Stay Informed
Follow us on social media accounts to stay up to date with REHVA actualities
Compared
to EN779:2012 and ASHRAE 52.2, EN-ISO 16890 brings several improvements to
filter testing and classification, of which the most noticeable is the link
between filter performance and outdoor air pollution.
Until now
filtration performance has been determined by a filter’s particle removal
efficiency on specific particle sizes. This has made sense from a technical and
scientific perspective because the particle removal efficiency has given
laboratory technicians and engineers detailed and relevant information about the
technical performance of air filter products. However, this performance data
has provided little guidance to the end user in the process to select filters.
Most
filters that are tested, classified and compared with general air filter
standards are used in the ventilation systems of public, commercial and
residential buildings, including offices, schools, hospitals and multi-story
apartment complexes. In general, the customers purchasing these filters are not
experts in ventilation or filtration, although they usually have a basic level
of environmental awareness. Like any person, they are concerned about the surrounding
environmental conditions and their potential impact on health and wellbeing. In
this respect, air pollution is one of the more important factors.
Today, air
pollution is a hot topic anywhere in the world and especially poor air quality in
densely populated urban centers. Many people have become familiar with the particle
fractions in outdoor air pollution, designated PM1, PM2.5 and PM10, while
others have at least heard of these measurements for harmful airborne
particulate matter.
On a
regular basis around the globe, people are hearing news or reports that the air
quality is so poor in their local environment that the limit values for several
of these pollution measurements are being exceeded. It is known that traffic
and industrial processes are major contributors to air pollution in urban
environments and that much of the pollution is in the submicron range and highly
respirable. These pollution concerns, which are serious and real, require solutions
to mitigate the health risks and exposure.
Ambient air
quality is normally improved by addressing the pollution source directly. These
measures are usually difficult to implement and require long-term improvements
driven by stricter legislation and regulations for controlling emissions from
industry and transportation.
In
contrast, indoor air quality (IAQ), in relative terms, is easy to take care of
and improve when building ventilation systems are equipped with effective air
filters. Given that modern-day citizens spend more than 90% of their time
indoors, their exposure to air pollution can be considerably reduced by improving
IAQ.
Until now, it
has been difficult for end users to choose the right filtration solution for a
given environmental situation. The new global standard for general filtration can
now solve this because ISO 16890 directly links the outdoor air pollution
measurements PM1, PM2.5 and
PM10 to the filtration removal efficiency of air
filters for general ventilation. Each filter tested according to ISO 16890 is
now assigned a removal efficiency rating for these three particle fractions.
The particle
removal efficiency is stated in percent [%] in relation to the PMx particle fraction that is removed. In simple terms, this means that a
filter rated ePM1[60%] removes 60% or more of the particulates
in the PM1 range. In other words, the filter provides
60% protection against PM1 air pollution.
With the
new classification values, it will now be much easier for air filter customers
to decide the level of protection they want in relation to outdoor air pollution
levels and their expectations for indoor air quality. Let us now briefly examine
how ISO 16890 is built up and how the new standard basically differs from
ASHRAE 52.2 and EN779:2012.
The ISO
16890 standard consists of four different parts:
1. Technical specifications, requirements and the
classification system based upon matter efficiency (ePM).
2. Measurement of fractional efficiency and airflow
resistance.
3. Determination of the gravimetric efficiency
and airflow resistance versus the mass of the test dust captured.
4. Conditioning method to determine the minimum
fractional test efficiency.
If you are
interested in the full details, I recommend reading the entire standard. This
article only aims to explain ISO 16890’s basic differences and its advantages over
existing or prior filter standards. Another goal of this article is to shed some
light on how ePM efficiencies are calculated and used.
In practice,
the filter test is performed in five steps:
1. Efficiency and pressure drop measurement
2. Discharging conditioning
3. Post-discharging efficiency measurement
4. Dust holding and arrestance measurements
5. Calculation and ePM classification
Compared to
ASHRAE 52.2 and EN779:2012, the main differences of the ISO 16890 testing
process are as follows:
When
measuring efficiency, the tested particle range is broader than for EN779:2012
– from 0.3 µm to 10 µm,
instead of from 0.3 µm to 3 µm – and the entire span is used for
classification. This differs from EN779:2012, where the reported removal
efficiency is calculated solely on one particle size (0.4 µm). This is like
what is used today in ASHRAE 52.2. The advantage of using a wider particle span
is that a broader range of filters can be given more relevant classification
values.
The second big
difference is the conditioning method for the filter. Conditioning serves to
remove the electrostatic filtration effect in the filter. It is known that this
filtration effect diminishes with time as the electrostatic charge is
neutralized during use. Several methods have proven to be effective to simulate
the drop in electrostatic effect.
EN779:2012 uses
the method of soaking the filter media in isopropanol and then simply hanging
it to dry before testing it again. While this is a very effective discharging
method, it has the disadvantage of potentially damaging the fiber structure in
the filter and it consequently affects other active filtration mechanisms.
