Comparison of filter bag, cyclonic, and wet dust collection methods in vacuum cleaners

In this study, methods were developed for comparative evaluation of three primary dust collection methods employed in vacuum cleaners: filter bag, cyclonic, and wet primary dust collection. The dry collectors were evaluated with KCl test aerosols that are commonly used in filter testing. However, these aerosols cannot be used for evaluating wet collectors due to their hygroscopicity. Therefore, the wet collectors were evaluated with nonhygroscopic test particles. Both types of test aerosol indicated similar collection efficiencies in tests with dry collectors. The data show that high initial collection efficiency can be achieved by any one of the three dust collection methods: up to 50% for 0.35 microm particles, and close to 100% for 1.0 microm and larger particles. The degree of dependence of the initial collection efficiency on airflow rate was strongly related to the type and manufacturing of the primary dust collector. Collection efficiency decreased most with decreasing flow rate for the tested wet collectors. The tested cyclonic and wet collectors showed high reentrainment of already collected dust particles. After the filter bag collectors had been loaded with test dust, they also reemitted particles. The degree of reentrainment from filter bags depends on the particulate load and the type of filter material used. Thus, the overall particle emissions performance of a vacuum cleaner depends not only on the dust collection efficiency of the primary collector and other filtration elements employed, but also on the degree of reentrainment of already collected particles.

Particle emission characteristics of filter-equipped vacuum cleaners

Industrial vacuum cleaners with final high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters traditionally have been used for cleanup operations in which all of the nozzle-entrained dust must be collected with high efficiency, for example, after lead-based paint abatement in homes. In this study household vacuum cleaners ranging from $70 to $650 and an industrial vacuum cleaner costing more than $1400 were evaluated relative to their collection efficiency immediately after installing new primary dust collectors in them. Using newly developed testing technology, some of the low-cost household vacuum cleaners equipped with a final HEPA filter were found to have initial overall filtration efficiencies comparable to those of industrial vacuum cleaners equipped with a final HEPA filter. The household vacuum cleaners equipped with a final HEPA filter efficiently collect about 100% of the dry dust entrained by the nozzle. For extensive cleaning efforts and for vacuum cleaning of wet surfaces, however, industrial vacuum cleaners may have an advantage, including ruggedness and greater loading capacity. The methods and findings of this study are applicable to field evaluations of vacuum cleaners.

Test methods for evaluating the filtration and particulate emission characteristics of vacuum cleaners

The overall filtration efficiency of a vacuum cleaner traditionally has been tested by placing the vacuum cleaner in a test chamber and measuring aerosol concentrations at the chamber inlet and outlet. The chamber test method was refined and validated in this study. However, this chamber test method shows an overall filtration efficiency of close to 100% for most of the industrial vacuum cleaners and for most of the newly developed household vacuum cleaners of midprice range or higher because all these vacuum cleaners have a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or other highly efficient filter installed at the exhaust. A new test method was therefore developed through which the vacuum cleaner was probed in various internal locations so that the collection efficiency of the individual components could be determined. For example, the aerosol concentration upstream of the final HEPA filter can thus be measured, which permits one to estimate the life expectancy of this expensive component. The probed testing method is particularly suitable for field evaluations of vacuum cleaners because it uses compact, battery-operated optical particle size spectrometers with internal data storage. Both chamber and probed tests gave the same results for the aerosol filtration efficiency. The probed testing method, however, also gives information on the performance of the individual components in a vacuum cleaner. It also can be used to determine the dust pickup efficiency and the degree of reaerosolization of particles collected in the vacuum cleaner.

Particle settling after lead-based paint abatement work and clearance waiting period

This study investigated the evolution of airborne particle concentration and size distribution following abatement work in a controlled environment utilizing direct real-time particle monitoring and used it to project potential lead loadings as those particles settle. An 860 ft3 environmental test chamber with sophisticated ventilation and air purifying systems was built. Wooden doors with lead-based paint were dry sanded or scraped to generate the highest feasible airborne lead concentrations. Size-fractional airborne particle concentrations decreased exponentially with time in all tests, even with no air exchange, consistent with the stirred model of constantly mixed air, which predicts longer settling than for tranquil settling. Very low levels of air mixing generated by temperature gradients and initial room air turbulence affected particle settling. About 90% of airborne lead mass settled within 1 hour after active abatement, before final cleaning began. During the second waiting period of 1 hour, which followed cleaning of the floor, additional dust settled so that the additional potential lead loading from remaining airborne lead was less than 20 microg/ft2. For this worst case scenario, the underestimate of the lead loading done by the clearance sampling did not exceed about 30%. For more realistic conditions, the underestimates are projected to be much lower than the new 40 microg/ft2 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clearance standards for floor dust lead. These results were obtained for the first waiting period (between the end of active abatement and the beginning of cleaning) of 1 hour, as recommended by HUD guidelines. Thus, this study demonstrates no need to increase either the first or second waiting period.

Release of lead-containing particles from a wall enclosure

The 1995 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing discusses using interior and exterior wall enclosures for lead hazard control. Leaded dust may be aerosolized inside enclosures and released through gaps and cracks into a room. The effects of airflow and mechanical disturbances on dust release were studied using a laboratory wall enclosure model with dust collected from homes with lead-based paint hazards. Airflows relevant to residences were blown down the enclosure and out a 4-, 6-, or 8-mm horizontal gap at its bottom, simulating potential enclosure failure. Then, low-frequency mechanical vibrations also were applied to the enclosure. No significant dust release was found when blowing air down the enclosure even at 37 cm/sec (representing extremely high flow); release occurred only with this high flow and 3 Hz mechanical disturbances. Dust was released primarily from the floor area immediately adjacent to the enclosure gap; the release rate fluctuated over time. Most dust initially settled near the enclosure. Dust release for 1 hour at extreme conditions (high airflow with vibration) yields lead loading above the 1995 HUD clearance level of 100 microg/ft2 only within 3-4 cm of the wall; for the HUD standard (1 ft2) sampling area, the lead loading does not exceed 30 microg/ ft2. Redistributing dust over the room's 16 m2 floor space yields average extreme-condition loading rate of 2 microg/ft2/hour. At less-than-extreme conditions, dust would have to be released for years without cleaning to yield a hazard.