(CFM) x (Average Pressure Drop) x (Operating Hrs.) x PC (Cost/Kwh.)Fan Efficiency % * 8515
Energy (E) =
Energy Costs
Inventory Control
Maintenance Costs
Labor Costs
Waste Removal
Indoor Air Quality
Apparent Expense
Hidden Costs
Filter First Cost
Compliance Issues
Performance Problems
Administration Costs
1st Cost
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP
Total Cost of Ownership of Air Filters
Labor & Waste 10%
Energy70%
Filters20%
What does this mean for your facility?
Average Facility 300,000 to 400,000 CFM
$25,000 to $30,000 in Potential Energy Savings?
Life Cycle Costing(LCC)
• Why?– The HVAC system is typically the
largest energy consumer• What?
– Optimizing filter selection at a given level of efficiency
– Maximize IAQ, minimize total cost• How?
– Analyzing the cost of a system over its entire life span
• Goal?– minimize total cost of ownership– make knowledgeable choices
(i.e., “first cost” shouldn’t be the only consideration)
What is your philosophy on Energy consumption/conservation and how can HVAC filters help to achieve savings on Energy Cost?
LCC = Investment + PCenergy + PCmaint. + PCcleaning + PCdisposal
• Investment – capital cost of filters, frames, installation
• PCenergy – present total cost of power
• PCmaintenance – present total cost of maintenance including filter replacement,etc.
• PCcleaning – present cost of duct cleaning
• PCdisposal – present total cost for removal and disposal of the used filters
components of Life-Cycle Cost
©
lab ΔP vs. real life ΔPSimple averaging (Lab) ΔP)
(PI+PF)/2 = 0.8” WG (200 Pa)
Actual (Real Life) ΔP
PF
Dx = 0.67” WG (167 Pa)PI0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10time
Res
ista
nce
Lab (Average)Life (Actual)
PI = 0.40” WG (100 Pa)PF = 1.20” WG (300 Pa)
PI
PF
LCC - the increased cost of energy in USA
LCC Software Analysis• Provides documentation of system design scenarios for
up to 3 stages of filtration, includes report, graphs, bar charts
• Provides ability to run multiple scenarios with same global parameters and different filter selections
• Offers an optimized solution to you and your client
32
©
Life Cycle Cost analysis• # of filter stages 2• Fan operating hours p/yr. 8760• LCC period 2 years• Total CFM 400,000• % return air 70%• Outdoor air environment Mod AQ PM 2.5 = 51 to 65• Indoor environment Typical• Fan efficiency 60%• CO2 emissions 1.323 Lb/kwh
33
©
Example LCC on 3 different options
34
©CA
MFIL
FARR
2012
-05-
14
SOLUTION ONESC PLEAT
SYN BOX M14ACTUAL MA= 11QUANTITY 200INITIAL DP .88"FINAL DP 4.63
AVERAGE DP 1.9"# CHANGES 9 &2
MLE 37.6%ECI 11.29
SOLUTION TWOHC PLEAT
4V CARTRIDGE M14ACTUAL M‐A = 14QUANTITY 200INITIAL DP .60FINAL DP 1.42
AVERAGE DP .92"# CHANGES 4 & 1
MLE 78.7%ECI 2.60
SOLUTION THREENO PRE FILTER
POCKET FILTER M14ACTUAL M‐A = 14QUANTITY 200INITIAL DP .45"FINAL DP 1.31
AVERAGE DP .76# OF CHANGES 0 & 2
MLE 75%ECI 4.52
Results of Life Cycle Cost Analysis
• Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3• Energy Cost $169,803 $81,942 $67,820• Filter Cost $30,000 $31,800 $26,000• Labor Cost $8,400 $3,600 $2,400• Waste Cost $1,300 $600 $400• CO2 Impact 3,456,146 1,667,845 1,380,402• Landfill Impact 116 yd3 54 yd3 19 yd3• Total Cost TCO $209,503 $117,942 $96,620
35
©
The best LCC solution for filtration will• Meet Leed• Reduce waste and disposal• Reduce labor• Reduce energy cost• Reduce your CO2 foot print• Reduce your product cost• Have a written guarantee• Deliver the correct required efficiency• Be a Five Star energy product• Will be Green 36
In Conclusion• Not all filters deliver advertised MERV-A• Not all filters last as long DHC• Not all filters have the same pressure curves• Efficiency on sub micron particles is critical• ASHRAE has a standard that when full test reports are
viewed will help you select the best filter for your application
• TCO & LCC will offer the best value to you and your customers
37
©
Thank You