ASHRAE 52.2
uses solid particles of potassium chloride (KCl) to discharge the material.
This is a mild form of discharging and it is hard, even after long process
times in the laboratory, to achieve full discharge. The advantage of this method
is that it does not affect other important filtration mechanisms in the filter.
In the ISO
16890 standard, the isopropanol method has been chosen for its good discharging
properties. However, the method has been developed and is now based on saturated
gas-phase discharging. Although this method is slower and more complicated to
conduct in the laboratory than a wet process, it discharges the filter 100% without
affecting the fiber structure of the filter.
Compared to
ASHRAE 52.2 and EN779:2012, the test dust in EN-ISO 16890 has been changed from
the test dust in ASHRAE 52.2 to a finer test dust designated as L2 in EN-ISO
15957. This finer dust will take longer time to load in the laboratory, but it will
simulate real-life conditions more accurately than the currently used method.
The main
difference between EN-ISO 16890 and EN779:2012 and ASHRAE 52.2 becomes apparent
in the final classification and calculation step. Through calculation, the
measured test results are converted and related to the known outdoor air
pollution measurements PM1, PM2.5 and
PM10.
PM is a mass
measure expressed in [µg/m³] and the measurements in ISO 16890 are particle
counts from an optical particle counter that are stated in numbers [#].
The values
from the measurements need to be recalculated to become relevant and indicate their
ability to remove outdoor air pollution.
This is done with weighted efficiency calculations of the laboratory
measurements that are related to a global standardized particle distribution
from urban and rural environments. This particle distribution is bimodal, as
can be seen in the two illustrations. In figure below, the
urban curve shows that a larger portion of the particles from an urban
environment is submicron, compared to the particle sizes in the rural curve.
As
different filters are used for different purposes, the urban curve is used for
weighted calculations of PM1 and PM2.5
efficiencies. It is assumed that fine filters will be used in urban areas where
submicron particles represent a clear majority of the air pollutants. The rural
distribution curve is used for coarse filters that target large particles for
removal. This gives the consumer a relevant value for a filter’s effectiveness for
a specific filtration purpose (please refer to ISO 16890-1 for detailed
information on weighting calculations).
Once the
efficiency data is weighted in accordance with the above distribution curves,
the average efficiency is calculated. The average is calculated between the
virgin filter efficiency and the conditioned discharged efficiency (also called
the minimum efficiency of the filter).
The
efficiency calculation is made for three particle spans:
Particle span [µm] | ePM representation | Used particle |
0.3–1.0 | ePM1 | Urban |
0.3–2.5 | ePM2.5 | Urban |
0.3–10 | ePM10 | Rural |
The average
and minimum efficiency values are both used to classify a product. To classify
a filter as an ePM1 or ePM2.5
product, the minimum efficiency must be above 50%. If the minimum efficiency is
above 50%, the reported efficiency value will be the average efficiency value
between the minimum and virgin efficiency. For ePM10,
there is no threshold demand for minimum efficiency, but the average efficiency
has to stay above 50%. If a filter’s efficiency drops below 50% on ePM10, it will be classified as a “coarse” filter
and only dust arrestance in percent [%] is reported:
The global
applicability of EN-ISO 16890 will be of great significance in the years to
come. The new standard marks the first time in history that the air filtration
industry has agreed on a global testing and classification standard that makes
it easier for customers to select the right filter for the right application. In
addition, the standard includes a new efficiency rating for PM1 – the smallest and most harmful airborne particles – to acknowledge
that air filters have a positive influence on air quality and human health.
Although ISO
16890 for general air filters is technically demanding, it brings a wealth of
value to end customers. For the first time, filtration efficiency, or filtration
protection, can be related directly to common air pollution data.
When
choosing the filter solution, the end user should ask a few questions: What is
my local air pollution situation? Am I situated in a rural or urban environment?
Am I affected by pollution emissions from nearby industries? What level of
pollution protection do I want?
The
filtration solution may look different, depending on the local situation and the
desired minimum indoor air quality. In urban areas, where the majority of the
particulate pollution will be submicron, the choice will primarily stand
between filters in the PM1 category. In more rural settings, a
higher-grade PM2.5 filter may be sufficient as the
final filter. PM10 and coarse filters will be suitable
for dusty environments, or as pre-filters in dual-stage installations.
Whatever
the final choice, end users will now have a much clearer idea of what they can
expect from the chosen filter solution.
EN-ISO16890:2016
Air filters for general ventilation –
Part 1: Technical specifications, requirements and classification system based
upon particulate matter efficiency (ePM).
Part
2: Measurement of fractional efficiency and air flow resistance (ISO 16890-2:2016,
IDT)
Part
3: Determination of the gravimetric efficiency and the air flow resistance
versus the mass of test dust captured.
Part
4: Conditioning method to determine the minimum fractional test efficiency.
EN
779:2012 Particulate air filters for general ventilation - Determination of the
filtration performance.
ANSI-ASHRAE
Standard 52.2-2012 Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices
for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size.
Follow us on social media accounts to stay up to date with REHVA actualities
0