Premium
Filter evaluation and selection for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems during and beyond the COVID ‐19 pandemic
Author(s) -
Wu Jing,
Chen Jiawei,
Olfert Jason S.,
Zhong Lexuan
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
indoor air
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.387
H-Index - 99
eISSN - 1600-0668
pISSN - 0905-6947
DOI - 10.1111/ina.13099
Subject(s) - filtration (mathematics) , environmental science , mathematics , statistics
Particle size removal efficiencies for 0.1–1.0 μm (PSE 0.1 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.1-1.0} $$ ) and 0.3–1.0 μm (PSE 0.3 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.3-1.0} $$ ) diameter of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters, an electrostatic enhanced air filter (EEAF), and their two‐stage filtration systems were evaluated. Considering the most penetrating particle size was 0.1–0.4 μm particulate matter (PM), thePSE 0.1 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.1-1.0} $$ as an evaluation parameter deserves more attention during the COVID‐19 pandemic, compared to thePSE 0.3 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.3-1.0} $$ . The MERV 13 filters were recommended for a single‐stage filtration system because of their superior quality factor ( QF ) compared to MERV 6, MERV 8, MERV 11 filters, and the EEAF. Combined MERV 8 + MERV 11 filters have the highest QF compared to MERV 6 + MERV 11 filters and EEAF + MERV 11 filters; regarding 50% ofPSE 0.1 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.1-1.0} $$ as the filtration requirements of two‐stage filtration systems, the MERV 8 + MERV 11 filtration system can achieve this value at 1.0 m/s air velocity, whilePSE 0.1 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.1-1.0} $$ values were lower than 50% at 1.5 m/s and 2.0 m/s. EEAF obtained a betterPSE 0.3 − 1.0$$ {PSE}_{0.3-1.0} $$ in the full‐recirculated test rig than in the single‐pass mode owing to active ionization effects when EEAF was charged by alternating current.