REPORT issued by an Accredited Testing Laboratory

Transcription

1 issued by an Accredited Testing Laboratory Contact person RISE Tobias Eriksson P rev1 1 (3) Energy and circular economy tobias.eriksson@ri.se Camfil AB Industrigatan TROSA Testing Testing of Air Filter according to ISO 16890:2016 (6 appendices) Rev 1 1) The energy calculation according to Eurovent 4/21 has been removed from the report. 2) Testing organisation has been changed from SP to RISE. This report replace 6P dated A test according to ISO 16890:2016 was carried out by request from Camfil AB. Tested item Camfil AB, Hi Flo II, XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ), a 592 mm x 592 mm x 640 mm, 10 Pocket bag filter. Article number: Pictures can be found in appendix 5. The item was sent to SP by Camfil AB and was received by SP on February 14, The item was without visible defects. Test method The test was carried out according to standard ISO 16890:2016 Air filters for general ventilation. The standard consists of four parts: - ISO : Technical specifications, requirements and classification system based upon particulate matter efficiency (epm) - ISO : Measurement of fractional efficiency and air flow resistance Measurements were performed with dual particle counters according to section Testing sequence for dual OPC testing. - ISO : Determination of the gravimetric efficiency and the airflow resistance versus the mass of test dust captured Postal address Office location Phone / Fax / This report may not be reproduced other than in full, except Box 857 SE BORÅS Sweden Brinellgatan 4 SE BORÅS info@ri.se with the prior written approval of the issuing laboratory. Accred. No. 2 Testing ISO/IEC 17025

2 P rev1 2 (3) - ISO : Conditioning method to determine the minimum fractional test efficiency Eight cabinets with a total surface area of 1.82 m 2 were placed in the chamber according to ISO section 7. The purity of the 2-propanol was 99.5 %. The test item was conditioned for /- 0.5 hours. Efficiency at 50% nominal air flow was measured with DEHS in the range µm. Deviation from the standard: Section and 9.2.8, the evaporated amount of 2-propanol was not determined. Section 7.3, the atmospheric pressure during the conditioning procedure was not measured. Date and Place The test was carried out at SP s laboratory of Energy and circular economy in Borås, Sweden on February 16-23, Tests according to ISO were carried out on February, 16, Tests according to ISO were carried out on February, 23, Tests according to ISO were carried out on February, 23, 2017, conditioning procedure according to ISO was carried out on February, 20-21, Results The results are presented in appendix 1-4 and are valid only for the item tested. In appendix 1 a summary of the results are reported according ISO It also includes the fractional efficiencies and the calculation of PM-efficiencies. In appendix 2 fractional efficiency and air flow resistance are reported according to ISO In appendix 3 determination of the gravimetric efficiency (arrestance) and the air flow resistance versus the mass of test dust capture (test dust capacity) are reported according to ISO In appendix 4 the minimum fractional efficiency is reported according to ISO The measured particle concentrations are reported in appendix 2 and appendix 4. Table A6 (upstream count data), A7 (downstream count data) and A9 Uncertainty in ISO Annex A are reported.

3 P rev1 3 (3) Measurement equipment Pressure gauge Furness model 318, SP's inventory no (static P Filter) Pressure gauge Furness model 318, SP's inventory no (static P Flow) Pressure gauge Furness FC012, SP's inventory no ( P Filter) Pressure gauge Furness FC012, SP's inventory no ( P Flow) Particle counter TSI, OPS 3330, SP's inventory no Particle counter TSI, OPS 3330, SP's inventory no Barometer, Testo 511, SP's inventory no Temperature and RH, Testo 635, SP's inventory no Weighing scale, Mettler PC16, SP's inventory no Flow meter, MFS-C-250, SP's inventory no Temperature and RH, Tinytag, DIV 94 S Barometer, Druck PACE 1, SP's inventory no Uncertainty of measurement The uncertainty of the Air flow is better than ± 5 % The uncertainty of the Pressure Drop is better than ± 3 % The uncertainty of the Temperature is better than ± 0.5 ºC The uncertainty of the Relative Humidity is better than ± 2 % RH The uncertainty of the Atmospheric Pressure is better than ± 1 mbar The uncertainty of the Measured mass is better than ± 0.5 g The uncertainty has been calculated according to EA-4/16 with a coverage factor k=2. The uncertainty of the filtration efficiency according to ISO 16890:2016 is presented in appendices 2 and 4. Energy and circular economy - Building Services Engineering Performed by Examined by Signature_1 Tobias Eriksson Signature_2 Christian Mossberg Appendices 1. Summary test report according to ISO : Test report according to ISO : Test report according to ISO : Test report according to ISO : Additional pictures of the test item. 6. The interpretation of test reports

