Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
IEN
CE
EPA/600/R-08/012 | October 2008 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
ii
FINAL REPORT ON
(614) 424-7970
(614) 424-3025
(614) 424-5610
(614) 424-5639
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................... viii
1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Air Cleaner Selection...............................................................................................................................................3
3.0 Experimental Study.................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Single-Pass Testing.............................................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Test Setup...................................................................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Test Procedure..........................................................................................................................................10
3.1.3 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................................11
3.1.4 Test Results and Discussion.....................................................................................................................12
3.2 In-Room Testing of Air Cleaners......................................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Test Setup.................................................................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Test Procedure..........................................................................................................................................20
3.2.3 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................................20
3.2.4 Results and Discussions...........................................................................................................................20
4.0 Modeling Study......................................................................................................................................................25
4.1 FLUENT CFD Modeling..................................................................................................................................25
4.1.1 Results......................................................................................................................................................25
4.2 Perfectly-Mixed Zone Analysis........................................................................................................................27
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................................................29
6.0 References...............................................................................................................................................................31
Appendix A: Air Cleaner Selection...........................................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: CFD Modeling, Detailed Methodology and Results.........................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Quality Assurance...............................................................................................................................C-1
List of Tables
Table 1. CADR Characteristics of Selected Air Cleaners................................................................................................3
Table 2. Air Cleaners Specifications................................................................................................................................3
Table 3. Test Matrix for Single-Pass Evaluation of Air Cleaners....................................................................................5
Table 4. SMPS Size Channels..........................................................................................................................................8
Table 5. Velocity Characteristics of the ESP Air Cleaner..............................................................................................13
Table 6. ESP Air Cleaner Flow Rates............................................................................................................................13
Table 7. Flow Characteristics of the HEPA Filter..........................................................................................................14
Table 8. In-Room Test Matrix........................................................................................................................................18
Table 9. Calculated Decay Constants.............................................................................................................................23
Table 10. Collected Filter Masses..................................................................................................................................24
List of Figures
Figure 1. Electrostatic Precipitator and HEPA Filter.......................................................................................................4
Figure 2. Schematic of the Single-Pass Efficiency Test Apparatus.................................................................................6
Figure 3. Airflow Measurements for ESP Air Cleaner.....................................................................................................7
Figure 4. Aerosol Sampling Instruments, TSI SMPS and Climet CI-500.......................................................................8
Figure 5. Representative Diameter Distributions of Test Aerosols Obtained Using TSI SMPS
and Climet CI-500............................................................................................................................................9
Figure 6. Plots of Bias Correction Factor (R) and Sampling Variability (V).................................................................12
Figure 7. Local Velocities of the ESP Air Cleaner.........................................................................................................13
Figure 8. Local Velocities of the HEPA Filter................................................................................................................13
Figure 9. Filtration Efficiency for the ESP Air Cleaner.................................................................................................14
Figure 10. Filtration Efficiency for the HEPA Filter......................................................................................................15
Figure 11. ESP Bioaerosol Filtration Efficiency . .........................................................................................................16
Figure 12. HEPA Bioaerosol Filtration Efficiency.........................................................................................................16
Figure 13. Downstream Particle Counts From ESP Bioaerosol Test, Run 2.................................................................17
Figure 14. Upstream Particle Counts From ESP Bioaerosol Test, Run 2......................................................................17
Figure 15. Test Chamber for In-Room Experiments......................................................................................................18
Figure 16. In-Room Test Configuration A.....................................................................................................................19
Figure 17. In-Room Test Configuration B.....................................................................................................................19
Figure 18. In-Room Test Configuration C.....................................................................................................................19
Figure 19. Concentration vs. Time Plots, Individual Configurations............................................................................21
Figure 21. Size Resolved Concentration vs. Time . ......................................................................................................22
Figure 20. Concentration vs. Time Plot, Averaged Data................................................................................................22
Figure 22. Collected Filter Masses................................................................................................................................24
Figure 23. CFD Model Results......................................................................................................................................26
Figure 24. Filter Masses from CFD Calculations..........................................................................................................26
Figure 25. Well-Mixed Zone Model Results ................................................................................................................27
vi
List of Acronyms
AHAM
Bg
CADR
CFD
CV
ESP
HEPA
HVAC
KCl
LES
PM
QAPP
SMPS
vii
Executive Summary
This report describes the experiments and modeling
conducted to determine the effectiveness of commercially
available in-room air cleaners in reducing particulate matter
(PM) levels in a room, and compares the efficiency of the
filters in removing biologically active particulates with their
efficiency in removing inert particles from the air. In one
set of experiments, two air cleaners were evaluated for their
single-pass filtration efficiency as a function of airflow rate,
particle diameter (ranging from 0.03 m to 10 m), and
type of particle (an inert aerosol and a bioaerosol). One of
the air cleaners tested was a high-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filtration device, and the other was an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) air cleaner. Following the single-pass
experiments, the HEPA filter was further evaluated to verify
its effectiveness in reducing in-room PM levels.
