Removal of ultrafine particles in indoor air: performance of

various portable air cleaner technologies.

Introduction
Links between airborne particles and increased morbidity and mortality have been reported (e.g.,
Pope and Dockery 2006; WHO 2006). These studies describe well-established health risks of
particles smaller than 10 microns ([PM.sub.10]) or 2.5 microns ([PM.sub.2.5]) (fine particles), and
their levels have been addressed in government guidance and regulations. Recent evidence from
toxicological and animal and human clinical and epidemiological studies suggests that exposures to
ultraine particles (UFPs; particles less than 100 nm or 0.1 microns) may have a greater health
impact (Wichmann and Peters 2000; Oberdorster 2001). There is evidence that UFPs have a
stronger toxic effect than an equal amount of fine particles, possibly due to the increased amount
of surface area available for chemical reactions for the UFP (Somers et al. 2004). However, UFPs
typically contribute little to and correlate poorly with reported [PM.sub.2.5] levels and are not
separately regulated.
In the indoor environment, UFPs can be of both indoor and outdoor origin. Outdoor sources
primarily involve vehicle emissions and nucleation events involving gas-to-particle conversions (Zhu
et al. 2005; Weichenthal et al. 2007). Ventilation and leakage paths in a building envelope provide
transport of outdoor UFPs into the indoor environment (Jamriska et al. 2000; Zhu et al. 2005).
Indoor sources include combustion activities, such as cooking and heating systems, tobacco smoke,
and candles (Weichenthal et al., 2007; Wallace and Howard-Reed 2002; Wallace et al. 2004b;
Matson 2005). Indoor chemical reactions between terpenes and ozone can also produce UFPs
(Sarwar et al. 2003; Zuraimi et al. 2007). Regardless of their emission sources, UFPs are removed
from indoor air primarily via deposition onto indoor surfaces, via dilution by ventilation or by
removal via in-duct filters (Jamriska et al. 2000). Considering that people usually spend most
of their time indoors, indoor UFP exposures likely contribute most to cumulative exposure levels
and are generally more important in inducing significant health effects.
Despite the growing number of studies on UFPs, there has been verylittle research to investigate
UFP removal strategies in nonindustrialenvironments. In a residential house study, Wallace et al.
(2004a)compared removal rates of UFPs in the cases when no fans were in use,fans were in use, and
mechanical filtration or electrostaticprecipitators (ESPs) were employed. Mechanical filtration
increaseddeposition rate coefficients by up to 2 [h.sup.-1], while ESP increaseddeposition rates by 23 [h.sup.-1]. Morawska et al. (2002) studiedparticle removal using ESP filters in an ASHRAE test rig.
They reportedsingle-pass efficiencies ranging from 60% to 98% for particles smallerthan 0.1
microns, with lower efficiencies noted at high face velocities.Lee et al. (2004) studied the
effectiveness of continuous emissions ofunipolar ions from ion generators (IGs) for UFP removal in a
chamberexperiment study. They reported that for IGs with high ion emissionrates, particle
deposition on the walls and other indoor surfaces isenhanced. They noted that removal is not
dependent on particle size andthat the most powerful device tested was able to remove about 97% of
0.1micron particles in a 30-min operation. Waring et al. (2008) notedparticle removal efficiencies of
IG-based portable air cleaner (PACs)greater than one for some particle size bins between 20 and 50
nm andhypothesized that this could be due to the ions emitted into the spaceleading to particle
reductions greater than the airflow capacity of thedevice. On the other hand, they also reported that
the tested IGs havevery poor particle removal capabilities when compared to high
efficiencyparticulate air (HEPA) based or ESP-based PACs. Clean air delivery rate(CADR) values for
particles smaller than 0.1 microns were approximately30 to 50 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1] while HEPA- and

ESP-based PACs had CADRsranging from 100 to 300 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1].

While PACs have been widely used since the 1970s as economical and convenient residential air
pollution control devices, their application in terms of UFP removal has not been studied
systematically. A wide variety of PAC technologies, including those based on filtration
(HEPA, electrets, or sorption), ionization (ion generation or plasma cluster), oxidation (ozone, or
ultraviolet photocatalytic), electrostatic precipitation, and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation
currently exist. From experimental studies on removal of UFPs by PACs, some technologies, such as
HEPA and ESP, are reported to be effective (Waring et al. 2008), while IGs can vary considerably
(Waring et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2004), Theoretically, technology involving charged electrical filters
used for PACs might potentially be effective, as has been shown for in-duct systems (van Turnhout
et al. 1980; Myers and Arnold 2003; Hanley and Owen 2005). Although some PAC technologies are
designed for removal for gases, vapors, or odors (sorption, ozone, plasma cluster,
ultraviolet photocatalytic) and bioaerosols (ultraviolet photocatalytic, ozone, ultraviolet germicidal
irradiation), these were included in the current study because of various ambigous market claims.
Indeed, some manufacturers of these technologies have made claims that their devices are capable
of removing UFPs. This study evaluates and compares the performance of PACs employing these
technologies (singly or in combination) in removing UFPs under a controlled experimental
chamber study. Using the experimentally derived results, the performance of these PACs in
modifying indoor UFP levels for a typical Quebec City residential room using a modeling analysis is
predicted.
Methods
Experimental measurements

