Field Test Method for Measuring Filter Efficiency

TR 531
Approved 2002-10
Field Test Method for the

Measurement of Filter Efficiency
Matti Lehtimäki
Aimo Taipale
Published by Nordtest Phone: + 358 9 455 4600 Fax: + 358 9 455 4272
Tekniikantie 12 E-mail: nordtest@nordtest.org Internet: www.nordtest.org
FIN–02150 Espoo
Finland
NT TECHN REPORT 531
Approved 2002-10
Authors:
Matti Lehtimäki NORDTEST project number: 1474-99
Aimo Taipale Institution:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Title (English): -
Title (Original): Field Test Method for the Measurement of Filter Efficiency
Abstract:
Ventilation filters are normally classified with the aid of standard laboratory tests. The most
well known standards are the European standard EN779 (Anon. 1993) and the corresponding
American standard ASHRAE 52.2 (Anon. 1999). Standard tests, however, produce
information which may be insufficient for estimating the true filter performance. It has been
observed that in many cases the filter loading with the atmospheric particles differ significantly
from the one in the standard test. Thus, the true efficiency may be much lower than expected
from the standard test. The disagreement may be especially strong in the case of
electrostatically charged filters. The loss of electrostatic removal mechanism can lead to
significant decrease in the efficiency in field conditions. The efficiency of the filter affects
strongly on the quality of the supply air. Therefore, the correct measurement of the filter
removal efficiency is of great importance.
The removal efficiency of a ventilation filter is a function of particle size. Thus, it would be
desirable to determine how the filter performance depends on the particle size. This can be
easily accomplished in the laboratory where ideal test conditions can be created and
sophisticated particle measurement instruments can be used. In field conditions, however, the
test conditions may be much more difficult and therefore the normal laboratory procedures
cannot be directly applied. Besides fractional efficiency or penetration, the performance of a
filter is sometimes characterized with more practical efficiency values. These values include
the total mass efficiency or the mass efficiency for respirable particles or fine particles (i.e. dp <
2.5 µm). This requires quite different test procedure and measurement techniques.
The most tempting alternative for filter measurements in field conditions is optical particle
counter. This is mainly due to the high sensitivity and the easiness of use. The sensitivity of an
optical particle counter is high enough to make it possible to measure filter efficiency or
penetration with atmospheric particles. Another reason for the use of an optical particle
counter is the fact that it has been successfully applied in filter efficiency measurements in
laboratory.
Technical Group: Expert Group VVS

ISSN: 0283-7234 Language: English Pages: 60
Class (UDC): 697.94 Key words: ventilation filters, filter efficiency, field test method
Distributed by: Publication code:
NORDTEST
Tekniikantie 12
FIN-02150 ESPOO Report Internet address:
Finland http://www.nordtest.org/register/techn/tlibrary/tec531.pdf
Symbols
APS Aerodynamic particle sizer
CPC Condensation particle counter
c Particle concentration
cm Particle mass concentration
ctot Total particle mass concentration
DPC Discrete particle counter
dg Mass median particle size
dp Particle diameter
DOS Test aerosol (di-ethyl-hexyl-sebacate)
E Removal efficiency
E(dp) Fractional removal efficiency
ELPI Electrical low pressure impactor
f(dp) Particle size distribution
kn Coefficient (degree of freedom)
N Particle concentration
OPC Optical particle counter
P Penetration
Pave Average penetration
P(dp) Fractional penetration
PSL Polystyrene latex
SMPS Scanning mobility particle sizer
TEOM Tapered element oscillating microbalance
δ Standard deviation
σg Geometric standard deviation
2
Table of contents
Symbols................................................................................................................................. 2
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
2 General aspects .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Efficiency and penetration......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Particle size distributions........................................................................................... 8
2.3 What should be measured in field conditions.......................................................... 10
3 Methods and instruments .............................................................................................. 12
3.1 Optical measuring instruments................................................................................ 12
3.1.1 Laser aerosol size analyzer ...................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Portable optical particle counter (OPC) .................................................... 14
3.1.3 Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS) ............................................................. 14
3.1.4 Condensation particle counter (CPC) ....................................................... 15
3.1.5 Aerosol photometers ................................................................................ 15
3.2 Electrical measuring instruments ............................................................................ 16
3.2.1 Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) ................................................... 16
3.2.2 Electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI) .................................................... 16
3.3 Gravimetric measuring instruments ........................................................................ 17
3.3.1 Filter sampling .......................................................................................... 17
3.3.2 Particle size limited sampling.................................................................... 18
3.3.3 Cascade impactors................................................................................... 20
3.3.4 Particle mass monitor............................................................................... 22
3.4 Accessories to aerosol measuring instruments ....................................................... 22
3.4.1 Aerosol diluter .......................................................................................... 22
3.4.2 Aerosol concentrators .............................................................................. 23
3.4.3 Pre-separators ......................................................................................... 24
3.4.4 Reference filter......................................................................................... 24
3.4.5 Storage chamber...................................................................................... 25
4 Experiments with optical measuring devices ................................................................. 26
4.1 Aerosol photometer................................................................................................. 26
4.2 Optical particle counter, basic principles ................................................................. 28
4.2.1 Principle of the measurement................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Particle size correction ............................................................................. 28
4.3 Optical particle counter, alternative measurement systems .................................... 30
4.3.1 Sampling with long tubes.......................................................................... 30
4.3.2 Simultaneous measurement with two optical particle counters ................. 31
4.3.3 Measurements with storage chamber method.......................................... 32
5 Experimental results...................................................................................................... 33
5.1 Experiments with two optical particle counters ........................................................ 33
5.2 Experiments with storage chambers ....................................................................... 39
5.3 Experiments with the particle size correction technique .......................................... 42
6 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 46
References .......................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix: FIELD TEST METHOD FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FILTER EFFICIENCY . 49
3
1 Introduction
Ventilation filters are normally classified with the aid of standard laboratory tests. The most
well known standards are the European standard EN779 (Anon. 1993) and the
corresponding American standard ASHRAE 52.2 (Anon. 1999). Standard tests, however,
produce information which may be insufficient for estimating the true filter performance. It
has been observed that in many cases the filter loading with the atmospheric particles differ
significantly from the one in the standard test. Thus, the true efficiency may be much lower
than expected from the standard test. The disagreement may be especially strong in the
case of electrostatically charged filters. The loss of electrostatic removal mechanism can
lead to significant decrease in the efficiency in field conditions. The efficiency of the filter
affects strongly on the quality of the supply air. Therefore, the correct measurement of the
filter removal efficiency is of great importance.
The removal efficiency of a ventilation filter is a function of particle size. Thus, it would be
desirable to determine how the filter performance depends on the particle size. This can be
easily accomplished in the laboratory where ideal test conditions can be created and
sophisticated particle measurement instruments can be used. In field conditions, however,
the test conditions may be much more difficult and therefore the normal laboratory
procedures cannot be directly applied. Besides fractional efficiency or penetration, the
performance of a filter is sometimes characterized with more practical efficiency values.
These values include the total mass efficiency or the mass efficiency for respirable particles
or fine particles (i.e. dp < 2.5 µm). This requires quite different test procedure and
measurement techniques.
The most tempting alternative for filter measurements in field conditions is optical particle
counter. This is mainly due to the high sensitivity and the easiness of use. The sensitivity of
an optical particle counter is high enough to make it possible to measure filter efficiency or
penetration with atmospheric particles. Another reason for the use of an optical particle
counter is the fact that it has been successfully applied in filter efficiency measurements in
laboratory.
The guidelines for the in situ determination of the fractional efficiency of ventilation filters
have been defined in Eurovent method 4/10 (Anon, 1996). This method includes instructions
for the efficiency measurement procedure. It also includes some instructions about the
proper use of an optical particle counter (i.e. zero check, avoiding of excessive particle
concentrations and extremely unfavorable test conditions). The Eurovent 4/10 method,
however, specifies the particle size range to 0.2 - 1.0 µm which is quite narrow and it
excludes most of the low cost portable optical particle counters.
Earlier experiments made by using a portable optical particle counter in the filter efficiency
measurements have shown that the reliability of the method in field conditions can be quite
poor (Figure 1). It has been noticed that the efficiency values measured at successive days
may vary strongly. This is probably due to the variations in the optical properties of airborne
particles. These variations reflect to the accuracy of the particle size classification, i.e. the
true particle sizes can differ significantly from the values indicated by the particle counter.
The poor accuracy in particle size classification causes a significant error in the efficiency
values.
4
The utilization of optical particle counter in the field measurements of filter performance
requires that an effective field check procedure is used either to increase the accuracy of the
particle size classification or to give warning if the test conditions are too unsuitable. A
possible method to minimize error caused by the inaccurate particle sizing is the use of a
reference filter. The efficiency or penetration of the reference filter measured in the field
conditions is compared with the corresponding values from controlled laboratory
measurements. This comparison can be used to estimate if the measurement conditions are
favorable enough for reliable filter test.
100
80
Penetration (%)
60
40
20
0
15.06.96 15.07.96 14.08.96 13.09.96 13.10.96
Date
HERVANTA_96.XLS, 27.09.2001
Figure 1. Penetration values measured with a portable optical particle counter (Lehtimäki
and Taipale 1999). Particle size 0.5-1.0 µm.
The test conditions in the field tests can vary strongly depending on the location of the test
site. Besides this, weather conditions may affect the concentration, size distribution and the
optical properties of the ambient air particles. In some cases it was noticed that the ambient
air particle concentrations can vary very strongly and rapidly which complicates the efficiency
measurement. It is also possible that the concentration of small particles exceed the
operational range of the instrument. On the other hand, the number concentration of large
particles is normally low which may lead to a poor statistical accuracy in the large particle
efficiency values. The field measurement system requires that these problems can be
avoided, e.g. by means of proper dilution system for fine particles and particle concentrator
(=virtual impactor) for large particles.
Besides optical particle counter, potential instruments for filter testing are various direct
reading aerosol monitors such as aerosol photometer. Filter testing can also be made with
integrating particle measurement techniques. The simplest and most straightforward
alternative is the gravimetric method, i.e. filter sampling is used to measure the total mass
concentrations from upstream and downstream of the filter. The total mass efficiency or
penetration is probably strongly affected by the particle size distribution. Therefore, the
feasibility of the simple gravimetric method is expected to be poor.
In principle, the gravimetric method can be improved by replacing the total mass sampling
with particle size selective samplers. It is reasonable to assume that relevant information
about the filter performance can be obtained with a method which utilizes a combination of
5
filter sampling and a particle pre-selector. A possible approach might be the system which
can be used to measure fine particle concentration, e.g. particles smaller than 2.5 µm.
Cascade impactors can be used to determine filter efficiency or penetration at different

particle size classes. The advantage of the cascade impactor is that the information about
the ambient air particle size distribution is automatically produced.
At present, filter efficiencies are measured in field conditions with several types of methods.
Probably, the most popular alternative is the use of a low cost portable optical particle
counter. Unfortunately, the results obtained with these devices are sometimes extremely
unreliable. This is due to the limitations of the measuring instruments, unfavorable test
conditions and the poor knowledge about the proper use of particle measuring devices. This
study aims at the clarifying of the feasibility of various measurement techniques. One of the
aims of the work was to develop methods which are based on the use of low cost aerosol
measuring instruments.
2 General aspects
2.1 Efficiency and penetration

The ability of a filter to collect particles from the air is normally described with either with
removal efficiency E or filter penetration P. Unfortunately, the conventional way to
characterize filter performance is based on the efficiency. Taking into account that filters are
normally used to protect human beings, sensitive instruments and machines or products, the
amount of collected aerosol is not of primary importance. What is important is the amount of
aerosol penetrating the filter. Therefore, filter performance should be illustrated by
penetration.
Removal efficiency is normally presented in the form which illustrates the percentage of
particles remaining into the filter. Then, efficiency is given by
æ c ö
E =100 çç1 − b ÷÷ (1)
è ca ø
where ca and cb denote to the particle concentrations in the upstream and downstream flows,
respectively. The efficiency can also be regarded as the probability that particle becomes
attached by the filter.
The corresponding equation for filter penetration is