For the single-pass testing, the ESP air cleaner displayed a
pronounced minimum in filtration efficiency for particles
~ 0.2 m diameter, consistent with the principles of
electrostatic precipitation. Also, the single-pass efficiency of
the ESP air cleaner was found to decrease with increasing
flow rate through the unit, most likely due to the decreasing
residence time of the particles in the charging and deposition
zones of the collector.
For the HEPA filter, no noticeable effect of flow rate on
the filtration efficiency of the unit was observed, but an
unexpected drop in efficiency was observed for particles
below 0.3 m in diameter. This observation could be
explained by the probability that some leaks developed
around the filter due to its relatively loose fit in the singlepass test apparatus.
Both air cleaners filtration efficiencies for particles with
diameters smaller than approximately 0.04 m were lower
than expected. No difference in the air cleaners filtration
efficiencies was observed for the biological and inert aerosols
having similar particle diameters.
For the in-room experiments, the HEPA filter was
evaluated in a test chamber under four configurations.
In these experiments, the PM concentration decay rate
was determined by continuously monitoring the aerosol
concentration at a particular location in the room, using a
real-time particle counter. Also, average PM levels occurring
in the room were determined using filter samples taken at five
different locations.
The effectiveness of an in-room air cleaner under typical
operating settings depends on three principal characteristics:
1) the single-pass filtration efficiency, 2) the airflow rate
through the filter, and 3) the airflow pattern that the cleaner
viii
1.0
Introduction
This report describes experimental and modeling efforts
to determine the effectiveness of commercially available
in-room filtration devices in reducing indoor ambient PM
levels. The project consisted of four principal phases.
In the first phase, two representative air cleaners were
selected for experimental evaluation, one based on the
high- efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration mechanism
and one using electrostatic precipitation (ESP). In the
second phase of the project, the selected air cleaners were
evaluated for their single-pass filtration efficiency for
2.0
Air Cleaner Selection
The first step in the overall project was to select the air
cleaners for testing. A list of candidate air cleaners was
obtained by performing a brief market survey through the
Internet. Based on the Internet search, the manufacturers
of the candidate air cleaners were contacted to collect the
detailed performance and specification data on their products.
Two air cleaners were then selected, based on the following
selection criteria:
Operating principle: one HEPA filter type air
cleaner and one ESP type air cleaner
Off-the-shelf commercial availability
of a high-quality brand
High aerosol collection efficiency, as specified
by the manufacturer, preferably higher than
99% efficiency for 0.3 m aerosol particles
Airflow rate capacity on the order of 300 ft3/min
(0.142m3/s), or 7 to 10 air exchanges per hour for a
single-room of 8 ft x 16 ft x 8 ft (2.4 m x 4.9 m x 2.4 m)
the size of the test facility available at Battelle
Pollen
(5 to 11m)
ESP
300 (.142)
325 (.153)
370 (.175)
HEPA
320 (.151)
330 (.156)
330 (.156)
Dimensions
ESP
Low
225 cfm (0.106 m3/s)
Medium 275 cfm (0.130 m3/s)
High
365 cfm (0.172 m3/s)
(flows specified by manufacturers)
0.48 m H x 0.38 m L x 0.55 m W
HEPA
Low
275 cfm (0.130 m3/s)
Medium 340 cfm (0.160 m3/s)
High
440 cfm (0.208 m3/s)
(flows measured)
0.56 m H x 0.46 m L x 0.28 m W
Initial Cost
$490
$260
Operating Costs
(energy use)
Maintenance Costs
None specified
3.0
Experimental Study
from 0.3 to 10 m. For each size range, the single-pass
efficiency was determined at three rates of airflow through
the air cleaners (low, medium, and high see Table2).
Duplicate tests were conducted for each experimental
condition. The complete test matrix, including bioaerosol
tests performed in triplicate, is shown in Table 3.
0.03 to 0.5
0.3 to 10
Bioaerosol (Bg spores)
~1
HEPA (# of tests)
ESP (# of tests)
high
medium
low
high
medium
low
medium
allow the droplets to dry before they reached the test duct.
An additional flow of dry air was supplied to the chamber to
assist in drying the particles and to carry them into the test
duct. Before entering the test duct, the particles were passed
through an aerosol neutralizer (containing Kr-85, 10 mCi)
to reduce their charge level. This was necessary as aerosol
particles have a tendency to collect static charge, which may
influence their filtration characteristics.
One of the requirements of this testing was to establish
not only undisturbed, natural airflows through the air
cleaners, but also to provide uniform aerosol concentration
across their inlets. In order to achieve efficient mixing
of particles across the test duct, the aerosol was injected
into the duct against the airflow, as illustrated in Figure2.