Twelve PACs encompassing various technologies were selected for this study (Table 1). All PACs
were obtained either directly from their manufacturer or from retail outlets, and with the exception
of PCO-1 (a demonstration unit), the PACs were new in condition. Experiments were repeated for
HEPA-1, HCZ, PCI, and PCO-1 PACs to evaluate performance with secondary filters. The airflow
rate through the PAC (set at the maximum) was determined by measuring mean air velocity at the
PAC outlet multiplied by the outlet's cross-sectional area. The operating power of the PAC was
measured using a BMI 3060 Power Profiler instrument.
Testing of the PACs were conducted in a full-scale stainless-steel chamber (5 x 4 x 2.75 m high,
volume: 55 [m.sup.3]) with a dedicated HVAC system for simulating realistic room environmental
conditions. All components, including the heating coil, cooling coils, fans, and all of the duct work,
are made of stainless steel. All chamber openings were closed and inlet air was filtered through
HEPA filters. The chamber was also positively pressurized to prevent unfiltered air from entering
the chamber. PAC performance was conducted at 21.0 [+ or -] 1[degrees]C(70 [+ or -] 2[degrees]F)
temperature, 40 [+ or -] 3% relative humidity, 0.04 [h.sup.-1] air exchange rate, and 99% air mixing
(operated with a full recirculation rate of 55 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1])(Zuraimietal. 2011). The chamber's
air exchange rates were determined using the tracer decay method as described in ASTM Standard
E741 (ASTM, 2001) with sulphur hexafluoride (S[F.sub.6]) used as a tracer gas.
S[F.sub.6] concentrations were measured using a photoacoustic spectrometer (INNOVA Model
1412) and air exchange rates were calculated by regressing the logarithm of the tracer gas
concentration against time. Air mixing within the chamber when the PAC (placed in the middle of
the chamber) was both turned on and off was established using the ASHRAE Standard 129 method
(ASHRAE, 1997). To replicate the air distribution in a typical residential bedroom with a floor-

mounted air supply diffuser and wall-mounted return grill, the supply air diffuser to the chamber
was arranged facing upward, while the return air grill facing sideward to the middle of the
chamber.
To assess base conditions for the chamber (without a PAC), UFPs were generated via a six-jet
atomizer (TSI model 9306) using anaqueous solution (2.9E-03 [molm.sup.-3]) of polydispersed
sodium chloride (NaCl). Created UFPs were then dried (TSI model 3062) and
electrically neutralized (TSI model 3077a) prior to injection into the middle of the chamber at a
height of 1.2 m (3.9 ft). The injection phase of the test lasted approximately 60 min in order to
achieve stable UFP of sufficient concentration. The initial concentration of the total and sizeresolved UFP typically reached a minimum 1.00E + 06 and 4.00E + 05 particles/[cm.sup.3],
respectively. UFP concentration was measured for a period of 60 min after a 1-min time lapse from
the end of the dosing procedure using a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS): TSI model 3934,
consisting of an electrostatic classifier (TSI model 3080L) equiped with a long differential mobility
analyzer (L-DMA) and a condensation particle counter (TSI model 3025A) (Agarwal and Sem
1980). The SMPS used in this test is considered a reference instrument for determining sizes of
particles to within 3% (Kinney et al. 1991) and is capable of measuring particle mobility diameters
in the range of 14.1-532.8 nm. After 60 min, the experiment was stopped. The total and sizeresolved natural decay constant of UFPs, [k.sub.n] ([h.sup.-1]), due to air exchange and deposition
on the chamber walls, was then computed.
To determine UFP removal impact of the PACs, the UFP dosingprocedure was then repeated, except
this time, 1 min after terminationof dosing, the PAC was remotely turned on to its highest fan
setting(without person entry into the chamber). The UFP concentration was thenmeasured for a
period of 60 min. The total and size-resolved UFP decay[k.sub.PAC] ([h.sup.-1]) due to the air
exchange, deposition on thechamber walls, and net removal of PAC was then calculated. Total
andsize-resolved UFP decay constants ([k.sub.n] and [k.sub.PAC]) werecalculated by fitting a linear
regression line to the slope of-ln(C(t)), which is the negative of the natural log of the timevaryingconcentration (C(t)) versus time (h). A minimum correlation coefficient of 0.9 was used to as
criteria for test acceptance.
The CADR was computed as the performance index of the PACs (Shaughnessy et al. 1994; AHAM
2006). Total and size-resolved UFP CADR ([m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]) values were determined by
subtracting the natural decay of particles from the decay when the PAC was turned on: CADR =
V ([k.sub.PAC]), where V is the volume of the chamber ([m.sup.3]). The CADR uncertainty was
calculated as the standard deviation of the decay slope described in detail elsewhere (AHAM 2006).
The single-pass efficiency (SPE) was then calculated by dividing the CADR by the PAC flow rates.
Modeling analysis
Nazaroff (2000) has shown that the effectiveness of an air-cleaning device that relates the indoor
UFP contaminant concentrations with and without a PAC([C.sub.PAC] and C, respectively) can be
expressed by the following mass-balanced model (validated by Matson (2005)):
[epsilon] = C - [C.sub.PAC] / C = CADR / CADR + Q + [beta] x V, (1)
where Q is the ventilation flow rate ([m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]), V is the room volume ([m.sup.3]), and
[beta] is the particle deposition rate coefficient ([h.sup.-1]). This equation assumes a steadystate condition, a well-mixed indoor environment, and no consideration of particle interaction with
one another, i.e., coagulation effects that tend to shift particle size distributions. Using this model,
PAC effectiveness values can range from 0 to 1, where 0 signifies no removal of indoor UFPs while

