Laboratory performance of new and used residential HVAC filters: Comparison to field results (RP-1649)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particle filters are used in heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems to protect equipment and reduce exposure to airborne particles. Filtration standards such as ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2 are used to evaluate filter performance in a laboratory setting. In this work, we examined the lab-tested performance of new filters with different nominal efficiencies as determined by ASHRAE Standard 52.2 and compared these results to the lab-tested and in-situ performance of filters deployed in 21 occupied residential environments. The lab-tested results comparison shows that the dust loading and conditioning procedure in ASHRAE Standard 52.2 provides a reasonable range of efficiencies for the used filters, but the target final pressure drop of 250 Pa is an overestimation of the realistic pressure drops. Moreover, the specified test dust was not a good representation of the dust in this sample of residential environments. The lab-tested and in-situ results comparison suggests that even for the same filter, its lab-tested performance could differ greatly from its in-situ performance because of variations in system and loading conditions, which are not captured in the laboratory setting. Overall, the lab-tested results are an overestimation of the in-situ efficiency and an underestimation of the in-situ pressure drop for both new and used filters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it