In addition, four small mixing fans and a turbulence
enhancement plate were installed upstream of the air
cleaners to improve mixing efficiency. However, due to the
high air velocity in the duct, combined with the short duct
length, an additional dispersion means was required. An
auxiliary aerosol disperser was fabricated using quarterinch diameter copper tubing, which was placed coaxial to
the aerosol delivery tube in the proximity of its injection
point. The tube was plugged, and a number of small holes
were drilled radially near the end of the tube. Pressurized
air was passed through the tube and out through the holes
at high velocity. The resulting flow was designed to entrain
the aerosol as it entered the duct and carry it away from
the center. This setup allowed for a uniform challenge
concentration to be achieved at the air cleaner test location.
Before the tests were conducted, the uniformity of aerosol
concentration was confirmed. To achieve this, aerosol
measurements were performed upstream of the air cleaner,
at a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the flow. The
20.5
27.4
36.5
48.7
64.9
86.6
115
154
205
274
365
487
Lower Limit
17.8
23.7
31.6
42.2
56.2
75.0
100
133
178
237
316
422
Upper Limit
23.7
31.6
42.2
56.2
75
100
133
178
237
316
422
562
Figure 4. Aerosol Sampling Instruments, TSI SMPS (left) and Climet CI-500 (right)
8
Figure 5. Representative Diameter Distributions of Test Aerosols Obtained Using TSI SMPS (a) and
Climet CI-500 (b)
10
This procedure was followed for all inert aerosol tests for
both the large and small aerosol size ranges. Test information
was recorded on the test-specific data sheets kept in a threering binder. Data from the SMPS and Climet particle counters
were transferred to Microsoft Excel datasheets where all
subsequent data analyses were performed.
3.1.2.2 Bioaerosol The procedure for the bioaerosol tests
was similar to that used in the inert aerosol testing, with
the exception of the sampling process. The bioaerosol tests
were performed in three sequential runs, each involving
simultaneously taking an upstream and downstream filter
sample. The filter samples were collected by attaching
the inlet of the filter housing to the appropriate sampling
probe and the outlet to a vacuum pump. The pump was then
turned on and run at a flow rate of 10 L/min for a period of
time estimated for each air cleaner. The sampling time was
calculated based upon the measured single-pass efficiency
of the air cleaner obtained using the inert aerosol and the
expected challenge concentration of Bg spores in the air.
These sampling times were 20 minutes for the HEPA filter
and 2 minutes for the ESP. Real-time aerosol measurements
were also performed using the CI-500 before each set of filter
samples was taken. The real-time measurements were taken
to ensure the system was operating correctly, as well as to
collect additional data points.
Mean upstream and downstream concentrations of the
microorganism were calculated from these replicate filter
samples. Particle penetration was determined in the same
manner as for the inert aerosol, by taking the ratio of the
downstream to upstream CFU concentrations in the air.
Background CFU counts, obtained while running the air
cleaners without bioaerosol generation, were accounted for.
To eliminate possible system bias, the measured air cleaner
efficiency was corrected by subtracting the background
counts from the test data.
3.1.3 Data Analysis
3.1.3.1 Inert Aerosol The computation of inert-aerosol
filtration efficiency was based on the ratio of the downstream
to upstream particle concentrations, corrected on a channelby-channel basis for background counts (i.e., upstream and
downstream counts observed when the aerosol generator was
turned off) and accounting for potential system bias by using
a correction factor measured at the start of a test sequence. A
minimum of one background measurement was taken at the
upstream and downstream locations, and three alternating
upstream and downstream measurements were taken during
each test. These measurements were used for determining the
air cleaner filtration efficiency by computing the observed
penetration fraction (Pobserved) for a given particle size:
(1)
where:
Figure 6. Plots of Bias Correction Factor (R) and Sampling Variability (V)
and aerosol size range. In all cases, however, the trend line
was fully within the confidence bounds, so no corrections
were made to the data.