æc ö
P =100 çç b ÷÷ (2)
è ca ø
In this study both efficiency and penetration are used to characterize filter performance.
Filter penetration is, however, favored.
The probability of particle collection in a filter is a function of several factors including particle
size. Thus, an unambiguous definition of penetration requires that it is defined for a certain
particle size dp, i.e. penetration function P(dp) must be defined
6
æ cb ( d p ) ö
P(d p ) = 100 ç ÷ (3)
ç c (d ) ÷
è a p ø
In this equation ca(dp) and cb(dp) correspond to the concentration of particles with diameter
of dp. The measurement of penetration function or penetration curve can be made at a
reasonable accuracy by using particle size selective measurement technique. In practice, the
penetration curve is approximated with fractional penetration which is determined by
measuring filter penetrations at narrow particle size ranges corresponding to the particle size
channels of the measurement instrument. The measurement of the fractional penetration is
of great importance because it makes it possible to estimate the overall penetration in the
cases of different particle size distributions.
Ventilation filters are classified according to their removal efficiency determined in a standard
filter test. In standard filter test filters are loaded with ASHRAE test dust and the mean
efficiency is measured from the individual efficiency values obtained at different loading
stages. Classification of fine filters (class F filters) is based on the mean efficiency obtained
for 0.4 µm particles. This is assumed to correspond the dust spot efficiency which was used
earlier in standard filter testing. The classification of coarse filters (class G filters) is based
on the measurement of the total mass efficiency for the standard ASHRAE test dust. Even
though, filter classification does not require the measurement of the fractional efficiency
curve, a normal practice is to present the efficiency curve in the size range of 0.2 -5 µm.
100
80
Efficiency (%)
60
40
F5
F6
20
F7
F8
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (µm)
MODEL_FLTRS.XLS, 03.03.2000
Figure 2. Fractional efficiencies of clean ventilation filters (based on the experimental values
by Hanley et. al. 1993).
7
100
F5
80 F6
F7
Penetration (%)
F8
60
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (µm)
MODEL_FLTRS.XLS, 03.03.2000
Figure 3. Fractional penetration curves of clean ventilation filters (based on the experimental
values by Hanley et. al. (1993).
2.2 Particle size distributions

In practice, the interesting quantity is not the fractional penetration but the total particle
concentration in the filtered air. Therefore, the total mass penetration of the filter should be
known. The total mass or number concentration, however, depends on filter penetration
curve and particle size distribution. Particle size distribution is defined as
dc ∆c
f (d p ) = ≈ (4)
d (d p ) ∆d p
where dc corresponds to the concentration of particles with their diameter at a differential
size range [dp, dp+d(dp)]. Particle size distributions are normally illustrated as a function of
logarithm of particle diameter
dc
f (d p ) = (5)
d (ln d p )
Ambient air particle size distributions are normally illustrated with log normal distribution
function
f (d p ) =
dc
=
ctot
expí−
[
ìï ln(d p ) − ln(d g ) ]üï
ý (6)
d (ln d p ) 2π ln(σ g ) ïî 2 ln(σ g ) [
2
] ïþ
where ctot is the total particle concentration, dg is the mass median particle size and óg is
geometric standard deviation of the distribution.
According to Whitby (1983), atmospheric particle size distributions can be modeled by

particle size modes each of which is represented by a log normal size distribution and the
total size distribution is a combination of these modal size distributions. Each particle size
mode is characterized by the parameters dg, óg and ctot. A typical example of this approach is
the model illustrating atmospheric particle size distributions. Atmospheric aerosol size
distribution is characterized by three modes which are called nuclei mode, accumulation
mode and coarse particle mode.
8
Figures 4 and 5 show size distributions which is assumed to correspond to an urban air
particle size distribution (Whitby 1983). The size distribution parameters of the "urban
average" distribution are shown in Table 1. Even though this size distribution is just an
example, it indicates how an aerosol size distribution can be a combination of several
components. These figures also indicate the significant differences between particle number
and mass size distributions. Mass size distribution is governed by accumulation and coarse
mode particles while number distribution is weighted by ultra-fine nuclei mode particles.
Table 1. Size distribution parameters (Whitby 1983).

Accumulation
Distribution parameters Nuclei mode Coarse mode
mode
Concentration (µg/m³) 1.0 20.0 30.0
Mass median particle size dg(µm) 0.038 0.32 5.70
Geometric standard deviation σg 1.80 2.16 2.21

WHITBY_1.XLS, 17.12.2000
Nuclei: 1 µg/m³, Accum.: 20 µg/m³, Coarse: 30 µg/m³

4
dcm/d(ln dp) [µg/m³]
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (µm)
WHITBY_1.XLS, 17.12.2000
Figure 4. An example of particle mass size distribution.
9
Nuclei: 1 µg/m³, Accum.: 20 µg/m³, Coarse: 30 µg/m³
3.0E+7
dcn/d(ln dp) [particles/dm³]
2.0E+7
1.0E+7
0.0E+0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Particle size (µm)
WHITBY_1.XLS, 17.12.2000
Figure 5. An example of particle number size distribution.
Taking into account the fractional penetration curve of a ventilation filter and the particle size
distribution function, it is evident that the total mass penetration through the filter depends
strongly on the size distribution. If air contains predominantly large particles a low total mass
penetration can be expected. On the other hand, if air contains lot of fine particles a
significant fraction of the particles is within the size range where filter performance is lowest.
Thus, the mass penetration values based on the total mass concentrations can be expected
to vary strongly depending on the environmental conditions.
2.3 What should be measured in field conditions

As mentioned above, ventilation filters are tested in laboratory by using standard test
methods. Thus, it may be necessary to ask why in situ testing of filters are needed. One
important reason for filter testing under true operation conditions is the fact that the changes
of filter performance does not follow the same rules as in standard tests. This is probably
caused by the properties of atmospheric particles which differ too strongly from the
properties of standard test dust. Especially, if filter contains electrostatically charged fibers, a
significant change in the filter performance can take place. This is illustrated schematically in
Figure 6. According to experimental results, there are filters the penetration of which may
increase by a factor two or three when exposed to atmospheric particles. Thus, the
measurement of filter penetration under true operation conditions is of great importance.
10
100
80 New Filter
Penetration (%)
Used Filter
60
Loss of
Efficiency
40
20
0
0.1 1 10
Particle Size (µm) MODEL_FLTRS.XLS, 03.03.2000
Figure 6. Decrease of filter performance under normal operation conditions.
50
without Leak
40 with Leak
Penetration (%)
30
Leak
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle Size (µm) MODEL_FLTRS.XLS, 03.03.2000
Figure 7. Effect of leak in the filtration system.
Another reason for in situ testing may be the fact that air filtration system may include leaks
which may significantly increase the penetration of large particles. The tiny air leaks in the
filtration system are often neglected partly because filter performance is characterized with
efficiency, i.e. a small leak causes only a minor decrease in the efficiency. However, even a
small leak in the filtration system with high quality filters may significantly increase the
penetration of large particles which may include e.g. microbial aerosols. Thus, the
measurement of possible leaks in the filtration system is important especially if low
penetration is required. Figure 7 illustrates schematically the effect of leak in an air cleaning
system.
11
In general, the possibility to test filter performance in field conditions can be regarded as
basic tool which should be used, e.g. when checking the performance of new filter
installations.
3 Methods and instruments

In principle, filter efficiencies can be measured with several aerosol measuring instruments.
These include optical and electrical aerosol instruments and various of types of gravimetric
measurement instruments. Gravimetric methods rely on the determination of the mass of the
collected aerosol sample. Sampling is normally realized with the aid of membrane filter or by
means of inertial impaction on a collection substrate. Gravimetric technique is normally used
to measure the total mass concentration. By means of particle size selective sampling
techniques it is possible to determine concentration of particles within a certain size range.
Optical measurement devices include both discrete particle counters (DPC) and integral
particle monitors. The basic feature of a discrete particle counter is the detection of individual
particles which makes it possible to measure particle number concentrations with a good
sensitivity. Integral particle instruments rely on the measurement a combined signal
generated by a large number particles which may be different size and composition.
3.1 Optical measuring instruments

The most well known optical instrument for the measurement of airborne particles is optical
particle counter. The principle of the optical particle counter is shown in Figure 8. The
system includes a primary light source and an optical system which is used to focus a
intense light beam to the sensing volume of the instrument. The sample air flow is directed
as a narrow jet through this volume. Some of the light scattered by the individual aerosol
particles is collected by means of another optical system. The light detector transforms the
light pulse into a voltage signal which is processed by the electronics of the instrument. The
number concentration of the particles is obtained by counting the number of scattered light
pulses and by dividing this number by the volume of air sampled.
The intensity of the light pulse depends on the particle size. This is illustrated in Figure 9
which shows the calibration curve of a portable optical counter MetOne 237. This Figure
shows that the pulse voltage of the instrument increases with particle size. This calibration
curve is utilized to classify particles to different size channels.
12
Figure 8. Principle of an optical particle counter.
It must be emphasized that the curve shown in Figure 9 corresponds to the calibration
condition, i.e. spherical polystyrene latex (PSL) particles. The scattered light intensity
depends also on the optical properties and shape of the particles. Thus, the relationship
between the particle size and the pulse voltage may differ significantly from that expected
from the calibration curve.
Particle sizing in optical particle counter is based on the classification of voltage pulses.
Each calibration point in Figure 9 represents the particle size boundary. It is evident that if
the response curve changes, the particle sizes corresponding to fixed channel boundaries
change as well leading to a significant change in the size classification.
10000
Pulse voltege (mV)
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
MET_CAL_00.XLS, 19.06.2000
Figure 9. Scattered light pulse voltage as a function of particle size. MetOne 237 particle
counter, PSL particles (Sinisalo 2000).
13
3.1.1 Laser aerosol size analyzer
A widely used tool for filter efficiency measurements is a sophisticated optical particle
counter (i.e. discrete particle counter) which utilizes an intense laser light illumination. This
technique makes it possible to extend the particle size range down to 0.1 µm level.
In this study, the measurements were made with PMS (Particle Measuring Systems Inc.)
laser particle size analyzer model LAS X. The particle size range of this instrument extends
from 0.12 µm up to 7.5 µm. This size range has been divided into four partly overlapping
sub-ranges each of which contains 16 size channels. Thus the total number of size channels
3
is 64. Sample flow rate is typically 0.3 dm /min.
The calibration of LAS X size analyzer is based on the measurements with latex particles.
Thus, the instruments classifies particles according to an equivalent optical particle size
based on latex particle calibration. It must be emphasized that laser particle counter is like
any optical particle counter, i.e. when measuring e.g. atmospheric particles, the accuracy of
the size classification may be poor because the optical properties of ambient air particles
may differ significantly from those used in the calibration.
Particle losses at the inlet of LAS X significantly limits its feasibility for large particle
measurements. Besides this, the operational particle size range is further limited by the fact
that statistical accuracy for large particles is normally low because of the low sample air flow.
3.1.2 Portable optical particle counter (OPC)

The development of optical particle counters has been very rapid during the past few years.
As a result of the product development portable particle counters have become available.
These instruments are normally designed primarily for clean room applications, but due to
their compact size they are widely used in other particle measurement applications.
In this study MetOne 237B portable optical counter have been used. The lower particle size
limit of this instrument is 0.3 µm and the measurement size range is divided into 6 size
channels. The calibration of portable OPC is made basically in the same way as in the case
of laser particle size analyzer, i.e. calibration is based on mono-disperse latex particles.
3.1.3 Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)

Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS) is an optical device which can be used to measure particle
number size distribution with excellent size resolution. APS is a discrete particle counter
(DPC) which classifies particles according to aerodynamic particle size. This can be
regarded as a significant advantage especially when making measurements with particles
with unknown mass and optical properties.
In this study some experiments were made by using TSI (Thermo Systems Inc.)
aerodynamic particle sizer model 3320. The particle size range of this instrument ranges
from 0.5 µm up to 20 µm. The size range has been divided into 52 channels with equal width
3 3
on logarithmic scale. The sample air flow of APS is 5 dm /min and 1 dm /min is used for
analyzing particle size distribution. The calibration of APS (made by the manufacturer) is
based on the measurements with several monodisperse latex particles. APS also includes a
measurement mode which corresponds to conventional optical particle counter. This makes
it possible to extend the measuring range down to 0.3 µm.
14
The preliminary experiments with APS indicated that fractional efficiencies can be measured
with excellent size resolution. It was, however, noticed that small particles may generate
“phantom particles” (=false counts) to the large particle size channels. This caused
significant errors when polydisperse test aerosol was used. It is worth noticing that this
problem can be significantly reduced by proper processing of the data produced by the
instrument.
3.1.4 Condensation particle counter (CPC)

Particle number concentrations can also be measured with a special type of discrete particle
counter called condensation particle counter (CPC). Condensation particle counter is
actually an optical particle counter which is used to detect droplets which are formed when
supersaturated vapor condenses on particles in the sample air flow. Thus, each particle
grows to a larger droplet which are easy to count with the optical sensor. This technique
makes it possible to extend the particle size range down to 0.01 µm level. It must, however,
be emphasized that CPC measures number concentration in the size range which is limited
by the condensation process.
In this study condensation particle counter was not used because it was assumed that the
penetration values corresponding ultra fine particle size range do not reflect the true
performance of a filter. It may be worth noticing, however, that the suspected adverse health
effects of ultra fine particles may change the situation, i.e. the measurement of filter
efficiency for ultra fine particles may become very important.
3.1.5 Aerosol photometers

Optical measuring technique can also be used to monitor particle concentration without
sophisticated size analyze. This is accomplished by measuring the scattered light from a
large number of particles. Thus, aerosol photometer is typically an integral aerosol monitor.
The scattered light intensity depends in a complicated way on several factors including
particle concentration and size distribution, particle size and shape, particle refractive index,
wavelength of the illumination light and detection angle.
Figure 10 illustrates schematically the response or mass sensitivity function of an aerosol

photometer. According to this figure, the mass sensitivity is highest in the size range of 0.5-1
µm. Taking into account the typical fractional penetration of an air filter and the atmospheric
particle size distributions, it is reasonable to assume that the penetration measured with an
aerosol photometer varies strongly depending on the test conditions.
15
lambda = 0.6 µm, m = (1.5, -0.01), angles: (10, 40)
2500
2000
Intensity (-)
1500
1000
500
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
MIE_01.XLS, 07.03.2000
Figure 10. Mass sensitivity of an aerosol photometer.
Filter efficiency measurements were made with TSI Dust Trak aerosol photometer. This
instrument has been calibrated (by the manufacturer) by using SAE Fine test dust.
Calibration means simply that the relationship between the gravimetric mass concentration
output signal of the instrument has been determined.
3.2 Electrical measuring instruments
3.2.1 Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS)

Scanning mobility particle sizer is based on the utilization of differential mobility sizer which is
an effective tool for determining of particle size distributions for submicron particles. This
instrument utilizes particle classification according to the electrical mobility. Cylindrical
mobility analyzer is used to extract particles on a narrow size range to condensation particle
counter. The size classification can be controlled with the voltage of the mobility analyzer,
i.e. the particle size can be scanned across the size range up to about 1 µm.
Differential mobility analyze is utilized in a commercial instrument called scanning mobility

particle sizer (TSI Inc.). This is a sophisticated research instrument which can also be used
in filter efficiency measurement. Differential mobility is a device which is generally regarded
as a primary method for particle size determination. In this study scanning mobility analyzer
was not used simply because it was assumed to be too expensive and sophisticated to be
used for in situ testing of ventilation filters.
3.2.2 Electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI)

Electrical low pressure impactor is a novel instrument (Keskinen et. al., 1993) which can be
used to the measure particle size distributions in varying test conditions. The operation of
this instrument is based on the detection of electric currents from each collection stage of a
low pressure cascade impactor. Particles are charged by unipolar ions in an aerosol charger
upstream of the cascade impactor.
16
This measurement technique is applied in a commercial instrument manufactured by
3
DEKATI Ltd. The particle size range is 0.03 - 10 µm and the sample air flow is 30 dm /min.
The calibration of ELPI is realized by determining the sample efficiency curves of all
impaction stages. Electrical low pressure impactor is a new instrument which has not earlier
used in filter efficiency measurements.
Due to the limited resources of the present study, only some preliminary experiments were
made with ELPI. These experiments gave promising results, i.e. this instrument can be
regarded as a potential alternative for filter efficiency measurements. One of the advantages
of ELPI is its dynamic range, i.e. it can be used in normal atmospheric conditions but also
under much higher particle concentrations. The major drawback of the instrument is the cost
of the instrument. Future development may, however, produce versions which are more
suitable for in situ testing of filters.
3.3 Gravimetric measuring instruments
3.3.1 Filter sampling

One of the most fundamental means to measure particle concentration is the gravimetric
method which is based on the weighing of the collected aerosol mass. Particle sampling is
normally made with the aid of membrane filters from both sides of the air cleaning device
(Figure 11). Sampling pump is used to suck a known volume of air through the membrane
filter and the collected mass is the difference of total mass weighed before and after the
sampling.
Figure 11. Filter efficiency measurement with gravimetric method. Measurement of “total”
mass concentration.
The main advantage of the gravimetric method is the simple and reliable technique. Filter
sampling also makes it possible to make chemical analyses, i.e. concentration of certain
elements or chemical compounds can be determined. Unfortunately, there are also some
disadvantages such as the lack of particle size information, i.e. the concentration
corresponding to the mass of all sized particles is obtained.
17
Gravimetric method has been used in a field test in which the properties of four F7 filters
were studied during a period of eight months. Particle mass concentrations were measured
from upstream and downstream of the filters in one week sampling periods. The measured
mass concentrations were used to calculate the one week averages of the total mass
penetration.
Figure 12 shows the results from these measurements. According to the experimental
values, the total mass penetration varies very strongly with time. This is an indication of
strong variations in the particle size distribution. Figure 12 also shows that the performance
of F7 filters vary quite strongly indicating that standard filter classification does not provide
reliable information about the true filter performance.
50
Filter "A"
Filter "B"
40
Filter "C"
Filter "D"
Penetration (%)
30
20
10
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
Time (days) TAMP_VALUES.XLS, 28.09.2001
Figure 12. Total mass penetration of four F7 ventilation filters. Atmospheric particles, one
week averages (Lehtimäki and Taipale, 1999).
3.3.2 Particle size limited sampling

As mentioned above, filter sampling provides the total mass concentration which in some
cases may give a misleading picture about the importance of airborne particles. This may
happen especially if air contains lot of large particles which may have less influence e.g. on
the health effects. Therefore, filter sampling is sometimes used together with a pre-separator
which captures large particles before they enter the sampling filter (Figure 13).
Particle pre-separation is normally accomplished with an elutriator, a cyclone or an impaction

stage. These devices are used to produce a particle size selective sampling criteria which
approximates the one defined for respirable dust. In this study, particle pre-separation has
been realized with impaction stage with the cut off particle size around 2.5 µm.
The particle pre-separator makes it possible to measure particles in a size range below a
certain size limit. This kind of measurement can be regarded as low-pass sampling from the
particle size distribution. If particle sampling is realized with the aid of inertial impaction on an
substrate, particles above a certain size limit is collected. This can be regarded as high-pass
sampling. By operating two impaction stages it is possible to limit particle collection between
two particle size limit.
18
Figure 13. Efficiency measurement with a gravimetric method. Measurement of the “fine
particle” mass fraction.
The penetration values of F7 filters were measured with a system containing a impactor
stage as a particle pre-separator, i.e. upstream sampling was made with a system of filter
sampler and impactor stage. The corresponding downstream mass concentration was
estimated by the total mass concentration, i.e. penetration of particles above 2.5 µm was
assumed to negligible.
The results in Figure 14 indicate that measured penetration values vary very strongly even
though the effect of coarse particles were eliminated. Also, the results show that the
penetration of filter “B” increases significantly with time. This is caused by the loss of
electrostatic removal mechanism.
100
Filter "A"
Filter "B"
Fine particle penetration (%)
80 Filter "C"
Filter "D"
60
40
20
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
Time (days) TAMP_VALUES.XLS, 28.09.2001
Figure 14. “Fine particle” penetration of four F7 ventilation filters. Atmospheric particles, one
week averages (Lehtimäki and Taipale, 1999).
19
3.3.3 Cascade impactors
Particle collection by means of inertial impaction can also be utilized to collect particle size
selective samples. This technique has been widely used in cascade impactors. Cascade
impactor is device which contains several successive impaction stages each of which
represents a specific particle size range.
Figure 15. Efficiency measurement with a gravimetric method. Size selective sampling with
cascade impactors.
In this work measurements were made by using either conventional normal pressure
impactor or so called low pressure impactor. The size range of the normal pressure impactor
extends from 0.28 µm up to 16 µm. Besides impaction stages, this impactor also includes a
back-up filter which is used to collect all particles below the lowest impaction stage. Low
pressure impactor includes impaction stages which are operated at pressures substantially
below normal pressure. Thus, the inertial classification can be extended down to 0.03 µm.
The feasibility of cascade impactors for filter performance measurements has been tested in
several experiments in field conditions. A typical example of the measured particle size
distributions is shown in Figure 16. These measurements were made with identical seven-
stage cascade impactors placed into the upstream and downstream air flows of a F7
3
ventilation filter. The sample air flow of the cascade impactor was 25 dm /min and the
sampling time was typically one week. The penetration values calculated from the mass
distributions is shown in Figure 17. The penetration values measured with cascade
impactors were in a reasonable agreement with the values measured in the laboratory.
These experiments have, however, shown that the cascade impactor method requires lot of
work and the measurement should be repeated several times to produce reliable results. If
conventional gravimetric means are used, the sampling periods must be several days which
makes this method unpractical to most of the ventilation filter testing. A practical problem is
caused by the fact that this method provides reliable information only on that size range
where particle concentration is high. Thus, the accuracy of the method is rather poor for
large particles especially if the sampled air contains predominantly fine particles.
By using a more sensitive weighing systems it might be possible to reduce the required
sampling time. Thus, cascade impactor method can be regarded as potential method for
20
filter testing in field conditions. Especially, if the filter testing should be made in heavily
polluted conditions cascade impactor method may be a good choice. The main advantage of
the cascade impactor method is the fact that it also produces information about the size
distribution of the ambient air particles.
3.5
3
Concentration (µg/m³)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
< 0.28 0.28-0.52 0.52-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0 4.0-8.0 8.0-16.0 > 16.0
Particle size (µm)
IMP_DST_3X.XLS, 02.10.2001
Figure 16. Particle mass size distributions upstream and downstream of a F7 filter.
100
80
Efficiency (%)
60
40
20
0
< 0.28 0.28-0.52 0.52-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0 4.0-8.0 8.0-16.0 > 16.0
Particle size (µm)
IMP_DST_3X.XLS, 02.10.2001
Figure 17. Fractional penetration of a F7 filter. Calculated from the size distributions shown
in Figure 16.
To be a practical tool for in situ testing of ventilation filters, cascade impactor method
requires further development. In this study, some experiments were made to improve the
feasibility of the cascade impactor for the measurement of large particles. A conventional
cascade impactor was modified in such a way that the first impaction stages were operated
3
at higher flow rate, i.e. the flow rate through the first two stages was 100 dm /min. This
21
option increased the feasibility of the method significantly. On the other hand large sample
flow rate requires large pumps which may reduce the easiness of the measurements in field
conditions. Due to the limited resources of the project, however, it was decided to
concentrate on direct reading particle measurement systems.
3.3.4 Particle mass monitor

