TECHNICAL FEATURE

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, May 2016. Copyright 2016 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

New Method for Testing

Air Filter Performance

BY PAOLO TRONVILLE, PH.D., MEMBER ASHRAE; RICHARD RIVERS, FELLOW ASHRAE

The International Standards Organization is preparing to issue a new standard for

testing and rating air filters. The procedures of the standard include a novel calcula-
tion of filter efficiency for three different particle size ranges, when the filter operates
on a defined particle-size distribution in the filtered air. The rating system is based
on these calculated efficiencies, and provides an index of the filters effect on indoor
air quality. The calculation procedure relates filter performance to typical urban and
rural air pollution conditions, and can offer some evaluation of the effect of local air
pollution conditions on filter performance.
Technical Committee 142 of the International
Standards Organization recently prepared a new set
of air filter testing standards, ISO-16890,1 which are
expected to be published in Spring 2016. This new stan-
dard represents a substantial change from the approach
of current standards used for rating general-ventilation
air filters. It rates filters in a way that may reflect their
actual operating conditions better than the MERV rat-
ings of ASHRAE Standard 52.2-20122 and the Minimum
Efficiency ratings of EN779:2012.3 It also offers the pos-
sibility of better estimates of the relative performance of
filters in different locations.
The standard makes use of the test equipment and pro-
cedures of current standards to measure filter airflow
resistance and particle capture efficiency with only minor
modifications. Hence, it can be quickly adopted by filter
manufacturers and testing laboratories. Laboratories that
have conformed to the ASHRAE Standard 52.2, Method
of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning Devices for Removal
Efficiency by Particle Size, but do not have a generator for
liquid aerosols, will need to add a generator meeting the
specifications for the DEHS (diethylhexyl sebacate) aero-
sol generator specified in the ISO standard. The authors
believe that the modest equipment changes required
means that ratings by this new standard will soon appear,
and will need to be understood by HVAC system design-
ers. This article is intended to introduce the standard to
ASHRAE Journal readers.
The ISO 16890 set differs from ASHRAE Standard 52.2
and the European Standard EN779 chiefly in basing its

Paolo Tronville, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the Politecnico di Torino (Italy) department of energy. Richard Rivers is president of Environmental Quality Sciences in Louisville, Ky.

