Re: Trane System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

[Guest guest]

“In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-inch filter, the average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about seven times before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors,†said MacIntosh.

Seven times? Is that right? Should we really be worried about the flu virus coming out of supply diffusers? People coughing and sneezing and touching things in the occupied space is a more likely reason that someone might become infected.

It seems like more marketing through fear tactics to me. They didn't mention how it works 8 times better better than the best HEPA filters.

Steve Temes

No endorsements are intended or implied. I find the testing method more fascinating than the fact the filter is reportedly that effective. I encourage those who are interested to obtain the test information and review it skeptically and in light of your personal use conditions.

Trane System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

Trane CleanEffects, a whole-house air filtration system, removes more than 99% of the common flu, or influenza A virus, from the filtered air, according to a first-of-its-kind study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in collaboration with scientists at Environmental Health and Engineering Inc. (EH & E).

Because of the similarities among types of influenza viruses, the researchers also concluded that the system will remove more than 99% of other forms of the virus, including B, C and avian influenza from the filtered air.

The tests involved releasing the common flu virus into the air inside a test heating, ventilation and air conditioning duct. The removal efficiency was calculated from the amount of the virus measured in air samples collected before and after passing through the Trane CleanEffects System.

“By removing the vast majority of the common flu virus from a home’s re-circulated air, the average airborne concentration of the virus in the home is reduced, thereby lowering airborne exposure to the virus for household occupants,†said Dr. Macintosh, an instructor at the Harvard Extension School and a principal scientist at EH & E.

Trane is the first manufacturer of whole-house cleaners to receive certification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it is in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

“In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-inch filter, the average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about seven times before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors,†said MacIntosh. “That’s more than enough time to breathe in the virus, and cleaning the air in your home is an important step to improve the health of your home environment.â€

Dr. a Busse, M.D., an allergy and immunology specialist at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, said that people with allergies and asthma “are potentially at a greater risk of catching the airborne flu virus. Additionally, patients with asthma may have a more severe course of the flu because of their underlying airway damage. For this reason, we recommend that anyone with asthma take all measures to prevent acquiring the flu. These test results are very important because they demonstrate that installing a whole-house air cleaner, such as Trane CleanEffects, can add another layer of protection against the flu for patients with allergies and asthma.â€

The Trane CleanEffects patented air cleaning technology has the highest clean air delivery rate in the industry, according to the manufacturer, eliminating allergens and particles as small as .1 micron, which is 1/1,000th the diameter of a human hair.

To find a local dealer, click here.

Trane is a member of the National Council of the Housing Industry — The Leading Suppliers of NAHB.

This feature is solely for educational and informational purposes. Nothing on this page should be construed as policy, an endorsement, warranty or guaranty by the National Association of Home Builders of the featured product or the product manufacturer. The National Association of Home Builders expressly disclaims any responsibility for any damages arising from the use, application or reliance on any information contained on this page.

[Guest guest]

Interesting filter from Trane.

However, it begs a number of questions.

1. Virtually all viral infections are acquired outside of the home, so

why bother to put in this in your home?

2. Why wasn't this tested in a hospital setting. This is where

airborne viral infections are a significant risk? Give me some proof

that it really reduces nosocomial infection rates.

3. Given that most viral infections are acquired through hand/physical

contact, where is the proof

that this device will reduce ANY incidence of viral infections? Why

spend the money, if it really has

no actual effectiveness?

Bob

[Guest guest]

Matt - We have been designing the CleanEffects system in every one of

our homes. The EPA rating provides my clients with assurances their

claims are accurate.

We have been inundated by peddlers of HVAC add-on technologies who

are making all sorts of medical sounding claims but have no

documentation supporting them. Stay away!

>

> No endorsements are intended or implied. I find the testing method

more

> fascinating than the fact the filter is reportedly that effective.

I

> encourage those who are interested to obtain the test information

and review

> it skeptically and in light of your personal use conditions.

>

>

>

> Trane System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

>

>

http://www.nbnnews.com/NBN/new/editor_images/feb_25_building_products_

trane.

> jpgTrane CleanEffects

> <http://www.trane.com/Residential/CleanAir/CleanEffects.aspx> , a

> whole-house air filtration system, removes more than 99% of the

common flu,

> or influenza A virus, from the filtered air, according to a

> first-of-its-kind study conducted by researchers at the Harvard

School of

> <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/> Public Health in collaboration with

> scientists at Environmental Health and <http://www.eheinc.com/>

Engineering

> Inc. (EH & E).

>

> Because of the similarities among types of influenza viruses, the

> researchers also concluded that the system will remove more than

99% of

> other forms of the virus, including B, C and avian influenza from

the

> filtered air.

>

> The tests involved releasing the common flu virus into the air

inside a test

> heating, ventilation and air conditioning duct. The removal

efficiency was

> calculated from the amount of the virus measured in air samples

collected

> before and after passing through the Trane CleanEffects System.