4 Pressure differential, 1.2 kg/m 3 (Pa) Arrestance (% ) Fractional efficiency (% ) REPORT P rev1 1 (3) Appendix 1 ISO : Air Filter Test Results Testing Organization: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan GENERAL Report no.: 6P rev1 Date of tests: Date of report: Supervisor: CM Device obtained (when and how obtained): Test(s) requested by: Camfil AB The device was sent and obtained on DEVICE TESTED Model: Hi Flo II Manufacturer: Construction: XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) Camfil AB Pocket filter, 10 Pockets Article number: Type of medium: Net effective filtering area: Filter dimensions (width x height x depth) Glass 7.3 m 2 592x592x640 mm TEST DATA AND ATTACHED TEST REPORTS Test air flow rate: Test aersole: Test report to ISO Report no. 6P rev1 Appendix m 3 /s KCl (1-10 µm) Test report to ISO (optional) Report no. 6P rev1 Appendix 3 DEHS (0.3-1 µm) Test report to ISO Report no. 6P rev1 Appendix 4 RESULTS Initial pressure differential: Initial grav. arrestance: epm 1, min epm 2.5, min ISO rating 72 Pa 97 % 63 % 73 % Final test pressure differential: Test dust capacity: epm 1 epm 2.5 epm 10 ISO epm 1 60 % 300 Pa 1160 g 64 % 73 % 91 % Remarks: Particle size (µm) Initial fractional efficiency Ei (ISO ) Conditioned fractional efficiency ED,i (ISO ) Average fractional efficiency EA, i (ISO ) Test dust capture (g) Air flow rate (m 3 /s) Pressure differential as a function of the air flow rate (clean filter) (ISO ) Pressure differential as a function of the test dust captured (ISO ) Grav. arrestance as a function of the test dust captured (ISO ) NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

5 P rev1 2 (3) Appendix 1 ISO : Fractional efficiency values Testing organisation: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Report no: 6P rev1 Model: Hi Flo II XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) Manufacturer: Camfil AB Test air flow rate: m 3 /s Date of report: i d i d i+1 d a, i Δln d i E i E D, i E A, i µm µm µm µm % % % d i : Lower limit particle diameter in a size range i, µm d i+1 : Upper limit particle diameter in a size range i, µm d a, i : Geometric mean diamter of a size range i, µm Δln d i : Logarithmic width of a particle diameter size in range i; ln is the natural logaritm to the base of e, where e is an irrational and transcendetal constant approximately equal to , dimensionless ln d i = ln (d i+1 /d i ) E i : Initial fractional efficiency of partcile size range i of the untreated and unloaded filter element, % E D, i : Fractional efficiency of particle size range i of the filter element after an artifical conditioning step, % E A, i : Average fractional efficeincy (E i + E D, i )/2 of particle size range i, %

6 P rev1 3 (3) Appendix 1 ISO : Calculation of PM-efficiencies Testing organisation: Model: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Hi Flo II XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) Report no.: Manufacturer: 6P rev1 Camfil AB Test air flow rate: m 3 /s Date of report: i urban E Δln d i q 3u (d a, i ) D, i E A, i d a, i epm x, min epm x distribution q ln d 3u (d a, i ) q 3u (d a, i ) µm µm q 3u (d a, i ) i ln d i ln d i % % epm 1, min epm 1 line epm 2.5, min epm 2.5 line i rural E d a, i Δln d i q 3u (d a, i ) A, i epm x distribution q ln d 3u (d a, i ) µm µm q 3u (d a, i ) i ln d i % epm 10 line