14 A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g M AY 2 0 1 6

rating system on calculations of the mass of particles
captured by the filter from two specified standard
aerosol particle distributions. The aerosol models used
are bimodal, having two distinct peaks, one approxi-
mately 0.3 m and the other approximately 10 m. Both
modes are defined in terms of the mass of particles. This
bimodal pattern is found worldwide; the mode with
smaller size is primarily due to combustion, while the
mode with larger size particles is primarily the result of
soil particles lofted by winds. Calculations specified by
the standard yield efficiency numbers, designated ePM1,
ePM2.5, and ePM10, which represent the performance of
the filter for three different size ranges of the standard
distributions. The number ePM1 is essentially the effi-
ciency for particles with a size of less than 1 m; ePM2.5
for particles less than 2.5 m; and ePM10 for particles
less than 10 m. These ranges are related to the particle-
matter (PM) air pollution data gathered by government
agencies in many countries.
For comparative, relative performance of filters, the
new standard sets up a table of ratings based on the
three ePMx numbers, rather than efficiencies at a
single particle size as in EN779, or the efficiency minima
(MERV) used in Standard 52.2. This change may give a
more realistic agreement between filter rating numbers
and field performance.
One interesting possibility is that users can develop
software or spreadsheet scripts, which use the calcula-
tion concepts of ISO 16890 to estimate filter effects on
indoor air quality. This would require knowledge of PM
data for the building location; the relative fractions of
outdoor and recirculated airflows in ventilated spaces;
and some simplifying assumptions about particles
generated in the spaces. The procedures of ISO 16890
do not provide any information on the change of filter
resistance with dust load, hence do not support energy-
consumption calculations.
The new standard set is divided into four parts, ISO
16890-1 through 16890-4. ISO 16890-1 contains summary
descriptions of the test equipment, procedures, calcula-
tions and rating system of the standard. Addenda to that
section describe particle shedding behavior of filters; an
example of calculation of filter particle-size efficiency
measurement report; the reasons for selecting the parti-
cle-size distribution used for ePMX efficiency calculations;
and a discussion of ways to use ePMX efficiencies to esti-
mate particle counts downstream of filter sets.
TECHNICAL FEATURE
ISO 16890-2 is concerned with measuring filter effi-
ciency as a function of particle size. This part of the
standard specifies test duct design, aerosol generation
and sampling, calibration and maintenance of instru-
ments, and the treatment of counting data to calculate
efficiency. The details of both DEHS liquid aerosol and
KCl solid aerosol tests are defined. The procedures of
EN779:2012 and Standard 52.2-2012 are followed almost
exactly, the only major change being the number and
spans of the particle spectrometer channels required for
each test. Filter manufacturers and testing laboratories
should be able to perform ISO 16890 tests without major
investment. Some additional software or spreadsheet
scripts will be required.
ISO 16890-3 details procedures to measure filter
resistance as a function of stepwise increases of dust
load, using ISO 15957-L2 dust. That test dust is known
in the U.S. as Arizona Road Dust, Fine. It is derived from
natural desert dust (predominately silica), hence, repre-
sentative of aerosols reaching filters in desert and agri-
cultural locations. ISO 16890-3 also defines procedures
for measuring arrestance and dust holding capacity as
in Standard 52.2. ISO 16890-1 continues to use these
ratings, but only to rate low-efficiency (coarse) filters.
An ISO Coarse filter is defined as one having an ePM10
efficiency no greater than 50%, which must, of course,
be measured before arrestance and dust holding capac-
ity are measured. Filters which have ePM10 ratings above
50% are not required to be tested for arrestance or dust
holding capacity.
ISO 16890-4 describes equipment and procedures to
eliminate effects of electrostatic charge on fibers using
vapors of IPA (iso-propyl alcohol). This treatment is
required for rating all filters; the averages of efficiencies
for each particle-size range before and after IPA vapor
treatment are used to calculate the three ePMX ratings.
Virtual Test Dust From the Real World
Much in ISO-16890 depends on two defined standard
particle size distributions, described in 16890-1. The
first distribution, shown in Figure 1, is typical of many
urban locations. The figure shows the relative mass of
particles present at each particle size, expressed as a
percentage. Figure 2 shows the distribution for the sec-
ond, rural distribution. Such distribution curves can
be measured for actual locations by light-scattering
aerosol spectrometers or aerodynamic particle sizers.
M AY 2 0 1 6 a s h r a e . o r g A S H R A E J O U R N A L 15
TECHNICAL FEATURE

These instruments count the number of airborne par- FIGURE 1 

Standard urban particle-size distribution specified by ISO-16890-1.
ticles in relatively narrow size ranges.
100 Mode A
Assuming that all particles are spherical and have the
Mode B
same density r, the mass mi in each size range i is: Sum
80

Relative Mass at Size, Percent

mi = N i d gi3 / 6 (1)
Here Ni is the particle count measured in range i, 60
which has lower diameter di1 and upper diameter di2.
40
The quantity dgi, called the geometric mean diameter, is
needed to account for the change in diameter between
20
di1 and di2. It is:
d gi = di1 di 2 (2) 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
The relative mass of the distribution present in each Particle Size, m
size range, plotted as a percentage at dgi, is:
FIGURE 2 
Standard rural particle-size distribution specified by ISO-16890-1.
Pi = 100 mi / mi (3)
100
Here S is the usual symbol for sum, which includes all Mode A
the ranges measured. Throughout the standard, the sym- 80 Mode B
Relative Mass at Size, Percent