>

> " By removing the vast majority of the common flu virus from a home's

> re-circulated air, the average airborne concentration of the virus

in the

> home is reduced, thereby lowering airborne exposure to the virus for

> household occupants, " said Dr. Macintosh, an instructor at

the Harvard

> Extension School and a principal scientist at EH & E.

>

> Trane is the first manufacturer of whole-house cleaners to receive

> certification from the U.S. <http://www.epa.gov/> Environmental

Protection

> Agency that it is in compliance with the Federal

> <http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/fifra.html> Insecticide,

Fungicide and

> Rodenticide Act.

>

> " In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-inch

filter, the

> average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about

seven times

> before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors, " said

> MacIntosh. " That's more than enough time to breathe in the virus,

and

> cleaning the air in your home is an important step to improve the

health of

> your home environment. "

>

> Dr. a Busse, M.D., an allergy and immunology specialist at the

Mount

> Sinai Medical Center <http://www.msmc.com/> , said that people with

> allergies and asthma " are potentially at a greater risk of catching

the

> airborne flu virus. Additionally, patients with asthma may have a

more

> severe course of the flu because of their underlying airway damage.

For this

> reason, we recommend that anyone with asthma take all measures to

prevent

> acquiring the flu. These test results are very important because

they

> demonstrate that installing a whole-house air cleaner, such as Trane

> CleanEffects, can add another layer of protection against the flu

for

> patients with allergies and asthma. "

>

> The Trane CleanEffects patented air cleaning technology has the

highest

> clean air delivery rate in the industry, according to the

manufacturer,

> eliminating allergens and particles as small as .1 micron, which is

> 1/1,000th the diameter of a human hair.

>

> To find a local dealer, click

> <http://trane.com/Residential/CleanAir/99percent.aspx> here.

>

> Trane <http://www.trane.com/Default.asp> is a member of the

National

> Council of the Housing Industry

> <http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/sectionID=469> - The

Leading

> Suppliers of NAHB.

>

> This feature is solely for educational and informational purposes.

Nothing

> on this page should be construed as policy, an endorsement,

warranty or

> guaranty by the National Association of Home Builders of the

featured

> product or the product manufacturer. The National Association of

Home

> Builders expressly disclaims any responsibility for any damages

arising from

> the use, application or reliance on any information contained on

this page.

>

[Guest guest]

Come now Steve,

Should it really matter how the Trane device works if they can

properly claim a CADR of 1200 vs 150 for HEPA?

It matters because I'm a scientist and I don't believe in black box magic. I don't always have to understand things, like how my computer knows what to do when I move the curser around the monitor and click, but when they say their device works 8 times better than a HEPA filter, I'm curious and want to know how.

But to see their novel system just view the "How it works"

demonstration. The web link was provided. Looks pretty neat but is

still passive air filtering handling only the air passing through the

equipped air ducts. Little or no improvement can be expected with

air already in the living spaces except by diluting and than by

working to recirculate.

Sure 99% of viruses can easily be removed/killed in the air that

passes thru the ducts but I'd rather see 99% also removed from the

air already in the living spaces. The Trane device costs about $3000

installed... A good PCO device should cost less than $1000 installed

and do as well or better and without the maintenance of cleaning or

replacing filters. Of course Steve, I sell PCO devices so you

wouldn't want to listen to me.

Ken

If you are trying to sell me one of them you first have to convince me that I need one -- even if they did work as advertised, and I don't believe they do.

================================

>

>“In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-inch

filter, the

>average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about

seven times

>before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors,â€Â

said MacIntosh.

>

>Seven times? Is that right? Should we really be worried about the

flu virus

>coming out of supply diffusers? People coughing and sneezing and

touching

>things in the occupied space is a more likely reason that someone

might become

>infected.

>

>It seems like more marketing through fear tactics to me. They

didn't mention

>how it works 8 times better better than the best HEPA filters.

>

>Steve Temes

>

>In a message dated 2/26/2008 4:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>mkklein68@... writes:

>>No endorsements are intended or implied. I find the testing

method more

>>fascinating than the fact the filter is reportedly that

effective. I encourage

>>those who are interested to obtain the test information and

review it

>>skeptically and in light of your personal use conditions.

>>

>>

>>

>>Trane System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

>>

>>Trane CleanEffects, a whole-house air filtration system, removes

more than

>>99% of the common flu, or influenza A virus, from the filtered

air, according

>>to a first-of-its-kind study conducted by researchers at the

Harvard School

>>of Public Health in collaboration with scientists at

Environmental Health and

>>Engineering Inc. (EH & E).

>>

[Guest guest]

Hey, Kenny G (kengib),

I agree with you! You said to Steve:

> Come now Steve,

[snip]

> Little or no improvement can be expected with

> air already in the living spaces except by diluting and than by

> working to recirculate.

