Clean air experts – since 1963…

1. The Camfil Farr Group
Corporate presentation

2. Clean air
experts – since
1963…
• Swedish family owned business
• Started more than 45 years ago
• Top class products and services
• Today around 3 400 employees
all over the world
Camfil factory 1960´s Founder: Gösta Larson 2

3. Company highlights
3

4. Company overview
• 2009 Group sales over SEK 4.5 billion
• Approximately 3 400 employees
• 23 production plants
• Sales companies in 25 countries
• Agents and representatives in more
than 50 countries
Alan O´Connell,
CEO, Camfil Farr Group
4

5. Clean air business concept
Our business concept is to deliver
value to customers all over the world
while contributing to something
essential to everyone – clean air.
5

6. 6

7. Comfort air
A healty and beneficial climate
• Offices
• Hotels
• Schools
• Shopping centres
• Conference centres
• Airports
7

8. Clean processes
Protecting processes
• Bio Pharma
• Food and beverage
• Pulp and paper
• Automotive
• Hospital
8

9. Air Pollution Control
Heavy-duty clean air solutions
• Blasting, welding and grinding
• Laser and plasma cutting
• Thermal / flame spray
• Pharmaceutical compounds
• Food processing
9

10. Power systems
• Gas turbines
• Turbo compressors
• Diesel engines
Supply of complete:
• Air Inlet & Exhaust Systems
• Enclosure & Vent. Systems
• Damper Systems for the
Power and Oil & Gas industry
10

11. Nuclear and Containment
Protecting people and environment
from airborne hazards
• Nuclear
• Chemical
• Biological
• Industrial
11

12. Airborne Molecular Contamination
(AMC)
• Microelectronics
• Ensures very clean manufacturing
environment for VLSI (Very Large
Scale Integrated) circuit production
12

13. Clean processes
Mike Vinson
CP Segment Manager UK
13

14. BS/EN1822:2009
High efficiency air filters
(EPA,HEPA and ULPA)

15. EN 779:2012
1. Coarse/fine filters - ASHRAE
EN1822:2009
2. HEPA and ULPA filters

16. Classification Table
Filter Overall Minimum Max local
Class efficiency local efficiency penetration
(%) (%) (%)
E10 85 - *C - *C
E11 95 - *C - *C
E12 99.5 - *C - *C
H13 99.95 99.75 0.25
H14 99.995 99.975 0.025
U15 99.9995 99.9975 0.0025
U16 99.99995 99.99975 0.00025
U17 99.999995 99.9999 0.0001
*C - Group E Filters (E10,E11,E12) cannot and shall not be
leak tested for classification purposes

17. • MPPS (Most Penetrating Particle Size) is normally in range
0.1-0.25 micron for HEPA/ULPA filters
• Air Velocity* through filter media and type of filter material
determine:
– MPPS
– Efficiency
– Pressure drop
*= Note the difference between media air velocity and filter face velocity

18. • MPPS (Most Penetrating Particle Size) is normally in
range 0.1-0.25 micron
• Filters have historically been tested at various sizes
– 0.17 µm - Soda salt test (AFNOR X44-1)
– 0.30 µm - DOP test (Q107 or MIL282)
– 0.65 µm - Sodium flame (BS3928)
• Today MPPS is introduced (EN 1822)

19. Factory test In situ
• EN1822 • ISO 14644-3
• IES-RP-CC007.1 (US) • IES-RP-CC002.2 (photometer)
• DOP (Q107, Mil std 282) • IES-RP-CC-006.2 (counter)
• Eurovent 4/4 (BS3928)
• BS 5276 (photometer)

20. • EN 1822-1 Classification, performance testing and marking
• EN 1822-2 Aerosol production, measuring equipment
• EN 1822-3 Testing flat sheet filter media
• EN 1822-4 Determining leakage of filter element (Scanning)
• EN 1822-5 Determining the efficiency of Filter element

21. Method:
• The MPPS is determined at nominal flow (flat sheet
media efficiency)
• Filter tested (scanned) for leaks at MPPS
• The readings downstream are used to calculate overall
efficiency

22. 2 cm/s
Penetration curve 1.5 cm/s
0.5 cm/s
1,000000
0,100000 E12
0,010000 H13
penetration [%]
0,001000 H14
0,000100 U15
0,000010
U16
0,000001
U17
0,01 0,1 1
size [µm]

23. The standard describe
• Test procedure
• Classification system
• Aerosol characteristics (DEHS, other aerosol may be used)
• Statistical considerations
• Instrumentation, equipment performance

24. Filter scanning set up
Scanning Probe
Particle counter
Diluter
Upstream probe
Aerosol generator

25. Filter Overall Minimum Max local
Class efficiency local efficiency penetration
(%) (%) (%)
E10 85 - -
E11 95 - -
E12 99.5 - -
H13 99.95 99.75 0.25
H14 99.995 99.975 0.025
U15 99.9995 99.9975 0.0025
U16 99.99995 99.99975 0.00025
U17 99.999995 99.9999 0.0001

26. MPPS region
Total Efficiency
Interception effect
Diffusion effect
Straining effect
Electrostatic effect
Particle size (µm) 0.1 1 10

28. Filter scanning set up
Scanning Probe
3) Particle counter
2) Diluter
Upstream probe
1) Aerosol generator

29. Common type of aerosols used for Filter test:
• DEHS (DOS) liquid
• DOP liquid
• Emery 3004 liquid
• NaCl solid (salt)
• SiO2 solid
• Latex (PSL) solid (plastic)
• KCl solid

30. Laskin Nozzle Spray Nozzle
DEHS, DOP Latex, Silica (SiO2)
Aerosol out
Compressed air Aerosol out Latex + water
Compressed air
DEHS, DOP Additional heater

31. SiO2 0.6 µm KCl 0.6 µm

32. Filter elements of Group H
Can be tested using one of three leak test methods: -
• The reference scanning method EN 1822-4
• The Oil Thread Leak Test (EN 1822-4:2009, Annex A)
• The 0.3mm – 0.5mm Particle Efficiency Leak Test (EN1822-
4:2009, Annex E, for Class H13 only)
All leak tests shall be performed at the nominal/rated air flow of the
test filter element.

