More results involving Electronic Air Cleaners. This time using Hydrogen Peroxide in the air for air/surface disinfection (PCO + DHP).
I will focus on the air disinfection results.
Results are from a chamber test 👇.
Principle of work per manuf.: the device produces dry hydrogen peroxide with max concentration of 20 ppb that is able to last long enough to diffuse throughout the space (half life is 30 - 60 mins; for comparison: half life of ions is in the seconds).
Result from the in-duct device (Name = Blade DHP) show that the device is not very effective to reduce airborne concentration (<10% effective).
Note: You will need to subtract natural decay curve.
Result from the in-room devices (Name = Sphere and Sentry) show that the devices are not very effective to reduce airborne concentration (<25% effective).
Note: You will need to subtract natural decay curve
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Manufacturer claims no (ZERO) ozone production. Published test on the website from an outside lab: atmosair.com/wp-content/upl…
Test Date = 2005
Independent testing by CDC/FEMA (1/2) - 2009:
After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA purchased provided temporary housing for families who were displaced by the storms and looked for air cleaners to reduce formaldehyde but decided first to test if they produce ozone.
What the manufacturer claims?
I will focus on three claims: reduction of PM count by agglomeration, surface inactivation of COV-2, removal of VOCs + formaldehyde.
-GPS+MERV 8 reduced particle count concentration by 89.7%
-GPS report 99.8% SARS-COV-2 surface inactivation
What the independent studies by subject matter experts found (device tested is produced by GPS).
Claim of reduction of particulate matter concentration: False.
1) About MERV 13 - upgrading filters to MERV13 is the cheapest and most consistent/ practical solution:
For a 10,000 ft2 school buildings or 15 classrooms, it only costs $546/YEAR. This simple upgrade will give you ~5 ACH.
If my school building was running the way it was supposed to be run (compliant to minimum codes), how would it rate per Harvard-CU Boulder Air Exchange Rate Target?
In other words, are we asking too much from school buildings? 🧵
Classroom
- 500 ft2, 12 kids
- served by a central AC system
To obtain the certificate of occupancy (to be allowed to occupy the classroom), this classroom need to have minimum outside air according to building codes. This is by design and should be kept in operation.
1) The minimum outside air equal to 2.7 ACH. 2) The AC system has a filter - mainly installed to protect the heating and cooling coil - of MERV 8 (pretty common in school buildings). The filter + airflow will get you 2.67 ACH.
My school installed an electronic air cleaner system (EAC), what should I do?
1) Ask for the following (part 1):
-Make/model of the system
-What is the basis to choosing the number of units? How many units is needed for the airflow, number of people, ft2?
- How do we verify it is working after it is installed?
Ask for the following (part 2)
- Efficiency test data that correspond to the install (in-room versus duct?)
- By-products test (formaldehyde, ultrafine particles, ozone) test at the SAME conditions of the efficiency test.
Here is a collection of cheating techniques of ionizers when reporting test results 🧵 @jljcolorado
1) Use a small chamber or position their equipment above a tiny surface (example Petri dish) when reporting efficiency to exaggerate the %.
For example, reported efficiency of an equipment positioned above a tiny surface is 93%. Applying to real conditions (duct, with appropriate surface area and contact time), this efficiency will be 0.0016%.