The filtration efficiency is then computed as the following:
Filtration Efficiency (%) = 100 (1- Pcorrected)
(3)
12
1.38
1.32
1.52
1.07
1.04
1.17
0.88
0.86
0.97
2.17
1.83
2.00
1.74
1.41
1.62
1.43
1.13
1.33
1.43
1.43
1.83
1.17
1.18
1.49
0.92
0.84
1.15
1.55
0.21
1.67
1.25
0.22
1.15
0.97
0.16
0.90
1.48
1.47
1.84
1.20
1.16
1.41
0.94
0.93
1.14
2.00
1.70
2.13
1.85
1.25
2.02
1.21
0.92
1.56
Figure 7. Local Velocities of the ESP Air Cleaner (top inlet, bottom outlet)
Table 5. Velocity Characteristics of the ESP Air Cleaner
Flow Setting
Low
0.96
1.07
1.02
Medium
1.21
1.39
1.30
High
1.52
1.70
1.61
Low
225 (0.106)
219 (0.103)
2.7
Medium
275 (0.130)
280 (0.132)
1.8
High
365 (0.172)
347 (0.164)
4.9
1.07
1.05
0.88
0.82
0.69
0.72
0.71
0.59
0.60
6.32
5.41
2.05
4.67
4.52
1.453
3.45
3.67
1.21
1.01
0.82
0.84
0.82
0.62
0.72
0.68
0.49
0.56
5.73
6.24
1.69
4.51
5.03
1.34
4.83
2.85
1.13
1.17
0.82
0.98
0.86
0.64
0.78
0.76
0.53
0.62
1.89
1.27
1.47
1.50
0.98
1.13
0.98
0.79
0.97
Figure 8. Local Velocities of the HEPA Filter (top inlet, bottom outlet)
13
Low
271 (0.128)
278 (0.131)
275 (0.130)
Medium
326 (0.154)
352 (0.166)
339 (0.160)
High
422 (0.199)
449 (0.212)
436 (0.206)
3.1.4.2 Filtration Efficiency - Inert Aerosol The singlepass testing of the air cleaners filtration efficiencies was
completed in two stages. The first stage covered the range of
particles with diameters between 0.03 m and 0.3 m. The
second stage covered the range from 0.3 m to 10 m. The
results from the two stages were combined, and Figures 9 and
10 show the filtration efficiencies obtained for the air cleaners
over the entire range of particle diameters. All efficiencies are
plotted at the geometric mean of the measured size bin.
It can be observed from the two graphs that the filtration
efficiency data obtained using two different aerosols and
two different instruments show good agreement. The
vertical red lines shown in the figures denote locations
where the two branches of filtration efficiency curves are
connected, for both air cleaners. Also, the graphs indicate
good agreement between the duplicate runs performed
for all test conditions. There was somewhat more data
scatter observed for the smallest particles tested. This is
mostly due to the lower concentration of these particles
in the challenge aerosol and relatively high filtration
efficiency of the air cleaners, which results in lower
counts of these particles at the downstream location and,
accordingly, leads to their poor counting statistics.
1.00
0.90
High 1
0.80
High 2
High Avg
Med 1
0.70
Med 2
Med Avg
0.60
Low 1
Low 2
0.50
0.01
Low Avg
0.1
1
Particle Diameter (microns)
10
1.00
0.98
High 1
High 2
High Avg
0.96
Med 1
Med 2
0.94
Med Avg
Low 1
0.92
0.90
0.01
Low 2
Low Avg
0.1
1
Particle Diameter (microns)
10
15
0.95
Bio 1
Bio 2
Bio 3
0.9
Bio Avg
Gel Filters
0.85
Inert 1
Inert 2
Inert Avg
0.8
0
1.000
0.998
Bio 1
Bio 2
0.996
Bio 3
Bio Avg
0.994
Gel Filters
Inert 1
0.992
Inert 2
Inert Avg
0.990
0
16
Particle Count
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.30.5
0.51.0
1.02.5
2.55.
Background
Figure 13. Downstream Particle Counts From ESP Bioaerosol Test, Run 2
Particle Count
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.30.5
0.51.0
1.02.5
2.55
Figure 14. Upstream Particle Counts From ESP Bioaerosol Test, Run 2
Figure 14 shows the upstream particle counts obtained
during the same run considered in Figure 13. From the
graph no clear peak can be resolved in the size distribution
of aerosol particles that can be identified with the airborne
microorganisms. The lack of a peak is likely due to the
impurities in the biological powder that was used to prepare
the slurry. Therefore, an order-of-magnitude analysis was
performed for the purpose of determining what portion
of the challenge aerosol best represents the spores. It was
determined, based upon the measured concentration of the
initial slurry and the results obtained from the gelatin filters,
that the upstream spore counts should have been on the order
of 7,000 to 10,000 during each run. Returning to Figure 14,
it can be seen that particle counts obtained during this run
for the 0.5 m to 1 m size bin are on the same order of
17
18
Center
Near wall
Number of
Tests
Configuration
Code
No air cleaner
Zero
Near source
High
High
Low
19
20
4.0E+06
3.5E+06
3.0E+06
2.5E+06
2.0E+06
1.5E+06
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
10
20
30
40
3
3
Aerosol
Concentration
(particles/ft
Aerosol
Concentration
(#/ft ) )
4.0E+06
3.5E+06
3.0E+06
2.5E+06
2.0E+06
1.5E+06
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5
Test 6
Test 1
3.5E+06
3.0E+06
2.5E+06
2.0E+06
1.5E+06
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
20
30
40
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
40
8.0E+06
7.0E+06
6.0E+06
5.0E+06
4.0E+06
3.0E+06
2.0E+06
1.0E+06
0.0E+00
0
Tim e (m in)
Test 1
30
10
20
Time (min)
4.0E+06
10
Time (min)
Test 2
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time (min)
Test 1
Test 2
21
3.5E+06
Configuration B
3.0E+06
Configuration C
2.5E+06
2.0E+06
1.5E+06
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
0
10
20
30
40
Time (min)
0.30.5 microns
0.51.0 microns
1.02.5 microns
0.8
2.55.0 microns
5.010.0 microns
0.6
>10.0 microns
0.4
0.2
0
0.00
10.00
20.00
