1 / 55

Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration (PHEAF) Device Field Testing and Validation Standard

Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration (PHEAF) Device Field Testing and Validation Standard. ANSI/IESO Standard 4310-2009. WHERE ARE HEPA FILTERS USED?. Whenever we need to move contaminated air - without the contamination coming along for the ride.

nan
Download Presentation

Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration (PHEAF) Device Field Testing and Validation Standard

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration (PHEAF) DeviceField Testing and Validation Standard ANSI/IESO Standard 4310-2009

  2. WHERE ARE HEPA FILTERSUSED? Whenever we need to move contaminated air - without the contamination coming along for the ride

  3. ASBESTOS, LEAD AND MICROBIAL REMEDIATION . . . AFDs & HEPA Vacuums

  4. MERCURY SPILL CLEAN UP, RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES AFDs & HEPA Vacuums

  5. HEPA FILTERS HEPA filters are designed to be 99.97 efficient at 0.3 micron size particles But what happens to that efficiency when you place that filter into a portable filtration device?

  6. They are no longer HEPA efficient !1. They leak at the edges2. They leak at the seals 3. They loose their seal during movement4. They get micro holes5. They grow stuff

  7. RESEARCHSHOWING ACTUAL PARTICLE LEAKAGE

  8. PHEAF DEVICE SHOWING NO LEAKAGE

  9. PHEAF DEVICE SHOWING A LITTLE LEAKAGE

  10. PHEAF DEVICE SHOWING SOME LEAKAGE

  11. PHEAF DEVICE SHOWING WORRISOME LEAKAGE

  12. HISTORY The first call for a “in field” testing and certification standard for portable HEPA filtered devices appeared in an article in Outlook magazine in 1990. That was almost 20 years ago.

  13. HISTORY Since 1990, the cost and portability of the particle counting equipment required for “in field” testing and certification has significantly decreased. This equipment is now within the price range for large contractors or for consultants to test equipment as part of their oversight of an abatement or remediation project.

  14. HAND-HELD PARTICLE COUNTERS LIGHTHOUSE MET ONE FLUKE KANOMAX IQAir

  15. HOW CRITICAL IS PHEAF DEVICE TESTING? • Only the HEPA filters are “certified” •Testing is done by a 3rd party • PHEAF device manufacturers do not test or certify the complete device • There is no standard that requires testing or certification of the complete device WHY SHOULD WE TEST THEM ?

  16. CURRENT DOE EXPERIENCE Replacement HEPA filter testing prior to installation into the HEPA device by the Dept. of Energy showed a 20% failure rate of the filters alone 1 IN 5 NEW FILTERS WAS NOT HEPA EFFICIENT !

  17. ACTUAL TESTING EXPERIENCE HEPA filtered equipment contamination of a mold remediation 2. HEPA filtered equipment leaked on an asbestos abatement 3. Testing of numerous pieces of contractor equipment showed significant leakage (shown in std. appendix)

  18. SECONDARY ISSUE Inability to adequately clean a PHEAF device when installing a new HEPA filter (The Kick Test)

  19. DOE performs in field certification ofall HEPA filtered devicesbecause of their experience of significant failure rates and leakage problemsevery time the equipment is moved(USING AEROSOL GENERATION)

  20. Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration (PHEAF) DeviceField Testing and Certification Interim Standard ANSI/IESO Standard 4310-2009

  21. This standard applies to Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration Devices. (PHEAF Devices)This would include vertical and horizontal portable air filter devices, movable vacuums, hand held vacuums, and other filtered suction devices used for cleaning surfaces for the purposes of removing dust, dirt, mold, asbestos, lead and other undesired particulate environmental contaminants. 2. Scope

  22. What standard exist related to testing and certification of HEPA devices?

  23. 1. ASTM F1471 - 09 Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air- Filter System.2. ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2007 : Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size3. DOE-STD-3020-97 : Dept. of Energy, Specification for HEPA filters used by DOE Contractors4. EN 1822-1:1998 : High efficiency air filters (HEPA and ULPA). Classification, performance testing, marking.5. JIS Z 8909-1 Test method of filter media for dust collection. 3. Filter Testing and Certification Standards

  24. What standard should PHEAF devices be tested to?

  25. ASHRAE 52.2 - Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle SizeTHIS IS THE STANDARD THATESTABLISHES MERV RATINGS FOR AIR FILTERS

  26. MERV RATINGS Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value(range from 1-16 and aremeasured in microns)

  27. The PHEAF Device Standard usesthese ASHRAE MERV efficiencies to establish the in field testing and validation criteria

  28. Class 5 device - A portable high efficiency air filtration device that operates as a fully effective and functional air filter, meeting all the filter efficiency requirements of a HEPA filter. (MERV 17)This class of PHEAF device shall be required for all work in hospitals, in other environments where the PHEAF device discharges into the general air space of the building (and for vacuums used outside containment for contaminants such as mercury?) 4. Terminology

  29. Class 4 device - A portable high efficiency air filtration device that operates at a level equivalent to a 99% efficient filter. This class of PHEAF device shall be required for all work in commercial buildings or in other environments where the unit discharges into the air space of the building (and for vacuums used outside containment for contaminants such as mold and asbestos?)

