2013 Buyers' Guide 2013 Buyers' Guide - Filtration News

ISOCTD tests with four ~20µm cartridges
from three vendors (plus an extra 10µm
one from vendor B for comparison).
These four cartridges were selected because
they were an offering to two of our
plants (at 1 gpm/10” flux) with high
usage. Both IFTS and IBR were used along
with the vendor’s tests (if available); and
in one case (vendor B), an actual cartridge
from our test lot was returned for their
evaluation after the low DHC was discovered.
Basically, Table III shows:
• Vendor A’s 20µm spun cartridge
rated at 45µm by the CFP (B.Pt./1.65)
value compares reasonably well to 40µm
values obtained by the vendor, IFTS, and
IBR (except for two spurious results by
IFTS at 40 ppm dust loading). Note also
that the earlier 2005 CFP results showed
much higher 70µm (Galwick) and
72µm (IPA) values than the 45µm in
2010 (e.g., this same discrepancy was
found for vendor B cartridges in 2005 vs.
2010).
• Vendor A’s DHCs agree very well between
testers, except that the 4 gpm/10”
results are much lower (~85g) than the 1
gpm/10” results (~194g), as expected.
Also, the Dow 69g DHC at 1 gpm/10” flux
is quite low for some unexplained reason.
• Even though IFTS and IBR used different
dust challenge and particle counter
range protocols, the results for vendor A’s
particle efficiencies are quite comparable,
especially considering that a different cartridge
was used in each test.
• Vendor B’s 25µm cartridges show
very low 18g DHC by both the vendor
and by IFTS, but very good comparison
to the 22µm (B.Pt./1.65) value. The low
18g DHC was originally suspect such that
a new cartridge (from this same test lot)
was returned to B for their testing, and
they also obtained 18g (vs. 35g as reported
in their literature). As a result, the
vendor suspected that this lot was mislabeled
since their 10µm cartridges have a
reported 55g DHC; and their 10µm ones
tested here showed an equivalent 10µm
rating by both their ISOCTD and by the
10µm (B.Pt/1.65) value with new 2010
cartridges. Note again that the 40µm
value in 2005 was much higher than
22µm value in 2010 for B’s 25µm rated
cartridge. As a consequence of these poor
results, vendor B’s cartridge wasn’t tested
5-40
www.filtnews.com • August 2012 • 27
Table 3