Time(min)
22
30.00
40.00
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
.318
.285
.188
.0058
.316
.296
.191
.0055
.275
.286
.283
.283
.279
.262
Average
.289
.189
.0057
.287
23
CV
Scenario A 1
667
35%
Scenario A 2
550
17%
Scenario B 1
564
28%
Scenario C 1
1086
19%
Scenario C 2
989
18%
Scenario D 1
7571
42%
1.E-03
1.E-03
8.E-04
6.E-04
4.E-04
2.E-04
0.E+00
Filter 1
Filter 2
A1
Figure 22. Collected Filter Masses
24
A2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter Num ber
B1
C1
C2
Filter 5
Average
4.0
Modeling Study
Mathematical modeling is widely used in countless
applications, especially when experimental investigations
are impractical for one reason or another (for example, cost
of experimental trials may be prohibitively high). In the
context of this work, as mentioned above, the effectiveness
of an indoor air filtration system against an aerosolized
agent attack on a building is highly scenario-dependent,
and its detailed exploration would require considering a
great number of cases. A computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) model was therefore used in this project with the
purpose of evaluating the accuracy and efficiency with
which it can predict concentration evolution of contaminant
in the room air. A CFD package, FLUENT, was used
to implement the model and generate the numerical
simulations. The model geometry and flow conditions
selected represented Configuration A of the in-room
test scenarios discussed above. In addition, simplified
calculations were performed based upon the perfectlymixed zone assumption. This model was implemented in
Microsoft Excel, and the calculations were compared
to the CFD model predictions and experimental results.
The ultimate goal of this task was to gain an understanding
of how to correctly develop and use computational models
to assess the effectiveness of an in-room air cleaner or
other HVAC equipment in minimizing the impact of an
agent dissemination attack on a building. There are two
principal effects that an indoor air cleaner may have on the
evolution of pollutant concentration in a room: enhanced
mixing of the room air and cleaning the air by some aerosol
removal mechanism. Both of these effects will result in
the development of a unique scenario-, time-, and spacedependent concentration profile in the room of interest.
The cost associated with testing all the potentially viable
HVAC configurations would be prohibitive and logistically
complex. Modeling, if properly applied, offers potential
savings in identifying the main phenomena that control the
effectiveness of in-room air cleaners in reducing the impact
of an aerosolized agent dissemination event.
25
Concentration (g/m 3)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Time (s)
Climet
Filter 1
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
1.20E-03
1.00E-03
8.00E-04
6.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
Filter 1
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Filter Number
CFD
Experimental
Average
(5)
Where:
V = the volume of the chamber, ft3 (m3),
C = the particle concentration, particles/ft3 (particles/m3),
= the spray rate, particles/min (particles/s), and
Qfilter = the flow rate of the air cleaner, cfm (m3/s).
The CADR is determined experimentally, according to the
AHAM procedure, reflecting the flow rate and filtration
efficiency of the air cleaner, as well as its contribution
to the degree of mixing established in the CADR test
chamber. It is determined by measuring the concentration
decay in an isolated test chamber that has been uniformly
mixed prior to the test. Also, the air cleaners are rated
for CADR using a test chamber smaller than that used
in this study; besides, in this work, the challenge aerosol
was not mixed prior to testing. Therefore, it was not
unexpected that the HEPA filter would demonstrate a
lower concentration decay rate during this testing as
compared to the decay rate based on the CADR value.
2.0E+06
k=.3673
1.5E+06
k=.5013
1.0E+06
5.0E+05
0.0E+00
0.00
5.00
10.00
Experimental
15.00
Tim e (m in)
330 CFM
20.00
25.00
30.00
450 CFM
27
28
5.0
Conclusions and Recommendations
This report describes the investigations conducted to
quantitatively verify the ability of room air cleaners
(specifically, filters that remove PM) to reduce PM levels
in a room. Two filter systems were evaluated with regard to
their building protection effectiveness. One of the air cleaners
selected for this project used HEPA filtration technology,
and the other was based on the principle of electrostatic
precipitation. This work comprised both an experimental
investigation and a modeling study.
The test air cleaners were experimentally evaluated for their
single-pass filtration efficiencies as a function of particle
diameter (ranging from 0.03 m to 10 m) and airflow rates,
using both an inert aerosol and a bioaerosol. The HEPA filter
was then selected for further evaluation, in a test chamber
under various room configurations, to verify its effectiveness
in reducing ambient levels of PM. In the test chamber
experiments, the in-room particle concentration decay rate
was determined from data obtained for a particular location
in the chamber using a real-time particle counter.
