Filter Selection for

Proper Efficiency
&
Energy Savings
A great opportunity at an opportune time

CAMFIL FARR

Going Green

Agenda items

Understanding ASHRAE
Standard 52.2 Air Filter
Test Method and MERV
Ratings.

Selection of Air Filtration

Products for Lowest Total
Cost of Ownership.

Filtration Technologies for

Maximum Energy Savings.

Air Filter Test Methods

ASHRAE 52.1 - 1992
ASHRAE 52.2 - 1999
Dioctylphthalate (DOP) and Poly-alpha olafins
(PAO)
UL 900

ASHRAE 52.1
A design qualification test
A destructive test to measure average efficiency,
pressure drop, and dust holding capacity for low and
medium efficiency filters
Test aerosol is ASHRAE standard test dust:

Size classified Arizona Road Dust

Cotton linters
Carbon black

ASHRAE 52.1

1
z

Initial Resistance

Pressure required to move air through filter at a certain

air flow
Written in inches water, pascals or millimeters water

Dust Holding Capacity

Amount of dust filter holds at end of test

Written in grams

ASHRAE 52.1
Arrestance Using ASHRAE Test Dust
Percent of dust by weight that filters captures
If filter holds 60 grams out of 100 fed then the
arrestance is 60%
Efficiency Using Outdoor Air
Percent of staining filter prevents
Filter 90% efficient captures 90% of the staining
dust from reaching the room

Standards Comparison
ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2007
Minimum
Eff
Reporting
Value

Composite Average Particle Size

Efficiency, % in Size Range, m

ASHRAE 52.1

EN 779
Efficiency

Average
Arrestance

Average
Dust Spot
Efficiency

Average Eff
at 0.4 m

Range 1

Range 2

Range 3

(MERV)

0.30 - 1.0

1.0 - 3.0

3.0 - 10.0

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg < 65

< 20

G1

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg > 65

< 20

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg > 70

< 20

n/a

n/a

E3 < 20

Aavg > 75

< 20

n/a

n/a

E3 > 20

80

20

n/a

n/a

E3 > 35

85

20-25

n/a

n/a

E3 > 50

90

25-30

n/a

n/a

E3 > 70

92

30-35

n/a

n/a

E3 > 85

95

40-45

10

n/a

E2 > 50

E3 > 85

96

50-55

11

n/a

E2 > 65

E3 > 85

97

60-65

12

n/a

E2 > 80

E3 > 90

98

70-75

13

n/a

E2 > 90

E3 > 90

98

80-85

F7

14

E1 > 75

E2 > 90

E3 > 90

99

90-95

F8

15

E1 > 85

E2 > 90

E3 > 90

99

95

F9

16

E1 > 95

E2 > 95

E3 > 95

100

99

H10

G2

G3

G4

F5

F6

Note: The final MERV value is the highest MERV where the filter data
meets all requirements of that MERV.

ASHRAE 52.2 2007(B)

Addendum B Published (Sept 2008)

Non-Mandatory Appendix Appendix J has
been added

SPECIFIABLE value 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.

Dust Holding Capacity was added

Dust Weight Arrestance was added

ASHRAE 52.2
A design qualification test
A destructive test to measure minimum efficiency
(MERV)
Efficiency test aerosol is Potassium Chloride (KCl)
particles, 0.1 to 10 micron
Dust loading aerosol is ASHRAE Standard Test
Dust

ASHRAE 52.2
z

Initial Resistance
Pressure required to move air through filter
at a certain air flow written in inches
water, pascals or millimeters water

Final Resistance
Pressure at which the filter would be
considered fully loaded.