One of the major drawbacks of the gravimetric methods is the relatively long time which
required before the concentration value is obtained. This problem can be significantly
reduced with the aid of particle mass monitors. There are two basic methods which have
been used in particle mass monitoring (see e.g. Williams et. al., 1993). One of these is the
tapered-element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) mass monitor. The other alternative
utilizes a piezoelectric crystal as a sensitive mass balance.
In this work a portable piezoelectric mass monitor (TSI) Piezobalance model 3500 was used.
Even though, piezobalance is no longer quite popular tool for particle mass monitoring, it
serves a potential tool for filter efficiency measurement. In practice, the calibration of
Piezobalance is based on the measurement of the relationship between indicated mass
concentration and the one determined with the gravimetric method. The particle size range
of this instrument is not accurately specified. It depends on the collection efficiency of the
point-to-plane electrostatic precipitation which is used to collect particles on the piezoelectric
crystal. Piezobalance is normally operated with a impactor pre-separator with cut off
diameter of 3.5 µm or 1.0 µm.
An attempt was made to use two identical piezobalance mass monitors to measure
simultaneously mass concentrations from upstream and downstream air flows of a filter. It
was, however, noticed that reproducible and reliable test results were not obtained.
3.4 Accessories to aerosol measuring instruments

As mentioned above, particle measurement may require the use of proper particle pre-
separator to improve the feasibility of the method. The same principle can be used by
several means together with various aerosol measurement instruments.
3.4.1 Aerosol diluter

Even though, the concentrations in ambient air are relatively low, it is possible that the
proper operation range of an optical particle may be exceeded. Thus, a reliable
measurement requires the use of an aerosol diluter. Aerosol diluter is normally realized
dividing the sample air flow into two fractions. One of the air flow fractions is transported
directly into the instrument while the other flows through an absolute filter. Dilution ratio
depends on the ratio of the untreated air flow to the total air flow.
In this study a simple in line aerosol diluter was used. The diluter (Figure 18) was
constructed with a capillary tube which is fixed through the high efficiency particulate filter.
By using proper dimensions, it is possible to create isokinetic condition at he entrance of the
capillary tube. The main problem with the diluter was the excessive particle losses in the size
range above 2 µm.
22
Undiluted aerosol
Absolute filter
Capillary tube
DILU_01.DS4, 19.06.2000 Diluted aerosol
Figure 18. Principle of an aerosol diluter.
3.4.2 Aerosol concentrators

Inertial impaction can also be utilized to create a “high pass filter” for particles in the sample
flow. This is accomplished by means of virtual impaction technique, i.e. instead impacting
particles on a solid surface they are directed to almost stagnant air. High-inertia particles
move across the virtual surface between the stagnant air and air flow. The particles entering
the stagnant air are slowly transported into the measuring instrument with a minor air flow.
Smaller particles are deflected with the air flow in a manner similar to solid surface
impaction.
Total flow
Acceleration
nozzle
Major flow to
flow control
and pump
Small
particle
Large
particle
Collection
Probe
VIMP_01.DSF, 09.10.2001
Minor flow to
particle counter
Figure 19. Principle of a virtual impactor.
Figure 19 illustrates the principle of the virtual impactor. The nozzle sizes and other
dimensions were designed based on the instructions found in the literature (e.g. Loo and
Cork, 1988). The experiments with the virtual impactors indicated that the concentration of
large particles can be increased by a factor of ten. In some cases two virtual impactors were
23
used in series which further increased the concentration of particles in the size range of 2-5
µm.
3.4.3 Pre-separators
As mentioned above, the removal of large particles from the sample air-flow may be
advantageous for the aerosol measurement. The removal of large particles is analogous with
the idea of “low pass filter” which allows small particles to penetrate but captures large
particles. This can be accomplished by several means including fibrous filter, porous foam,
elutriator, cyclone and inertial impactor.
Sample air flow
Acceleration
nozzle
Impaction
substrate
IMP_01.DSF, 09.10.2001
Figure 20. Principle of an inertial impactor.
In this work particle pre-separation is realized with the aid of single impaction stage. The
principle of the impaction stage is shown in Figure 20. In practice, impaction stages consists
of a plate with several identical nozzles or holes and the impaction surface downstream of
the nozzle plate. The experiments were made to check the separation characteristics of the
impaction stages. It was observed that very sharp cut-off properties were achieved with
these simple devices.
3.4.4 Reference filter

When making filter testing with atmospheric particles it is necessary to use a method which
makes it possible to check if the measurement conditions are favorable enough. A simple
and practical method is the utilization of a reference filter the filtration properties of which is
accurately known. By measuring the penetration of this reference filter under practical test
conditions it is possible to estimate the reliability of the measurement. As will be shown later,
reference filter technique can even be used to make a simple correction to the experimental
values. Actually, this means that reference filter is used to make a field calibration of the
optical particle counter.
The reference filter should be chosen in such a way that its filtration properties are close to
those of the filter to be tested. Figure 21 illustrate the principle of the reference filter. Filter
sample is cut from a ventilation filter the efficiency of which is comparable with the one to be
tested in the field conditions. Filter sample is fixed to a filter holder and the penetration curve
is measured at laboratory by using best possible measurement technique, i.e. calibrated
particle size analyzer and standard test aerosol.
24
Ambient aerosol
Glue Reference filter
Filter holder
REF_FIL.DSF, 09.10.2001
Sample air flow
Figure 21. Principle of the reference filter.
The filter holder should be designed in such a way that the air flow velocity in the filter
material corresponds to the nominal flow rate of the filter. In practice, several reference
filters should be made to make it possible to test filters of different type and efficiency.
3.4.5 Storage chamber

Sometimes measurement conditions can be extremely difficult, i.e. reliable sampling to the
particle counter may be impossible without very long sampling tubes. Then, an alternative
technique based on the storage chambers may be used. The principle of the storage
chamber used in this study is shown in Figure 22. The chambers were made from a metal
duct with 200 mm diameter. The length of the tube is 350 mm, i.e. the volume of the
3
chamber is 11 dm .
Sample air flow Absolute filter
To the To the particle

pump counter
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
STORAGE.DSF, 09.10.2001
Figure 22. Principle of the storage chamber method.
The basic idea is to collect an aerosol sample to chamber and transport this sample quickly
to the particle counter to be measured. With the aid of large chamber and short storage time
it is possible to keep the particle losses at reasonably low level. The essential feature of this
measurement technique is a rapid measurement of the particle concentration from the
25
chamber after finishing the sampling. Absolute filter must used during the measurement, i.e.
a decaying concentration is registered.
By using two identical chambers and a sampling valve system it is possible to measure
particle concentrations alternately from both chambers, i.e. the decay curves from each
chamber is determined. The advantage of this technique is that penetration values at
different concentration levels are obtained. Thus, sampling can be made from a high particle
concentration and the results from first parts of the decay curves are neglected. In principle,
this technique can be used without aerosol diluter.
It must be emphasized that this technique can be used for small particles only. According to
the laboratory experiments, the practical size range of this method is approximately < 2..3
µm. Further studies by using larger chambers and sampling with the aid of virtual impactor
will show if this technique can be applied for larger particles as well.
4 Experiments with optical measuring devices
4.1 Aerosol photometer
The feasibility of an aerosol photometer was studied by using a test system which included a
test duct with F7 glass fiber ventilation filter. The system was operated at the nominal air
3
flow rate of 0.5 m /s. The air was taken directly from outside, i.e. test conditions can be
assumed to correspond normal operation of a ventilation filter. An automatic valve system
was used to direct sample flow alternately to the upstream and downstream air of the test
filter.
Figure 23 shows an example of the measured concentrations. According this result the
3
registered downstream particle concentration is below 10 µg/m which is quite close to the
practical lower concentration limit of the instrument. Thus, even a small change or drift in the
zero level causes a significant error to the measured concentration value.
26
0.2 0.04
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream c_m (mg/m³)

0.15 0.03
Upstream c_m (mg/m³)
0.1 0.02
0.05 0.01
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Measurement nro
DUSTRAK_01.XLS, 19.04.2000
Figure 23. Concentration values registered with Dustrak aerosol photometer.
25
20
Penetration (%)
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Measurement nro
DUSTRAK_01.XLS, 19.04.2000
Figure 24. Penetration values measured with Dustrak photometer.
Figure 24 shows the corresponding penetration values calculated from the measured
concentration values. The results clearly indicate that quite large oscillations in the measured
penetration can be observed. This is probably caused by the variations of the particle size
distribution which affects the mass sensitivity (=response) of the photometer. According to
these results, aerosol photometer does not provide penetration values which could be used
as a measure of filter performance. The measured penetration seems to depend too strongly
on the measurement conditions.
27
4.2 Optical particle counter, basic principles
4.2.1 Principle of the measurement

The experiment with the aerosol photometer led to a conclusion that the primary method for
filter efficiency measurements in field conditions is optical particle counter. The sensitivity of
an optical particle counter is high enough for the efficiency measurements with ambient air
particles. Another major advantage of the optical particle counter is the possibility to
measure fractional penetration values almost in real time.
It has been assumed that the efficiency measurements should be made by using
sophisticated optical particle size analyzers, e.g. laser particle spectrometers. The field test
method should, however, also allow the utilization of portable optical particle counters. In this
work, most of the experiments have been made with MetOne 237 particle counters which are
originally designed for clean room measurements. The sample flow rate of these instruments
3
is 2.83 dm /min and the lower particle size limit 0.3 µm.
The basic principle of the measurement system is illustrated in Figure 25. This system
includes sampling probes, sampling tubes, valves and a particle counter. As will be
discussed later, the sampling system may also include aerosol diluter and/or aerosol
concentrator (virtual impactor). The sampling system is used to direct sample air flow
alternately from upstream and downstream of the filter to the particle counter. Upstream and
downstream particle concentrations corresponding to the different size channels of the
particle counter are used to calculate the fractional penetration values.
Figure 25. Basic principle of the measurement method. Measurement with one particle
counter.
4.2.2 Particle size correction