You hit this nail right on the head! The Denver IAQA Chapter this morning had an infectious disease expert talk about Bird Flu, SARS and infectious virus in general.

Gail Curry-Kane Jensen, is an RN, MS, MED, ICP, CEO with an extensive background in industrial, Bio-medical & chemical waste, 30 plus years of experience in Infection Control, Infectious Disease, Safety & education of law enforcement, hospitals, medical centers, EPA, NIOSH, NFPA and others.

Although supportive of public health, she has her criticisms also, which increased her credibility with me. She knows her details and where some of the bodies are buried (some literally). A couple of these were a little hard to " stomach " right after our breakfast.

According to her, the most effective method of responding to airborne infectious virus is to " open the window " to circulate the air. And to let the sunshine in.

Forget any of the UV technologies expect for use in small confined spaces with long dwell times. Ozone can be VERY effective, but again in small spaces with little air movement and no people. She knows of no other methods that work in the real world that have been independantly verified. (I'm sure some of you disagree).

The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy. N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly to prevent public panic.

BTW, I asked her if she agreed with the statement that the prime " directive " of public health was to prevent public panic, and only then take other action. She agreed wholeheartedly. (In all fairness to public health people on this board, she explained why this is important).

I will also briefly address her position on testing for viruses on surfaces and in the air because several of the national IAQ labs are pushing for viral sampling, including PCR.

Her take is you must absolutely know what you are doing with proper equipment and technique. Samples must go only to specialty labs. Very expensive. Even if conventional IAQ labs could handle it, the only way to identify virus is by culturing, which is very slow and usually takes several weeks and there is no way to speed this up. By that time the victims are either dead or recovered.

PCR for virus identificaton is very quick but it gives no information other than the Howie Mandel TV tag line of, " virus " or " no virus. "

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Come now Steve,

>

> Should it really matter how the Trane device works if they can

> properly claim a CADR of 1200 vs 150 for HEPA?

>

> But to see their novel system just view the " How it works "

> demonstration. The web link was provided. Looks pretty neat but is

> still passive air filtering handling only the air passing through the

> equipped air ducts. Little or no improvement can be expected with

> air already in the living spaces except by diluting and than by

> working to recirculate.

>

> Sure 99% of viruses can easily be removed/killed in the air that

> passes thru the ducts but I'd rather see 99% also removed from the

> air already in the living spaces. The Trane device costs about $3000

> installed... A good PCO device should cost less than $1000 installed

> and do as well or better and without the maintenance of cleaning or

> replacing filters. Of course Steve, I sell PCO devices so you

> wouldn't want to listen to me.

>

> Ken

>

> ================================

>

>

>

> >

> > “In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-inch

> filter, the

> > average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about

> seven times

> > before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors,â€

> said MacIntosh.

> >

> > Seven times? Is that right? Should we really be worried about the

> flu virus

> > coming out of supply diffusers? People coughing and sneezing and

> touching

> > things in the occupied space is a more likely reason that someone

> might become

> > infected.

> >

> > It seems like more marketing through fear tactics to me. They

> didn't mention

> > how it works 8 times better better than the best HEPA filters.

> >

> > Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Ok Steve, I think I see from where you are coming...

Again why would you have to know those details when the presentation

so straightforwardly indicates the machines have been CADR rated.

Your questioning seems to be challenging the validity of the CADR

program which I thought was well accepted by this IAQ group.

Let's say the Trane stuff is proprietary but has been tested and

certified by bodies representing our industry and others. Then

shouldn't the CADR rating of 1200 be sufficient proof the technology

is 8 times greater than a HEPA system?

Your demand for an explanation beyond what has already been presented

at the Trane web site I found surprising and beneath the dignity of a

scientist. Please explain yourself. What further evidence would

would you think is needed by any of us of the usefullness of the

Trane system other than being given the CADR ratings?

Oh I do have a few questions but those are beyond a discussion of

CADR and the usefullness of that system of rating.

Are you questioning whether the CADR of a simple HEPA device can be

compared to the CADR of the Trane device? If you are then I would

ask why.

Ken

===================================

> > >

> > > " In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-

inch

> > filter, the

> > >average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about

> > seven times

> > >before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors,â

€Â

> > said MacIntosh.

> > >

> > >Seven times? Is that right? Should we really be worried about

the

> > flu virus

> > >coming out of supply diffusers? People coughing and sneezing and

> > touching

> > >things in the occupied space is a more likely reason that

someone

> > might become

> > >infected.

> > >

> > >It seems like more marketing through fear tactics to me. They

> > didn't mention

> > >how it works 8 times better better than the best HEPA filters.

> > >

> > >Steve Temes

> > >

> > >In a message dated 2/26/2008 4:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> > >mkklein68@ writes:

> > >>No endorsements are intended or implied. I find the testing

> > method more

> > >>fascinating than the fact the filter is reportedly that

> > effective. I encourage

> > >>those who are interested to obtain the test information and

> > review it

> > >>skeptically and in light of your personal use conditions.

