Air sampling filtration media: Collection efficiency for respirable size-selective sampling

ABSTRACT

The collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10–400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a metal testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min⁻¹. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). Three different filters of each type with at least three repetitions for each pore size were tested. In general, the collection efficiency varied with airflow, pore size, and sampling duration. In addition, both collection efficiency and pressure drop increased with decreased pore size and increased sampling flow rate, but they differed among filter types and manufacturer. The present study confirmed that the MCE, PTFE, and PVC filters have a relatively high collection efficiency for challenge particles much smaller than their nominal pore size and are considerably more efficient than polycarbonate and silver membrane filters, especially at larger nominal pore sizes.

EDITOR:

• Takafumi Seto

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the 455 authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the NIOSH.

Acknowledgments

The authors are sincerely thankful to Drs. William Lindsley (NIOSH/Health Effects Laboratory Division/Pathology and Physiological Research Branch) and Chaolong Qi (NIOSH/Division of Applied Research and Technology/Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch) for reviewing this manuscript prior to journal submission.