The major problem when measuring atmospheric particles with an optical particle counter is
the poor accuracy of the particle sizing. Unfortunately, this drawback is very difficult to totally
avoid. Filter test method must, however, include instructions how to minimize the errors
28
caused by the inaccurate particle sizing. This can be accomplished with the aid of a
reference filter the penetration of which is measured in the same conditions as the filter to be
tested.
Figure 26 illustrates the general principle of the particle size correction method. The
penetration curve of the reference filter is carefully measured in the laboratory by using
particle size analyzer and standard test aerosol. The laboratory test result can be assumed
to correspond the best possible information about the filtration properties of the reference
filter. During the field test, the fractional penetrations of the reference filter and test filter are
measured as simultaneously as possible. The measured penetration values of the reference
filter are used to make a corrections to the measured penetration values of the test filter. The
same particle size correction procedure is applied to all measurement results corresponding
to the particle size channels of the particle counter.
100
OPC's Size REFERENCE FILTER
Channel Test result (reference filter)
80
Test result (test filter)
Corrected result (ref. filter)
Penetration (%)
CORRECTED RESULT
60
40
20 Nominal particle size Corrected particle size
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
PRINCIPLE.XLS, 19.05.2000
Figure 26. Correction procedure for filter penetration measurement.
The correction procedure simply assumes that the “true” or corrected particle size
corresponding to a certain penetration value is obtained from the penetration curve of the
reference filter. The example in Figure 26 illustrates that the penetration value corresponding
the nominal particle size of 0.5 µm (= particle size indicated by the OPC) is 40 %. The
corresponding penetration value on the reference curve is at 0.9 µm. The same correction is
then made to the results measured with the test filter. Thus, the measured penetration value
of the test filter (= 20 %) is assumed to correspond to the particle size of 0.9 µm.
It is reasonable to assume that the reference filter should be selected in such a way that the
properties of the reference filter and test filter are as close as possible. It must be
emphasized that this procedure does not correct all the possible errors caused by poor
sizing accuracy. It can, however, be regarded as a reasonable tool for correcting major
errors. It also serves an opportunity to estimate if the measurement conditions are too
unfavorable for efficiency test.
29
4.3 Optical particle counter, alternative measurement
systems
The measurement of filter efficiency with an optical particle counter is relatively
straightforward task provided that particle sampling can be reliably accomplished. In practical
field measurement conditions, however, particle sampling may be difficult. Filter testing
should be realized in such a way that both upstream and downstream samples represent
particle concentrations in whole air flow. Thus, the air should be effectively mixed before it
enters the sampling point. When using atmospheric particles as test agent it is reasonable to
assume that the particle concentration in the upstream air is homogeneously mixed. On the
other hand, particle concentration in the downstream flow may be uneven especially if there
are significant air leaks in the filtration system.
Thus, the downstream sampling point should be located in such a way that distance from the
filtration system is long enough to guarantee effective air mixing. This may, however, require
very long sampling tubes which are difficult to install and which may cause significant particle
losses. The next paragraphs discuss about the basic methods to realize particle sampling for
filter efficiency measurements in field conditions.
4.3.1 Sampling with long tubes

The measurement system shown in Figure 25 can be used to measure the efficiency of the
test filter and reference filter. The properties of the ambient air particles can vary quite
quickly and therefore it is of great importance that the penetration values of test filter and
reference filter are measured as simultaneously as possible. Thus, the test should be
preferably made with a system illustrated in Figure 27. This system includes three sampling
lines, i.e. an additional sampling line and valve for the reference filter. This arrangement
makes it possible to measure both filters almost simultaneously.
Figure 27. Principle of the measurement system. Simultaneous measurement of test filter
and reference filter, one particle counter.
This system can be regarded as a basic alternative which can be used provided that the
sampling points are relatively near each other. If long sampling tubes must be used, particle
losses in the tubes can cause significant errors especially in the case of large particles.
30
Thus, the sampling tubes should be kept as short as possible. It may also be necessary to
check the performance of the sampling system by means of laboratory measurements, i.e.
identical sampling system must be operated in laboratory conditions and the effect of particle
losses on the penetration values is determined.
4.3.2 Simultaneous measurement with two optical particle

counters
The most ideal alternative for filter efficiency measurement is the utilization of two particle
counters. This method makes it possible to realize simultaneous concentration measurement
from both sides of the filtration system. Using two particle counters also makes the sampling
quite flexible, i.e. short sampling tubes can be used.
The principle of the system including two particle counters is shown in Figure 28. The
upstream particle counter (#1) is used to measure the concentration of unfiltered air and the
air downstream of the reference filter. Thus, the efficiency of the reference filter is measured
with the aid of conventional valve system. The penetration of the test filter is determined
from the results provided with the upstream particle counter #1 (unfiltered air) and the
downstream particle counter #2 (filtered air). The main advantage of this method is the
simultaneous measurement of upstream and downstream concentrations. It also allows
downstream particle sampling far from the filter which is very important if the influence of air
leaks are tested.
It must be emphasized that the particle counters must be exactly identical which may require
very careful calibration of the instruments. If two particle counters are used in filter efficiency
measurements, a test series is required to show that the system produces efficiency values
which are in accordance with the one measured with a particle counter equipped with valve
sampling system.
Figure 28. Principle of the measurement system. Simultaneous measurement of test filter
and reference filter, two particle counters.
31
4.3.3 Measurements with storage chamber method
Filter testing can also be made by collecting upstream and downstream particle samples in
storage chambers. This method is illustrated in Figures 29 and 30. In the first phase particle
samples are collected from both sides into storage chambers (Figure 26). During the
sampling, the efficiency of the reference filter is measured with the conventional efficiency
measurement system.
After sampling, the storage chambers are brought to the particle counter and the sampling
lines of the efficiency measurement system are connected to the chambers (Figure 30).
During the efficiency measurement, storage chambers are gradually flushed with filtered air,
i.e. the concentrations in the chambers decrease. Thus, the efficiency values will be obtained
at different concentration levels.
The major advantage of the storage chamber method is the possibility to collect
simultaneous aerosol samples from both sides of the filter without long sampling lines. It also
provides a possibility get efficiency values at different concentration levels which may be of
great importance if the properties of particle counter varies with the concentration. On the
other hand, this method requires that the chambers are strictly identical. The sampling from
the chambers to the particle sampling from the storage chambers must be carefully adjusted
to guarantee identical behavior of particle decrease in both chambers. It must also be
emphasized that this method suits best for the efficiency measurements in the size range
below 2 µm. It is reasonable to assume that the storage chamber method can also be used
to measure the efficiency of the reference filter.
Figure 29. Principle of the measurement system. Sampling with storage chambers.
32
Figure 30. Sampling from storage chambers.
5 Experimental results
5.1 Experiments with two optical particle counters

The feasibility of method based on the simultaneous measurement with two portable optical
particle counter was tested by measuring filter penetration values in simulated field test
condition. A F7 glass fiber filter was operated at its nominal air flow rate and the
concentrations of atmospheric particles were measured with two MetOne 237 particle
counters. Figure 31 and 32 show the registered particle concentrations during the one week
test period.
33
100000
MetOne #1
MetOne #2
C (particles/dm³)
10000
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.3-0.5 µm
Test Number MET_ONE_1.XLS, 20.06.2000
10000
MetOne #1
MetOne #2
C (particles/dm³)
1000
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.5-0.7 µm
1000
MetOne #1
MetOne #2
C (particles/dm³)
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.7-1 µm
Figure 31. Particle number concentrations during one week test period. Particle size
ranges: 0.3-0.5 µm, 0.5-0.7 µm and 0.7-1 µm.
34
10000
MetOne #1
MetOne #2
C (particles/dm³)
1000
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
1-2 µm
10000
MetOne #1
MetOne #2
C (particles/dm³)
1000
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2-5 µm
10000
MetOne #1
MetOne #2
C (particles/dm³)
1000
100
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
> 5 µm
Figure 32. Particle number concentrations during one week test period. Particle size
ranges: 1- 2 µm, 2- 5 µm and > 5 µm.
The results in Figures 31 and 32 indicate that particle concentrations vary in relative wide
range. It seems, however, that the conditions at the test location were rather stable, i.e.
larger variations can take place if strong particle sources are near the test site. The results
also indicate that the agreement with the results measured with the two particle counters are
relatively good. There are, however, some instances when significant differences can be
noticed. The reason for these differences is not known. Differences can be seen more
clearly in Figures 33 and 34 which illustrate the ratio of the concentrations.
35
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Ca/C b
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.3-0.5 µm
3.5
2.5
2
Ca/C b
1.5
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.5-0.7 µm Test Number MET_ONE_1.XLS, 20.06.2000
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Ca/Cb
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.7-1 µm
Figure 33. Concentration ratios during one week test period. Particle size ranges: 0.3-0.5
µm, 0.5-0.7 µm and 0.7-1µm.
36
1.2
0.8
Ca/Cb
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
1-2 µm
1.2
0.8
Ca/Cb
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2-5 µm
1.2
0.8
Ca/Cb
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
> 5 µm Test Number MET_ONE_1.XLS, 20.06.2000
Figure 34. Concentration ratios during one week test period. Particle size ranges: 1- 2 µm,
2- 5 µm and > 5 µm.
The penetration values calculated from the measured concentrations are shown in Figures
35 and 36. These figures also include penetration values measured simultaneously with a
conventional sampling valve system. The results indicate that in most cases the method
based on the use of two particle counters produce almost identical penetration values. There
are, however, tests in which the agreement is not as good as it should be. Differences can
be observed especially in the case of sub-micrometer particles. In the case of large particles,
however, the agreement between the results seems to much better.
37
Penetration (%) 60
40
20
One OPC
Two OPCs
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.3-0.5 µm
30
Penetration (%)
20
10
One OPC
Two OPCs
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.5-0.7 µm
25
20
Penetration (%)
15
10
5 One OPC
Two OPCs
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.7-1 µm
Figure 35. Comparison of penetration values. Particle size ranges: 0.3-0.5 µm, 0.5-0.7µm
and 0.7- 1 µm.
It is worth noticing that Figure 36 also shows the effect of air leak in the filter. A controlled
leak was made to the filter during the test series. These results clearly indicate that the leak
can be detected by measuring the penetration of large particles.
38
Penetration (%) 15
10
5
One OPC
Two OPCs
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
1-2 µm
One OPC
4
Two OPCs
Penetration (%)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2-5 µm
2.5 One OPC

Two OPCs
Penetration (%)
1.5
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
> 5 µm
Figure 36. Comparison of penetration values. Particle size ranges: 1- 2 µm, 2- 5µm and > 5
µm.
5.2 Experiments with storage chambers

The performance of the storage chamber method was studied by means of laboratory
experiments. In these measurements the filter penetration values were measured by using a
conventional test system and the storage chamber method.
The results shown in Figures 37 indicate that the particle concentrations in the storage
chambers decrease exponentially during the measurement, i.e. particle counter gradually
flushes both chambers with HEPA filtered air. Figure 37 also indicates that the initial particle
concentration was probably too high for the particle counter. The exponential decay curve
can be seen after the concentration has dropped to a reasonable level.
39
1000000
100000
Concentration (1/dm³)
Upstream
10000
Downstream
1000
100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (s) DECAY_02.xls, 22.10.2001
Figure 37. Particle concentrations measured from the storage chambers, particle size range
0.3-0.5 µm, glass fiber filter (F7), DOS aerosol.
Figure 38 shows the penetration values corresponding to the concentration values in Figure
37. The penetration decreases with time which is probably an indication about poor
performance of the particle counter, i.e. high particle concentration affects the measured
penetration. This is also illustrated in Figure 39 which shows the same data as a function of
particle concentration.
Figures 40 and 41 illustrate the corresponding results measured at the particle size range of
1-2 µm. The decay of the concentrations follow exponential style quite well from the very
beginning. The calculated penetration value seems to be slightly dependent on the
concentration. This, however, may be caused by some minor differences in the volumes of
the chambers and/or sampling times or flow rates.
100
80
Penetration (%)
60
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (s) DECAY_02.xls, 22.10.2001
Figure 38. Ratio of the concentrations(=penetration) measured from the storage chambers,
particle size range 0.3-0.5 µm, glass fiber filter (F7), DOS aerosol.
40
100
80
Penetration (%)
60
40
20
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
Concentration (1/dm³) DECAY_02.xls, 22.10.2001
particle size range 0.3-0.5 µm, glass fiber filter (F7), DOS aerosol.
100000
Concentration (1/dm³)
10000
Upstream
Downstream
1000
100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (s) DECAY_03.xls, 22.10.2001
Figure 40. Particle concentrations measured from the storage chambers, particle size range
1- 2 µm, glass fiber filter (F7), DOS aerosol.
20
15
Penetration (%)
10
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Concentration (1/dm³) DECAY_03.xls, 22.10.2001
particle size range 1- 2 µm, glass fiber filter (F7), DOS aerosol.
41
The laboratory measurements indicate that the storage chamber method produces
penetration values which are in a good agreement with the penetration values measured
with conventional valve sampling system. This promising method requires, however, further
studies to ensure its feasibility in the field conditions. These measurements include testing of
the reliability of the method under difficult operation conditions.
5.3 Experiments with the particle size correction