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>Trane System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

> > >>

> > >>Trane CleanEffects, a whole-house air filtration system,

removes

> > more than

> > >>99% of the common flu, or influenza A virus, from the filtered

> > air, according

> > >>to a first-of-its-kind study conducted by researchers at the

> > Harvard School

> > >>of Public Health in collaboration with scientists at

> > Environmental Health and

> > >>Engineering Inc. (EH & E).

> > >>

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Well Carlie G, and I agree with all of what you are reporting with

just a few additional comments:

Yes, I said the Trane system evidently works well removing micron

sized particles from interior air but does so by diluting the air by

continual recirculation. You note the speaker also spoke of diluting

the interior by opening the windows. OK, but how about in those

situations where such is not possible. The speaker spoke of the

value of allowing sunlight to come into the living spaces. Great! We

all recognize the antiseptic value of sunlight or nature's uv.

The statement: " the most effective method of responding to airborne

infectious virus is to " open the window " to circulate the air. And to

let the sunshine in " is so very true.... but really what does it

say? It may be saying that 99% of the world's households have no

other means of combating diseases than to get fresh air through open

windows. How about the millions, no billions, of daily manhours

spent around the world in facilities without windows that open. How

about subway systems? I'd have asked the good speaker what she

thought about the Chinese answer to unhealthy air in the underground

Shanghai subway system. Opening windows there is not an option I

would think you would agree.

I'm not sure of the significance of the statement: " 0.3 micron pore

size of HEPA is too large to stop either the whole virus or the

infectious fragments " . Wouldn't you say the speaker is overlooking

viruses can not exist except as contained in a droplet of moisture or

as a parasite or colony within a bacterium and the total package size

would therefore be more easily captured. Further, was it really said

that viruses have infectuous fragments? Wasn't the subject now mold

spores or maybe whole virions from a destroyed bacterium? I'm not

sure virons have any such fragments.

Oh, you didn't say of what organization Ms. Jensen is the CEO. I'd

be interested.

Thanks Carl for confirming the value of fresh air especially that

sterilized by sunlight.

ken

========================

> > >

> > > âEURoeIn a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-

inch

> > filter, the

> > > average virus particle would re-circulate through the home

about

> > seven times

> > > before depositing on a surface or being transported

outdoors,âEUR

> > said MacIntosh.

> > >

> > > Seven times? Is that right? Should we really be worried about

the

> > flu virus

> > > coming out of supply diffusers? People coughing and sneezing

and

> > touching

> > > things in the occupied space is a more likely reason that

someone

> > might become

> > > infected.

> > >

> > > It seems like more marketing through fear tactics to me. They

> > didn't mention

> > > how it works 8 times better better than the best HEPA filters.

> > >

> > > Steve Temes

>

[Guest guest]

Ok Steve, I think I see from where you are coming...

Again why would you have to know those details when the presentation

so straightforwardly indicates the machines have been CADR rated.

Your questioning seems to be challenging the validity of the CADR

program which I thought was well accepted by this IAQ group.

Let's say the Trane stuff is proprietary but has been tested and

certified by bodies representing our industry and others. Then

shouldn't the CADR rating of 1200 be sufficient proof the technology

is 8 times greater than a HEPA system?

Your demand for an explanation beyond what has already been presented

at the Trane web site I found surprising and beneath the dignity of a

scientist. Please explain yourself. What further evidence would

would you think is needed by any of us of the usefullness of the

Trane system other than being given the CADR ratings?

Ken,

How can it be beneath the dignity of a scientist to try to understand how something works? That's what scientists do. If the particle removal technology is 8 times better than a HEPA filter, that is phenominal. No? What other filtration technology has a CADR 8 times better than HEPA?

Why is it that technology has not been jumped on by everyone in need of good filtration? If HEPA is needed for certain environmental health and safety controls, why aren't they all thinking about switching to 8-times-better-than-HEPA technology. I'm suspicious. This is where I'm coming from. Trane has this tremendously advantageous technology available to the world and it's a big secret? Sounds fishy to me, that's all.

I don't have an agenda here. I'm not saying you shouldn't sell these things. I'm saying that I don't know of a good reason to buy one. There may be a benefit in certain situations -- not in my home. My feeling is that whatever it is that you are trying to remove with an air filtration device is best addressed at its source.

I hope I've explained myself sufficiently for you.

more....

Oh I do have a few questions but those are beyond a discussion of

CADR and the usefullness of that system of rating.

Are you questioning whether the CADR of a simple HEPA device can be

compared to the CADR of the Trane device? If you are then I would

ask why.

Ken

No, Ken. You have created a straw man argument when you turn what I said into a questioning of the CADR test methodology. I want to know how the thing works so that I can understand its costs and benefits better. I don't trust the marketing rhetoric and there is more to the filtration device to consider than just the CADR. Does it produce harmful by-products? How much energy does it consume? Why is the techology such a secret? Why isn't the world lining up to buy these things if they are so effective and superior?

