4.0 DISSCUSSION OF FINDINGS/RESULTS
An
analysis of the purge test data indicates that the Micrcoon™ is effective in capturing and removing significant quantities
of respirable airborne particulate from the immediate surrounding
area. The effectiveness of the disinfection option of the
unit was not evaluated as
part of the purge testing reported herein.
The test data
collected consisted of airborne paticulate concentrations
measured as a function of location and evaluation (within
the test room) and time. This data is presented in graph
form in Appendix I. A total of five (5) purge tests were
conducted. These include operating the Microcon™ alone
and in tandem with
the test room’s
HVAC system. The Microcon™ appeared to function most efficiently
when operated ` with a room’s own HVAC system but is also capable
of operating well even without such aid. This was most likely due to
the added turbulence
and
air movement
provided by the HVAC system. It would also appear that the Microcon™ benefits
when it is placed in a location where it can take best advantage of the
induced currents produced by the HVAC system when these currents do not
comprise the
design effectiveness of the unit.
It should be noted when reviewing the
data continued in the charted test data in
accordance with the HazDust™ manufacturer’s directions all monitors
and subsequent reading are subject to a background correction of approximately
1-2% of the highest dust concentrations encountered. This correction
is a function of the optics used in the monitors and is non-correctable
by zero correction. Hence, each final reading should be viewed accordingly.
Because
we were asked to perform the evaluation tests under the most stringent
conditions possible the reported data was not adjusted in any way for
background build-up. When the background build-up is taken into account
and the final reading so corrected the actual levels or percentage
of dust removal by the Microcon™ (Air Purication Machine) during
the test is even greater than indicated.
The
lack of zero correction and the high levels of airborne dust used
during these tests were of particular concern with regard
to the data depicted by sensors number 4, 3, 3 and 3 on
Charts Number 4 (Test No. 2), Chart Number
5 (Test No.3),
Chart Number 6 (Test No.4) and Chart Number 7 (Test No. 5) respectively.
These sensor read-outs show close evidence of this phenomena.
If the background corrections recommended by the manufacturer
is performed on all data the end-point or final readings
at these locations would be more consistent with those observed for
the other sensor readings obtained during the respective
test. |
