Abstract
Public health departments such as CDC and California Department of Public Health (CA-DPH) advise HEPA-purifiers to limit transmission of SARS-CoV-2 indoor spaces. CA-DPH recommends air exchanges per hour (ACH) of 4-6 air for rooms with marginal ventilation and 6-12 in classrooms often necessitating multiple HEPA-purifiers per room, unaffordable in under-resourced community settings. Pressure to seek cheap, rapid air filtration resulted in proliferation of lower-cost, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) air purifiers whose performance is not well characterized compared to HEPA-purifiers. Primary metrics are clean air delivery rate (CADR), noise generated (dBA), and affordability ($$). CADR measurement often requires hard-to-replicate laboratory experiments with generated aerosols. We use simplified, low-cost measurement tools of ambient aerosols enabling scalable evaluation of aerosol filtration efficiencies (0.3 to 10 microns), estimated CADR, and noise generation to compare 3 HEPA-purifiers and 9 DIY purifier designs. DIY purifiers consist of one or two box fans coupled to single MERV 13-16 filters (1”-5” thick) or quad filters in a cube. Accounting for reduced filtration efficiency of MERV 13-16 filters (versus HEPA) at the most penetrating particle size of 0.3 microns, estimated CADR of DIY purifiers using 2” (67%), 4” (66%), and 5” (85%) filters at lowest fan speed was 293 cfm ($35), 322 cfm ($58), and 405 cfm ($120) comparable to best-in-class, low-noise generating HEPA-purifier running at maximum speed with at 282 cfm ($549). Quad filter designs, popularly known Corsi-Rosenthal boxes, achieved gains in estimated CADR below 80% over single filter designs, less than the 100% gain by adding a second DIY purifier. Replacing one of the four filters with a second fan resulted in gains of 125%-150% in estimated CADR. Tested DIY alternatives using lower-efficiency, single filters compare favorably to tested HEPA-purifiers in estimated CADR, noise generated at five to ten times lower cost, enabling cheap, rapid aerosol removal indoors.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest I have no relevant interests to declare. I am not associated with any of the manufacturers mentioned in this research.
Updated Title. Updated Abstract. Updated Introduction. Updated Results. Updated Methods Updated Discussion. Updated References.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
