2013 Buyers' Guide 2013 Buyers' Guide - Filtration News

Testing | Filter Performance
by IBR and was eliminated from consideration
(i.e., these results indicated the
value of rigorous up-front testing before
expensive plant testing is done).
• Vendor C’s first offering (a pleated
version to replace A) shows much higher
~210g DHC at the high 4 gpm/10” flux
than A’s ~85g; and its 71µm (B.Pt./1.65)
value agrees well with IBR’s result, which
is much higher than the suspect IFTS albeit
their dust loading was much lower
(i.e., 5 vs. 40ppm).
• Vendor C’s 1 gpm/10” flux results
are all quite comparable except for IFTS’s
40 ppm/20-80µm range results. The IBR
20-80µm range results are the most reasonable
since a good comparison to the
71µm (B.Pt./1.65) value for four identical
cartridges (i.e., they incidentally only
exhibited a 3µm standard deviation,
which suggests that these first offering
cartridges are fairly uniform). The low
148g DHC apparently cannot be explained
by cartridge variation unless an
outlier occurred since the high 288g IBR
DHC value compares very well to the
259g Dow result. Also note that the flatsheet
(B.Pt./1.65) value, which was corroborated
by the NIST Glass Bead
challenge test, (Ref. 7) is much higher
than the 71µm cartridge test apparently
due to pleating with drainage layers to
form the final cartridge form.
• Vendor C’s second pleated offering
again shows much higher ~220g DHC at
the high 4 gpm/10” flux than A’s 85g; and
its 69µm avg. (B.Pt./1.65) value agrees
well with the IBR results, which are much
higher than the suspect IFTS result albeit
their dust loading was much lower again
(i.e., 5 vs. 40ppm) and their DHC was
much lower at only 161g. However, with
this cartridge offering the 11µm standard
deviation was much higher with a 59 to
78µm range, (compared to 3µ and a 80
to 87µm range). Thus, some of the discrepancies
observed here can be accounted
for by cartridge-to-cartridge
variation.
• Vendor C’s 1 gpm/10” results are
more comparable, but one IBR 20-80µm
range result is most reasonable since a
good comparison to the 69µm average
(B.Pt./1.65) value and even better to the
low 59µm low value. Note again that the
flat-sheet 79µm (B.Pt./1.65) value (which
was corroborated by the 78µm NIST
Glass Bead Challenge test) is higher than
69µm final cartridge value except that in
this case, one cartridge exhibited 78µm
due to the inherent wide variability of
these vendor C’s second offering. Note
also that one low IBR 152g DHC again results,
but its higher 268g value compares
well to the 299g Dow DHC result.
Thus, these extensive ISOCTD challenge
tests with four cartridges demonstrated
reasonable comparison between
IBR and IFTS considering cartridge variability;
good agreement between IBR &
IFTS initial efficiencies with the High-
Flow CFP (B.Pt./1.65) values; reasonable
DHC comparisons except for a few low
outliers, which could be due to cartridge
variability (but in some cases due to dust
loading and particle counter range); that
vendor test data isn’t very reliable since
different test conditions are generally
used; and that in many cases, cartridges
are mislabeled or adjacent micron rated
ones are essentially equivalent.
SUMMARY
The extensive cartridge evaluations
with eight vendor offerings demonstrated
the value of the PMI High-Flow
Capillary Flow Porometer and the
(B.Pt./1.65) correlation parameter; its
value compared to the old ASTM F316
Bubble Point test; the wide variation in
manufacturers’ stated micron ratings,
which need to be taken with a “grain of
salt”; the validity of rigorous ISOCTD
challenge testing by IBR and IFTS,
which in general showed good comparisons
between the two test labs (except
for DHC, which could be due to cartridge-to-cartridge
variability); reasonable
initial efficiency comparisons to the
CFP (B.Pt./1.65) values; and that flux,
ISOCTD loading, particle-counter range
all have an effect on the results, and rigorous
up-front specification of all the
test parameters is required. Future work
should include CFP B.Pt. testing of
multiple cartridges from a single offering
followed by ISOCTD challenge testing
of these same cartridges.
