View Single Post
#74: 04-20-2012, 05:24 AM
michelino1968's Avatar
Title: Contributor
Location: italy
Car: Legacy Wagon MY 2010 2.0 i BiFuel
Posts: 522
iTrader: (0)
Send a private message to michelino1968 Find all posts by michelino1968 Reply With Quote
Our company is on the industrial dedusting sector (powder coating/thermal cutting/sandblasting/pneumatic conveyors/silo vents etc.), our elements are pulse-jettable (=regenerable).
Commercial HVAC (static) filters is not exactly our core business, but the rules regarding filtration are the same everywhere.

I find myself much easier with the EN 779/ 1822 norm, as we deal with it every day.

I quickly checked several comparison charts regarding MERV <=> EN, but please take them with a grain of salt:
- MERV 10 = F5
- MERV 11-12 covers F6
- MERV 13 = F7
- MERV 14 = F8
- MERV 15 = F9
- MERV 16 = H10

Now let's concentrate on absolute barriers as to EN 779:
F6 is absolute for ≥ 10 micron, reaching 30-40% on 0,4 micron
F7 is absolute for ≥ 6-7 micron, reaching 60-70% on 0,4 micron
F8 is absolute for ≥ 4-5 micron, reaching 70-80% on 0,4 micron
F9 is absolute for ≥ 2-3 micron, reaching 95% on 0,4 micron

H10 = entry class for Hepa filtration follows EN 1822, with a different test method (MPPS). The mean test aerosol diameter is around 0,2 micron, and H 10 mus meet ≥ 85% global efficiency.

The "miracle" filter is high-efficiency, high-permeability and high dust loading capacity => unachievable in a given space.
You have to choose which on the various parameters You want to be prioritary upon others, knowing that these are going to be influenced negatively. The more to force on one side, the more You loose on the other.