1 signifies complete removal of indoor UFPs. From equation 1, the degree of PAC effectiveness
necessary to have a meaningful effect on UFP concentrations in an indoor environment is not only
dependent on its intrinsic CADR values. It is also dependent on room volume where it is used and
other removal processes occuring in the room such as air exchange and deposition rates. This study
evaluated the UFP removal effectiveness of the tested PAC technologies by modeling various
Quebec City residential room dimensions, air exchange rates, and particle sizes. Air exchange rate
and room volume data were obtained from an ongoing Quebec City field study (Aubin et al. 2009)
involving 85 houses. To assess PAC effectiveness ranges, the mean, minimum, and maximum values
of room volumes (29, 16, and 70 [m.sup.3], respectively), median, and 95% confidence interval (CI)
for air exchange rates for two seasons--summer (median: 0.33 [h.sup.-1]; 95% CI: 0.09-0.58 [h.sup.1]) and winter (median: 0.21 [h.sup.-1]; 95% CI: 0.16-0.26 [h.sup.-1])--were used. [beta] values were
obtained from the size-dependent deposition loss rates as summarized by Riley et al. (2002), based
on their review of the published literature. PACs were modeled as operating continuously for 24 h a
day at their experimentally measured flow rates.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Results
PAC flow rates and power consumption
The airflow rate and electrical power consumption values for the 12 PACs tested are summarized in
Table 1. Maximum flow rates for various PACs ranged from 15 (O3 GEN) to 1551 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]
(PCO-1), with HePA-based PACs ranging from 236 to 970 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]. Operating power
ranged from 14 W (PCO-2) to 444 W (PCO-1). These values are comparable to the results presented
elsewhere (shaughnessy et al. 1994; Offermann et al. 1985; Waring et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2005,
2006).
PAC performance
The total UFP CADR and SPE values for the 12 PACs are illustated in Figure 1. In general, there are
three groups of technology performances: (1) high-performing PACs, including HEPA-, electretfilter-, and ESP-based PACs with CADR values ranging from 60 to 498 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1] and SPE
values ranging from 0.3 to 0.6; (2) low-performing PACs, which include IGs and plasmacluster
ionizers with CADRs ranging from 8 to 18 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1] and SPE values not exceeding 0.1;
and (3) very poorly performing PACs, such as the PCO-, O3-generator-, and UVGI-based PACs, with
removal performance values statistically similar to zero (1.96 of the standard deviation). The
high flow rate through PCO-1 resulted in CADR values comparable with those from ionizing PACs,
although it has low SPE values (0.058 [+ or -] 0.030). This is due to higher deposition rates caused
from increased air movement (Thatcher et al. 2002).
The ESP PAC had the highest CADR (498 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]), while HEPA-1 and ESP PACs have the
highest SPEs for total UFP removal (both at 0.62). For PACs incorporating HEPA filtration, a wide
range of CADR values were observed: from 60 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1] (HCZ) to 295 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]
(HEPA-1) to 444 (HEPA-2) [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]. Although HEPA-2 recorded higher CADR values than
HEPA-1 due to the higher airflow rate (i.e., more clean air was delivered by HEPA-2 than HEPA-1 in
a fixed time period), HEPA-2's SPE was lower. The electret-based PAC (FEF) performed as well as
the mid-performing HEPA-based PAC.
UFP size-resolved CADR and SPE values are illustrated in Figure 2. Particles greater than 40 nm
conform to theoretical curve shapes of particle removal using media and electrostatic filtration

