Clean air experts

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

Founder: Gösta LarsonCamfil factory 1960´s

3

Company highlights

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

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.

6

Comfort air

7

A healty and beneficial climate• Offices• Hotels• Schools• Shopping centres• Conference centres• Airports

Clean processes

8

Protecting processes

• Bio Pharma

• Food and beverage

• Pulp and paper

• Automotive

• Hospital

9

Air Pollution ControlHeavy-duty clean air solutions

• Blasting, welding and grinding

• Laser and plasma cutting

• Thermal / flame spray

• Pharmaceutical compounds

• Food processing

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

11

Nuclear and ContainmentProtecting people and environment

from airborne hazards

• Nuclear

• Chemical

• Biological

• Industrial

12

Airborne Molecular Contamination (AMC)

• Microelectronics

• Ensures very clean manufacturing

environment for VLSI (Very Large

Scale Integrated) circuit production

Clean processes

13

Mike Vinson

CP Segment Manager UK

BS/EN1822:2009

High efficiency air filters (EPA,HEPA and ULPA)

1. Coarse/fine filters - ASHRAE

2. HEPA and ULPA filters

EN 779:2012

EN1822:2009

FilterClass

Overallefficiency(%)

Minimumlocal efficiency(%)

Max localpenetration(%)

E10 85 - *C - *CE11 95 - *C - *CE12 99.5 - *C - *CH13 99.95 99.75 0.25H14 99.995 99.975 0.025U15 99.9995 99.9975 0.0025U16 99.99995 99.99975 0.00025U17 99.999995 99.9999 0.0001

Classification Table

*C - Group E Filters (E10,E11,E12) cannot and shall not be leak tested for classification purposes

• 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

• 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)

In situ• ISO 14644-3

• IES-RP-CC002.2 (photometer)

• IES-RP-CC-006.2 (counter)

• BS 5276 (photometer)

Factory test• EN1822

• IES-RP-CC007.1 (US)

• DOP (Q107, Mil std 282)

• Eurovent 4/4 (BS3928)

• 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

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

Penetration curve

0,000001

0,000010

0,000100

0,001000

0,010000

0,100000

1,000000

0,01 0,1 1

size [µm]

pene

tratio

n [%

]

2 cm/s1.5 cm/s0.5 cm/s

E12

H13

U15

H14

U16

U17

The standard describe• Test procedure

• Classification system

• Aerosol characteristics (DEHS, other aerosol may be used)

• Statistical considerations

• Instrumentation, equipment performance

Filter scanning set up

Particle counterScanning Probe

Aerosol generator

Diluter

Upstream probe

FilterClass

Overallefficiency(%)

Minimumlocal efficiency(%)

Max localpenetration(%)

E10E11

85 - -95 - -

E12 99.5 - -H13 99.95 99.75 0.25H14 99.995 99.975 0.025U15 99.9995 99.9975 0.0025U16 99.99995 99.99975 0.00025U17 99.999995 99.9999 0.0001

0.1 1 10Particle size (µm)

Diffusion effectInterception effect

Straining effect

Total Efficiency

Electrostatic effect

MPPS region

Filter scanning set up

3) Particle counterScanning Probe

1) Aerosol generator

2) Diluter

Upstream probe

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

Laskin NozzleDEHS, DOP

Spray NozzleLatex, Silica (SiO2)

Compressed air Aerosol out

DEHS, DOP

Compressed air

Latex + water

Additional heater

Aerosol out

SiO2 KCl0.6 µm 0.6 µm

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.

Filter shapes creating highly turbulent air flow (e g V-bank or cylindrical filters) for which the reference scan method can no t be applied, should be leak testing by either of the two alternative metho ds:

1. Oil Thread Leak Method (EN 1822-4:2009, Annex A) or 0.3mmmmm – 0.5mmmmm2. Particle Efficiency Leak Test (EN1822-4:2009, Ann ex E, for Class H13 only)

For higher Classes of filters, the two alternative methods might not be sensitive enough to measure the local penetration l imits.Higher Classes of filters have to be marked :-

1. “Alternative leak tested, method A” or

2. “Alternative leak tested, method E” on its label an d test report

BS/EN 1822:2009

In-Situ (site) testing

14644-3 or PD6609-UK

Poly- and Mono disperse aerosol distribution

0.01 0.1 1 10

Size [micron]

Con

cent

ratio

n

Poly-disperseMono-disperse

• DOP-aerosol

• Comparison aerosol generators, measured with LAS-X

Differential representation of LASKIN nozzle and thermal generator

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

0.1 1 10

particle size [µm]

fre

qve

ncy/

µm

[%

]

LASKIN - Weight

Thermal - Weight

MPPS

Penetration curve

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

0.01 0.1 1

size [µm]

pene

tratio

n [%

]2 cm/s

1.5 cm/s

0.5 cm/s

c

DOP TEST0.3 micron

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%

Photometer• Analouge output

• Typical concentration range: 10-100 mg/m3

• Penetration range : 100-0.001%

Particle counter+ high sensitivity

+ size distribution

+ MPPS

– sensitive to high concentrations

– leak quantification

Photometer+ high concentrations

+ leak quantifcation

– medium sensitivity

– no direct sizing (no MPPS)

– need high aerosol concentration

– Result may depend on aerosol distribution

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)

For In-Situ test both DPC’s and Photometers can be used

Particle counter• Sensitive

• Used where liquid aerosols are unwanted

• Same instrument as in EN 1822

• Normal penetration will be measured (MPPS)

Photometer• Fast quantification

• Less sensitive

• OK for check of gaskets, etc

• Today, basically only for leaks.

Comparison of Particle counters/photometer result

• Not same measurement technique

• Photometer is aerosol dependent

• Comparison of Particle counters and photometer result

• Two aerosol distributions

• The penetration curve is measured by particle counter

• Photometer result can differ depending on aerosol

Distribution of DOP and efficiency of class H13, 99.95% MPPS

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

0.01 0.1 1

particle size [µm]

freq

venc

y/µ

m [

%]

1.00E-09

1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

LASKIN - Weight distributionHot DOP - Weight distributionpenetration - Absolute filter

penetration [%]

• 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

Leak detection issues• False leaks• Probe speed• Instrument type

and performance• Aerosol

concentration

Vp (probe)

Leak

Ambient air

DEHS aerosol

No Leak

Vp (probe)

Leaks

Ambient air

Aerosol

No Leaks, but detection

Aerosol

shield

1 2 3

• Important, measurement– No false leaks

– Probe speed

– Aerosol concentration

– Aerosol distribution

– Diluter

– Instrument performance (Particle counter)

– Statistical considerations

– Particle losses in system

• Important, data– Print outs

– Database integrity

ISO 14644, suggestFor 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

• 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)