Sum
bol PM refers to particle mass, but the equations actually
deal with particle volumes, because the standard assumes 60
that all particles have the same density, which vanishes
in Equation 3. The plot of the standard distribution mul- 40

tiplies all Pi by a constant which makes the higher peak

20
have probability 100%, and the lower peak a probability of
y100%, where y is the mass of particles in the smaller peak
0
relative to the mass in the larger peak. 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fractional values for the distribution, giving the rela- Particle Size, m
tive mass or volume of particles at each size d on the
horizontal (logarithmic) scale, are calculated by two TABLE 1 
Parameters defining ISO 16890 standard aerosol distributions.
equations: LOCATION TYPE URBAN RURAL
2
ln (d ) ln (d50 )
exp
1
f (d , g , d50 ) = (4) Mode (Symbol) A B A B
ln ( g ) 2 2 ln ( g )
2

Geometric Mean Size, m (dg50) 0.25 10 0.3 11
Standard Deviation of Mode (g) 2.2 3.1 2.2 4.0
q (d ) = y f (d , gA , d50 A ) + (1 y) f (d , gB , d50 B ) (5)
Relative Mass in Mode 0.45 0.55 0.18 0.82
(y, 1y)
Equation 4 is the mathematical expression for a single
log-normal distribution which accurately describes parameters are specified in the standard for both distri-
many distributions measured for a single type of aero- butions, and are given here in Table 1.
sol. This distribution yields the symmetric bell-shaped In Figures 1 and 2 the distribution of (fine) Mode A is
peaks A and B when the independent variable is the shown in red and the distribution of (coarse) Mode B in
logarithm of d, as it is in Equation 4 and Figures 1 and 2. cyan. Equation 5 gives, for each size, the result of adding
In Equation 4, d50 is the geometric mean diameter of the two log-normal distributions together, when the
the mode, the size at its peak. The width of the peak is masses of each type have relative (fractional) values y
given by its standard deviation sg, and d is the diameter and (1y). This sum distribution is shown in each figure
at any point on the plot. The values for the equation by the black curve.

16 A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g M AY 2 0 1 6
Advertisement formerly in this space.
TECHNICAL FEATURE

Novelty in ISO-16890 TABLE 2 

Measured efficiencies of a typical air filter, clean and after exposure to isopropyl alcohol vapor.
The procedure for calculating effi- MEASURED EFFICIENCIES
AEROSOL LOWER UPPER MEAN CHANNEL AVERAGE
ciencies requires several data sets. COUNTER DIAMETER DIAMETER DIAMETER WIDTH UNTREATED AFTER IPA EXPOSURE EFFICIENCY
Two sets needed are the size distribu- CHANNEL (i) d i , m d i+1, m d gi, m ln(di) Ec(di), % Emin(di), % E(di), %

tions just described, in the form of a 1 0.3 0.5 0.39 0.51 66.0 37.0 51.5
table of q(dgi) versus dgi. (This appears 2 0.5 0.7 0.59 0.34 78.0 49.0 63.5
in the fourth column of Table 2, for 3 0.7 1.0 0.84 0.36 86.3 59.0 72.7
the urban distribution.) The second 4 1.0 1.3 1.14 0.26 92.5 68.5 80.5
requirement is separate tables of
5 1.3 1.6 1.44 0.21 95.7 75.7 85.7
filter efficiencies for those same dgi
6 1.6 2.2 1.88 0.32 97.3 84.1 90.7
using DEHS and KCl (potassium chlo-
7 2.2 3.0 2.57 0.31 98.9 92.3 95.6
ride) aerosols. For efficiency mea-
surements, the ISO 16890 standard 8 3.0 4.0 3.46 0.29 99.8 97.2 98.5