7 P rev1 1 (3) Appendix 2 ISO : AIR FILTER TEST RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL Test ID: SP Date of test: Operator: CM Particle counter information Air flow measurement: Device obtained (when and how Manufacturer: Model: Coincidence value Annubar, Micatrone obtained): TSI Gmbh OPS 3330 (p/cm 3 ): Air flow sensor MFS-SS The device was sent and obtained on DEVICE TESTED Model: Hi Flo II Manufacturer: Construction: XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) Camfil AB Pocket filter, 10 Pockets Article number: Type of media: Glass Filter/media electrostatic charge: No Device Condition: Clean / Initial Net effective media area (m 2 ) 7.3 m 2 Media colour: green Testing Organization: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan Filter dimensions (width x height x depth) 592x592x640 mm Media adhesive: N/A Other descriptive information: TEST DATA SUMMARY Test air flow rate: m 3 /s RESULTS Measured: Remarks: Test air temperature: C Resistance to airflow (Pa) Rated initial: - 72 Pa Rated Final: - Test Device Photo Test air RH: % Test aersol: DEHS (0.3-1 µm) KCl (1-10 mm) Fractional Efficiency (%) Range (µm) Measured Rated Upstream concentration Efficiency Efficiency (particles / dm 3 ) NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

8 Fractional efficiency (%) Pressure differential, 1.2 kg/m 3 (Pa) REPORT P rev1 2 (3) Appendix 2 ISO : AIR FILTER TEST RESULTS DETAILS Testing Organization: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan Test ID: SP Date of test: Operator: CM TEST DATA DETAILS Resistance to Airflow 1.2 kg/m 3 % of rated airflow Airflow Resistance to (m 3 /s) Airflow (Pa) % % % % % Airflow (m 3 /s) Fractional Efficiency by Particle Size Particle size (µm) NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

9 P rev1 3 (3) Appendix 2 Efficiency measurement Upstream count data OPC bin d a, i Upstream efficiency count data µm U e,tot Note: All data shown is the number of particle counts for 60 s Efficiency measurement Downstream count data OPC bin d a, i Downstream efficiency count data µm D e,tot Note: All data shown is the number of particle counts for 60 s Efficiency measurement Final results and uncertainty OPC bin d a, i Penetration data reduction Uncertainty limits Uncertainty Efficiency µm P a δ e Static Dynamic Pass/Fail % Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass 99.9 d a, i : Geometric mean diameter of a size range i, µm P a δ e the final penetration for a given particle size the standard deviation of the penetration for a given particle size the uncertainty of the penetration for a given particle size

10 P rev1 1 (4) Appendix 3 ISO : AIR FILTER TEST RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL Test ID: SP Date of test: Operator: CM DEVICE TESTED Model: Hi Flo II XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) Camfil AB Article number: Type of media: Glass Manufacturer: Air flow measurement: Annubar, Micatrone Air flow sensor MFS-SS Net effective media area (m 2 ) 7.3 m 2 Filter/media electrostatic charge: Media colour: No green Device Condition: Conditioned per ISO Testing Organization RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan Test sample obtained: The device was sent and obtained on Construction: Pocket filter, 10 Pockets Filter dimension (W x H x D) (mm) 592x592x640 mm Media adhesive: N/A Other descriptive information: TEST DATA SUMMARY Test air flow rate: Test air temperature: Test air RH: Loading dust: m 3 /s C % Particle Technology, ISO A2-fine RESULTS Resistance to airflow Dust loading results Measured: 72 Pa Final test pressure: 300 Pa Rated initial: Rated Final: - Pa Test Device Photo Initial arrestance (%) Average arrestance(%) Test dust capacity (g) - Pa 97 % >99 % 1160 g Remarks: NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