(Morawska et al. 2002; Wallace et al. 2004a). Results of curves for particles below 40 nm may be
affected by a combination of low instrument detection limits and errors attributed to the brownian
motion of UFPs, and thus have less statistical confidence. The ESP PAC had the highest
median CADR across various UFP sizes (517 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]) with CADR values ranging from
367 to 577 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]. This was followed by the highest performing HEPA-based PAC
(median CADR of 475 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]), which also exhibits the largest range of CADR values
(259-550 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]). CADR values for the FEF PAC were comparable with HEPA-1,
although the SPE value is lower in the former. For particle sizes between 40 and 100 nm, SPE
values for HEPA-1 and ESP PACs were higher (approximately 0.4 to 0.7) than HEPA-2 PAC (0.3
to 0.6). The low-performing PACs generally had CADR values that are an order of magnitude lower
than the first group. IG-1 had the highest median CADR (21 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]) and SPE (0.1)
values for this group. Although negative UFP CADR and SPE values were observed for
some particle sizes, their standard deviations include zero (i.e., statistically similar to zero). The
higher removal performance of IG-1 compared to IG-2 could be related to the higher number of ions
emitted in the former (Lee et al. 2004). PCI PAC CADR for UFP range from 1 to 22 [m.sup.3][h.sup.1]. CADR and SPE values for PCO-, O3 GEN-, and UVGI-based PACs were either near or statistically
equal to zero (1.96 of the standard deviation).
Secondary filter effects
Figure 3 illustrates the use of secondary filters on CADR and SPE values for select PACs. When a
secondary HEPA filter was used for the PCI PAC, the PAC removal performance improved
tremendously. Across various UFPs, median CADR and SPE values rose from 11 to
348 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1] and 0.02 to 0.47, respectively. In contrast, when a secondary media filter
was added to PCO-1, UFP removal performance did not improve considerably. The median CADR
value increased by 4 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1], while median SPE values rose from 0.01 to 0.06. Adding a
carbon pre-filter to HEPA-1 did not significantly improve UFP removal performance. Similarly,
adding a large particle pre-filter to the HCZ PAC did not modify the CADR values significantly,
although it slightly improved the SPE values.
Modeling effectiveness
In general, PAC effectiveness is observed to be higher in winter compared to summer (Table 2).
AHAM has recommended an effectiveness performance of 80% reduction under steady-state
particle concentrations related to PAC operation (AHAM 2006). It can be observed from Table
2 that HEPA-1, HEPA-2, FEF, and ESP PACs managed to meet this recommendation for all tested
rooms in Quebec City residences. Likewise, these PACs also meet the AHAM recommendation when
various ventilation rate values were used to model their effectiveness. The HEPA-1, HEPA-2, FEF,
and ESP PACs were effective at removing approximately 90% of the indoor total UFPs as indicated.
The lowest performing HEPA-based PAC (HCZ) was capable of removing about 65% to 70% of
indoor total UFPs. Effectiveness of other PAC technologies were lower than 50%, where IG- and
PCI-based PACs were only capable of removing about 20% to 40% of indoor total UFP. In a typical
29 [m.sup.3] room, the HEPA-1, HEPA-2, FEF, and ESP PACs remove approximately 96% to 98% of
particles with diameters between 40 and 100 nm (Figure 4). IG- and PCI-based PACs only removed
14% to 55% of indoor UFPs. PACs with removal performance values for UFPs between 40 and 100
nm that are near or statistically zero were not illustrated.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Discussion
CADR values for ESPs in this study were comparable with that reported by Waring et al. (2008).
However, wider variations (60 to 450 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1])were noted for the three HEPA PACs in
this study compared to their respective estimates of 188 to 324 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1]. Although
Waring et al. (2008) reported that this variability was due to PAC airflow rate, normalized CADR
values using airflow rates to provide SPE values yielded similar wide variations (0.2 to 0.8). It is to
be noted that while, by definition, HEPA filter media is efficient in removing 99.97% of airborne
particles of 0.3 microns in diameter in a closed-path configuration filter test rig (Hanley et
al. 1994), the situation is different when it is adopted for a PAC tested in an open-path
configuration (Nazaroff and Weschler 2009). In the former, SPE is independent of the dynamic
behavior of the indoor environment, while in the latter, SPE is influenced by the competition
between the PAC rate of removal (CADR), removal rates by other processes, and chamber mixing.
Although adequate indoor environment mixing can be achieved, various airflow patterns and
particle sizes can dictate particle spatial distribution throughout the chamber (Rim and
Novoselac 2010). Waring et al. (2008) attributed the "reduced" PAC efficiency due to filter and/or
device bypass or even short-circuiting of the airflow in the chamber. The wide performance
variations of the three HEPA-based PACs in this study could be due to this effect.
In keeping wih the above, Hanley et al. (1994) illustrated filter efficiency versus particle diameter
curve for various ASHRAE filter types under a closed-path configuration. Consider the efficiency
curves of 40% and 65% ASHRAE filters, which have a similar range of SPEs from this study and
that reported by Waring et al. (2008). The ASHRAE media filters are least efficient for particles
between 200 and 300 nm, which increases for smaller and larger particles resulting in a vshaped curve. However, the SPE curves obtained in this study and those reported by Waring et al.
(2008) do not demonstrate the same v-shape but instead showed a more flat profile. This further
demonstrates that the "reduced" SPE calculated from the CADR is due to the bypass of air around
filter media or the device or short-circuiting of the airflow in chamber.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
For PACs utilizing negative ionization, an electrically neutral atom or molecule acquires a negative
electrical charge. The ions generated charge the airborne particles, which are then removed from
the air by electro-migration effects to the walls of the room due to the space charge induced
electric fields. One of the factors determining IG performance is the ion emission rate with higher
rates associated with better UFP removal (Lee et al. 2004). IG PAC CADR values determined
from this study were slightly lower compared to those reported by Waring et al. (2008). In that
chamber study, they documented a count average of 40 [m.sup.3][h.sup.-1] and also reported SPE
values greater than one. The authors attributed these effects to the ions that the PAC
emitted leading to particle removal greater than the airflow capacity of the device. In this study,
the IG PAC SPEs were significantly lower, leading to the speculation that this is due their lower ion
generation rates.
This study is the first to demonstrate only moderate UFP removal performance of a PCI PAC. The
Plasmacluster IG (PCI) uses an alternating plasma discharge to generate positively charged
hydrogen and negatively charged oxygen ions from airborne water molecules (Bolashikov
and Melikov 2009). It was found that for the PCI unit tested, use of a secondary HEPA filter was
needed to improve performance to a level comparable to that of the HEPA-, ESP-, or FEF-based
PACs (Figure 3).
This study's results focus on the initial performance of the PACs to remove UFPs. Because each of