requires an aerosol spectrometer able 9 4.0 5.5 4.69 0.32 100.0 98.9 99.5
to count particles from 0.3 m to 10 10 5.5 7.0 6.20 0.24 100.0 100.0 100.0
m, with at least nine particle-size 11 7.0 10.0 8.37 0.36 100.0 100.0 100.0
ranges in that measurement span.
The standard also requires that channels with FIGURE 3 
Plot of filter efficiency vs. particle-size, showing averaging and ranges of
upper limits at 1.0, 3.0, and 10 m be available, so that application of DEHS and KCl aerosols.
calculations of ePM1, ePM2.5 and ePM10 efficiencies are 100
possible. (The 3.0 m limit is used to calculate ePM2.5). DEHS
With appropriate software it is possible to calculate the 80 KCI
Clean Filter
Data
Efficiency, Percent

three ePMX efficiencies by interpolation in existing test

data, though presumably such calculations would not
qualify as meeting ISO 16890.
Figures 3 plots the efficiency data of Table 2. In Figure 3
the points and interpolated curves with mean diameters
less than 1 m are red, indicating efficiencies measured
using a DEHS test aerosol. Points and curves above 1 m
are purple, indicating efficiencies measured using a
KCl test aerosol. This combination is one option permit-
ted by the standard. The combination introduces the
effects of particle bounce from fibers and adhesion to
fibers into the evaluation of filters. DEHS forms a liquid
aerosol; KCl (potassium chloride) forms a dry aerosol.
Liquid and dry aerosol particles behave differently when
they strike filter fibers. Dry particles are more likely to
bounce off fibers, and large dry particles are less likely to
remain attached to fibers after collisions.
Figure 3 also shows the second major innovation intro-
duced by the ISO 16890 standard. Instead of providing a
separate rating for filters which make use of electrostatic
effects, ISO 16890 requires that all filters be tested for
efficiency in clean condition and also following expo-
sure to vapors of isopropyl alcohol (IPA). IPA vapor expo-
sure has been shown4 to suppress electrostatic effects
in fibrous air filters quite thoroughly, without altering
60 Average
After Treatment
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size, m
the structure of the fibrous filter medium. In the ISO
16890 standard, the efficiency used for ePMX calcula-
tions for each size range is the average of the clean and
post-IPA treatment values for that range. This average is
usually lower than the clean filter value for electrostati-
cally enhanced filter media, but for filters without such
enhancement, the two values should be nearly equal,
and hence near the average.
ISO Committee 142 chose to recognize these differ-
ences by defining liquid DEHS as the reference aero-
sol for sizes below 1 m, and KCl as the reference
aerosol for sizes above 1 m. Efficiency data may be
used for both aerosols, as shown in Figure 3. This proce-
dure essentially doubles the amount of time required
to run a filter efficiency test; hence the standard offers

18 A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g M AY 2 0 1 6
Advertisement formerly in this space.
TECHNICAL FEATURE
the option of testing using either DEHS or KCl, or
indeed, any laboratory-generated, stable aerosol. The
user of a different aerosol, however, must demon-
strate that the alternative aerosol gives approximately
the same efficiencies as the reference aerosol in its
designated reference range. This equivalence must be
demonstrated at two-week intervals using a reference
Advertisement formerly in this space.
20 A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g M AY 2 0 1 6
filter, which has efficiency between specified limits in
three ranges of particle size.
Use of an alternative single aerosolusually DEHS or
KClis permitted if the alternative aerosol yields effi-
ciency values within 5% of the DEHS efficiencies for
all channels below 1 m, and efficiency values within
5% of the KCl efficiencies for all channels above 1 m.
In addition, DEHS aerosol is not
allowed for efficiency testing of fil-
ters with media velocities above 20
cm/s (39 ft/min). This prohibition
was adopted because bounce and
adhesion effects are more important
at high media velocities, and are
poorly simulated by a DEHS aerosol.
Calculating ISO 16890 Particle Matter
Efficiencies
PMX efficiency calculation is illus-
trated in Tables 2 (Page 18) and 3 (Page
22). Table 2 contains the data used
to plot the filter efficiency curve in
Figure 3, using DEHS efficiency data
for counter Channels 1 through 3, KCl
data for Channels 4 through 11. The
fifth column of Table 2 gives the term
[ln(dj2) ln(dj1)] needed to calculate
the relative mass for each size range.
The relative mass of the particles
in channel i for the urban or rural
standard distribution is:
qi (di ) = y f (di , gA , d50 A ) +
(6)
(1 y ) f (di , gB , d50 B )
where f(di,g,d50) is given by Equation
4 using the appropriate parameters
from Table 2.
The standard defines the ISO PM10
Efficiency ePM10 as the efficiency
calculated including all particles in
the standard distribution between
0.3 m and 10 m. This is obtained
by summing efficiencies Ei for the
channels from 0.3 m (i = 1) to 10
m, (i = N10):
ePM10 = iN=101 ( Ei qi ) / iN=101 qi (7)