33. BS/EN 1822:2009
Filter shapes creating highly turbulent air flow (eg V-bank or cylindrical
filters) for which the reference scan method can not be applied, should be
leak testing by either of the two alternative methods:
1. Oil Thread Leak Method (EN 1822-4:2009, Annex A) or 0.3mm – 0.5mm
m m
2. Particle Efficiency Leak Test (EN1822-4:2009, Annex E, for Class H13 only)
For higher Classes of filters, the two alternative methods might not be
sensitive enough to measure the local penetration limits.
Higher Classes of filters have to be marked:-
1. “Alternative leak tested, method A” or
2. “Alternative leak tested, method E” on its label and test report

34. In-Situ (site) testing
14644-3 or PD6609-UK

35. Concentration Poly- and Mono disperse aerosol distribution
Poly-disperse
Mono-disperse
0.01 0.1 1 10
Size [micron]

37. Differential representation of LASKIN nozzle and
thermal generator • DOP-aerosol
40.00 • Comparison
35.00
LASKIN - Weight aerosol
30.00 Thermal - Weight generators,
measured
freqvency/µm [%]
25.00
with LAS-X
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.1 1 10
particle size [µm]
MPPS

38. Penetration curve 2 cm/s
1.5 cm/s
1.0E+00
1.0E-01 0.5 cm/s
1.0E-02
penetration [%]
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05 c
1.0E-06
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
1.0E-09
0.01 0.1 1
size [µm]
DOP TEST
0.3 micron

39. Particle counter
• Digital output
• Typical size range 0.1-5.0 µm
• Typical Sample flow 0.1-1.0 CFM
• Diluter needed to measure high
upstream concentration
• Penetration range : practical min
0.000001%

40. Photometer
• Analouge output
• Typical concentration range: 10-100
mg/m3
• Penetration range : 100-0.001%

41. Particle counter Photometer
+ high sensitivity + high concentrations
+ size distribution + leak quantifcation
+ MPPS – medium sensitivity
– sensitive to high – no direct sizing (no MPPS)
concentrations – need high aerosol
– leak quantification concentration
– Result may depend on
aerosol distribution

42. Today, normally particle counters are used
for factory test (EN 1822 or similar)
• Better sensitivity
• Scanning and total efficiency at same test
• Various aerosols can be used
• Test at MPPS (EN 1822)

43. For In-Situ test both DPC’s and
Photometers can be used
Particle counter Photometer
• Sensitive • Fast quantification
• Used where liquid aerosols are • Less sensitive
unwanted • OK for check of gaskets, etc
• Same instrument as in EN 1822 • Today, basically only for
• Normal penetration will be leaks.
measured (MPPS)

44. Comparison of Particle counters/photometer
result
• Not same measurement technique
• Photometer is aerosol dependent

45. Distribution of DOP and
efficiency of class H13, 99.95% MPPS • Comparison of Particle
counters and photometer
LASKIN - Weight distribution
Hot DOP - Weight distribution result
penetration - Absolute filter • Two aerosol distributions
50.00 1.00E+00
• The penetration curve is
45.00 1.00E-01
measured by particle
40.00 1.00E-02
counter
freqvency/µm [%]
penetration [%]
35.00
1.00E-03
30.00 • Photometer result can
1.00E-04
25.00 differ depending on aerosol
1.00E-05
20.00
1.00E-06
15.00
10.00 1.00E-07
5.00 1.00E-08
0.00 1.00E-09
0.01 0.1 1
particle size [µm]

46. • Efficiency (overall)
– Overall particle efficiency can be measured with static probe or
by integrating the data from scanning
• Scanning - Leaks
– Scanning is performed over filter surface - leak check

47. DEHS aerosol
Leak detection issues
Leak • False leaks
• Probe speed
No Leak
• Instrument type
Ambient air
and performance
• Aerosol
concentration
Vp (probe)

48. Leaks No Leaks, but detection
Vp (probe) 1 2 3
shield
Ambient air
Aerosol Aerosol

49. • Important, measurement • Important, data
– No false leaks – Print outs
– Probe speed – Database integrity
– Aerosol concentration
– Aerosol distribution
– Diluter
– Instrument performance (Particle
counter)
– Statistical considerations
– Particle losses in system

50. ISO 14644, suggest
For filters < 99,995% (H14) photometers can be used
• Aerosol distribution with mass mean diameter between 0.5-0.7 µm
• Leak designated as 0.01%
For filters >99.995% particle counters should be used
• DOP/DEHS challenge
• Leaks designated as > described in EN 1822

51. • Photometers and particle counters can be used for leak testing filters
• EN 1822 is now in use (2000-09-01) for factory test
• EN describes test method, equipment and classification of HEPA/ULPA
filters
• Be aware of the differences in measurement technique
(Photometer/EN1822/other tests)
• Communicate with customer (should filter be tested? Which test method is
required from customer? Make sure he/she understand how Camfil test)
• Requirements/test methods in situ at customer can be different (ex.
Safety cabinets, pharmaceutical industry)