technique
Figures 42 - 49 illustrate some of the results obtained by using the correction method
described earlier. Figure 42 shows the penetration values measured with F7 glass fiber
ventilation filter. Particle measurements were made with a laser particle counter (PMS LAS
X) equipped with three sampling valves and a reference filter. This figure also includes the
penetration curves measured by means of laboratory test system, i.e. with DOS test aerosol.
Figure 43 shows the corresponding values after applying the correction procedure. The
correction method produces penetration values which are in an excellent agreement with the
ones measured with the laboratory test system.
60
Test filter (LAB)
50 Test filter (FIELD)
Reference filter (LAB)
Reference filter (FIELD)
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
ESIM_02.XLS, 27.05.2000
Figure 42. Measured penetration values of the test filter and reference filter. Glass fiber filter
(F7), PMS LAS X particle counter.
42
60
Test filter (LAB)
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
ESIM_02.XLS, 27.05.2000
Figure 43. Corrected test results. Glass fiber filter (F7), PMS LAS X particle counter.
Figures 44 and 45 show the corresponding results in the case of F7 synthetic filter. In this
case the disagreement between the measured penetration values and the expected values
is quite large. This is probably due to the fact that this filter was electrostatic air filter, i.e. it
included a layer with electrostatically charged fibers. The correction procedure provides
again results which are quite close to the ones measured with the laboratory system.
60
Test filter (LAB)
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
Esim_01, 02.06.2000
Figure 44. Measured penetration values of the test filter and reference filter. Polymer fiber
filter (F7), MetOne 237 particle counter.
43
60
Test filter (LAB)
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
Esim_01, 02.06.2000
Figure 45. Corrected test results. Polymer fiber filter (F7), MetOne 237 particle counter.
Experiments were also made to check if the correction method can be used in the case of
portable optical particle counter MetOne 237. Figure 46 shows the penetration values
measured with F5 glass fiber filter. The corresponding corrected result shown in Figure 47
indicate that the correction procedure provides results which are in a good agreement with
the expected values.
100
90
80
70
Penetration (%)
60
50
40
Test filter (LAB)
30
Test filter (FIELD)
20 Reference filter (LAB)
10 Reference filter (FIELD)
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
ESIM_04.XLS, 02.06.2000
(F5), MetOne 237 particle counter.
44
100
90
80
70
Penetration (%)
60
50
40
30 Test filter (LAB)

Test filter (FIELD)
20
10 Reference filter (FIELD)
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
ESIM_04.XLS, 02.06.2000
Figure 47. Corrected test results. Glass fiber filter (F5), MetOne 237 particle counter.
Figures 48 and 49 show the corresponding results in the case of F7 glass fiber filter. In this
case the measured penetration values are quite close to the expected values. The
correction method increases the level of agreement. These results also indicate that the
present system can be used to detect the tiny leak which was made to the filter.
60
Test filter (LAB)
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
ESIM_03.XLS, 02.06.2000
(F7), MetOne 237 particle counter.
45
60
Test filter (LAB)
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
Leakage
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
ESIM_03.XLS, 02.06.2000
Figure 49. Corrected test results. Glass fiber filter (F7), MetOne 237 particle counter.
6 Discussion
The feasibility of various particle measurement methods for in situ testing of ventilation filters
has been studied. The methods include basic gravimetric methods and optical aerosol
measurement instruments. The study has been made mostly by laboratory experiments. The
studies include measurements which simulate normal ambient air conditions.
The results indicate that gravimetric method based on total mass concentration of airborne
particles produces values which are strongly affected by the environmental conditions. Even
though this method may be ideal for estimating the quality of filtered air, it does not provide
reliable information about filter performance. The gravimetric method which utilizes a particle
pre-separation technique, i.e. concentration measurements for particles below 2.5 µm,
produces somewhat more relevant information about the filter efficiency. However, even this
technique is too much effected to the variations in the measurement conditions.
The method based on the use of two identical cascade impactors can be used to measure
filter performance in field conditions. It suits especially in those cases when particle
concentrations are high which makes it possible to use relatively short sampling periods. In
conventional ambient air conditions, the required sampling times are several days unless a
very sophisticated sample weighing technique is used. It also seems that reliable efficiency
or penetration values can be measured provided that the measurements are repeated until
statistically valid data is obtained.
The feasibility of an aerosol photometer turned out to be poor. This is partly due to the
inadequate sensitivity and the fact that the response of the photometer is strongly affected
by the particle size distribution. Thus, the penetration values measured in ambient air
conditions vary strongly.
The most suitable alternative for filter efficiency measurements in field conditions is optical
particle counter. This is due to the high sensitivity and the speed of the measurement.
Optical particle counter produces also information about particle size distribution which
makes it possible to measure fractional penetration values.
46
There are, however, several problems which can cause significant errors. The concentration
of fine particles in ambient air may exceed the operational range of the instrument. This is a
serious problem because particle counters do not give any warning about excessive
concentrations. Thus, the one making filter tests should be able to check if the particle
concentrations are within a proper range.
Due to the shape of the atmospheric particle size distribution, the number concentration of
large particles may be too low for statistically accurate measurements. In this work this
problem has been reduced by using a virtual impactor to increase the concentration of large
particles in the sample air flow. This technique has made it possible to extend the practical
particle size range up to 3-5 µm. This particle size range seems to feasible for detecting
leaks in filtration systems equipped with F7 (or better) filters.
The essential part of the study was the improving the reliability of experimental results with
the aid of reference filter technique. This method causes some extra difficulties in the
measurements but it provides valuable information which can be used to determine if the
measurement conditions are favorable enough. It seems even possible to utilize reference
filter technique to correct the experimental penetration values in such a way that some of the
natural inaccuracy can be significantly reduced.
One of the major problems in filter testing is the proper sampling technique. In some cases,
long sampling tubes must be used to collect representative aerosol samples from both sides
of the filter. This may cause significant errors because particle losses in downstream
sampling line may differ from those in the upstream sampling line. This problem can be
avoided by using two identical particle counters. According to the experimental results this
can be accomplished by carefully calibrating the particle counters. The use of this technique,
however, requires a careful test routine which will show that instrument operate identically in
all measurement conditions.
The problem of particle sampling can also be reduced by means of storage chambers, i.e.
particle samples are collected into identical chambers. These chambers are transported
quickly to measurement site where they are connected to the particle counter. By measuring
the particle concentrations from both chambers it is possible to determine penetration
values. The agreement with the results obtained with this technique are in good agreement
with the ones measured with conventional techniques. Further studies are, however, needed
to check the feasibility of the method under difficult environmental conditions.
References
Anon. (1993) EN 779:1993. Particulate air filters for general ventilation - Requirements,
testing, marking. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels 1993.
Anon. (1999) ASHRAE 52.2:1999, Method of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning
Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size. The American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1999.
Anon. (1997) EUROVENT 4/9. Method of Testing Air Filters Used in General Ventilation for
Determination of Fractional Efficiency. Eurovent 1997.
47
Anon. (1999) Eurovent 4/10-1996. In Situ Determination of Fractional Efficiency of General
Ventilation Filters. Eurovent 1996.
Anon. (2000) prEN 779, Final draft, February 2000.
Hanley, J.T. et. Al. Fractional Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Air Cleaners. In Proceedings of
Indoor Air ’93, Vol 6. (Seppänen, O. et. Al., editors), Helsinki 1993, pp. 369-374.
Keskinen, J., Pietarinen, K., Lehtimäki, M. Electrical Low Pressure Impactor. J. Aerosol Sci.
23 (1992), pp. 353-360.
Lehtimäki M and Taipale A. Performance of Ventilation Filters (Pilot field study, material test
and full scale field test). TAKE IAQ E, Report 26, Finnish Development Center for Building
Services, Helsinki 1999.
Loo, B.W., Cork, C.P. Development of High Efficiency Virtual Impactors. Aerosol Science
and Technology 9 (1988), pp. 167-176.
Sinisalo, R. Calibration data (Resical Oy, Turku, Finland), 2000.
Whitby, K.T. Workplace Aerosol Size Distributions and Their Interpretation. In Aerosols in
the Mining and Industrial Work Environments, Vol 2 Characterization (Marple, V.A. and Liu,
B.Y.H, editors), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor 1983.
Williams, K., Fairchild, C., Jaklevic, J. Dynamic Mass Measurement Techniques. In Aerosol
Measurement. Principles, Techniques, and Applications (Willeke, K, Baron, P., editors). Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York 1993, pp. 296-312.
48
Appendix: FIELD TEST METHOD FOR THE MEASUREMENT
OF FILTER EFFICIENCY
Key words: Air filter, efficiency, penetration, filter testing, in situ testing
Please notice that this is still a draft version of a suggested NT VVS method. This
draft will be scrutinized by a body of experts before the final version is published
Contents
1 Scope
2 Field of Application
3 References
4 Definitions
5 Sampling
6 Method of Test
1 SCOPE
This Nordtest method is intended to be used in the testing of ventilation filters in their normal
operation conditions. The purpose of the test is to determine if the fractional efficiency of the
filter(s) differ significantly from those expected from the laboratory tests.
2 FIELD OF APPLICATION
The method is primarily intended to be used in the testing of filters used in general
ventilation systems. The method can also be applied to any filter which is used in
comparable conditions.
3 REFERENCES
1. ASHRAE 52.2:1999, Method of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning Devices for
Removal Efficiency by Particle Size. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1999.
2. EN 779:1993. Particulate air filters for general ventilation - Requirements, testing,

marking. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels 1993.
3. EUROVENT 4/9. Method of Testing Air Filters Used in General Ventilation for
Determination of Fractional Efficiency. Eurovent 1997.
4. Eurovent 4/10-1996. In Situ Determination of Fractional Efficiency of General

Ventilation Filters. Eurovent 1996.
49
4 DEFINITIONS
Aerosol
An assembly of liquid or solid particles suspended in a gaseous medium long enough to

enable observation or measurement.
Aerosol particle
A small discrete object suspended in gaseous media.
Particle size
For spherical particles the size of a particle is defined as the diameter of the spherical object.
When using optical particle counter the equivalent PSL (polystyrene latex) particle size is
used. This is the particle size indicated by the particle counter calibrated with monodispersed
PSL particles.
Aerodynamic particle size is an equivalent particle size defined as a diameter of a unit

density sphere having the same aerodynamic properties as the particle in question.
Aerodynamic particle size is used e.g. when measuring the particle size distribution with a
cascade impactor.
Particle concentration
The number of particles in a specified volume of air. Particle number concentration is defined
as the number of particles in a unit volume of air. Number concentration is typically used e.g.
when making measurements with an optical particle counter.
Particle mass concentration is defined as the particle mass in unit volume of air. Mass
concentration is normally used when measuring particle concentration with filter sample or
gravimetric method.
Particle size distribution
A relationship expressing the quantity of a particle property (number or mass) associated

with particles in a given size range. Optical particle size analyzer is typically used to measure
particle number size distribution while cascade impactor is used when particle mass size
distribution is to be measured.
Filter efficiency
Filter efficiency or removal efficiency is expressed in terms of an efficiency of collection, the