11 Arrestance (% ) Resistance to Airflow, 1.2 kg/m 3 (Pa) REPORT P rev1 2 (4) Appendix 3 ISO : AIR FILTER TEST RESULTS DETAILS Testing Organization: Test ID: SP Date of test: Operator: CM TEST DATA DETAILS Resistance to Airflow 1.2 kg/m 3 % of rated Airflow Resistance to airflow (m 3 /s) Airflow (Pa) % % % % % Resistance to Airflow, 1.2 kg/m 3 (Pa) RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan Airflow (m 3 /s) Dust fed (g) Dust fed (g) NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

12 P rev1 3 (4) Appendix 3 ISO : Air flow rate and resistance to air flow after different dust loading phases Test device: Test no.: Test dust: Hi Flo II XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) SP Particle Technology, ISO A2-fine, Batch nr: 9173 Air flow rate: m 3 /s Date Loaded Air flow meter dust Filter m tot t f p sf p f q m t ϕ p a ρ q v p p 1.20 g C Pa Pa kg/s C % kpa kg/m 3 m 3 /s Pa Pa Clean filter Clean filter pressure drop is proportional to (q v ) n, where n = 1.28 Dust loading phase Symbols and units p f air flow meter differential pressure, Pa q m mass flow rate, kg/s m tot cumulative mass of dust fed to filter, g q v air flow rate filter, m 3 /s p measured filter pressure drop, Pa t f temperature at air flow meter, C p 1.20 resistance to air flow at air density 1.20 kg/m 3, Pa t temperature upstream of filter, C p a absolute air pressure upstream of filter, kpa ϕ relative humidity upstream of the filter, % p sf air flow meter static pressure, kpa ρ air density upstream of filter, kg/m 3

13 P rev1 4 (4) Appendix 3 ISO : Resistance to air flow and arrestance after different dust loading phases Test device: Test no.: Test dust: Hi Flo II XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) SP Particle Technology, ISO A2-fine, Batch nr: 9173 Air flow rate: m 3 /s Date p 1 m m tot Δp 2 m 1 m 2 Δm ff m d A j A m Pa g g Pa g g g g % % Mass of tested device Initial mass of tested device: Final mass of tested device: g g Test dust: Particle Technology, ISO A2-fine, Batch nr: 9173 Symbols and units A j arrestance, % A m average arrestance, % m dust increment, g p 1 resistance to air flow before dust increment (air density 1.20 kg/m³), Pa p 2 resistance to air flow after dust increment (air density 1.20 kg/m³), Pa m d m 1 m 2 m tot m ff dust in duct after device, g mass of final filter before dust increment, g mass of final filter after dust increment, g cumulative mass of dust fed to filter, g mass gain of final filter, g

14 P rev1 1 (4) Appendix 4 ISO : AIR FILTER TEST RESULTS SUMMARY GENERAL Test ID: SP Date of test: Operator: CM Particle counter information Air flow measurement: Device obtained (when and how Manufacturer: Model: Coincidence value Annubar, Micatrone obtained): TSI Gmbh OPS 3330 (p/cm 3 ): Air flow sensor MFS-SS The device was sent and obtained on DEVICE TESTED Model: Hi Flo II Manufacturer: Construction: XLT 7/ (HFGX-F7-592/592/ ) Camfil AB Pocket filter, 10 Pockets Article number: Type of media: Net effective media area (m 2 ) Filter dimensions (width x height x depth) Glass 7.3 m 2 592x592x640 mm Filter/media electrostatic charge: Media colour: No green Device Condition: Conditioned per ISO Testing Organization: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan Media adhesive: N/A Other descriptive information: TEST DATA SUMMARY Test air flow rate: Test air temperature: Test air RH: Test aersole: m 3 /s C % DEHS (0.3-1 µm) KCl (1-10 mm) RESULTS Resistance to airflow (Pa) Fractional Efficiency (%) Measured: 72 Pa Rated initial: - Measured Rated Upstream concentration Range (µm) Rated Final: - Efficiency Efficiency (particles / dm 3 ) Test item photo Remarks: NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