Following the completion of the experimental phase of
the project, model calculations were performed using
computational fluid dynamics for one of the specific in-room
test configurations. In addition, simple calculations were
performed for the test conditions using the perfectly-mixed
zone modeling approach.
During the single-pass efficiency testing, two replicate test
runs were performed for each test condition to demonstrate
the precision between them. The ESP-based air cleaner
displayed a pronounced minimum in filtration efficiency for
particles of ~ 0.2 m diameter, which is consistent with the
principles of electrostatic precipitation. Also, the single-pass
efficiency of the ESP air cleaner was found to decrease with
increasing flow rate through the unit, due to the decreasing
residence time of the particles in the charging and deposition
zones of the collector.
For the HEPA filter, no noticeable effect of flow rate on
the filtration efficiency of the unit was observed, but
an unexpected drop-off in efficiency was observed for
particles below 0.3 m in diameter. This observation
could be explained by some leaks that probably developed
around the filter because of its relatively loose fit in the
single-pass test unit. However, the consistent tendency of
both air cleaners to have reduced efficiency for particles
with diameters smaller than 0.04 m warrants further
investigation. No difference was observed between the
air cleaners filtration efficiencies for biological and
inert aerosols having similar particle diameters.
29
30
6.0
References
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Directory of Certified Room Air Cleaners. Edition No. 3, 2004.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Method for Measuring Performance of Portable Household
Electric Cord-Connected Room Air Cleaners. ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2002.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Directory of Certified Room Air Cleaners. Edition No. 3, 2005.
Consumer Reports. Air Cleaners, CR Quick Recommendations. (October, 2003).
FLUENT Online Support Resources. https://secure.fluent.com/sso2/login.htm (6/20/2007).
FLUENT Users Guide. Lebanon, NH, 2005.
Pope, S.B. Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Reid, R.C., J.M. Prausnitz, and B.E. Poling. The Properties of Gases & Liquids. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill, 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lesson 1: Electrostatic Precipitator Operation. APTI Virtual Classroom
SI:412B. 2002. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oaqps/EOGtrain.nsf/fabbfcfe2fc93dac85256afe00483cc4/ca9ae17f95674
95885256b66004e7985/$FILE/12bles1.pdf (9/20/05).
Zukeran, A., et al. Collection Efficiency of Ultrafine Particles by an Electrostatic Precipitator Under DC and
Pulse Operating Modes. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 35, (5): 11841190 (1999).
31
32
Appendix A
Air Cleaner Selection
The objective of the project described in this report was
to conduct experiments and mathematical modeling
to determine the effectiveness of room air cleaners in
minimizing the impact of an aerosolized biological agent
attack on a building. Two types of room air cleaners, a HEPA
filter and an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), were tested.
A brief market survey was conducted through the Internet
to select representative room air cleaners for this project.
It was found that most room air cleaners in the market are
certified under the Room Air Cleaner Certification Program,
which is sponsored by the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM, ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2002). This
standardized measurement procedure was designed to
determine the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), indicating
how effective a room air cleaner is in reducing concentrations
of such particulate pollutants as tobacco smoke, household
dust, and pollen.
Approximately 174 different models of room air cleaners
from 18 manufacturers are currently certified under the
CADR program (AHAM Directory of Certified Room Air
Cleaners. Edition No. 3, 2004). The specifications of the
certified air cleaners were reviewed from the manufacturers
(or venders) Web sites. It was found that among the 174
certified air cleaners, only one was an ESP type air cleaner.
Another air cleaner, which has a similar CADR rating as the
ESP, was suggested for testing as the filter-type air cleaner.
Note that these two air cleaners are also the top two room
air cleaners recommended by Consumer Reports (2003).
The certified CADRs for the two selected air cleaners are
summarized in Table A-1.
Table A-1. CADR Values of Selected Air Cleaners
CADR, cfm (m3/s)
Type
Tobacco Smoke
(0.09 to 1.0 m)
Dust
Pollen
(0.5 to 3m) (5 to 11m)
ESP
300 (.142)
325 (.153)
370 (.175)
HEPA
320 (.151)
330 (.156)
330 (.156)
(1)
Where:
C = aerosol concentration at time t, particles/ft3
(particles/m3),
Co = initial aerosol concentration, particles/ft3 (particles/m3),
K = overall rate constant of concentration decay, 1/min (1/s),
and
t = time, min (s).
The CADR is then calculated as:
(2)
Where:
CADR = clean air delivery rate, cfm (m3/s),
V = volume of test chamber, ft3 (m3), and
Kn = the rate constant of the natural concentration decay,
without the air cleaner operating, 1/min (1/s).
The following calculations were performed before testing to
provide initial estimates based upon available specifications.