Test Duct Configuration

Outlet
Filters

Exhaust

ASME
Nozzle

Downstream Mixer

Room Air
Inlet
Filters

Blower

Flow
Control
Valve

Aerosol
Generator

Upstream
Mixer

OPC

Device
Section
Backup Filter
Holder (Used
When Dust loading)

TYPICAL 52.2 COMPLETE LOADING TEST DATA

Size
Fractional Efficiency (%) @ P (W.G.)
Range
Composite
(microns) 0.285 0.320 0.464 0.643 0.822 1.000 Minimums
0.3-0.4
2.7
6.7
17.2
29.4
37.1
37.9
2.7
7.8
15.9
27.7
43.3
53.2
54.6
7.8
0.4-0.55
11.2
0.55-0.7
11.2
30.2
46.0
60.7
70.5
71.6
0.7-1.0
17.6
42.6
59.3
73.7
81.3
81.8
17.6
20.4
1.0-1.3
20.4
51.6
70.3
80.8
83.7
85.2
23.9
1.3-1.6
23.9
58.2
76.5
84.7
86.1
87.2
1.6-2.2
28.3
69.9
84.1
89.1
90.2
91.0
28.3
2.2-3.0
36.3
36.3
83.9
91.9
94.2
94.4
93.2
3.0-4.0
39.4
89.4
93.7
95.8
96.4
94.9
39.4
4.0-5.5
42.8
90.6
95.3
96.5
97.9
95.6
42.8
46.5
5.5-7.0
46.5
92.3
97.1
98.0
98.4
97.9
7.0-10.0
50.4
94.8
97.5
98.3 100.0 99.2
50.4
Initial Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value: MERV 6 @500FPM
Composite Average Efficiency:

0.3 to 1.0 1.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 10.0

Micron Micron Micron
E1 = 9.8 E2 = 27.2 E3 = 44.8

ASHRAE 52.2
Minimum Efficiency Reported Value
(MERV) Efficiency by particle size reported
as one number 1 to 16
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

52.1 Equivalent

95%
85%
65%

10

8.37

6.2

4.69

3.46

2.57

1.88

1.44

1.14

0.84

0.62

0.47

0.35

25%
0.30

Efficiency, %

Particle Size, m

Typical Minimum Efficiency Reporting Curves

ASHRAE 52.2

Appendix J

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Incorporates a conditioning step using KCL.

Eliminates static charges on media that typically
dissipates quickly in service.
Results in a MERV-A rating

14

HEPA Filter Testing

A non-destructive penetration test
Aerosolized dioctylphthalate (DOP) - or
polyalphaolephins (PAO)
Instrument measures overall intensity of light scattered
by aerosol both upstream and downstream

Polystyrene latex spheres (PSL) fractional

efficiency measured with particle counter

The Impact of Filter Selection to the

Total Cost of Your Filtration System.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

LCC Life Cycle Cost

17

Why Energy, Why Now?

World events have a

disturbing effect on
oil pricing.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Energy is foremost in
the concerns of
economic advisors
worldwide.

18

30% of the total electric bill

your HVAC system*

of the cost to operate air

filters in a HVAC system
is energy to move air
through the filters

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

60- 80%
19

*EPA data@ WWW.epa.gov

what is 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?
Have you ever bought a car?

minimize total cost of ownership

make knowledgeable choices (i.e.,
first cost shouldnt be the only
consideration)

components of Life-Cycle 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

energy equation for life-cycle cost

PCEnergy the current cost of energy
Energy (E) = [(Q * P * T)/( * Co)] * Pc
Q Air flow, m3/s (cfm)
P Average filter pressure loss, Pa (inWG)
T Operation time, hr

Fan efficiency, %
Co Constant, 1000 in SI units, 8515 in IP units
Pc Cost of Power, $/kWh

lab P vs. real life P

PI = 0.40 WG
PF = 1.20 WG
PF

1.20

Lab (Avg)
CF (Actual)
CP (Actual)

1.10
1.00

Resistance

Simple averaging (Lab) P

Actual (Real Life) P

PF

0.90

Dx

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40

(PI+PF)/2 = 0.8 WG

PI
PI

P Good Filter (Act) = 0.6 WG

P Average Filter (Act) = 0.7 WG

0.30
0.20
0

time

9 10

what is total cost of ownership (tco)?

Filtration evaluation of multiple:

Sites
Buildings
Floors
AHUs
Comprehensive LCC evaluation

Important points...
Life Cycle Cost analysis
will give you several ways to evaluate the best filtration system
for the money

Selling price is not the best indicator of total cost

Typically, 60-80% of the filters LCC is ENERGY!

