A popular source of filters for CleanAirKits users is Costco, who recently switched their filter deal from Filtrete 2200 to Filtrete 2500. This has spurred interest in what impact, if any, the higher grade 2500 has on CADR compared to 1900. To answer this question and more three Luggables were tested, the 5-P12 with 16x25x1 filters, the 5-Sickleflow with 16x25x1 filters, and the 7-Sickleflow with 20x25x1 filters. Four filter types were tested in each: MPR2500 (MERV 14), MPR1900 (MERV 13), MPR1500 (MERV 12), and MPR1085 (MERV 11).
The results showed that all these filters are acceptable alternatives to MPR1900. MPR1500 did surprisingly well.
Methods
CADR was determined by a drawdown test in a 528 cubic foot greenhouse chamber using a salt aerosol generated by a nebulizer (not charge neutralized), a mixing fan, and the Temtop PMD331 particulate monitor with a 19s sample interval. Five trials were performed for each configuration. The mean of the five trials is reported as the CADR. The 95% confidence interval, using the t distribution, is reported as the error.
The salt aerosol and particulate monitor are not the same as those used for AHAM AC-1 testing, so these values are not directly comparable to Smoke, Dust, or Pollen CADR. However, by calculating CADR over the PC1.0 and PC2.5 channels, a result was obtained that closely matches AC-1 Dust CADR results. This CADR is referred to here as Dust Equiv. CADR.
|
Model |
Intertek Dust CADR |
Dust Equiv. CADR |
|
Luggable 5-P12 16x25x1 MPR1900 |
189.1 cfm |
191.1 ±2.37 cfm |
|
Luggable 5-Sickleflow 16x25x1 MPR1900 |
217.6 cfm |
225.3 ±2.07 cfm |
|
Luggable XL 7-Sickleflow 20x25x1 MPR1900 |
323.2 cfm |
314.1 ±5.39 cfm |
CADR calculated over the PC0.3, PC0.5, and PC0.7 channels is also reported. This CADR gives an idea of the relative efficiencies of each media type at those size ranges.
Discussion
| Model | Dust Equiv. CADR | |||
| MPR1900 (stock config) | MPR2500 | MPR1500 | MPR1085 | |
| Luggable 5-P12 16x25x1 | 191.1 | 173.6 (-9.2%) | 190.1 (-0.5%) | 183.1 (-4.2%) |
| Luggable 5-Sickleflow 16x25x1 | 225.3 | 225.6 (0.1%) | 235.1 (4.3%) | 237.9 (5.6%) |
| Luggable XL 7-Sickleflow 20x25x1 | 315.7 | 302.1 (-4.3%) | 333.4 (5.6%) | 322.3 (2.1%) |
| Model | CADR 0.3-0.7 | |||
| MPR1900 (stock config) | MPR2500 | MPR1500 | MPR1085 | |
| Luggable 5-P12 16x25x1 | 169.9 | 153.6 (-9.6%) | 168.2 (-1.0%) | 160.8 (-5.4%) |
| Luggable 5-Sickleflow 16x25x1 | 206.8 | 205.1 (-0.8%) | 208.8 (1.0%) | 210 (1.5%) |
| Luggable XL 7-Sickleflow 20x25x1 | 271.5 | 273 (0.6%) | 297.8 (9.7%) | 285.1 (5.0%) |
The standout result is the MPR1500 (MERV 12), which did about the same as MPR1900 for the 5-P12 Luggable and gave about a 5% Dust Equiv. improvement for the others for about 70% the cost of buying MPR1900.
MPR2500 (MERV 14) didn't do quite as well. It's best in the 5-Sickleflow Luggable, where it is nearly even with MPR1900. For the 5-P12 Luggable there's a 9% loss, the largest in this dataset, but the Dust Equiv. CADR of 173.6 is still quite good.
MPR1085 (MERV 11) did better than MPR2500 and at half the price of MPR1900 is perhaps the best value option. One drawback of the MPR1085 as opposed to the other tested filters is that it lacks the structural wire support, making it less sturdy and likely more susceptible to damage from incidental contact.
Full Results
Dust Equiv. CADR
CFM
| Device | MPR1900 | MPR2500 | MPR1500 | MPR1085 |
| 5 Arctic P12 Luggable 16x25x1 | 191.1 ±2.37 | 173.6 ±1.73 | 190.1 ±2.7 | 183.1 ±3.8 |
| 5 CoolerMaster Sickleflow 120 Luggable 16x25x1 | 225.3 ±2.07 | 225.6 ±3.45 | 235.1 ±3.44 | 237.9 ±4.59 |
| 7 CoolerMaster Sickleflow Luggable 20x25x1 | 315.7 ±4.16 | 302.1 ±5.07 | 333.4 ±4.78 | 322.3 ±3.44 |
Compared to MPR1900 (%)
| Device | MPR2500 | MPR1500 | MPR1085 |
| 5 Arctic P12 Luggable 16x25x1 | -9.2 ±2.0% | -0.5 ±2.6% | -4.2 ±3.1% |
| 5 CoolerMaster Sickleflow 120 Luggable 16x25x1 | 0.1 ±2.4% | 4.3 ±2.5% | 5.6 ±3.0% |
| 7 CoolerMaster Sickleflow Luggable 20x25x1 | -4.3 ±2.8% | 5.6 ±2.9% | 2.1 ±2.4% |
CADR 0.3-0.7
CFM
| Device | MPR1900 | MPR2500 | MPR1500 | MPR1085 |
| 5 Arctic P12 Luggable 16x25x1 | 169.9 ±1.93 | 153.6 ±2.77 | 168.2 ±2.44 | 160.8 ±2.29 |
| 5 CoolerMaster Sickleflow 120 Luggable 16x25x1 | 206.8 ±2.15 | 205.1 ±3.12 | 208.8 ±4.06 | 210.0 ±4.25 |
| 7 CoolerMaster Sickleflow Luggable 20x25x1 | 271.5 ±6.43 | 273.0 ±3.24 | 297.8 ±5.6 | 285.1 ±1.11 |
Compared to MPR1900 (%)
| Device | MPR2500 | MPR1500 | MPR1085 |
| 5 Arctic P12 Luggable 16x25x1 | -9.6 ±2.6% | -1.0 ±2.5% | -5.4 ±2.4% |
| 5 CoolerMaster Sickleflow 120 Luggable 16x25x1 | -0.8 ±2.5% | 1.0 ±3.0% | 1.5 ±3.1% |
| 7 CoolerMaster Sickleflow Luggable 20x25x1 | 0.6 ±3.5% | 9.7 ±4.6% | 5.0 ±2.8% |
1 comment
I’m going to try the XXL 9 SickleFlow Luggable. If they have the MPR 1900 filters at Lowe’s, I’ll get them there. This is just me, but the comparison charts to the other filters is a bit confusing to me. Is there a BETTER filter I should be looking at, or is this mostly about the cost? It might be nice to have someone do a video on these comparisons to explain what it’s all about. I’m really looking forward to getting the unit up and running. One other thing, I’m going to TRY to place this in an area right behind my TV, which is in a corner. I’m not concerned about the noise so much as the location. I don’t really have an “open area” where I can place it. Maybe by the end table beside my couch, between the table and the window. But, the TV area is closer to the “traffic area” of my 2 dogs, which are both long haired and along with shedding occasionally, they track in dust from the backyard. As long as the unit isn’t up against a wall, I’m hoping this will work? If not, I’ll need to do some serious furniture rearranging, which I don’t really want to do unless necessary. If both sides are open, as in behind the TV, should this work OK? Thanks!