Abstract
Background SARS-Cov-2 aerosols have potential to accumulate in airspaces of poorly ventilated, indoor spaces such as classrooms, offices, homes, restaurants, and bars. Separately, toxic aerosol pollution (e.g. wildfires, wood burning) is frequently encountered in these locations with ventilation relying on outside air. Portable high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) air purifiers are useful to remove both types of aerosols without relying on outside ventilation. To meet or exceed recommended 4 to 6 air exchanges per hour (ACH), high price-points for select HEPA air purifier models without incurring excessive noise generation make them unaffordable for many households and communities. Do-it-yourself (DIY) alternatives with box-fans and HVAC filters can be much lower cost but their clean air delivery rate (CADR) and noise generation varies greatly depending on choices of filters, number of filters, and fan speeds.
Objective To compare cost-effectiveness and noise-generation of aerosol filtration by commercially available, portable HEPA air purifiers and do-it-yourself (DIY) alternatives built from box fans and HVAC filters rated at MERV 13 or 14 using single and quad filter designs.
Methods The comparison is based on three metrics: clean air delivery rate (CADR), the noise generated (dBA), and affordability ($$) using an ISO-certified aerosol measurement device to measure input/output particle filtration of particles sizes ranging from 0.3 microns to 10 microns, airspeed meter to measure airflow, and NIOSH sound meter app to measure noise.
Results Accounting for reduced filtration efficiency of MERV 13/14 filters compared to HEPA, estimated clean air delivery rate (CADR) of a do-it-yourself (DIY) setup using 2” and 4” filters with a box fan running at fan speed 1 for tolerable noise was 243 cfm ($35) to 323 cfm ($58), comparable or better than a best-in-class, commercial HEPA air purifiers running at maximum speed with low noise generation at 282 cfm ($549). However the quad filter designs, popularly known as the Corsi-Rosenthal box, achieved gains in CADR of only 50% over a single filter design but in contrast to 200-250% gains reported by UC-Davis.
Conclusions DIY alternatives using single 1”, 2” and 4” MERV 13/14 filters compare favorably to best-in-class, commercially available systems in terms of estimated CADR and noise but at approximately ten times lower cost. Compared to use of one filter, an improvement in CADR (air flow) was observed with a popular DIY configuration involving quad filter design, popularly known as the Corsi-Rosenthal box, not as high as reported by a recent study by UC-Davis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
sri.devabhaktuni{at}gmail.com, www.patientknowhow.com
Updated Introduction. Updated Results. Updated Discussion.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