If these things work 8 times better than expensive HEPA filters, Ken, they should be selling themselves.

Oh, BTW, can you remind me again why I'm supposed to want one? If it is to remove flu virus from filtered home air (the subject line) I'm not buying it. If you are that paranoid about catching the flu virus from someone you live with why don't you just slap a surgical mask on everyone when they walk into the house to prevent droplet aerosolization? The reality is that kids are picking their noses and touching things and coughing all over the place.

Steve

===================================

>>>

>>>â€Å"In a home with central forced air and a conventional 1-

inch

>>filter, the

>>>average virus particle would re-circulate through the home about

>>seven times

>>>before depositing on a surface or being transported outdoors,â

€ÂÂ

>>said MacIntosh.

>>>

>>>Seven times? Is that right? Should we really be worried about

the

>>flu virus

>>>coming out of supply diffusers? People coughing and sneezing and

>>touching

>>>things in the occupied space is a more likely reason that

someone

>>might become

>>>infected.

>>>

>>>It seems like more marketing through fear tactics to me. They

>>didn't mention

>>>how it works 8 times better better than the best HEPA filters.

>>>

>>>Steve Temes

>>>

>>>In a message dated 2/26/2008 4:33:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>>>mkklein68@ writes:

>>>>No endorsements are intended or implied. I find the testing

>>method more

>>>>fascinating than the fact the filter is reportedly that

>>effective. I encourage

>>>>those who are interested to obtain the test information and

>>review it

>>>>skeptically and in light of your personal use conditions.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Trane System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

>>>>

>>>>Trane CleanEffects, a whole-house air filtration system,

removes

>>more than

>>>>99% of the common flu, or influenza A virus, from the filtered

>>air, according

>>>>to a first-of-its-kind study conducted by researchers at the

>>Harvard School

>>>>of Public Health in collaboration with scientists at

>>Environmental Health and

>>>>Engineering Inc. (EH & E).

>>>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Carl, all:

we've got to stop thinking about filters like this:

" The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the

whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy.

N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly to prevent public panic. "

if this is what your speaker said, she was wrong. this is a very

common misconception, but an air filter does not function like a

sieve or a collander. a HEPA filter does not have 0.3

micron " pores " .

there are four mechanisms (some say five) by which media filters

remove particulate from the air, and " straining " (aka " sieving " ) is

responsible for removing only the largest of them.

memorize this statement: HEPA filters are actually MORE than 99.97%

efficient at removing particles that are larger than 0.3 microns AND

those that are smaller than 0.3 microns.

please check the archives of this list for additional discussion and

explanation. pretty sure that we've talked about this a couple of

times in the recent past.....

regards,

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

MICHAELS ENGINEERING

" Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

St. , La Crosse, Milwaukee

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

wab@...

http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

more fun? "

- Graham

>

> Hey, Kenny G (kengib),

>

> I agree with you! You said to Steve:

>

> > Come now Steve, [snip]

> > Little or no improvement can be expected with

> > air already in the living spaces except by diluting and than

by

> > working to recirculate.

>

> You hit this nail right on the head! The Denver IAQA Chapter this

> morning had an infectious disease expert talk about Bird Flu,

> SARS and infectious virus in general.

>

> Gail Curry-Kane Jensen, is an RN, MS, MED, ICP, CEO with an

> extensive background in industrial, Bio-medical & chemical

> waste, 30 plus years of experience in Infection Control, Infectious

> Disease, Safety & education of law enforcement, hospitals,

> medical centers, EPA, NIOSH, NFPA and others.

>

> Although supportive of public health, she has her criticisms also,

> which increased her credibility with me. She knows her details

> and where some of the bodies are buried (some literally). A

> couple of these were a little hard to " stomach " right after our

> breakfast.

>

> According to her, the most effective method of responding to

> airborne infectious virus is to " open the window " to circulate the

> air. And to let the sunshine in.

>

> Forget any of the UV technologies expect for use in small

> confined spaces with long dwell times. Ozone can be VERY

> effective, but again in small spaces with little air movement and

> no people. She knows of no other methods that work in the real

> world that have been independantly verified. (I'm sure some of

> you disagree).

>

> The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the

> whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy.

> N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly to prevent public panic.

>

> BTW, I asked her if she agreed with the statement that

> the prime " directive " of public health was to prevent public

> panic, and only then take other action. She agreed

> wholeheartedly. (In all fairness to public health people on

> this board, she explained why this is important).

>

> I will also briefly address her position on testing for viruses on

> surfaces and in the air because several of the national IAQ labs

> are pushing for viral sampling, including PCR.

