There are many different types of home air filters available on the market from HEPA filters to glasswool filters. This thread is not for discussing the particle size removal or the removing efficiency. Please start a different thread if needed.
I am looking for scientific studies (peer reviewed) that compare the health benefits of using different home air filters on the median American.
My going in position is that the $2 glasswool filter gets the same health outcome as a $50 MERV 16 filter, for median Americans living in healthy air quality suburbs, but I am okay with being proven wrong.
I’d like studies that show actual health outcomes with group A (using cheap filter) versus groub B (using expensive filter). It is extremely clear to me that expensive filters remove particles / bacteria at the smallest level - but does it change health outcomes ?
Also, for the tests, it doesn’t have to be humans but any models like mice or guinea pigs or monkeys.
So you are asking for a study to determine if better filtration helps the least susceptible people living in the places with the cleanest air? That’s going to be a really hard study to do, as you would need to follow a lot of people for decades.
I work for an insurance company, monitoring their liability for damage done by asbestos released by their insureds. Asbestos is really nasty stuff, and you don’t want it in your lungs. But the nastiest thing it does is to cause mesothelioma, a painful and deadly disease. I’ve researched the epidemiology of asbestos. If you are exposed to asbestos, your odds of getting me so are very low for 5-10 years, then gradually rise until 35 years after exposure, and then remain right constant for the rest of your life.
Many of the claims my employer pays are for exposure more than 35 years ago.
It’s real, it’s nasty, but you won’t see it in any feasible study of commercially available air filters. Because who cares about the effectiveness of brands that were sold 35 years ago.
@puzzlegal and @bob_2 - Thank you for your answers. I have worked on air quality projects and as a chemical engineer have participated in numerous asbestos studies.
Something that seem apparent to us humans, do not standup to scientific scrutiny and thats what I am asking here.
You can always take a subset of Human population and prove something (thats Pi hacking 101). New drugs are tested on humans / models to make sure it is safe and effective. Just asking if the same has been done with Air filters.
Today is Rosh Hashanah, and I’m about to leave to be a greeter, so I’m not available most of the day, and don’t have time to look up cites. But Google silicosis in the meantime, and I’ll try to find you a better cite tomorrow.
Simply put, there are far too many variables. What is a “median American”? How would you adjust for air pollution? Is the filter medium the only factor in efficiency? Perhaps he should also consider whether a filter is even needed.
I am guessing that the OP, who lives in a healthy air quality suburb, is looking to replace his filter and baulks at paying $50 when he can buy one for $2. My method of dealing with a dilemma like this is to read other people’s experiences in reviews or ask around locally. My gut says that there is always a sweet spot in the middle of the range.
Happy Rosh Hashanah - wishing you a great new year. For us, Bengali Hindus, its the main festival of the year too. A festival called Durga Puja, where we celebrate the return of the Goddess to earth. but I digress
I was told specifically by Colibri (may he rest in peace) - to not ask people to google things in FQ and be specific.
I am fully aware of Silicosis, Fluorosis, mad hatters - etc etc. - and most of all the long term exposure diseases. However, home air filters are not relevant in this scenario. But if they are, I am requesting a cite for the median American.
Good questions. Understand your skepticism that such a study might exist. I’ll wait for other dopers to respond, and we can then discuss this.
My inclination will be a method roughly based on the statistical methods EPA uses to find the LD50 of many chemicals or how maximum dosage of OTC drugs is determined or the air quality limits of Ozone is determined.
I am trying to find the equivalent study to water. Like does Fiji bottled water produce much better health outcomes compared to tap water complaint to EPA standards.
Thank you @Machine_Elf . Although that study was done in an area prone to particulate emissions, that paper proved my assertion above. I have access to major journals and was able to download the peer reviewed paper. It is doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3308
Bolding the major findings as it relates to this post :
INTERVENTIONS Participants were exposed to the following three 3-day scenarios separated by 1-week washout periods: unfiltered air (sham filtration), low-efficiency (LE) high-efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA)–type filtered air, and high-efficiency (HE) true-HEPA filtered air using filtration systems in their bedroom and living room.
Compared with sham filtration, any filtration for 3 days decreased brachial systolic and diastolic BP by 3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −6.1 to −0.2 mm Hg) and 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.3 to 0.2 mm Hg), respectively. A continuous decrease occurred in systolic and diastolic BP during the 3-day period of LE filtration, with a mean of 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, −6.8 to −0.1 mm Hg) and 2.2 mm Hg (95% CI, −4.2 to −0.3 mm Hg), respectively. For HE filtration, systolic and diastolic BP decreased by 2.9 mm Hg (95% CI, −6.2 to 0.5 mm Hg) and 0.8 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.8 to 1.2 mm Hg), respectively
If you look at the results above, there is practically no statistical difference in the performance of low efficiency filter over the high efficiency filter !! In fact, if you look closer, the Low efficiency filter may have performed better than the high effieciency filter !!
Telling posters to Google their question is rude and unhelpful. I didn’t do that. I gave you a particular search term that you might have been unaware of.
Since you are aware of the dangers of silica dust, I don’t think adding a link at this point is helpful. But when i posted it, i thought it might be.
Anyway, i wouldn’t use a glass wool filter on air i planned to breathe not because it wouldn’t work to filter other particles, but because if it were improperly made or damaged, it might actively introduce particulate glass into the air. Given a choice of a glass wool filter or no filter, i would choose no filter, unless i knew the air to be truly filthy.
Fortunately, there are lots of other filter materials on the market, and it’s very easy to avoid glass wool. In the early parts of the covid pandemic i was adding my own filters to homemade masks, and i found a wide variety of filters that were made of spun plastics. I cut up both vacuum cleaner bags and HVAC filters. I still have a lot of vacuum cleaner bags that don’t fit my vacuum because real face masks became available before i used most of them.
MERV16 will quite possibly be bad for your home HVAC, it’s not rated to push air through them. That’s a hospital level standard, home usually maxes out at 13.
Our air is very healthy, until there’s a fire within 200 miles away, in which case you want to make sure your filter is clean and working. It really does put a limitation on smole inhalation.
MERV16 will quite possibly be bad for your home HVAC, it’s not rated to push air through them. That’s a hospital level standard, home usually maxes out at 13.
Citation, please.
Yes, MERV16 filters will restrict flow in the ducts compared to a less-restrictive filter—that’s tautological. But it does not follow that this is likely to “be bad” for your HVAC system. You’ll get an incrementally lower flow rate and incrementally higher pressure.
And what do you mean by “bad” anyway? I could see perhaps fan bearings wearing marginally faster, but generically “bad” is handwaving.
Besides, I’m sure there are plenty of MERV13 filters so clogged with dust and grease that they’re more restrictive than a MERV16 filter at the end of its specified life.
If airflow is restricted too much, it can overheat, causing component damage or premature failure. A lower-grade filter that is way too dirty and clogged will have similar effects.
Aside from above, it looks like some disagree, I now see it might be okay. But most MERV 16 filters seem to be significantly thicker than MERV 13. YMMV, but I can’t fit anywhere near a 5 inch filter in mine.