the technologies are dependent on various factors, long-term UFP removal performance may not
exhibit the same capabilities compared to initial performance. For example, this study has shown
excellent UFP removal performance for the FEF PAC. Research on the FEF used in HVAC systems
documented that a collection of particles on the filter media and charge decay over time could lead
to a drop in SPE (van Turnhout et al. 1980; Myers and Arnold 2003; Hanley and Owen 2005).
However, SPE decay is compensated by the building of mechanical efficiency in these filters,
yielding a filtering medium with better long-term filtration efficiency (Walsh and Stenhouse 1998;
Myers and Arnold 2003). Further research is advocated to evaluate if the same mechanisms will be
observed for FEF-based PACs. In keeping with this, continuous operation of HEPA-based PACs in a
smoker's home over two months resulted in a decrease in PAC airflows by 7%-14% (Batterman
et al. 2005).
For all the PAC effectiveness modeling presented here, the effects of PACs on UFP concentrations
in the room instead for the whole-house were investigated. Indeed, the same effectiveness found in
this study cannot be achieved if only one PAC is used for the whole house. Through CFD analysis,
Novoselac and Siegel (2009) noted that although the overall effectiveness depends very much on
the PAC CADR in a whole house, particle exposure reduction can vary by as much as factor of
2, depending on the location of the PAC. Via modeling analysis, Ward et al. (2005) reported that
effectiveness of more than 90% for three or more PACs are possible in residential dwellings
compared to approximately 50% with a single PAC. This was confirmed by a field study in Colorado
where Henderson et al. (2005) had utilized up to three ESP PACs to attain 80% effectiveness for a
whole house. However, this study does not recommend using a PAC for each room in order to
remove UFPs in residences. Considering that PACs can easily be positioned in different parts of
the home, a more prudent approach is to use it in a room environment where the occupants would
spend most of their time or where air cleaning is needed.
In the modellng analysis, a mass balanced model was used without the use of a central HVAC
system in the residences. Relying on base-board floor heating systems for thermal comfort
purposes, a large fraction of Quebec City residences do not incorporate a central HVAC system
with filtration. However, if the model were to include removal process via filtration in the central
HVAC system ([SPE.sub.HVAC]) using Equation 2 (see Ward et al. [2005] for derivation), the
PAC effectiveness would not be significantly different (<3% of the results presented in Figure 1),
which is due to poor SPE reported for standard furnace filters as Hanley et al. (1994) showed:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)
Indoor UFP concentrations are dependent on both ventilation and source strengths (Jamriska et al.
2000; Matson 2005). Low ventilation in residences, commonly found in Quebec City, is anticipated
to increase UFP concentrations from indoor sources (Wallace and Howard-Reed 2002; Sarwar et al.
2003; Matson 2005). Conversely, under an outdoor pollution episode and small indoor source
contribution, there will be less outdoor-to-indoor UFP transport, resulting in lower
indoor concentrations (Ward et al. 2005). In keeping with the above, the high removal effectiveness
values of indoor UFPs using HEPA-, FEF-, and ESP-based PACs is noteworthy. Given that a recent
expert consensus has reported that 0.43% and 0.20% decreases in mortality and
hospital admissions are associated with a decrease in 1000 particles/[cm.sup.3] in outdoor UFP
concentrations (Hoek et al. 2010), indoor UFPs of ambient origin exposures and health effects can
have significant public health implications. Any increase in outdoor UFP concentration
concomitantly produces an increase in the indoor UFP concentrations. Zhu et al.
(2005) documented outdoor-to-indoor UFP penetration factors from 0.2 up to 0.5. Thus, the
associations between outdoor UFPs and both morbidity and mortality are to a certain extent due to
outdoor UFP ingress into indoor residential environments where subsequent exposures occur.

Although Zhu et al. (2005) reported that indoor UFP concentrations tend to be lower than
corresponding outdoor concentrations, the fact that Canadians spend their most of their time in
their homes, especially during winter (Leech et al. 2002), off-sets this effect. Table 3 provides
estimates of the operating costs for the PACs studied. Annual replacement of filters has been
assumed, computing the annualized cost using an interest rate of 8% and assuming a system life of
5 years (Batterman et al. 2005) for the lifetime PAC cost. Assuming continuous use and operation at
the highest fan speed and an electricity cost of 0.0688/kWh (Quebec residential rates), the annual
energy cost for the 12 PACs operation is estimated to be about CA$8toCA$268 annually (CA$1 ~
US$1; December 2010 rates). Lifetime PAC costs over the 5 years range from CA$68 to CA$3310.
Total costs from lifetime and energy costs range from CA$204 to CA$3991. These cost estimates
must be weighed against the cost of premature mortality and morbidity (EPA 1999) that may be
attributed to UFP exposures. When the total costs are normalized with total UFP CADR used as the
PAC UFP removal performance index, the HEPA-1, FEF, and ESP PACs are among the lowest
(CA$3.2 to CA$3.5/CADR).
Conclusion
Little research has been performed to evaluate and compare PAC technologies performance in
terms of indoor UFP removal. This study provides new findings in terms of comparing UFP removal
performance using various PAC technologies. It shows that for those PACs tested, HEPA and ESP
PACs have the best removal performance in terms of UFP CADRs and single-pass efficiencies
(SPEs). The electret-based PAC showed comparably high UFP removal capability with HEPA PACs.
Negative and bi-polar ion generation PACs follow with relatively low UFP removal performance.
Photocatalytic oxidation, ozone generation, and UVGI-based PACs demonstrated very limited or no
UFP removal capabilities. In terms of effectiveness, the use of appropriate PSCs can reduce indoor
UFP concentrations in a typical Quebec City residence by a factor of about 90%. Negative and bipolar IGs have mediocre UFP removal performance while photocatalytic-oxidation-, ozonegeneration- and UVGI-based PACs were found to have very limited or no UFP removal
capabilities. Estimates of costs per performance index (cost/CADR) showed that the HEPA-1-, ESP-,
and FEF-based PACs provide the highest value for money in terms of UFP removal performance.
The results presented have strong health implications, as UFP exposures have been associated to
mortality and morbidity outcomes.
DOI: 10.1080/10789669.2011.579219
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Canadian Government Clean Air Agenda (CAA) under the Indoor Air
Initiative program. The authors thank Martin Auclair, Emily Mutzke, and Lisa Montgomery for their
help in the execution of this study and Dr. Alexandra Thompson for the initial review of this article.
The authors also thank the helpful comments by the reviewers.
References
Agarwal, J.K., and G. Sem. 1980. Continuous flow single-particle-counting condensation nucleus
counter. Journal of Aerosol Science 11:343-57.