>

> Her take is you must absolutely know what you are doing with

> proper equipment and technique. Samples must go only to

> specialty labs. Very expensive. Even if conventional IAQ labs

> could handle it, the only way to identify virus is by culturing,

which

> is very slow and usually takes several weeks and there is no way

> to speed this up. By that time the victims are either dead or

> recovered.

>

> PCR for virus identificaton is very quick but it gives no

information

> other than the Howie Mandel TV tag line of, " virus " or " no virus. "

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

and Wane,

You are correct, of course, about HEPA filters. My bad for not pointing that out myself during my report of the speaker. I'm not surprised that the two of you jumped on this, just as I'm not surprised at who didn't.

For the record, CADR does not treat all particle sizes equally but is weighted toward those most likely to remain airborne long enough to be pulled (or pushed) through the " gate. " I don't know how it treats ultrafine particles. I have, somewhere, Shaughnesy's presentation in Orlando from a couple of years ago that discussed this in detail.

It would be interesting to see if the CADR formula would even calculate results 8 times greater (than?). I remember the practical high end to be around 300-400. 8X would be 2,400 to 3,200.

As a tangent, how low can a HEPA go? There has to be a limit of retention based on size or else it would also be great for vapors, gasses and molecules.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl, all:

>

> we've got to stop thinking about filters like this:

>

> " The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the

> whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy.

> N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly to prevent public panic. "

>

> if this is what your speaker said, she was wrong. this is a very

> common misconception, but an air filter does not function like a

> sieve or a collander. a HEPA filter does not have 0.3

> micron " pores " .

>

> there are four mechanisms (some say five) by which media filters

> remove particulate from the air, and " straining " (aka " sieving " ) is

> responsible for removing only the largest of them.

>

> memorize this statement: HEPA filters are actually MORE than 99.97%

> efficient at removing particles that are larger than 0.3 microns AND

> those that are smaller than 0.3 microns.

>

> please check the archives of this list for additional discussion and

> explanation. pretty sure that we've talked about this a couple of

> times in the recent past.....

>

> regards,

>

> Wane

>

> <><><><><><><><><><><>

> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> " Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

> St. , La Crosse, Milwaukee

>

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

>

> wab@...

> http://www.michaelsengineering.com

>

> " To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

> more fun? "

> - Graham

>

>

>

> >

> > Hey, Kenny G (kengib),

> >

> > I agree with you! You said to Steve:

> >

> > > Come now Steve, [snip]

> > > Little or no improvement can be expected with

> > > air already in the living spaces except by diluting and than

> by

> > > working to recirculate.

> >

> > You hit this nail right on the head! The Denver IAQA Chapter this

> > morning had an infectious disease expert talk about Bird Flu,

> > SARS and infectious virus in general.

> >

> > Gail Curry-Kane Jensen, is an RN, MS, MED, ICP, CEO with an

> > extensive background in industrial, Bio-medical & chemical

> > waste, 30 plus years of experience in Infection Control, Infectious

> > Disease, Safety & education of law enforcement, hospitals,

> > medical centers, EPA, NIOSH, NFPA and others.

> >

> > Although supportive of public health, she has her criticisms also,

> > which increased her credibility with me. She knows her details

> > and where some of the bodies are buried (some literally). A

> > couple of these were a little hard to " stomach " right after our

> > breakfast.

> >

> > According to her, the most effective method of responding to

> > airborne infectious virus is to " open the window " to circulate the

> > air. And to let the sunshine in.

> >

> > Forget any of the UV technologies expect for use in small

> > confined spaces with long dwell times. Ozone can be VERY

> > effective, but again in small spaces with little air movement and

> > no people. She knows of no other methods that work in the real

> > world that have been independantly verified. (I'm sure some of

> > you disagree).

> >

> > The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the

> > whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy.

> > N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly to prevent public panic.

> >

> > BTW, I asked her if she agreed with the statement that

> > the prime " directive " of public health was to prevent public

> > panic, and only then take other action. She agreed

> > wholeheartedly. (In all fairness to public health people on

> > this board, she explained why this is important).

> >

> > I will also briefly address her position on testing for viruses on

> > surfaces and in the air because several of the national IAQ labs

> > are pushing for viral sampling, including PCR.

> >

> > Her take is you must absolutely know what you are doing with

> > proper equipment and technique. Samples must go only to

> > specialty labs. Very expensive. Even if conventional IAQ labs

> > could handle it, the only way to identify virus is by culturing,

> which

> > is very slow and usually takes several weeks and there is no way

> > to speed this up. By that time the victims are either dead or

> > recovered.

> >

> > PCR for virus identificaton is very quick but it gives no

> information

> > other than the Howie Mandel TV tag line of, " virus " or " no virus. "

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

, Wayne, and Carl,

You can find some additional information using ASHRAE's TC 2.4 or 2.3 web-sites or annual meeting notes of industry research.