ISO PM1 Efficiency ePM1 is calculated in the same way,
using Equation 7, but with the summations from Channel
1 to the channel with an upper size limit of 1.0 m.
ISO PM2.5 Efficiency ePM2.5 sums from Channel 1 to
the first channel with an upper size limit greater than
2.5 m. This is normally the channel with upper limit
3.0 m.
The line Sums for Channels 1 7 (in Table 3) gives
efficiencies of 86% (= 0.286613/0.333138 = 0.860343)
and 85% (= 0.283899/0.333138 = 0.852196). The standard
requires reporting integral percentage values, in this
case 86% and 85%. The other five ePMX values are calcu-
lated from the boldface sums in the same way.
ISO 16890 ePMX Efficiency Groups
When the PMx values have been computed, the filter is
assigned to an ISO group name and given its reporting
values. Table 4 shows how this is done. For assignment
to a given group, the filter must meet the requirements
on that group line. First, the six percentage efficiency
values calculated in Table 3 are rounded downward to the
Advertisement formerly in this space.
TECHNICAL FEATURE
nearest 5%. These values are compared with the limits
in Table 4. Those limits determine what ePMx ratings can
be claimed for the filter, and included in its labeling. It
is possible for a filter to qualify under this procedure for
more than one group, but labels must claim only one
group. The standard requires that all five ePMX values
must be included in the test report, if ePMX efficiencies
are claimed.
Filters with the lowest efficiencies are rated by
Arrestance values only, evaluated by loading with ISO
15957-L2 test dust, and do not report any ePMX values.
The ePM10 would usually be run to show whether such a
filter could qualify for the ISO PM10 group.
Conversion of Resistance Data to Standard Conditions
The resistance of air filter media depends on the density
and viscosity of the gas flowing through the media. ISO
16890 requires that the effect of test air deviation from
standard conditions be evaluated. The standard condi-
tions are: barometric pressure 101.325 kPa ; temperature
20C; relative humidity 50%. This air has a density of
M AY 2 0 1 6 a s h r a e . o r g A S H R A E J O U R N A L 21
TECHNICAL FEATURE

TABLE 3 
Calculation of ISO PMX efficiencies using ISO 16890-1 standard distribution.

AEROSOL CHANNEL DISTRIBUTION VOLUME VOLUME X PM X

MEAN VOLUME X PM X
COUNTER WIDTH FRACTION IN AVERAGE EFFICIENCY
DIAMETER POST-CONDITIONING MINIMUM
CHANNEL ln(d i) IN CHANNEL CHANNEL EFFICIENCY EPM X
d gi, m EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY
i q3(dgi) q3(dgi)ln(d i) E(di)q3(dgi)ln(d i) ED(di)q3(dgi)ln(d i) E MIN PM X

1 0.39 0.51 0.17050 0.086955 0.059129 0.057390

2 0.59 0.34 0.14302 0.048627 0.039145 0.038415
3 0.84 0.36 0.11898 0.042833 0.037907 0.038121 ePM1 eminPM1
Sums for Channels 1 to 3 0.178415 0.136181 0.133926 76% 75%
4 1.14 0.26 0.11080 0.028808 0.026993 0.026791
5 1.44 0.21 0.11799 0.024778 0.023886 0.023787
6 1.88 0.32 0.14035 0.044912 0.044059 0.044014
7 2.57 0.31 0.18137 0.056225 0.055494 0.055381 ePM2.5 eminPM2.5
Sums for Channels 1 to 7 0.333138 0.286613 0.283899 86% 85%
8 3.46 0.29 0.22320 0.064728 0.063951 0.063887
9 4.69 0.32 0.25390 0.081248 0.080517 0.080436
10 6.20 0.24 0.26179 0.062830 0.062264 0.062578
11 8.37 0.36 0.24483 0.088139 0.088139 0.088139 ePM10 eminPM10
Sums for Channels 1 to 11 0.630083 0.581484 0.578939 92% 92%