AHAM. 2006. Standard ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2006, method for measuring performance of portable
household electric room air cleaners. Washington, DC: Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers.
ASHRAE. 1997. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 129, test method for air change effectiveness. Atlanta, GA:
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ASTM. 2001. ASTM Standard E741-00, standard test method for determining air change in a single
zone by means of a tracer gas dilution. West Coshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing
and Materials International.
Aubin, D., D. Gauvin, D. Won, and H. Schleibinger. 2009. Comparison of air change rates measured
in Quebec City homes using SF6 and perfluorocarbon tracer gases and an orifice blower door
during the winter season of 2008-09. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse NY, Paper
558.
Batterman, S., C. Godwin, and C. Jia. 2005. Long duration tests of room air filters in cigarette
smokers' homes. Environmental Science and Technology39:7260-8.
Bolashikov, Z.D., and A.K. Melikov. 2009. Methods for air cleaning and protection of building
occupants from airborne pathogens. Building and Environment 44:1378-85.
Chen, W., J.S. Zhang, Z. Gao, Z., D. Kosar, and C.E. Walker. 2006. Task 8 Final Report: Reduced
energy use through reduced indoor contamination in residential buildings. Report to National
Center for Energy Management and Building Technologies
(NCEMBT). http://www.ncembt.org/downloads/NCEMBT-061101.pdf.
Chen W., J.S. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. 2005. Performance of air cleaners for removing multi-volatile
organic compounds in indoor air. ASHRAE Transactions 111(1):1101-14.
EPA. 1999. The benefits and costs of the clean air act: 1990-2010. EPA-410-R99-001. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC.
Hanley, J.T, D.S. Ensor, D.D. Smith, and L.E. Sparks. 1994. Fractional aerosol filtration efficiency of
in-duct ventilation air cleaners. Indoor Air 4:169-78.
Hanley, J.T, and K. Owen. 2005. Development of a new conditioning aerosol for testing electrets
filters. ASHRAE Transactions 111(1):1115-25.
Henderson, D.E., J.B. Milford, and S.L. Miller. 2005. Prescribed burns and wildfires in Colorado:
Impacts of mitigation measures on indoor air particulate matter. Journal of Air and Waste
Management Association 55:1516-26.
Hoek, G., H. Boogaard, A. Knol, J.deHartog, P. Slottje, J.G. Ayres, P. Borm, B. Brunekreef, K.
Donaldson, F. Forastiere, S. Holgate, W.G. Kreyling, B. Nemery, J. Pekkanen, V. Stone, H.E.
Wichmann, and J.van derSluijs. 2010. Concentration response functions for ultrafine particles and
all-cause mortality and hospital admissions: Results of a European expert panel elicitation.
Environmental Science and Technology 44:476-82.
Jamriska, M., L. Morawska, and B.A. Clark. 2000. Effect of ventilation and filtration on
submicrometer particles in an indoor environment. Indoor Air 10:19-26.
Kinney, P.D., G.Y.H. Pui, G.W. Mulholland, and N.P. Bryner. 1991. Use of the electrical classification

method to size 0.1 [micro]m SRM particles--a feasibility study. Journal of Research of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology 96:147-76.
Lee, B.K., M. Yermakov, and S.A. Grinshpun. 2004. Removal of fine and ultrafine particles from
indoor air environments by the unipolar ion emission. Atmospheric Environment 38:4815-23.
Leech, J.A., W.C. Nelson, R.T. Burnett, S. Aaron, and M.E. Raizenne. 2002. It's about time: A
comparison of Canadian and American time-activity patterns. Journal of Exposure Analysis
and Environmental Epidemiology 12:427-32.
Matson, U. 2005. Comparison of the modelling and the experimental results on concentrations of
ultra-fine particles indoors. Building and Environment 40:996-1002.
Morawska, L., V. Agranovski, Z. Ristovski, and M. Jamriska. 2002. Effect of face velocity and the
nature of aerosol on the collection of submicrometer particles by electrostatic precipitator. Indoor
Air 12:129-37.
Myers, D.L., and B.D. Arnold. 2003. Electret media for HVAC filtration applications. International
Nonwoven Journal Winter:43-54.
Nazaroff, W.M. 2000. Effectiveness of air cleaning technologies. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings
2000, Espoo, Finland, 2:49-54.
Nazaroff, W.W., and C.J. Weschler. 2009. Air cleaning effectiveness for improving indoor air quality:
Open-path and closed-path configurations. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse
NY, Paper 376.
Novoselac, A., and J.A. Siegel. 2009. Impact of placement of portable air cleaning devices in
multizone residential environments. Building and Environment 44(12):2348-56.
Oberdorster, G. 2001. Pulmonary effects of inhaled ultrafine particles. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health 74:1-8.
Offermann, F.J., R.G. Sextro, W.J. Fisk, D.T. Grimsrud, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V Nero, K.L. Revzan, and J.
Yater. 1985. Control of respirable particles in indoor air with portable air cleaners. Atmospheric
Environment 19:1761-71.
Pope, C.A. III, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: Lines that
connect. Journal of Air Waste Management Association 56:709-42.
Riley, W.J., T.E. McKone, A.C.K. Lai, and W.W. Nazaroff. 2002. Indoor particulate matter of outdoor
origin: Importance of size-dependent removal mechanisms. Environmental Science
and Technology36:200-7.
Rim, D., and A. Novoselac. 2010. Ventilation effectiveness as an indicator of occupant exposure to
particles from indoor sources. Building and Environment 45:1214-24.
Sarwar, G., R. Corsi, D. Allen, and C. Weschler. 2003. The significance of secondary organic aerosol
formation and growth in buildings: Experimental and computational evidence.
Atmospheric Environment 37(9-10):1365-81.