I would point out that it is one thing to say you have a HEPA filter and an entirely different matter to say you have a system with integrity that will pass certification for HEPA filtration.

ge

and Wane,

You are correct, of course, about HEPA filters. My bad for not pointing that out myself during my report of the speaker. I'm not surprised that the two of you jumped on this, just as I'm not surprised at who didn't.

For the record, CADR does not treat all particle sizes equally but is weighted toward those most likely to remain airborne long enough to be pulled (or pushed) through the "gate." I don't know how it treats ultrafine particles. I have, somewhere, Shaughnesy's presentation in Orlando from a couple of years ago that discussed this in detail.

It would be interesting to see if the CADR formula would even calculate results 8 times greater (than?). I remember the practical high end to be around 300-400. 8X would be 2,400 to 3,200.

As a tangent, how low can a HEPA go? There has to be a limit of retention based on size or else it would also be great for vapors, gasses and molecules.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl, all:

>

> we've got to stop thinking about filters like this:

>

> "The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the

> whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy.

> N-95 face masks are for "show," mostly to prevent public panic."

>

> if this is what your speaker said, she was wrong. this is a very

> common misconception, but an air filter does not function like a

> sieve or a collander. a HEPA filter does not have 0.3

> micron "pores".

>

> there are four mechanisms (some say five) by which media filters

> remove particulate from the air, and "straining" (aka "sieving") is

> responsible for removing only the largest of them.

>

> memorize this statement: HEPA filters are actually MORE than 99.97%

> efficient at removing particles that are larger than 0.3 microns AND

> those that are smaller than 0.3 microns.

>

> please check the archives of this list for additional discussion and

> explanation. pretty sure that we've talked about this a couple of

> times in the recent past.....

>

> regards,

>

> Wane

>

> <><><><><><><><><><><>

> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> "Real Professionals. Real Solutions."

> St. , La Crosse, Milwaukee

>

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

>

> wabmichaelsengineering

> http://www.michaelsengineering.com

>

> "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

> more fun?"

> - Graham

>

>

>

> >

> > Hey, Kenny G (kengib),

> >

> > I agree with you! You said to Steve:

> >

> > > Come now Steve, [snip]

> > > Little or no improvement can be expected with

> > > air already in the living spaces except by diluting and than

> by

> > > working to recirculate.

> >

> > You hit this nail right on the head! The Denver IAQA Chapter this

> > morning had an infectious disease expert talk about Bird Flu,

> > SARS and infectious virus in general.

> >

> > Gail Curry-Kane Jensen, is an RN, MS, MED, ICP, CEO with an

> > extensive background in industrial, Bio-medical & chemical

> > waste, 30 plus years of experience in Infection Control, Infectious

> > Disease, Safety & education of law enforcement, hospitals,

> > medical centers, EPA, NIOSH, NFPA and others.

> >

> > Although supportive of public health, she has her criticisms also,

> > which increased her credibility with me. She knows her details

> > and where some of the bodies are buried (some literally). A

> > couple of these were a little hard to "stomach" right after our

> > breakfast.

> >

> > According to her, the most effective method of responding to

> > airborne infectious virus is to "open the window" to circulate the

> > air. And to let the sunshine in.

> >

> > Forget any of the UV technologies expect for use in small

> > confined spaces with long dwell times. Ozone can be VERY

> > effective, but again in small spaces with little air movement and

> > no people. She knows of no other methods that work in the real

> > world that have been independantly verified. (I'm sure some of

> > you disagree).

> >

> > The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to stop either the

> > whole virus or the infectious fragments with significant efficacy.

> > N-95 face masks are for "show," mostly to prevent public panic.

> >

> > BTW, I asked her if she agreed with the statement that

> > the prime "directive" of public health was to prevent public

> > panic, and only then take other action. She agreed

> > wholeheartedly. (In all fairness to public health people on

> > this board, she explained why this is important).

> >

> > I will also briefly address her position on testing for viruses on

> > surfaces and in the air because several of the national IAQ labs

> > are pushing for viral sampling, including PCR.

> >

> > Her take is you must absolutely know what you are doing with

> > proper equipment and technique. Samples must go only to

> > specialty labs. Very expensive. Even if conventional IAQ labs

> > could handle it, the only way to identify virus is by culturing,

> which

> > is very slow and usually takes several weeks and there is no way

> > to speed this up. By that time the victims are either dead or

> > recovered.

> >

> > PCR for virus identificaton is very quick but it gives no

> information

> > other than the Howie Mandel TV tag line of, "virus" or "no virus."

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

ge,

You make a good point. There are enough times

that we have come across systems where HEPA filter is installed and the seal

leaks (including scrubbers during remediation). So just because there is a HEPA

(certified or not) in place doesn’t mean the system is adequately being heap

filtered.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of davidge@...

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:33

AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: Trane

System Removes Flu Virus From Filtered Home Air

, Wayne, and Carl,

You can find some additional information

using ASHRAE's TC 2.4 or 2.3 web-sites or annual meeting notes of industry

research.