1.1987 kg/m3, 1.20 to three significant figures. If the actual TABLE 4 

ePMx efficiency groups and reporting values.
test air density lies between 1.16 and 1.24 kg/m3, no correc-
REQUIREMENT CLASS
tions need be made. Otherwise, these steps must be followed: REPORTING
GROUP NAME
Least-squares fit the resistancevs-filter airflow veloc- eminPM1 ePM1 eminPM2.5 ePM2.5 ePM10 VALUE

ity data to equation (8):

ISO Coarse 50% Arrestance
p = c (qv ) (8)
n
ISO PM10 50% ePM10
Here p = resistance, Pa; qv = airflow, m3/s; n is a con- ISO PM2.5 40% 50% ePM2.5
stant obtained from the curve-fit; and c is a constant ISO PM1 40% 50% ePM1
dependent only on the density and viscosity of the air.
The expression for c is: density are given in the Annex B in ISO 16890-2. Humid
c = k 2n
n1
(9) air density r in kg/m3 at temperature t (C) is:
p 0.378 w
The resistance pstd at standard conditions is also given = (11)
287.06 (t + 273.15)
by Equation 8, with c from Equation 9. This provides the
expression for the resistances which would have been Where rw, the partial vapor pressure of water at rela-
measured at the defined standard conditions: tive humidity j (%) is:


2n

n1 w =
(12) exp
pstd = p std std (10)

100


6790.4985
59.484085 5.02802 ln (t + 273.15)
Here std and rstd are the humid air viscosity and den- t + 273.15

sity at standard conditions; and and r the humid air These equations have an additional practical use for
viscosity and density at the test conditions. The standard- HVAC system designers: they allow calculation of the fil-
condition viscosity is 18.097 106 Pas, and density 1.1987 ter resistance for the range of conditions met in building
kg/m3. The expressions for test-condition viscosity and operation.

22 A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g M AY 2 0 1 6
Advertisement formerly in this space.
TECHNICAL FEATURE

Using PMX Efficiency Calculation for TABLE 5 

Annual mean PM values in Louisville, Ky., and Tucson, Ariz., 20052009.
Local Conditions CITY YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 AVERAGE
The procedures described above PM10 g/m3 24.81 23.08 24.52 20.97 18.75 22.43
for ePMX efficiency calculation can 3
Louisville, Ky. PM2.5 g/m 16.73 13.85 15.00 13.46 11.54 14.12
be applied to any filter provided two
y (Ratio) 0.67 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.62 0.63
things are available: the efficiency
(using the reference aerosol as spec- PM10 g/m3 26.52 34.25 28.58 26.93 29.76 29.21
Tucson, Ariz. PM2.5 g/m 3 8.96 7.36 7.24 7.36 5.59 7.30
ified in the Standard) of the filter for
particles in the diameter range from y (Ratio) 0.34 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.19 0.25
0.3 to 10 m, and the particle-size
distribution of the aerosol in the air entering the filter is usually so small that it was ignored in ISO 16890.
over the same diameter range. Data needed to calculate the local relative mass in the
Measured size distributions for individual locations peaks (y in Equation 5) are sometimes available from govern-
often appear in air-pollution literature, but may not be mental air pollution agencies. Unfortunately, the size dis-
available for the location of interest. Such distributions tributions in the two fractions are not generally available.
also vary widely over time, and are dependent on height PM10 data record simply the mass of dust (expressed in g/
above ground and other factors. One can, however, make m3) measured after the sampled air has passed through
assumptions similar to those in ISO 16890: that the distri- an impactor or cyclone which essentially removes particles
butions are bimodal, the sum of peaks having the mean with diameters greater than 10 m. Data for PM2.5 and
diameters and standard deviations given in Table 2, but PM1 are the same, except that cyclone systems ahead of the
with local average values of y. The mass in the 1.0 m peak samplers have removed essentially all particles greater than

Advertisement formerly in this space.