Since the single-pass efficiency data of the selected air
cleaners were not available from the manufacturers,
the following analysis was performed to estimate their
efficiencies using the reported CADR values. In an initially
well-mixed test chamber, the material balance of the test
aerosol can be expressed using the following equation:
(3)
Where:
Q = the fan speed of the test air cleaner, cfm (m3/s),
= single-pass efficiency, %,
u = the average aerosol terminal-settling velocity, ft/min
(m/s), and
A= test chamber area, ft2 (m2).
A-1
Table A-2. E
stimated Single-Pass Efficiencies for ESP Air
Cleaner (Model C-90A)
Aerosol
Single-Pass
Efficiency (%)
82
89
Pollen (5 to 11m)
101
(4)
Where:
K = (Q/100+uA)/V and
Kn= uA/V.
(5)
Fan Speed
Dimensions
ESP
Three levels
Low
225 cfm (0.106 m3/s)
Medium 275 cfm (0.130 m3/s)
High
365 cfm (0.172 m3/s)
HEPA
Three levels
High
330 cfma (0.156 m3/s)
Estimated by Battelle using Equation (5), by assuming a 99% single-pass efficiency for dust and pollen.
A-2
Appendix B
CFD Modeling,
Detailed Methodology and Results
B.1. Summary
A computational model was developed and used to evaluate
the accuracy and efficacy with which a fluid flow model
could successfully predict the concentration evolution of
an aerosol injected into a room. The computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) package FLUENT was used to implement
the model and generate the numerical simulations. The model
geometry and flow conditions selected represent one of the
test conditions in the test chamber characterization runs
performed at Battelles West Jefferson Facility.
A comparison of numerical predictions to experimental
measurements was completed and is documented below in
the results section. The agreement is judged sufficiently good
to potentially provide guidance on relative trends such as
under which conditions select areas in a room will experience
higher concentrations than others and the duration of time
under which those conditions exist. The results also exhibit
good agreement with experiments in terms of the associated
decay constant in airborne concentration after the simulant
source has been turned off and equipment such as an air
cleaner is allowed to continue to remove contaminant from
the air. However, in terms of an absolute, highly precise
predictor of air concentration, the requisite precision in
modeling inputs and the computational expense remain as
challenges to using CFD as a general design tool for in-room
air contaminant modeling.
B.2. Objective
The ultimate goal of this task is to gain an understanding
of how to correctly develop and use computational models
to assess the effectiveness of an in-room air cleaner or
other HVAC equipment in minimizing the impact of an
aerosolized agent attack on a building. There are two
principal effects that an indoor air cleaner may have on the
evolution of pollutant concentration in a room: enhanced
mixing of the room air and cleaning the air by some aerosol
removal mechanism. Both of these effects will result in
the development of a unique, scenario-, time-, and space-
B-1
B.3. Approach
The steps taken in completing the in-room simulation are as
follows:
1. Model Construction Create a computational
mesh that represents all the major features of the
experimental configuration.
An illustration of the three-dimensional model geometry
is provided in Figure B-1. The complete geometry of
the air cleaner, Climet CI-500, the nebulizer, and the
room walls were included since their precise features
were judged to have the largest impact on subsequent
fluid flow patterns. The filter monitoring locations are
indicated as open circles, but the physical descriptions
themselves were not included in the model.
Filter 5
Concentration
Reading
Filter 3
Filter 4
Climet
Exhaust
Filter 2
Inlet
Filter 1
B-2
Air
Cleaner
12
Filter 2
12
Filter 3
Nebulizer:
3/8 orifice
Climet:
12 H x 8 L x 6 W
11
Exhaust:
8 L x 4.25
310
Intake:
18 H x 15 L
Filter 5
310
Air Cleaner:
22 H x 18 L x 11 W
Filter 1
Filter 4
78
78
Filter 5
Filter 2
11
Filter 4
12
8
Filter 1
Filter 3
36
78
56
78
B-3
B-4
Climet
Nebulizer
Air Cleaner
Figure B-4. Cells From the Base Mesh Marked for Adaptive Refinement
B-5
Filter 5
Filter 2
Filter 4
Filter 3
Filter 1
B-6
B.4. Results
In order to accelerate the computations, the flow field
established in the steady-state solution was held constant and
the solution proceeded by iterating on the species balance
equations for the water and solids content of the injected
simulant. The simulation began with a 600-second phase
during which the nebulizer was continuously injecting
simulant into the room air space at a constant flow rate,
followed by a 20-minute period during which the nebulizer
was turned off and the air cleaner operated at 450 SCFM
(0.212 m3/s), assuming 100% removal efficiency.
The results of the species concentration predictions are
graphically presented in Figure B-7 (half-plane passing
through the nebulizer) and Figure B-8 (planes passing
through the two filter elevations) at the very end of the
600-second period just prior to turning off the nebulizer.