I would point out that it is one thing to

say you have a HEPA filter and an entirely different matter to say you have a

system with integrity that will pass certification for HEPA filtration.

ge

and Wane,

You are correct, of course, about HEPA filters. My bad for

not pointing that out myself during my report of the speaker. I'm not surprised

that the two of you jumped on this, just as I'm not surprised at who didn't.

For the record, CADR does not treat all particle sizes

equally but is weighted toward those most likely to remain airborne long enough

to be pulled (or pushed) through the " gate. " I don't know how it

treats ultrafine particles. I have, somewhere, Shaughnesy's presentation in Orlando from a couple of

years ago that discussed this in detail.

It would be interesting to see if the CADR formula would

even calculate results 8 times greater (than?). I remember the practical high

end to be around 300-400. 8X would be 2,400 to 3,200.

As a tangent, how low can a HEPA go? There has to be a limit

of retention based on size or else it would also be great for vapors, gasses

and molecules.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl, all:

>

> we've got to stop thinking about filters like

this:

>

> " The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to

stop either the

> whole virus or the infectious fragments with

significant efficacy.

> N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly to

prevent public panic. "

>

> if this is what your speaker said, she was wrong.

this is a very

> common misconception, but an air filter does not

function like a

> sieve or a collander. a HEPA filter does not have

0.3

> micron " pores " .

>

> there are four mechanisms (some say five) by which

media filters

> remove particulate from the air, and

" straining " (aka " sieving " ) is

> responsible for removing only the largest of

them.

>

> memorize this statement: HEPA filters are

actually MORE than 99.97%

> efficient at removing particles that are larger than

0.3 microns AND

> those that are smaller than 0.3 microns.

>

> please check the archives of this list for additional

discussion and

> explanation. pretty sure that we've talked about

this a couple of

> times in the recent past.....

>

> regards,

>

> Wane

>

>

<><><><><><><><><><><>

> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> " Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

> St. , La Crosse, Milwaukee

>

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

>

> wabmichaelsengineering

> http://www.michaelsengineering.com

>

> " To love what you do and feel that it matters -

how could anything be

> more fun? "

> - Graham

>

>

>

> >

> > Hey, Kenny G (kengib),

> >

> > I agree with you! You said to Steve:

> >

> > > Come now Steve,

[snip]

> > > Little or

no improvement can be expected with

> > > air already in

the living spaces except by diluting and than

> by

> > > working to

recirculate.

> >

> > You hit this nail right on the head! The Denver IAQA Chapter this

> > morning had an infectious disease expert talk about

Bird Flu,

> > SARS and infectious virus in general.

> >

> > Gail Curry-Kane Jensen, is an RN, MS, MED, ICP,

CEO with an

> > extensive background in industrial, Bio-medical

& chemical

> > waste, 30 plus years of experience in Infection

Control, Infectious

> > Disease, Safety & education of law

enforcement, hospitals,

> > medical centers, EPA, NIOSH, NFPA and others.

> >

> > Although supportive of public health, she has her

criticisms also,

> > which increased her credibility with me. She knows

her details

> > and where some of the bodies are buried (some

literally). A

> > couple of these were a little hard to

" stomach " right after our

> > breakfast.

> >

> > According to her, the most effective method of

responding to

> > airborne infectious virus is to " open the

window " to circulate the

> > air. And to let the sunshine in.

> >

> > Forget any of the UV technologies expect for use

in small

> > confined spaces with long dwell times. Ozone can

be VERY

> > effective, but again in small spaces with little

air movement and

> > no people. She knows of no other methods that work

in the real

> > world that have been independantly verified. (I'm

sure some of

> > you disagree).

> >

> > The 0.3 micron pore size of HEPA is too large to

stop either the

> > whole virus or the infectious fragments with

significant efficacy.

> > N-95 face masks are for " show, " mostly

to prevent public panic.

> >

> > BTW, I asked her if

she agreed with the statement that

> > the prime

" directive " of public health was to prevent public

> > panic, and only then

take other action. She agreed

> > wholeheartedly. (In

all fairness to public health people on

> > this board, she

explained why this is important).

> >

> > I will also briefly address her position on

testing for viruses on

> > surfaces and in the air because several of the

national IAQ labs

> > are pushing for viral sampling, including PCR.

> >

> > Her take is you must absolutely know what you are

doing with

> > proper equipment and technique. Samples must go

only to

> > specialty labs. Very expensive. Even if

conventional IAQ labs

> > could handle it, the only way to identify virus is

by culturing,

> which

> > is very slow and usually takes several weeks and there

is no way

> > to speed this up. By that time the victims are

either dead or

> > recovered.

> >

> > PCR for virus identificaton is very quick but it

gives no

> information

> > other than the Howie Mandel TV tag line of,

" virus " or " no virus. "

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of

which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We

are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and

social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any

such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site

is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For

more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>