Leads to a complete answer

Camfil Farr

A Total Cost of Ownership program is more

comprehensive, but requires more resources

25

what is LCC?
proper selection of a filter = best value
a method of analyzing the cost of a system
over its entire life span
the objective should be to choose the most
cost effective system that yields the
desired level of IAQ
the selected system will not necessarily
have the lowest first cost

LCC - the increased cost of energy

Typically 60-80% of the LCC of a filter is the energy consumption.

15
Filter Cost

2
8

Labor Cost
Disposal Cost
Cleaning Cost

70

Energy Cost

What if we gave you free filters in exchange for 50% of your Energy savings?

Reduce energy consumption and save money

Filter Product

Typical NA Cost (est.)

Materials
Manufacturing
Warehousing
Delivery

Labor

Initial Installation & Change Outs

Removal & Disposal
Monitoring and Scheduling

Energy

Cost to Move Air Across Filters

Est. Spend in Scope

$950K

$450K

19%

9%

$3.6 M

72%

5.0 M

100%

As a rule of thumb- A reduction of .1 WG. saves $25-$40 per opening per year in
energy.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Addressable Costs of Air Filtration

28

Bottom line? Energy Savings

At energy rate of $0.10 per kWh, for every 0.10 w.g. reduction in
static pressure there is realized energy savings of
$50 per year, per filter
At energy rate of $0.16 per kWh, for every 0.10 w.g. reduction in
static pressure there is realized energy savings of
$80 per year, per filter
Accuracy of data provided for LCC calculations assures correct
projections

Running 24/7 at 400 FPM with moderate ambient air challenge

30

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Pressure
drop
filter
characteristics
pm + pc = pfilter
(in WG)

pm

pc

pfilter % Configuration

30/30

0.09

0.19

0.28

67%

Riga-Flo 200 0.37

0.33

0.70

47%

Hi-Flo 95

0.45

0.20

0.65

30%

Durafil 95

0.21

0.16

0.37

43%

Filter design & construction makes a big difference

Highly-engineered and carefully manufactured products assure maximum filter

efficiency with minimum resistance to airflow.
Quality of manufacturing and filter design can represent as much as a 75%
difference in resistance to airflow between air filters of similar design and
media.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

blocked surface area = high p & shorter life

32

Radial Pleat Design vs. Standard Design

Uniform radial style pleat
loads evenly resulting, in
lower average pressure drop
and long loading curve.

Chandler or V type pleat

will blind causing rapid
increase in pressure drop.

 many fibers/small diameter

Synthetic Fibers (coarse fibers)

fewer fibers/large diameter

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Glass Fibers (fine fibers)

34

CAMFIL FARR 200905-13

The media you use makes a big difference

34

Glass media (fine fiber) significantly outperforms

charged synthetic media in real life applications
Clean air with
economic benefits

90
80
70

MERV 14 glass, fine fiber media

(Univ. Minn.)

MERV 14 synthetic, coarse fiber

media (Univ. Minn.)

60
50
40
30
20
10

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

00

35

50

00

32

50

30

27

00

25

50

22

00

20

50

17

00

15

50

12

00

10

75

0
50

25

0
0

Efficiency at 0.3 um (%)

100

35

New filter technologies can reduce their contribution to

your waste stream by more than 50%. Most filters built
today are not very biodegradable so reducing their
disposal is the best Green solution.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Reduce waste and save money

36

Sustainability and
energy
conservation is all
of our
responsibility.

Reduce their energy consumption by using lower resistance filters.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Reduce waste by using fewer filters.

37

Things to Remember
Original cost is only a small part of total cost
Not all filters maintain their particle capture efficiency
60-80% of the cost to filter the air is energy.
All filters are not the same as much as 75% of pressure drop results
from design & manufacturing
The Green Message for air filters

These claims can be proven by simple evaluations.

38

Energy savings lower resistance product saves energy

Waste reduction less filter changes
Green product features save money.

CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

38

 CAMFIL FARR 2009-05-13

Questions ?

39