Measuring airflow through the portable high-efficiency air filtration (PHEAF) device to assess reliability of instrument and sample location.


Journal

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995)
ISSN: 2162-2906
Titre abrégé: J Air Waste Manag Assoc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9503111

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 31 1 2019
medline: 25 6 2020
entrez: 31 1 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The portable high-efficiency air filtration (PHEAF) device is an engineering control common to the environmental remediation industry. Damage to the high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (e.g., filtration media, gasket), improper installation of the filter into the mounting frame, or defects in the filtration housing affect the capture efficiency of the device. PHEAF devices operating at less than marketed efficiencies justify periodic leak testing of the PHEAF device, especially when the filtered air is exhausted into occupied spaces. A leak test is accomplished by injecting a known concentration of aerosol upstream of the HEPA filter and measuring the percentage of aerosol penetrating through the filtration system. The test protocol scripted for stationary systems (i.e., biological safety cabinets) states that upstream concentrations can be empirically determined using the aerosol photometer to measure particulate matter (PM) in the airstream. This practice requires a homogenous mixture of the aerosol challenge agent within the airstream. However, design of the PHEAF device does not include a validated induction point for the aerosol. Absent of an acceptable means to achieve a homogenous mixture for upstream measurement, the aerosol concentration is mathematically derived based on the measured air volume passing through the PHEAF equipment. In this study, intake volume and exhaust volume for each PHEAF device were measured by either the balometer or the hot wire anemometer. Variability of measurements was examined by instrument and sample location (intake vs. exhaust) to understand which combination would be most consistent for measuring airflow volume. From this study, the authors conclude that the balometer is preferred compared with the hot wire anemometer for measuring airflow through the PHEAF device. Exhaust measurement by balometer seems more reliable than intake measurements by hot wire anemometer.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30698506
doi: 10.1080/10962247.2019.1576554
doi:

Substances chimiques

Aerosols 0
Dust 0
Particulate Matter 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

734-742

Auteurs

Derek A Newcomer (DA)

a Division of Occupational Health and Safety, Office of Research Services , National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , MD , USA.

Peter LaPuma (P)

b Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health , George Washington University , Washington , DC , USA.

Robert Brandys (R)

c Occupational & Environmental Health Consulting Services, Inc ., Las Vegas , NV , USA.

Amanda Northcross (A)

b Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health , George Washington University , Washington , DC , USA.

Abhijit Dasgupta (A)

d ARAAstat , Germantown , MD , USA.

Articles similaires

Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
Humans Emergency Service, Hospital Child Child, Preschool Infant
Humans Mobile Applications Hepatitis C Male Female

Classifications MeSH