2022The Science of The Total EnvironmentOpen access

Can 10× cheaper, lower-efficiency particulate air filters and box fans complement High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) purifiers to help control the COVID-19 pandemic?

Devabhaktuni Srikrishna

Open full text 41 citations

Abstract

Public health departments such as CDC and California Department of Public Health (CA-DPH) advise HEPA-purifiers to limit transmission of SARS-CoV-2 indoor spaces. CA-DPH recommends air exchanges per hour (ACH) of 4-6 air for rooms with marginal ventilation and 6-12 in classrooms often necessitating multiple HEPA-purifiers per room, unaffordable in under-resourced community settings. Pressure to seek cheap, rapid air filtration resulted in proliferation of lower-cost, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) air purifiers whose performance is not well characterized compared to HEPA-purifiers. Primary metrics are clean air delivery rate (CADR), noise generated (dBA), and affordability ($$). CADR measurement often requires hard-to-replicate laboratory experiments with generated aerosols. We use simplified, low-cost measurement tools of ambient aerosols enabling scalable evaluation of aerosol filtration efficiencies (0.3 to 10 μm), estimated CADR, and noise generation to compare 3 HEPA-purifiers and 9 DIY purifier designs. DIY purifiers consist of one or two box fans coupled to single MERV 13-16 filters (1″-5″ thick) or quad filters in a cube. Accounting for reduced filtration efficiency of MERV 13-16 filters (versus HEPA) at the most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, estimated CADR of DIY purifiers using 2″ (67%), 4″ (66%), and 5″ (85%) filters at lowest fan speed was 293 cfm ($35), 322 cfm ($58), and 405 cfm ($120) comparable to best-in-class, low-noise generating HEPA-purifier running at maximum speed with at 282 cfm ($549). Quad filter designs, popularly known Corsi-Rosenthal boxes, achieved gains in estimated CADR below 80% over single filter designs, less than the 100% gain by adding a second DIY purifier. Replacing one of the four filters with a second fan resulted in gains of 125%-150% in estimated CADR. Tested DIY alternatives using lower-efficiency, single filters compare favorably to tested HEPA-purifiers in estimated CADR, noise generated at five to ten times lower cost, enabling cheap, rapid aerosol removal indoors.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Public health departments such as CDC and California Department of Public Health (CA-DPH) advise HEPA-purifiers to limit transmission of SARS-CoV-2 indoor spaces. CA-DPH recommends air exchanges per hour (ACH) of 4-6 air for rooms with marginal ventilation and 6-12 in classrooms often necessitating multiple HEPA-purifiers per room, unaffordable in under-resourced community settings. Pressure to seek cheap, rapid air filtration resulted in proliferation of lower-cost, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) air purifiers whose performance is not well characterized compared to HEPA-purifiers. Primary metrics are clean air delivery rate (CADR), noise generated (dBA), and affordability ($$). CADR measurement often requires hard-to-replicate laboratory experiments with generated aerosols. We use simplified, low-cost measurement tools of ambient aerosols enabling scalable evaluation of aerosol filtration efficiencies (0.3 to 10 μm), estimated CADR, and noise generation to compare 3 HEPA-purifiers and 9 DIY purifier designs. DIY purifiers consist of one or two box fans coupled to single MERV 13-16 filters (1″-5″ thick) or quad filters in a cube. Accounting for reduced filtration efficiency of MERV 13-16 filters (versus HEPA) at the most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, estimated CADR of DIY purifiers using 2″ (67%), 4″ (66%), and 5″ (85%) filters at lowest fan speed was 293 cfm ($35), 322 cfm ($58), and 405 cfm ($120) comparable to best-in-class, low-noise generating HEPA-purifier running at maximum speed with at 282 cfm ($549). Quad filter designs, popularly known Corsi-Rosenthal boxes, achieved gains in estimated CADR below 80% over single filter designs, less than the 100% gain by adding a second DIY purifier. Replacing one of the four filters with a second fan resulted in gains of 125%-150% in estimated CADR. Tested DIY alternatives using lower-efficiency, single filters compare favorably to tested HEPA-purifiers in estimated CADR, noise generated at five to ten times lower cost, enabling cheap, rapid aerosol removal indoors.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 41 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Public health departments such as CDC and California Department of Public Health (CA-DPH) advise HEPA-purifiers to limit transmission of SARS-CoV-2 indoor spaces. CA-DPH recommends air exchanges per hour (ACH) of 4-6 air for rooms with marginal ventilation and 6-12 in classrooms often necessitating multiple HEPA-purifiers per room, unaffordable in under-resourced community settings. Pressure to seek cheap, rapid air filtration resulted in proliferation of lower-cost, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) air purifiers whose performance is not well characterized compared to HEPA-purifiers. Primary metrics are clean air delivery rate (CADR), noise generated (dBA), and affordability ($$). CADR measurement often requires hard-to-replicate laboratory experiments with generated aerosols. We use simplified, low-cost measurement tools of ambient aerosols enabling scalable evaluation of aerosol filtration efficiencies (0.3 to 10 μm), estimated CADR, and noise generation to compare 3 HEPA-purifiers and 9 DIY purifier designs. DIY purifiers consist of one or two box fans coupled to single MERV 13-16 filters (1″-5″ thick) or quad filters in a cube. Accounting for reduced filtration efficiency of MERV 13-16 filters (versus HEPA) at the most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, estimated CADR of DIY purifiers using 2″ (67%), 4″ (66%), and 5″ (85%) filters at lowest fan speed was 293 cfm ($35), 322 cfm ($58), and 405 cfm ($120) comparable to best-in-class, low-noise generating HEPA-purifier running at maximum speed with at 282 cfm ($549). Quad filter designs, popularly known Corsi-Rosenthal boxes, achieved gains in estimated CADR below 80% over single filter designs, less than the 100% gain by adding a second DIY purifier. Replacing one of the four filters with a second fan resulted in gains of 125%-150% in estimated CADR. Tested DIY alternatives using lower-efficiency, single filters compare favorably to tested HEPA-purifiers in estimated CADR, noise generated at five to ten times lower cost, enabling cheap, rapid aerosol removal indoors.

Key concepts: HEPA, Air purifier, Air filter, Environmental science, Particulates, Filtration (mathematics), Dust collector, Waste management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Can 10× cheaper, lower-efficiency particulate air filters and box fans complement High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) purifiers to help control the COVID-19 pandemic? — Research Paper | ScholarLens