fraction of entering particles that are retained by the filter. Filter efficiency E can be
calculated by
æ c ö
E = 100 çç1 − b ÷÷ (A 1)
è ca ø
where ca and cb refer to the concentration of particles entering and leaving the filter.
Filter Penetration
50
Filter penetration is given by
æc ö
P = 100 çç b ÷÷ (A 2)
è ca ø
Flow rate
Filter flow rate qV is the volumetric flow through the filter.
Pressure drop
Pressure drop is the pressure difference across the filter caused by the filter material's
resistance to air flowing through it.
5 SAMPLING
A single ventilation filter or filter installation must be tested in normal operation conditions.
6 METHOD OF TEST
6.1 Principle
The basic principles of the test method are presented in EUROVENT 4/10 (Anon. 1996) This
test method includes additional instructions about the use of a reference filter method and
some other details which improve the possibilities to make filter efficiency measurements in
ambient air conditions.
The purpose of the test method is to determine fractional efficiency or penetration of a

ventilation filter or filter installation in normal operation conditions. This is accomplished by
measuring the upstream and downstream particle size distributions with an optical particle
counter or other size selective measuring instrument which is shown to provide reliable
results in ambient air conditions. The measured particle concentrations corresponding to
certain particle size values are used to calculate filter efficiency E or filter penetration P.
The filter test is made by using ambient air particles. This may cause significant errors is
particle sizing. Thus, a reference filter with known filtration characteristics is utilized to check
if the measurement conditions are favorable enough for a reliable filter test. The reference
filter method is also used to make a field calibration of the particle counter in such a way that
the effect of inaccurate particle sizing can be reduced.
6.2 Apparatus
6.2.1 Basic principles
The basic principle of the test system is illustrated in Figure A-1. This system includes
• sampling probes
• sampling tubes
• valves
• virtual impactor & pump
• particle counter
51
Figure A- 1. Basic principle of the measurement method. Measurement with one particle
counter.
The diameters of the upstream and downstream sampling probes are chosen in such a way
that isokinetic conditions can be assumed to prevail. Sampling lines should be constructed in
such a way that particle losses can be minimized. This may be difficult in many of the test
locations. Especially, if the overall efficiency of a large filter installation is tested, the
downstream sampling location should be far from the filter to ensure effective air mixing.
Sampling probes are installed in such a way that representative values of particle
concentrations can be measured from both sides of the filter. If the efficiency of a filter is to
be measured, the downstream sampling point is located no closer than 0.5 m from the back
side of the filter. If the overall efficiency of the filtration system is to be tested, the
downstream sampling point is placed far enough to guarantee effective air mixing between
the filter and sampling point.
Sampling probes are connected to the particle measurement system with the aid of sampling
tubes. Sampling tubes must be made of anti-static material and they must be kept as short
as possible to minimize particle losses. All sampling lines should be as identical as possible,
i.e. tube lengths and the radii of the bends should be identical. If long sampling tubes with
several bends are used, the similar sampling system must be tested in laboratory to
determine the influence of particle losses.
Manually or automatically operated ball valves with large aperture should be used for switch
between upstream and downstream sampling lines. The present system includes an optional
virtual impactor which is can be used to increase the concentration of large particles. This is
of great importance if the test method is used to check the influence of air leaks. Virtual
impactor is operated with a pump which also guarantees an adequate sample flow through
the sampling lines.
Filter measurements must be made at the concentration level which is within the limits of the
particle counter. Proper dilution system must be used if the particle concentration exceeds
the upper concentration limit of the particle counter. The procedures of aerosol dilution are
presented in EUROVENT 4/10.
52
The measurement system shown in Figure A-1 is used to measure the efficiency or
penetration of the test filter(s) and a reference filter the properties of which are accurately
known from controlled laboratory measurements. The reference filter should be chosen in
such a way that its penetration curve can be assumed to very close to that of the test filter.
The filtration properties (fractional efficiency and/or penetration) of the reference filter are
measured in controlled laboratory conditions by using the methods described in prEN779.
6.2.2 Modification 1
The measurement system shown in Figure A-1 can be used to measure the efficiency of the
test filter and reference filter. It is, however, important that the efficiencies of test filter and
reference filter are measured as simultaneously as possible. Thus, the test should be
preferably made with a system illustrated in Figure A-2. This system includes three sampling
lines, i.e. an additional sampling line and valve for the reference filter. This arrangement
makes it possible to measure both filters almost simultaneously.
Figure A- 2. Principle of the measurement system. Simultaneous measurement of test filter

and reference filter, one particle counter
6.2.3 Modification 2
Filter properties can also be measured with two identical particle counters (Figure A-3). The
advantage of this method is the sampling which can be made with short sampling tubes. The
upstream particle counter (#1) is used to measure the concentration of unfiltered air and the
air downstream of the reference filter. Thus, the efficiency of the reference filter is measured
with the aid of valve system. The efficiency of the test filter is determined from the results
provided with the upstream particle counter #1 (unfiltered air) and the downstream particle
counter #2 (filtered air). The main advantage of this method is the simultaneous
measurement of upstream and downstream concentrations. It also allows downstream
particle sampling far from the filter which is very important if the influence of air leaks are
tested.
53
It must be emphasized that the particle counters must be exactly identical which may require
very careful calibration of the instruments. If two particle counters are used in filter efficiency
measurements, a test series is required to show that the system produces efficiency values
which are in accordance with those measured with a particle counter equipped with valve
sampling system.
Figure A- 3. Principle of the measurement system. Two particle counters.
6.3 Procedure
6.3.1 Basic steps

The test procedure includes practically the same steps as described in EUROVENT 4/10, i.e.
• air flow of the filter(s) shall be either estimated or measured with proper air velocity meter
(e.g thermal anemometer)
• air humidity and temperature inside the ventilation system are measured and recorded
• filter pressure drop (static pressure) is measured with a micromanometer
• fractional efficiency of the test filter and the reference filter is measured as described
below
Besides these steps the checklist according to EUROVENT 4/10 should also be followed, i.e.
• air temperature and humidity in the air surrounding the measuring instruments are
measured and recorded (values must be within the range specified for the instruments)
• particle concentration level is checked to ensure that measurements are made within the
operational range of the particle counter - if necessary, a proper aerosol diluter is used
• the tightness of the measurement system is tested with the aid of HEPA filters in the both
sampling lines
6.3.2 Sampling cycles - basic procedure

Aerosol sampling system shown in Figure A-1 is used to measure particle concentrations
alternately from upstream and downstream of the test filter. Next, the same procedure is
54
used to measure particle concentrations from both sides of the reference filter. Thus, the
measurement of the efficiency of the test filter and the reference filter does not take place
simultaneously. This may cause significant inaccuracy if measurement conditions vary
strongly with time.
The particle counting cycle in these measurements are defined in prEN779. The timing of
the measurement is shown in Table A-1. This timing must be applied separately to the test
filter and the reference filter, i.e. two separate efficiency tests are made.
Table A- 1. Measurement cycles: measurement with an optical particle counter equipped

with two valves.
Measurement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number
Upstream Nu, 1 Nu, 2 Nu, 3 Nu, 4 Nu, 5 Nu, 6 Nu, 7
Downstream Nd, 1 Nd, 2 Nd, 3 Nd, 4 Nd, 5 Nd, 6
procedure_01.xls, 16.06.2000
6.3.3 Sampling cycles - Modification 1

Aerosol sampling system shown in Figure A-2 is used to measure particle concentrations
alternately from upstream and downstream of the test filter and reference filter. The particle
counting cycles are defined in accordance with the one presented in prEN779. The timing of
the measurement is shown in Table A-2. The measurement of the efficiencies of test filter
and the reference filter takes place almost simultaneously, i.e. effects of varying
measurement conditions can be significantly reduced.
Table A- 2. Measurement cycles: measurement with an particle counter equipped with three
valves.
Measurement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number
Downstream Nd, 1 Nd, 2 Nd, 3
Reference Nr, 1 Nr, 2 Nr, 3
Measurement
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Number
Downstream Nd, 4 Nd, 5 Nd, 6
Reference Nr, 4 Nr, 5 Nr, 6
6.3.4 Sampling cycles - Modification 2

The timing of the measurement is shown in Table A-3.
Table A- 3. Measurement cycles: measurement with two particle counters equipped with two
valves.
Measurement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number
Reference Nr, 1 Nr, 2 Nr, 3 Nr, 4 Nr, 5 Nr, 6
Downstream Nd, 1 Nd Nd, 2 Nd Nd, 3 Nd Nd, 4 Nd Nd, 5 Nd Nd, 6 Nd Nd, 7
55
6.4 Handling of the test results.
6.4.1 Fractional penetration

Fractional penetration Pi, i.e. penetration corresponding to a certain size channel of the
particle counter is given by
N d ,i
Pi = (A 3)
( N u ,i + N u ,i +1 ) / 2
where Nd,i refers to the i th downstream particle count while Nu,i and Nu,i+1 refer to the
corresponding upstream particle counts measured right before and right after the
downstream measurement. This technique is used to minimize the effects of varying
upstream particle concentrations during the efficiency measurement. Equation (A-3)
corresponds to the conventional efficiency measurement with two-valve sampling system.
When measuring particles from the storage chambers, fractional penetration is given by
N d ,i
P= (A 4)
N u ,i
where Nd,i refers to the i th downstream particle count from downstream storage chamber
and Nu,i to the corresponding particle count measured from the downstream storage
chamber. This equation is also used when filter testing is made with two optical particle
counters.
The corresponding equation for three-valve sampling system is given by

N d ,i
Pi = (A 5)
( N u , 2i −1 + N u , 2i ) / 2
where Nd,i refers to the i th downstream particle count while Nu,2i-1 and Nu,2i refer to the
corresponding upstream particle counts measured right before and right after the
downstream measurement.
The corresponding equation for the penetration Pref of the reference filter is
N r ,i
Pref ,i = (A 6)
( N u , 2i + N u , 2i + 1) / 2
where Nr,i refers to the i th downstream particle count and Nu,2i and Nu,2i+1 to the upstream
particle counts, respectively.
The fractional penetration Pave is the average of the individual penetration values, i.e.
æ1ö n
Pave = ç ÷ å Pi (n = 6) (A 7)
è n ø i =1
This equation is used for both filters, i.e. average penetration values are calculated
separately for the test filter and the reference filter.
The uncertainty ∆P of the average fractional penetration is calculated using the same
principle as in EUROVENT 4/10 and prEN 779, i.e.
δ
∆P = k n (A 8)
n
56
where kn refers to the factor the value of which depends on the degree of freedom and the
confidence level (see e.g. ISO 2854-1976). At the 95 % confidence level the following values
are used k4 = 2.35, k5 = 2.13, k6 = 2.02, k7 = 1.94, k8 = 1.90, k9 = 1.86, k10 = 1.83, k11 = 1.81
and k12 = 1.80).
Standard deviation δ is given by

n
å (P − Pi ave )2
(A 9)
δ = kn i =1
n −1
Thus, the final result is expressed in the form
P = Pave ± ∆P (A 10)
6.4.2 Determination of equivalent penetration

The experimental penetration values are used to determine corresponding equivalent
penetration values. Figure A-4 illustrates the principle of the procedure which is based on the
calibration curve, i.e. the penetration curve of the reference filter measured in controlled
laboratory conditions. The penetration of the reference filter measured with ambient air
particles is compared with the calibration curve. This comparison is utilized to determine a
corrected particle size for each size channel of the particle counter. The corrected particle
size is equal to the particle size corresponding the same penetration value on the calibration
curve. Then, the similar particle size correction is made for the test filter data. This correction
procedure is actually a field calibration method which is used to reduce the inaccuracy
caused by inaccurate particle sizing.
100
OPC's Size REFERENCE FILTER
Channel Test result (reference filter)
80
Test result (test filter)
Corrected result (ref. filter)
Penetration (%)
CORRECTED RESULT
60
40
20 Nominal particle size Corrected particle size
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
PRINCIPLE.XLS, 19.05.2000
Figure A- 4. Correction procedure for filter penetration measurement.
6.5 Expression of results
6.5.1 Filtration system

