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.
Introduction
Recent studies have demonstrated the presence of live SARS-Cov-2 in micron [1] [2] and submicron [3] aerosols from the exhaled breath of infected people. Virus-carrying aerosols have the potential to accumulate in the airspace of poorly ventilated, indoor spaces such as classrooms, offices, homes, restaurants, and bars and other community settings, and if inhaled may result in COVID-19 infections [4]. Separately, toxic aerosol pollution such as from wildfires, wood burning, and other sources can be encountered in these same locations with ventilation using unfiltered, outdoor air. Portable air filtration in the form of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) air purifiers is useful to remove both types of aerosols without relying on ventilation from outside the room.
Although in healthcare settings there are minimum specifications for ventilation and air filtration up to 15 air exchange per hour (ACH), in community settings the US-CDC does not specify a target but recommends increasing air filtration as high as possible [5]. Whereas experts recommend 4 to 6 ACH in community settings [6].
For example, in a typical classroom of size 30’ x 30’ classroom with 8’ foot ceilings, a HEPA air purifier rated at a CADR of 300 cubic feet per minute needs 24 minutes to cycle the air once (2.5 ACH) under ideal mixing conditions [7] [8]. This classroom would therefore require two to three such air HEPA purifiers with sufficiently low noise generation typically costing $400-$500 each (with periodic $40-$80 filter replacements) to achieve the target ACH exceeding 4 to 6 ACH. For an upfront cost of approximately $1000-$1500 per classroom, this level of air filtration may be outside the budget of many schools in the US and worldwide. Approaching 15 ACH as in hospitals and passenger aircraft [9] would require many more HEPA units putting it further out of reach. If portable HEPA air purifiers of sufficiently low noise generation with sufficiently high clean air delivery rate (CADR) are unaffordable for many communities, how else can they achieve target ACH while addressing [10] [11] both cost and noise generation concerns?
Lower cost alternatives to HEPA air purifiers have been in use for at least a decade and investigated for both their air filtration properties and fire safety. For example, a Minimum Efficiency Rating Value-13 (MERV-13) filter attached to a box fan using duct tape (or a bungee cord) has been demonstrated to effectively filter wildfire PM2.5 and submicron particles [12]. Ford Motor Company sponsored a project called “Scrappy Filtration” which reportedly donated 20,000 box-fan and air filters held together with a cardboard structure for use in classrooms to underserved communities [20] [21].
These lower-cost box-fan-filter alternatives have not yet been directly compared to commercially available HEPA air purifiers in terms of filtration efficiency (%), air flow and clean air delivery rate (CADR), and noise generation (dBA). Below, we compare the cost-effectiveness of aerosol filtration by commercially available, portable air cleaning devices with HEPA filters and
do-it-yourself (DIY) alternatives built from box fans and HVAC filters rated at MERV 13 or 14. The comparison is based on three metrics: clean air delivery rate (CADR), the noise generated (dBA), and initial cost or affordability ($$). The test devices include 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. We also evaluate a DIY configuration involving quad filter design, popularly known as the Corsi-Rosenthal box, that has been in use to enhance the airflow and CADR over a single filter design.
Safety Notes
California Air Resource Board recommends never leaving such box-fan air filters unattended while turned on, and for box fans in the US those manufactured after 2012 because these fans will have a fused plug to prevent electrical fires if the device is inadvertently knocked over [13]. Chemical Insights, a subsidiary of Underwriter Laboratories, recently tested five different electric box fan models (approximately 20” × 20” in size) with attached air filters and concluded that all measured temperatures fell below the maximum acceptable thresholds defined by the market safety standard for electric fans (UL 507) [14]. The resources and information in this article (the “Content”) are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice. The Content is intended to complement, not substitute, the advice of your doctor. You should seek independent professional advice from a person who is licensed and/or qualified in the applicable area. No action should be taken based upon any information contained in this article. Use of the article is at your own risk. Patient Knowhow, Inc. takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Content made in this article.
Methods
Commercially available HEPA air purifiers
Three models evaluated include the Coway Airmega 300, Coway AP-1512HH, and Airthereal AHG550.
HVAC filters with box fan
For DIY configurations, the box fan used is a 20” Lasko Fan which costs $20 (Home Depot) along with the following HVAC filters made by Nordic Pure. A shroud made of cardboard of 14” diameter was attached to the output side (front) of the fan to improve airflow. For comparison, two methods of attaching the box fan to the air filters included vacuum (no attachment just relying on airflow), duct tape, and velcro.
Aerosol filtration efficiency
For each HEPA air purifier or box fan filter, counts at each particle size (0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 2.5, 5, and 10 in microns) were tested using an ISO-certified particle counter (Temtop Particle Counter PMD 331 available on Amazon) with the filter turned ‘on’ and ‘off’ consecutively. Five counts were recorded and averaged on the particle counter when its input was placed directly at the output of the air purifier/filter for 30 seconds. The efficiency at each particle size was estimated by the formula, efficiency = 1 - on / off.
Air flow
For each HEPA air purifier or box fan filter, the airspeed was measured using an anemometer (BTMETER BT-100 Handheld Anemometer available on Amazon) held at the output and also input (if possible). An average of four or more airspeed measurements (feet per minute) were multiplied by area of input or output to estimate the airflow (cubic feet per minute).
Noise
Noise measurements were taken for each air purifier/filter using an iPhone app maintained by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [15]. Three or more noise measurements were taken at a 9” distance perpendicular to the direction of the output airflow and averaged.
