[Equipment] Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - Printable Version +- Apnea Board Forum - CPAP | Sleep Apnea (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums) +-- Forum: Public Area (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Public-Area) +--- Forum: Main Apnea Board Forum (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Main-Apnea-Board-Forum) +--- Thread: [Equipment] Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic (/Thread-Equipment-Resmed-S9-Filters-Standard-versus-Hypo-allergenic) |
Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - Kritiker - 10-08-2013 On page 27 of the S9 Clinician Manual two types of filters are listed for the Resmed S9 series of machines: Standard (ASMB 160) filters with an efficiency of 88% at 7 micron and Hypo-allergenic (Air Safety Electret100 – electrostatic filter) with an efficiency of 89.8% at 0.5 micron. 0.5 micron is quite different from 7 micron but 89.8% is not much different from 88%, so I am not sure of the performance difference. Does anyone know? Thanks. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - Kritiker - 10-08-2013 As far as I can determine, a filter's efficiency refers to its ability to remove particulate material. It appears that the removal of smaller particles, in the 7.0 micron down to to 0.5 micron range only provides for an improvement from 88% to 89.9%. The S9 VPAP Clinician Manual also lists a bacterial efficiency of 99.54% for the hypo-allergenic filters. Is that significant in terms of the amount of particulate matter that is removed? Is that significant in terms of the size of the particulate matter that is removed? I also understand that the purpose of these filters is two-fold, first to (potentially) extend the lifespan of the xPAP unit and (perhaps only) second to provide the user with filtered air. Perhaps the standard filters help most with the former and the hypo-allergenic filters help with both? Some people are reporting that the hypo-allergenic filters do get dirty faster than the standard ones, so one could infer that they are working better. Some people are also referring to the dust accumulation inside a computer case and suggesting these filters keep that kind of dust out of the xPAPs and out of our airways. So I would assume that the finer filters (irrespective of any implied hypo-allergenic properties) would keep out more crud than the standard filters and that sounds good to me. I also apologize for starting yet another filter thread. I don't want to restart that whole debate. I am just curious about the published numbers and what they mean. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - DOOM_NX - 10-08-2013 Standard filter: cheaper, less effective for smaller particulates (pollen, smoke, fine dust), easier on the motor. Hypoallergenic: more expensive, more effective, clogs up faster, harder on the motor. All air filters become more effective as they accumulate particles, although flow resistance is increased. If you suffer from allergic rhinitis or sleep in a dusty area, then get the hypoallergenic ones and change them more often. Otherwise, save your money and get the standard ones. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - terp1984 - 10-08-2013 I use ResMed DSP1011 Hypoallergenic filters. I don't use my insurance because, the in-network provider does not have this type. Even though they have what is claimed to be Hypoallergenic, they are not as good. I have dust allergies and it makes a big difference for me. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - Bobshouse - 10-08-2013 7 micron at 88% .05 micron at 89.8% Lets raise that to inches....at 7 inches and 88% it would stop about 88% of softballs thrown at it. at .05 inches and 89.8% it would stop all the softballs thrown at it, plus 89.8% of everything from the size of a large gumball and smaller. Questions? RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - RonWessels - 10-08-2013 Wow, you have small gumballs! 0.05 inches is around 1.25 mm. I would need tweezers to pick that up. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - Bobshouse - 10-08-2013 (10-08-2013, 06:23 PM)RonWessels Wrote: Wow, you have small gumballs! 0.05 inches is around 1.25 mm. I would need tweezers to pick that up. Ah, good, a question! Tweezers you say! I have small gumballs. You would need tweezers to pick up my small gumballs. OKaaayyyy..... Fuggettittabbouuttttit. Nobody is handling my small gumballs with tweezers! I was just trying to put the filter and filtering capabablities into perspective. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - justMongo - 10-09-2013 (10-08-2013, 02:28 PM)Bobshouse Wrote: 7 micron at 88% You slipped a decimal point. It's 0.5 micron. ( one half micron) Actually 0.5 micron is quite small -- the wavelength of green light is around 0.5 micron. RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - Kritiker - 10-10-2013 Thanks to all. Bobshouse, your analogy got me to thinking about this a little differently. The more I looked into it, the more complicated it got. The following is what I learned so far. It is still a gross over-simplification and probably still contains errors but I haven't time to go any further just yet. Efficiency is the ratio of some desired or useful result divided by the total possible result. Efficiency = amount of useful work / total possible work Filter efficiency is the ratio of particles, of the specified size (or possibly sometimes larger), trapped by a filter divided by the total number of particles, of the specified size (or larger?), found in the air upstream of the filter. A micron (μm, or micrometre or micrometer) is one millionth of a metre (meter). There are 25,400 microns to an inch. We are not given any indication of which testing standard was used to obtain the ResMed filter efficiency values nor exactly what the given specifications mean. We don't for example, know whether the ratings apply to 7 and 0.5 micron mean diameter particles (which includes smaller and larger) or to particles of those diameters and larger, nor what mix of particle sizes. HEPA filters are all rated for particles of 0.3 micron mean diameter. I have seen this expressed (on Wikipedia, incorrectly perhaps?) as particles of mean diameter 0.3 micron or larger. I am unsure which applies to the ResMed specifications. A filter's efficiency of 88% at 7 microns should probably mean that it will stop 88% of particles 7 microns mean diameter but it could mean that it will stop 88% of particles of 7 microns or larger, a looser specification; A filter's efficiency of 89.9% at 0.5 micron should probably mean that it will stop 89.9% of particles .5 micron mean diameter or it could mean that it will stop particles of 89.9% of particles 0.5 micron or larger. Either way, this represents a significant difference between the two filters. What follows is based on the (looser) specification of particle size, i.e., mean diameter or larger. I am not sure how to do the same for the tighter definition and I haven't the time to pursue it right now. I offer what follows for what it is worth and I am not sure what that is. I calculate efficiencies of 0.0 for both filters for, i.e, neither filter catches: viruses, pesticides and coal flue gases. The following particles seem to be caught, to varying degrees, by the finer filter (efficiency is given) and not the standard one (efficiency is 0.0). 0.5μm 7μm Particle 89.9% 0.0% liquid droplets 89.9% 0.0% anthrax 89.9% 0.0% Lead dust 89.9% 0.0% Spider web 82.6% 0.0% Paint pigments 78.9% 0.0% Tobacco smoke 71.9% 0.0% various combustion byproducts 46.3% 0.0% Oil smoke 41.3% 0.0% Smoldering or flaming cooking oil The following particles are caught significantly better (more than three times as many) by the finer filter than the standard one. Both efficiencies are given. 0.5μm 7μm Particle 89.9% 27.8% Insecticide dust 86.3% 26.7% Radioactive fallout The following particles are caught better by the finer filter than the standard one. Both efficiencies are given. 0.5μm 7μm Particle 89.9% 48.9% Mold 89.9% 52.8% Red blood cells 89.9% 66.0% Antiperspirant 88.7% 67.7% Face powder 89.9% 71.5% Iron dust 88.8% 72.6% Atmospheric dust 89.9% 76.4% Talcum dust 89.9% 77.2% Yeast cells 89.6% 78.1% Bacteria 89.9% 78.5% Spores The following particles are caught marginally better by the finer filter than the standard one. Both efficiencies are given. 0.5μm 7μm Particle 89.9% 81.7% Textile dust 89.9% 81.8% Asbestos 89.9% 82.7% Coal dust 89.9% 84.4% Cement dust 89.9% 87.4% Metallurgical fumes & dust 89.9% 88.0% Mold spores 89.9% 88.0% Pollen 89.9% 88.0% Dust mites 89.9% 88.0% Beach sand 89.9% 88.0% Glass wool To test a filter, particle counters measure the size and quantity of upstream particles per known volume of fluid, as well as the size and quantity of particles downstream of the filter. The number of particles trapped by the filter can then be computed as Particles Upstream - Particles Downstream. Filter Efficiency = Particles Trapped / Particles Upstream = (Particles Upstream - Particles Downstream) / Particles Upstream I have had to make some assumptions and ignore some variables:
There may be other, implied, assumptions I haven't even discovered yet. Having calculated all this, I am now left wondering whether it is of interest or use to anyone or was just an academic exercise. Particle Diameter (microns) min max Particle 0.5 5 Liquid droplets 1 5 Anthrax 2 2 Lead dust 2 3 Spider web 0.1 5 Paint pigments 0.01 4 Tobacco smoke 0 2.5 various combustion byproducts 0.03 1 Oil smoke 0.03 0.9 Smoldering or flaming cooking oil 0.5 10 Insecticide dust 0.1 10 Radioactive fallout 3 12 Mold 5 10 Red blood cells 6 10 Antiperspirant 0.1 30 Face powder 4 20 Iron dust 0.001 40 Atmospheric dust 0.5 50 Talcum dust 1 50 Yeast cells 0.3 60 Bacteria 3 40 Spores 6 20 Textile dust 0.7 90 Asbestos 1 100 Coal dust 3 100 Cement dust 0.1 1000 Metallurgical fumes & dust 10 30 Mold spores 10 1000 Pollen 100 300 Dust mites 100 10000 Beach sand 1000 1000 Glass wool 0.08 0.2 Coal flue gas 0.005 0.3 Viruses 0.001 0.001 Pesticides & herbicides Sources Filter Arrestance and Efficiency Filter efficiency definition Particle Sizes RE: Resmed S9 Filters: Standard versus Hypo-allergenic - hobbs - 10-10-2013 I would like to find a source for REAL OEM Resmed filters, not the aftermarket ones most sellers have. Please send a PM if you have a trusted source for OEM filters. |