28 • August 2012 • www.filtnews.com
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his thanks to J.
G. Lynch, N. Petillon, and C. Peuchet of IFTS; S.
Goldsmith of IBR; R. Collins and W. R. Bauer of
Dow Chemical; and K. Gupta of PMI for their
invaluable assistance in the data collection and
FN
interpretation for this paper.
For more information contact:
Dr. Ernest Mayer
806 Highfield Drive
Newark, DE 19713
Tel: (302) 981-8060
Email: emayer6@verizon.net
REFERENCES
1. Mayer, E., Paper presented at AFSS Fall Topical
Conf. on Filter Testing, Baltimore, MD, (Nov. 14-
16,2004); “Assessing Bag & Cartridge Filter Efficiency
via Porometry Measurements.”
2. Mayer, E., Paper presented at AFSS Topical Conf. –
Filter Testing Processes & Equipment, Ann Arbor, MI,
(Sept. 19-22, 2005); “Estimating Filter Media Filtration
Efficiency via Porometry Measurement.”
3. Rideal, G., Mayer, E., and Lydon, R., Filtration, 4
(1), 29-33 (2004): “Comparative Methods for the
Pore Size Calibration of Filter Media.”
4. Rideal, G., Filtration, 7 (2), 132-137 (2007): “Physical
Measurement of Pores by Glass Bead Challenge
Testing.”
5. Mayer, E., Paper presented at AFSS Fall 2008
Conf. on Filter Testing, Charlotte, NC, (Sept. 22-26,
2008): “Filter Media Pore Size Comparison Between
Porometry and Glass Bead Challenge Testing.”
6. Rideal, G., and Mayer, E., Filtration, 9 (1), 38-41
(2009): “Filter Media Pore Size Comparison Between
Porometry and Glass Bead Challenge Testing.”
7. Mayer, E., Paper to be presented at AFSS Fall Topical
Conf. on Filter Testing, Ellicott City, MD, (Oct. 5-7,
2010): “NIST Glass Bead Challenge Testing – An
Overview.”
8. Porous Materials, Inc., (PMI) Bulletin: “The Best
Selection for Your Filter Characterization: Capillary
Flow Porometer.”
9. Jena, A., and Gupta, K., Paper presented at AFSS
Fall Topical Conf. on Filter Testing, Baltimore, MD,
(Nov. 14-16, 2004): “Characterization of the Pore
Structure of Complete Filter Cartridges Using High
Flow Porometry.”
10. www.ibr-usa.com
11. www.ifts-sls.com
12. Collins, R. M., Paper presented at AFSS Fall Topical
Conf. on Diesel Emissions, Ann Arbor, MI, (Oct.
16-18, 2007): “Comparative Performance of Disposable
Liquid Filter Cartridges: A Realistic Approach.”
13. Collins, R. M., Paper presented at AFSS Fall Topical
Conf. on Emission Solutions in Transportation,
Ann Arbor, MI, (Oct. 5-8, 2009): “Comparative Performance
of Disposable Liquid Filter Cartridges in Realistic
Tests.”
14. Peuchot, C., and Petillon, N., paper presented at
AFSS Fall Topical Conf. on Filter Testing, Baltimore,
MD, (Nov. 14-16, 2004): “New Standard Test Methods
to Evaluate Filtering Media Performance.”
15. Peuchot, C., Filtration, 6, (4), 297-300, (2006):
“Testing of Filter Media for Liquid Filtration – Introduction
and Review.”
16. Peuchot, C., Petillon, N., and Lynch, J., Filtration &
Separation, 2 (2), (2009): “Filter Efficiency and Liquids:
“The Advantages of Cartridge Filters.”