The concentration field 20 minutes later with the nebulizer
turned off and the air cleaner continuously running is
provided in Figures B-9 and B-10 (nebulizer half-plane and
Filter 1
Filter 5
Filter 4
B-7
Filter 2
Filter 4
Filter 5
Filter 3
Filter 1
Filter 1
Filter 5
Figure B-9. KCl Concentration after 20 Minutes of Air Cleaner Operation (No Nebulizer)
B-8
Filter 4
Filter 2
Filter 4
Filter 5
Filter 3
Filter 1
Figure B-10. KCl Concentration after 20 Minutes of Air Cleaner Operation (No Nebulizer)
Table B-1. Comparison of Decay Constants for Experiment versus Model Predictions.
Average Decay Constant, k (1/min)
Experiment
Model
Well-Mixed Assumption
0.289
0.535
0.501
Table B-2. Comparison of Experimental to Predicted Values for Collected Mass Values.
Experimental (g)
Filter 1
8.20E-04
Model (g)
1.20E-03
% Deviation Experimental
vs. Normalized (%)
3
Filter 2
7.00E-04
8.10E-04
5.39E-04
23
Filter 3
5.50E-04
6.87E-04
4.57E-04
17
Filter 4
5.25E-04
7.92E-04
5.27E-04
Filter 5
4.10E-04
1.03E-03
6.84E-04
-67
Average
6.01E-04
9.03E-04
6.01E-04
B-9
Concentration (g/m 3)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Time (s)
Climet
Filter 1
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
1.20E-03
1.00E-03
8.00E-04
6.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
Filter 1
Filter 2
Filter 3
Filter 4
Filter 5
Filter Number
CFD
Experimental
B-10
Average
Limitations in the Turbulence Model. Only the largescale turbulence is explicitly calculated, whereas the
small-scale structure is modeled using an empirical
one-equation expression for closure. If the small-scale
turbulence is over-estimated with this high-Reynolds
number model, then predictions will reflect a higher
degree of mixing than actually takes place.
Decoupling the Species and Flow Field Solutions. It
is not immediately obvious what the magnitude of
the effect is by first solving the flow field and then
the species balance equations separately. Presumably
the largest impact would be the decoupling of the
species balance and the equation of turbulent viscosity.
However, this should result in a global change in
concentration level and therefore is expected to have
little impact on the average decay constant.
Due to the large computational expense incurred by this type
of modeling effort, CFD simulation of in-room contaminant
transport when the flow is transitional (neither laminar nor
fully turbulent) should be used judiciously. Currently, the
explicit computation and resolution of large-scale turbulence
can only be done time-dependent. Until such time as there are
good flow-averaging methods such as RANS for the NavierStokes equations with closure expressions (otherwise known
as models) for turbulence that can accurately capture largescale turbulence in the transition region, problems of this
class will be computationally expensive to simulate.
Nonetheless, CFD offers a high degree of modeling flexibility
and as many monitor locations as desired can be specified
with negligible additional computational expense. As the
turbulence modeling capabilities improve, CFD will offer
the potential for generating spatially resolved simulations of
contaminant transport that cannot be replicated by lumpedparameter or zonal models that assume homogeneously
mixed compartments. Therefore, application of CFD can be
a viable alternative to conducting experiments with either
complex and expensive HVAC requirements or a large
number of measurements with high record frequencies.
B-11
B-12
Appendix C
Quality Assurance
Work under this project was completed in accordance with
the EPA-approved quality assurance test plan (QAPP)
entitled Research on Air Cleaning and HVAC Systems for
Protecting Buildings From Terrorist Attacks; Test/Quality
Assurance Plan for Task 4: Evaluation of In-Room Air
Cleaners. The QAPP describes the test procedures, and data
handling and analysis procedures. These procedures are also
described throughout this report. The QAPP also describes
the quality objectives and quality assurance (QA) procedures,
some of which are listed below:
Before performing the single-pass efficiency
tests, the concentration was confirmed to be
uniform with a coefficient of variation (CV)
of 15% or less across the air cleaner inlet.
Duplicate tests were performed with
individual measurements not deviating
from the average by more than 15%.
Filters were allowed to equilibrate in a humiditycontrolled room for 24 hours before weighing, blank
(untested) filters were carried with all sample filters,
and all filters were weighed at least three times.
As an example, the data from the concentration uniformity
measurement is shown in Table C-1. The total particle
concentration was measured with the scanning mobility
particle sizer (SMPS) three times each at nine different
locations. The sampling location was varied over the course
1.75E+04
CV - 1.0%
1.56E+04
CV - 1.0%
2.21E+04
CV - 2.8%
1.88E+04
CV - 0.8%
1.78E+04
CV - 0.9%
2.39E+04
CV - 2.8%
2.16E+04
CV - 2.9%
2.05E+04
CV - 0.5%
C-1
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
SC
IEN
CE
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35