  30. Class 3 device - A portable high efficiency air filtration device that operates at a level equivalent to a MERV 16 filter. (Approx 95% efficient)This class of PHEAF device can be used for environmental contaminant filtering and/or air scrubbing within a containment, provided the containment is under negative pressure and discharges to the outside air.

  31. Class 2 device - A portable high efficiency air filtration device that operates at a level equivalent to a MERV 15 filter. (Approx 90% efficient)This class of PHEAF device shall be the minimum class that is required for portable vacuums that can be used to clean up small, uncontained mold or asbestos releases.

  32. Class 1 device - A portable high efficiency air filtration device that operates at a level equivalent to a MERV 14 filter. This class of PHEAF device can be used for environmental filtering / air scrubbing, within a containment, provided the containment is under negative pressure and discharges to the outside air.

  33. Class 0 device - A portable high efficiency air filtration device that operates at a level equivalent to a MERV 13 filter. This class of PHEAF device can be used to provide general exhaust or negative pressure within a contained area when it discharges to the outside air. This class of portable hand vacuums can discharge into a contained area that is under negative pressure and from which the air is exhausted to outside of the building.

  34. Classification Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 Class 0MERV * 17 NA 16 15 14 13Particle sizeMINIMUM MEASURED PERCENT FILTER EFFICIENCY (in microns) 0.3 99.97 99 95 85 75 75 0.5 99.97 99 95 90 80 75 0.7 99.97 99 95 90 85 75 1.0 99.97 99 95 90 90 80 2.0 99.97 99 95 90 90 85 3.0 99.97 99 95 90 90 90 5.0 99.97 99 99 90 90 90 10.0 99.97 99 99 90 90 90 Table # 1 : Device Classification by Percent Reduction ofIncoming versus Discharge Particle Counts by Particle Size *This table is based on ratings interpolated from ASHRAE 52.2 -2007 MERV for air filters.

  35. GRAPH 1.

  36. The percent efficiency for each particle size range for the unit shall be compared to the percent removal efficiencies in Table 1 or Graph 1 and recorded on the form in Appendix A. A data point that falls between two classes should be rounded down to the lower class. The lowest class recorded for all the size ranges measured will be the designated efficiency class for the unit. I. Reporting and Determining Efficiency Class

  37. Test measurement data shall be recorded on the form in Appendix A. The percent particle count reduction (percent efficiency) for each particle size range shall be calculated using the equation below and also recorded on this form. Discharge particle concentration1 - __________________________ x 100 = % reduction in particle Incoming particle concentration size concentration H. Calculation and Interpreting of Results

  38. APPENDIX APHEAF Device Testing Data Collection FormDevice DataDevice Description ___________________________ Mfgr _____________________Unit ID # __________________ Owner ____________________________________Other Info _____________________________________________________________Test Event DataDate _____________________ Test Administrator ___________________________Location of Test ________________________ Temperature _______ RH _______Particle Counter Model # ___________ Particle Counter Mfgr. __________________Date of Calibration ____________________ Method __________________________Background Airborne Particle Data Size range Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average (Bave) (in microns) (B1) (B2) (B3) (B1 + B2 + B3 / 3) 0.3 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 0.5 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 1.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 2.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 5.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 10.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

  39. Test Results at Exhaust of Unit Size range Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average (Tave) (in microns) (T1) (T2) (T3) (T1 + T2 + T3 / 3) 0.3 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 0.5 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 1.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 2.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 5.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 10.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________Unit Evaluation Size range Background Unit Test Efficiency Maximum (in microns) Ave. (Bave) Ave. (Tave) 1-(Tave/Bavex100) Class Rating* 0.3 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 0.5 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 1.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 2.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 5.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ 10.0 ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________* See Table 1 or Graph 1 for Minimum Particle Efficiencies for Different Classes of Portable High Efficiency Air Filtration Devices (Round down to lower class when data is between two classes)Overall Classification of Device (minimum rating above) __________________Comments ______________________________________________________

  40. However, a rating under this method may not be the same as the aerosol method.

  41. Standard Challenge ConcentrationAerosol Equip. 100 µg/l 100 mg/m3ASHRAE 52.2 16.3 x 109 p/ft370 mg/m3ASTM F1471 7.0 x 109 p/ft3 30 mg/m3EU 1822 3.52 x 107 p/ft3 0.15 mg/m3 STANDARDS FOR TESTING HEPA FILTERS

  42. STANDARDS FOR TESTING HEPA FILTERS Standard Acceptable Leakage (1- 99.97%= 0.03%) Aerosol Equip. 0.03 µg/m3 ASHRAE 52.2 4.89 x 105 p/ft3 0.021 µg/m3 ASTM F1471 2.1 x 105 p/ft3 0.009 µg/m3 EU 1822 1.05 x 103 p/ft3 0.00045 µg/m3

  43. Consultants in Northern California in the San Francisco Bay area have been specifying mandatory testing of PHEAF devices (using aerosol generation) on asbestos abatement projects for the past 3 years.

  44. TYPICAL TESTING RESULTS

More Related