Shaughnessy, R.J., E. Levetin, J. Blocker, and K.L. Sublette. 1994. Effectiveness of portable indoor
air cleaners: Sensory testing results. Indoor Air 4:179-88.
Somers, C.M., B.E. McCarry, F. Malek, and J.S. Quinn. 2004. Reduction of particulate air pollution
lowers the risk of heritable mutations in mice. Science 304:1008-10.
Thatcher, T.L., A.C.K. Lai, R. Moreno-Jackson, R.G. Sextro, and W.W. Nazaroff. 2002. Effects of
room furnishings and air speed on particle deposition rates indoors. Atmospheric
Environment 36(11):1811-9.
van Turnhout, J., J.W.C. Adamse, and W.J.J. Hoeneveld. 1980. Electret filters for high-efficiency air
cleaning. Journal of Electrostatics 8:369-79.
WHO. 2006. Air quality guidelines, global update 2005. WHO Regional Office for Europe,
Copenhagen.
Wallace, L., and C. Howard-Reed. 2002. Continuous monitoring of ultrafine, fine, and coarse
particles in a residence for 18 months in 1999-2000. Journal of Air Waste Management Association
52:828-44.
Wallace, L.A., S.J. Emmerich, and C.H. Howard-Reed. 2004a. Effect of central fans and induct filters
on deposition rates of ultrafine and fine particles in an occupied townhouse. Atmospheric
Environment 38:405-13.
Wallace, L.A., S.J. Emmerich, and C. Howard-Reed. 2004b. Source strengths of ultrafine and fine
particles due to cooking with a gas stove. Environmental Science and Technology 38:2304-11.
Walsh, D.C., and J.I.T. Stenhouse. 1998. Parameters affecting the loading behavior and degradation
of electrically active filter materials. Aerosol Science and Technology 29:419-32.
Ward, M., J.A. Siegel, and R.L. Corsi. 2005. The effectiveness of stand alone air cleaners for shelterin-place. Indoor Air 15:127-34.
Waring, M.S., J.A. Siegel, and R.L. Corsi. 2008. Ultrafine particle removal and generation by
portable air cleaners. Atmospheric Environment 42:5003-14.
Weichenthal, S., A. Dufresne, and C. Infante-Rivard. 2007. Indoor ultrafine particles and childhood
asthma: Exploring a potential public health concern. Indoor Air 17:81-91.
Wichmann, H.E., and A. Peters. 2000. Epidemiological evidence of the effects of ultrafine particle
exposure. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 358:2751-69.
Zhu, Y., W.C. Hinds, M. Krudysz, T. Kuhn, J. Froines, and C. Sioutas. 2005. Penetration of freeway
ultrafine particles into indoor environments. Journal of Aerosol Science 36:303-22.
Zuraimi, M.S., G.J. Nilsson, R.J. Magee, and J. Bradley. 2011. Method for testing portable air
cleaners. National Research Council of Canada Protocol 1. Internal Report. Ottawa, Canada:
National Research Council of Canada.
Zuraimi, M.S., C.J. Weschler, K.W. Tham, and M.O. Fadeyi. 2007. The impact of building
recirculation rates on secondary organic aerosols generated by indoor chemistry. Atmospheric