15 Pressure differential, 1.2 kg/m 3 (Pa) Fractional efficiency (% ) REPORT P rev1 2 (4) Appendix 4 ISO : AIR FILTER TEST RESULTS DETAILS Airflow (m 3 /s) Resistance to Airflow (Pa) Conditioned Airflow (m 3 /s) Resistance to Airflow (Pa) Testing Organization: RISE Research Institute of Sweden Brinellgatan 4, Borås, Swedan Test ID: SP Date of test: Operator: CM TEST DATA DETAILS Resistance to Airflow, 1.2 kg/m 3 Fractional efficiency Initial E i, % nominal E d, % nominal Range (µm) air flow air flow Particle size (µm) E d, 50% nominal air flow Ed, % nominal air flow Ei, % nominal air flow Ed, 50% nominal air flow Airflow (m 3 /s) Pressure differential as a function of the air flow rate, Initial Pressure differential as a function of the air flow rate, Conditioned CONDITIONING PROCEDURE Date: Temperature in the chamber: C Relative humidity in the chamber: % Atmospheric pressure: - NOTE: The results of this test relate only to the test device in the condition stated herein. The performance results cannot by themselves be quantitatively applied to predict filtration performance in all "real life" environments.

16 P rev1 3 (4) Appendix 4 Efficiency measurement Upstream count data OPC bin d a, i Upstream efficiency count data µm U e,tot Note: All data shown is the number of particle counts for 60 s Efficiency measurement Downstream count data OPC bin d a, i Downstream efficiency count data µm D e,tot Note: All data shown is the number of particle counts for 60 s Efficiency measurement Final results and uncertainty OPC bin d a, i Penetration data reduction Uncertainty limits Uncertainty Efficiency µm P δ e Static Dynamic Pass/Fail % Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass.0 d a, i : Geometric mean diameter of a size range i, µm P a δ e the final penetration for a given particle size the standard deviation of the penetration for a given particle size the uncertainty of the penetration for a given particle size

17 P rev1 4 (4) Appendix 4 Efficiency measurement, 50% nominal air flow Upstream count data OPC bin d a, i Upstream efficiency count data µm U e,tot Note: All data shown is the number of particle counts for 60 s Efficiency measurement, 50% nominal air flow Downstream count data OPC bin d i Downstream efficiency count data µm D e,tot Note: All data shown is the number of particle counts for 60 s Efficiency measurement, 50% nominal air flow Final results and uncertainty OPC bin d a, i Penetration data reduction Uncertainty limits Uncertainty Efficiency µm P δ e Static Dynamic Pass/Fail % Pass Pass Pass Pass 76.3 d a, i : Geometric mean diameter of a size range i, µm P a δ e the final penetration for a given particle size the standard deviation of the penetration for a given particle size the uncertainty of the penetration for a given particle size

18 P rev1 1 (1) Appendix 5 Fig 1. Overview of the test item. Fig 2. Label on the test item. Fig 3. Media in the test item.

19 P rev1 1 (1) Appendix 6 The interpretation of test reports according to ISO 16890:2016 This brief review of the test procedures, including those for addressing the testing of electrostatic charged filters, is provided for those unfamiliar with the procedures of this series of ISO standards. It is intended to assist in understanding and interpreting the results in the test report/summary. (For further details of procedures the full ISO document series shall be consulted). Air filters may rely on the effects of passive static electric charges on the fibres to achieve high efficiencies, particularly in the initial stages of their working life. Environmental factors encountered in service may affect the action of these electric charges so that the initial efficiency may drop substantially after an initial period of service. This could be offset or countered by an increase in efficiency ( mechanical efficiency ) as dust deposits build up. The reported, untreated and conditioned (discharged) efficiency shows the extent of the electrical charge effect on initial performance and indicates the potential loss of particle removal efficiency when the charge effect is completely removed and when at the same time there is no compensating increase of the mechanical efficiency. These test results should not be assumed to represent the filter performance in all possible environmental conditions or to represent all possible real life behavior.