Results
Commercial HEPA air purifiers
The results for best-in-class, commercial air purifiers show particle filtration efficiencies near or exceeding 90% at all particle sizes ranging from 0.3 to 10 microns. At their maximum fan speed, the noise generated by the Coway Airmega 300 was lowest and most (subjectively) tolerable of the three models. To achieve similar tolerability levels both the Coway AP-1512 and the Airthereal AGH550 had to be set at fan speed 2 which cut their estimated airflow (CADR) roughly in half.
Box fan plus single MERV 13/14 filter
The filtration efficiency of the MERV 13/14 filters varied by thickness with highest observed for 4” filters compared to 1” filters, and also at higher particle sizes above 1 micron exceeding 90%. The box fan was (subjectively) tolerable only at fan speed one (out of three). Compared to 282 cfm for the Coway Airmega 300 ($375) at fan speed 3, at fan speed 1, the box fan has estimated CADR of 371 cfm at for 70% filtration efficiency with the 4” MERV 14 filter ($58) and 278 cfm at 60% efficiency for the 2” MERV 13 filter ($38).
Box fan plus quad MERV 13/14 filters
The quad filter design, popularly known as the Corsi-Rosenthal box, showed significant improvement over single filters with using comparably rated filters and fan speeds. With the quad 1” MERV 14 filters at fan speed 1, the output airflow was 617 cfm versus 386 cfm with a single filter at that fan speed for an improvement of 60%. Similarly with 2” MERV 13 filters the improvement was only 35%. These results are in contrast to approximately 200%-250% improvement between single filter and quad filter designs (also with shroud and 20” Lasko box fan) reported in a study by UC-Davis [19]. Notably, there was almost no difference in output airflow when the 1” air filters were attached with duct tape (sealed airtight) or velcro (loose fitting) suggesting any leaks created by a loose fit are likely insignificant.
Discussion
Accounting for reduced filtration efficiency of MERV 13/14 filters compared to HEPA, the 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 to 343 cfm, comparable or better than a best-in-class, commercial HEPA air purifier running at maximum speed with low noise generation (Coway Airmega 300) at 282 cfm. Yet the upfront cost of the components of the DIY setup were approximately 10 times less ($35-$58) than a best-in-class, commercial HEPA air purifier ($549).
The DIY setups also did not require tape but could be assembled with loose-fitting velcro, bungee cord, or simply attached by the vacuum of the fan when turned on. The marginal difference in airflow between vacuum/velcro versus tape is not totally surprising. In the single filter design, the air filter clings to the fan without any extra adhesive tells suggesting much of the air is flowing through the filter already. In many home HVAC systems the air filter typically slides in and doesn’t require an airtight seal but it still works.
However the quad filter design, popularly known as the Corsi-Rosenthal box, did not achieve gains in CADR of more than 50% over a single filter design which is in contrast to the 200-250% gains reported by UC-Davis [19]. The reason why there is a discrepancy between the results reported here and by UC-Davis remains to be reconciled. Anecdotally, we observed that the airflow was non-uniform across all four filters which may be responsible for this. The top filter closest to the fan had more airflow than either the side filters and especially compared to the filter furthest away from the fan in the back. This may be the cause for the gains not to be as high as expected. Why is the airflow across the four filters non-ideal? In an ideal gas a pressure differential from one side of the cube ought to apply equally across all four sides of the cube. However this is a dynamic situation with turbulence and all sorts of non-ideal effects. Maybe it has to do with airflow dynamics (aerodynamics). Subjectively, the quad filter design feels sturdy and stable but it also costs more. With 200-250% gains in CADR it would be appealing but if we were unable to replicate the expected gains, others are probably going to run into similar challenges as well. Practically, it’s time and cost can be alternatively expended on replicating a new box fan filter (+ 100% gain) so that the airflow is then distributed to different locations in the room or classroom.
A sweet spot between speed of setup, simplicity, size, and cost seems to be a single 2” MERV 13 or 4” MERV 14 filter (20”x20”) with 20” box fan. It is harder to mess up which is needed for DIY designs. Given the simplicity and low-cost of the box-fan design using single 2” or 4” MERV 13/14 filters, form-factor improvements at a marginal cost may include a more stable, cardboard box frame so it is not so easy to knock over with wallpaper to make it aesthetically pleasing. A mosquito screen in front of the fan may help prevent curious fingers from contacting the fan blade which may be especially important for classroom and home applications when young children are present.
Limitations
The filtration and airflow results for box fan used a certain set of filters and fans made by a certain manufacturers which may vary with other manufacturers. Although the cost was lower, the durability of filtration efficiency and airflow of these filters after extended use is unknown unlike HEPA-purifiers with operational history. There may also be variability in filter performance due to manufacturing or among manufacturers of similarly-rated filters.
Disclaimer
These resources and information in this article (the “Content”) are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice. The Content is intended to complement, not substitute, the advice of your doctor. You should seek independent professional advice from a person who is licensed and/or qualified in the applicable area. No action should be taken based upon any information contained in this article. Use of the article is at your own risk. Patient Knowhow, Inc. takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Content made in this article.
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank Hugh Churchill, Amalavoyal Narsimha Chari, Robert Freedman, Stephanie Holm, and Dan Jaffe for helpful discussions and advice.
Footnotes
sri.devabhaktuni{at}gmail.com, www.patientknowhow.com
Updated Introduction. Updated Results. Updated Discussion.
References
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
5
Blogs/Media
Author Videos