24 A S H R A E J O U R N A L a s h r a e . o r g M AY 2 0 1 6
 TECHNICAL FEATURE

2.5 m or greater than 1 m for those PM measurements.
Table 5 shows y values (PM2.5/PM10) calculated from
EPA data from two cities in the U.S. Louisville, Ky.,
has about 750,000 inhabitants and is located on the
Ohio River, with a relatively mild, but humid climate.
Tucson, Ariz., has about 530,000 inhabitants and sits
near mountains in the Sonora desert, with a warm,
dry climate. The values of PM2.5 and PM10 yearly aver-
ages and the values of the ratio y show that the PM10
fraction in Tucson, Ariz., is higher than in Louisville,
Ky., the result of wind-blown dust from the surround-
ing desert. The Louisville PM2.5 fraction is higher than
Tucsons, probably the result of local meteorological
conditions. The impact of these differences on filter
performance on outdoor air in the two cities depends
on the shape of the filter efficiency curve.
Using PMX Efficiencies to Predict Particle Mass
Downstream of Rated Filters
The relation of a PMX mass concentration downstream
of a filter to the mass concentration upstream of the fil-
ter is given by Equation 13 for a single filter stage, when
ePMX is expressed as a percentage:
particulate air pollution conditions as well as indoor
air quality levels in the selection of air filters for
HVAC systems.
The use of established test equipment and test meth-
ods by the Standard means that ISO 16890 ratings for
filter will soon be appearing. Although it is not certain
that ISO 16890 ePMx ratings will find wide acceptance in
the United States, they are likely to be accepted in other
markets.
References
1. ISO. 2016, ISO 16890-1, Air Filters for General Ventilation, Part 1: Tech-
nical Specifications, Requirements and Efficiency Classification System Based
on Particulate Matter (PM). International Standards Organization.
(Note: This standard has four additional parts that provide details
of test equipment and procedures.)
2. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2012, Methods of Testing General-
Ventilating Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size.
3. CEN. 2012. EN 779-2012, Particulate Air Filters for General Ventila-
tionDetermination of the Filtration Performance. European Commitee
for Standardization.
4. Tronville P., R. Rivers, 2012. Looking for the minimum ef-
ficiency of fibrous air filters during their service life. Proceedings
of 11th World Filtration Congress.

cdown (PM x ) = cup (PM x ) (100 ePM x ) / 100 (13)

The distribution of particles downstream of the filter is

no longer the same as the distribution upstream. If the
system has two filters in series, we cannot merely feed the
downstream concentration calculated using Equation 13 to
the second filter and repeat Equation 13. Instead, we must
modify Equation 7 to calculate the effect of both filters on Advertisement formerly in this space.
each particle diameter range, and sum over all ranges to
get the overall efficiency. The modification of Equation 7 to
calculate the PM10 efficiency of two filters in series is:

E1,2 (PM10 ) = 1 iN=101 (1 E1,i ) (1 E 2,i ) qi / iN=101 qi (14)

Here qi is the mass in the ith range having mean diam-

eter dgi upstream of the first filter. E1,i is the efficiency of
the first filter for the ith range, and E2,i the efficiency of
the second filter for that range. For calculation of down-
stream concentrations, E1,2(PM10) is inserted in place of
e(PMX) in Equation 13.

Conclusion
The procedures described in this new ISO
Standard offer possibilities for including local

M AY 2 0 1 6 a s h r a e . o r g A S H R A E J O U R N A L 25