The following information about the filtration system results should be given:
• description of the ventilation system (location, traffic conditions, major particle sources)
57
• weather conditions
• schematic drawing of the air filtration system
• number of filters
• type of filters
• age of filters
• location of the sampling points
• other comments
6.5.2 Air data

The information dealing with the properties of the air entering the filter(s) should include:
• air flow
• pressure drop
• relative humidity
• temperature
6.5.3 Measurement instruments

The instruments used in the filter testing must be reported as follows:
• properties of particle counter(s)
• calibration data of the particle counter(s)
• description of the dilution system
• description of the aerosol concentrator (virtual impactor)
• description of the sampling system (sampling probes, sampling tubes, valves, storage
chambers)
• reference filter(s)
• sample flow rate(s)
6.5.4 Fractional penetration

Test results should include:
• penetration values for each size channel of the optical particle counter
• uncertainty of the penetration values for each size channel of the optical particle counter
• corrected particle sizes for each size channel
58
Table A- 4. Example of measurement results.
Test filter:
Channel Channel
boundaries midpoint P (%) ∆P (%) P 1 (%) P 2 (%) P 3 (%) P 4 (%) P 5 (%) P 6 (%)
(µm) (µm)
0.3 - 0.5 0.39 50.57 1.644 52.22 49.69 48.30 51.15 53.32 48.75
0.5 - 0.7 0.59 29.95 2.033 27.88 28.23 29.98 34.71 29.48 29.42
0.7- 1 0.84 19.31 1.913 22.13 17.28 15.88 19.76 19.92 20.88
1-2 1.41 9.79 1.849 11.35 8.33 7.84 7.23 12.53 11.45
2-5 3.16 2.73 1.874 0.33 2.60 1.01 2.16 6.74 3.55
>5 7.07 2.95 1.394 3.03 2.76 1.94 2.30 6.20 1.45
Reference filter:
Channel Channel
boundaries midpoint P (%) ∆P (%) P 1 (%) P 2 (%) P 3 (%) P 4 (%) P 5 (%) P 6 (%)
(µm) (µm)
0.3 - 0.5 0.39 44.81 1.651 40.86 45.86 45.33 46.21 45.83 44.77
0.5 - 0.7 0.59 24.92 1.791 20.93 25.48 26.20 25.27 24.39 27.23
0.7- 1 0.84 14.49 1.718 15.16 13.29 11.18 17.00 14.23 16.06
1-2 1.41 6.50 1.358 4.35 8.59 5.47 5.58 6.94 8.07
2-5 3.16 0.53 0.526 0.20 0.61 0.61 0.04 0.00 1.71
>5 7.07 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Model_Result.xls, 16.06.2000
The results shall also include the penetration values of the reference filter as measured
under controlled laboratory conditions. The corrected test result shall include the measured
penetration values and the particle size values determined from the calibration curve of the
reference filter. The results must also include the calculated uncertainties.
Table A- 5. Results of the correction procedure.

Test filter Reference filter
Channel Channel Corrected
boundaries midpoint P (%) ∆P (%) P (%) ∆P (%) particle
(µm) (µm) size (µm)
0.3 - 0.5 0.39 50.57 1.64 44.81 1.65 0.27
0.5 - 0.7 0.59 29.95 2.03 24.92 1.79 0.47
0.7- 1 0.84 19.31 1.91 14.49 1.72 0.70
1-2 1.41 9.79 1.85 6.50 1.36 1.10
2-5 3.16 2.73 1.87 0.53 0.53 2.30
>5 7.07 2.95 1.39 0.00 0.00 7.07
Model_Result.xls, 16.06.2000
Figure A-5 illustrates an example about how to present the uncorrected and corrected
penetration values in a single graph.
59
60
Ref. filter, calibration curve
Ref. filter (FIELD)
50 Ref. filter, corrected
Test filter (FIELD)
Test filter, corrected
Penetration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (µm)
Model Result.xls, 16.06.2000
Figure A- 5. Example of graphical presentation of the measurement results
6.6 Accuracy
The accuracy of the filter test in field conditions is difficult to define. The general principle is,
however, that the uncertainty of the measurement should be in the range of 1 .. 5 %.
6.7 Test report

The test report should include the following information:
a) Name and address of the testing laboratory

b) Identification number of the test report
c) Name and address of the organization or the person who ordered the test
d) Purpose of the test
e) Description of the ventilation system
f) Name and address of the manufacturer of the filter(s).
g) Name or other identification marks of the tested filter(s).
h) Date of the test
i) Test method
j) Conditioning of the test specimens, environmental data during the test (temperature,
pressure, RH, etc.)
k) Identification of the test equipment and instruments used
l) Any deviation from the test method
m) Test results
n) Inaccuracy or uncertainty of the test result
o) Date and signature
60
TECHNICAL REPORTS FROM EXPERT GROUP VVS (Heating, Ventilation and Sanitation)
275 Hestad, T., Test method for inlet terminals, non-isothermal inlet. Oslo 1994. Norwegian Building
Research Institute, Report O 6807. 28 p. (in Norwegian) NT Project No. 1109-93.
276 Eriksson, P., Hansson, S. & Larsson, E., Comparison of the NKB method, generally used in the Nordic
countries, and a commenced CEN proposal for tests regarding the resistance of pipe fittings to stress
corrosion. Borås 1995. Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, SP Technical Notes
1995:12. 21 p. (in Swedish) NT Project No. 1148-93.
291 Ovesen, K. & Nielsen, V., Ageing of mountings - Endurance of valves for heating systems. Espoo
1995. Nordtest, NT Techn Report 291. 28 p. (In Danish, partly in English) NT Project No. 728-87, 952-
91.
320 Lehtimäki, M., Development of test methods for electret filters. Espoo 1996. Nordtest, NT Techn
Report 320. 57 p. NT Project No. 1164-94.
321 Stymne, H., Method to determine local mean ages of air and air exchange efficiency in large buildings
and buildings with many rooms. Espoo 2003. Nordtest, NT Techn Report 321. 34 p. NT Project No.
1165-94.
360 Jönsson, M., Ducts and connectors - Resistance and emission of fibres by cleaning. Espoo 1997.
Nordtest, NT Techn Report 360. 17 p. (in Swedish) NT Project No. 1275-96.
361 Gjerde M., Inter-calibration of air velocity calibration apparatus. Oslo 1997. Norwegian Building
Research Institute (NBI), NBI oppdragsnr. O 7487/NT Techn Report 361. 79 p. (in Norwegian) NT
Project No. 1276-96.
387 Smidt, H-D.,Round robin test for measuring of thermal conductivity in preinsulated pipes. Aarhus 1998.
Danish Technological Institute. Nordtest report 387. 54 p. NT Project 1331-97.
453 Hestad, T., Ceiling cooling systems, cooling capacity and air flow pattern - A method proposal for a
revised NT VVS 078. Espoo 2000. Nordtest, NT Techn Report 453. 4 p. NT Project No.1241-95.
456 Hestad, T., Intercalibration of air volume and mass flow rate measuring units. Oslo 2001. Norwegian
Building Research Institute (NBI). NBI oppdragsnr. O 9719/NT Techn Report 456. 15 p. (in Norwegian)
NT Project No.1463-99.
495 Smidt, H-D.,Intercomparison of sandboxes used for testing joints for district heating pipes. Espoo
2002. Nordtest, NT Techn Report 495. 48 p. NT Project No.1554-01.
511 Johansson, C., Floor heating systems. Borås 2000. Swedish National Testing and Research Institute,
SP AR 2000:09. 74 p. (in Swedish) NT Project No. 1402-98.
531 Lehtimäki, M. & Taipale, A., Field test method for the measurement of filter efficiency. Espoo 2004.
Nordtest, NT Techn Report 531. 60 p. NT Project No. 1474-99.
532 Klobut, K., Round Robin test on heat exchanger for district heating. Espoo 2003. Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Research Report No. RTE1267/03. 30 p. NT Project No. 1613-02.
NORDTEST
TECHNICAL REPORT 531
Nordtest, founded in 1973, is an institution under the Nordic Council of

Ministers and acts as a joint Nordic body in the field of conformity
assessment. The emphasis is on the development of Nordic test methods
and on Nordic co-operation concerning conformity assessment. The main
task is to take part in the development of international pre-normative
activity. Nordtest is yearly funding projects in its field of activity.
Nordtest endeavours to
• promote viable industrial development and industrial competitive-
ness, remove technical barriers to trade and promote the concept
“Approved Once Accepted Everywhere” in the conformity assess-
ment area
• work for health, safety, environment in methods and standards
• promote Nordic interests in an international context and Nordic par-
ticipation in European co-operation
• finance joint research in conformity assessment and the develop-
ment and implementation of test methods
• promote the use of the results of its work in the development of
techniques and products, for technology transfer, in setting up stand-
ards and rules and in the implementation of these
• co-ordinate and promote Nordic co-operation in conformity assess-
ment
• contribute to the Nordic knowledge market in the field of conform-
ity assessment and to further development of competence among
people working in the field
12

Field Test Method for Measuring Filter Efficiency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Field Test Method for Measuring Filter Efficiency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TR 531

Field Test Method for the

Technical Group: Expert Group VVS

Cascade impactors can be used to determine filter efficiency or penetration at different

2.1 Efficiency and penetration

The corresponding equation for filter penetration is

2.2 Particle size distributions

According to Whitby (1983), atmospheric particle size distributions can be modeled by

Table 1. Size distribution parameters (Whitby 1983).

Mass median particle size dg(µm) 0.038 0.32 5.70

Geometric standard deviation σg 1.80 2.16 2.21

Nuclei: 1 µg/m³, Accum.: 20 µg/m³, Coarse: 30 µg/m³

Figure 4. An example of particle mass size distribution.

Figure 5. An example of particle number size distribution.

2.3 What should be measured in field conditions

Figure 6. Decrease of filter performance under normal operation conditions.

Figure 7. Effect of leak in the filtration system.

3 Methods and instruments

3.1 Optical measuring instruments

3.1.2 Portable optical particle counter (OPC)

3.1.3 Aerodynamic particle sizer (APS)

3.1.4 Condensation particle counter (CPC)

3.1.5 Aerosol photometers

Figure 10 illustrates schematically the response or mass sensitivity function of an aerosol

Figure 10. Mass sensitivity of an aerosol photometer.

3.2 Electrical measuring instruments

3.2.1 Scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS)

Differential mobility analyze is utilized in a commercial instrument called scanning mobility

3.2.2 Electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI)

3.3 Gravimetric measuring instruments

3.3.1 Filter sampling

3.3.2 Particle size limited sampling

Particle pre-separation is normally accomplished with an elutriator, a cyclone or an impaction

3.3.4 Particle mass monitor

3.4 Accessories to aerosol measuring instruments

3.4.1 Aerosol diluter

DILU_01.DS4, 19.06.2000 Diluted aerosol

Figure 18. Principle of an aerosol diluter.

3.4.2 Aerosol concentrators

Figure 19. Principle of a virtual impactor.

Sample air flow

Figure 20. Principle of an inertial impactor.

3.4.4 Reference filter

Glue Reference filter

3.4.5 Storage chamber

Sample air flow Absolute filter

To the To the particle

Figure 22. Principle of the storage chamber method.

4 Experiments with optical measuring devices

4.1 Aerosol photometer

Downstream c_m (mg/m³)

Figure 23. Concentration values registered with Dustrak aerosol photometer.

Figure 24. Penetration values measured with Dustrak photometer.

4.2.1 Principle of the measurement

4.2.2 Particle size correction

20 Nominal particle size Corrected particle size

Figure 26. Correction procedure for filter penetration measurement.

4.3.1 Sampling with long tubes

4.3.2 Simultaneous measurement with two optical particle

5.1 Experiments with two optical particle counters

2.5 One OPC

5.2 Experiments with storage chambers

5.3 Experiments with the particle size correction