Environment 41:5213-23.
Received January 6, 2011; accepted March 29, 2011
Zuraimi M. Sultan, PhD, Member ASHRAE, is Research Officer. Gregory J. Nilsson is Technical
Officer. Robert J. Magee is Research Council Officer.
Zuraimi M. Sultan, * Gregory J. Nilsson, and Robert J. Magee
National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction, Indoor Environment
Program, 1200 Montreal Road, M-24, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada
* Corresponding author e-mail: Zuraimi.sultan@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Table 1. Brief description of tested PACs. PAC abbreviation Brief description of PACs and their
technology HEPA-1 HEPA filter: 360[degrees] bottom axial air intake and top axial discharge
using fan; particle-laden air is passed through cylindrical drum HEPA filter media; secondary
activated carbon pre-filter (L x W x H = 40 cm x 40 cm x 50 cm) HEPA-2 HEPA panel filter: a fan
draws in air through a "mini-pleat" HEPA filter media panel (L x W x H = 40 cm x 40 cm x 70
cm) FEF Fibrous electret filter panel media: a fan draws in air through polarized filter media
panel (L x W x H = 50 cm x 20 cm x 70 cm) HCZ HEPA filter: a fan drawing air passing it through
a cylindrical drum of three staged integrated filters consisting of (1) medium particle pre-filter,
(2) 15 lbs activated carbon/zeolite impregnated with potassium iodide filter, and (3) HEPA filter;
secondary large particle prefilter (L x W x H = 35 cm x 35 cm x 60 cm) ESP ESP: a fan, ionizing
wires at 6 kV, collector plates, and an activated carbon filter (L x W x H = 50 cm x 40 cm x 55
cm) IG-1 Negative IG: a fan and nonthermal corona discharge (L x W x H = 45 cm x 25 cm x 15
cm) IG-2 Negative IG: an oscillating tower fan with nonthermal corona discharge (L x W x H = 10
cm x 10 cm x 110 cm) PCI Bipolar IG: a fan, alternating plasma discharge; secondary HEPA
media filter (L x W x H = 40 cm x 10 cm x 60 cm) PCO-1 Photocatalytic oxidation: a high flow fan,
proprietary high reflectance photocatalytic oxidation coating technology using lamps; secondary
panel media filter (L x W x H = 45 cm x 70 cm x 135 cm) PCO-2 Photocatalytic oxidation: a small
fan, proprietary high-intensity broad spectrum UV tube in a hydrated nano-nickel coating
catalytic matrix cell (L x W x H = 10 cm x 10 cm x 40 cm) O3 GEN Ozone generator: a
commercial corona discharge utilizing mica plate technology (200 mgh-1 maximum ozone
emission rate) with a small axial fan (L x W x H = 5 cm x 15 cm x UVGI Ultraviolet germicidal
irradiation: a small fan draws in air through bottom axial intake and passes it along a 9-W UVC
lamp and odor-filtering material (L x W x H = 15 cm x 15 cm x 40 cm) PAC Flow rate, (a)
Power, abbreviation [m.sup.3] (hr) (a) W HEPA-1 454 (10) 167(1.9) HEPA-2 970 (6.0) 226
(0.4) FEF 796 (3.4) 135 (0.5) HCZ 248 (2.0) 98 (0.9) ESP 803 (53) 98 (0.9) IG-1 190(16) 46
(0.6) IG-2 649 (19) 45 (2.2) PCI 584 (7.3) 119(0.3) PCO-1 1552 (34) 444 (0.5) PCO-2 14 (0.4)
14 (0.2) O3 GEN 15 (0.3) - (b) UVGI 21 (0.3) 16 (0.2) (a) PAC at maximum flow setting. (b)
Not available. Note: Values in parentheses are standard deviation. Table 2. PAC effectiveness of
total UFPs for various technologies modeled for Quebec City residential room under summer
and winter seasons. Effectiveness values and ranges under various room sizes (a) Winter
Summer HEPA-1 0.92 (0.85 to 0.95) 0.91 (0.84 to 0.94) HEPA-2 0.95 (0.89 to 0.96) 0.94 (0.89 to
0.96) FEF 0.92 (0.84 to 0.94) 0.91 (0.83 to 0.93) HCZ 0.70 (0.53 to 0.78) 0.68 (0.51 to 0.74) ESP
0.95 (0.91 to 0.97) 0.95 (0.90 to 0.96) IG-1 0.42 (0.26 to 0.52) 0.39 (0.24 to 0.48) IG-2 0.24 (0.13 to
0.32) 0.22 (0.12 to 0.28) PCI 0.39 (0.23 to 0.49) 0.36 (0.22 to 0.45) Effectiveness values and
ranges under various air exchange rates (a) Winter Summer HEPA-1 0.92 (0.91 to 0.93) 0.91
(0.89 to 0.93) HEPA-2 0.95 (0.94 to 0.95) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.95) FEF 0.92 (0.91 to 0.92) 0.91 (0.89 to
0.93) HCZ 0.70 (0.69 to 0.72) 0.68 (0.62 to 0.73) ESP 0.95 (0.95 to 0.96) 0.95 (0.93 to 0.96) IG-1

0.42 (0.41 to 0.43) 0.39 (0.37 to 0.46) IG-2 0.24 (0.23 to 0.25) 0.22 (0.18 to 0.27) PCI 0.39 (0.38 to
0.41) 0.36 (0.31 to 0.43) (a) Effectiveness values were obtained using median air exchange rates
and mean room values. Range of effectiveness values are given in the parentheses. PACs with
removal performance values that are near or statistically zero were not evaluated. Table 3.
Various costs estimates of the PACs. Initial PAC PAC filter Annual energy Lifetime PAC PAC cost,
CA$ cost, CA$ cost, CA$ cost, CA$ HEPA-1 240 40 101 521 HEPA-2 1360 300 136 3310 FEF 280
25 81 503 HCZ 380 150 59 1247 ESP 430 150 59 1315 IG-1 250 10 28 389 IG-2 50 - 27 68 PCI
480 70 72 994 PCO-1 450 - 268 612 PCO-2 NA NA 8 NA O3 GEN 200 - NA 272 UVGI 190 - 10
258 Total cost over Cost/CADR, PAC lifetime, CA$ CA$/[m.sup.3] [h.sup.-1] HEPA-1 1024
3.5 HEPA-2 3991 9.0 FEF 909 3.3 HCZ 1542 26.1 ESP 1610 3.2 IG-1 527 29.3 IG-2 204 26.1 PCI
1352 84.5 PCO-1 1950 304.7 PCO-2 NA NA O3 GEN 272 NS UVGI 307 NS Note: Assuming 5
years lifetime; NA: not available; NS: CADR values not significantly different from zero;--: no filter
replacement for PAC; CADR: total UFP CADR values.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Removal+of+ultrafine+particles+in+indoor+air:+performance+of+v
arious...-a0282742249