Comparing the Effectiveness of Three Types of Furnace Air Filters

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effectiveness of three different types of air filters used in furnaces. 

I became interested in this idea when I learned that some types of air filters were supposedly better than others. I also have two cousins with asthma. It made me wonder if the more expensive types would filter more pollen and dust to help lessen the chance for them to have an attack. I wanted to see if paying for so-called “better” filters was worth the extra money.

The information gained from this experiment could help people with asthma, or other allergies, and possibly save people money depending on the outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that the 3-M brand filter would filter more particulate mass from the air.

I based my hypothesis on the “Filtrete’s” packaging graph. The graph shows that the Filtrete micro allergen filter catches the most particulate.

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    The homes used in the study.

•    The time the air filters were left in the house.

•    Method for weighing filters.

•    Use of plastic bags to keep filters uncontaminated during storage.

The manipulated variable was the type of air filter used.

The responding variable was the mass of particles collected in the filter.

To measure the responding variable, I used a triple beam balance to weigh the unused filter before putting it into the home, and again after 3 weeks of use. The difference was the amount of particulate collected.

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
1(box)	White garbage bags
1	Mask (to avoid inhaling any dust)
1	Triple beam balance
1	Pair of latex gloves (to keep dust off hands)
3	Dirt Demon Dust Shield Air Filters
3	American Air Filters
3	Filtrate Air Filters

PROCEDURES

1.    Find 6 home furnaces available for use during testing.

2.    Purchase the same 3 types of filters for each of the 6 furnaces.

3.    Weigh each filter using a triple beam balance.

4.    Write initial mass on each filter using a permanent marker.

5.    Put the filter into a clean plastic bag.

6.    Label bags with permanent marker (name, install date, remove date, size, and return in bag).

7.    Create a rotation schedule to insure that each type of filter gets used for 3 weeks in each furnace on a staggered basis.

8.    Rotation schedule as follows

Houses    Install 11/12 remove 12/3    Install 12/3 remove

12/24    Install 12/24 remove 1/14

A	$	$$	$$$
B	$$$	$	$$
C	$$	$$$	$
D	$	$$	$$$
E	$$$	$	$$
F	$$	$$$	$

9.    Install filters in furnaces (see rotation schedule).

10.    Leave filters in running furnaces for three weeks. 

11.    Collect used filters.

12.    Put filter back in labeled bag.

13.    Install next filter to be used in each of the 6 furnaces (see rotation schedule).

14.    Weigh filters using a triple beam balance.

15.    Calculate difference from initial mass (record).

16.    Repeat steps 10-15 with next filter in schedule for each furnace.

17.    Leave filters in running furnaces for three weeks.

18.    Collect filters.

19.    Put filters in labeled bags.

20.    Weigh filters using a triple beam balance.

21.    Calculate difference from initial mass (record).

22.     Average mass for each type of filter.

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was the purpose of this experiment was to compare the effectiveness of three different types of air filters used in furnaces. 

The results of the experiment were for the American Air Filter average particulate collected was 1.68g, the Dirt Demon Dust Shield’s average was 2.18g, and the Filtrate Air Filter’s average was 3.49g. 

CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that the 3-M brand “Filtrete” filter would filter more particulate mass from the air.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted, because the 3-m brand air filter, overall, collected the most particulate the brands tested.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if I were to conduct this experiment in a drier or damper area, would the results be the same?

If I were to conduct this project again I would conduct it in the summer so there would be more dust, pollen, and other particulate to be filtered so a bigger difference in the weight would be present. I would also use more furnaces and do more tests. I’d leave the filters in longer, at least a month, maybe five weeks. My results showed some strange and inconsistent values. I would redo my experiment with much greater care taken when weighing the filters and recording scores.

Researched by ----- Cassidy B

Read More

Densities of Various Solutions vs Plastic Separation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to find a way to separate different types of plastics by their densities.

I became interested in this idea because I might want to be involved in the plastics industry later in life. Lots of people I know (including my dad) work with plastics. I also think there could be much better methods regarding separation recycling of plastics. Recycling is very important because it’s an important way to minimize pollution. 

The information gained from this experiment could affect the world by not putting recyclable plastics to waste, by finding a more efficient way to separate different plastics.

HYPOTHESIS

My hypothesis was that varying the density of the liquid bath could effectively separate at least 90% of the six major polymers.

I based my hypothesis on information received from a website on densities of solids and liquids. The site showed simple ways to realize that anything with a greater density than H20 will sink in a water bath, and anything with a smaller density will float. I also based it on an article in Plastics Technology about the invention of plastics separation.   

  

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    Sizes of pieces of plastics (1x1cm.)

•    Types of plastics: PET (polyethylene terephthalate), HDPE (high density polyethylene), PVC (polyvinyl/vinyl chloride), LDPE (low density polyethylene), PP (polypropylene) and, PS (polystyrene).

•    Room temperature

•    Water temperature

•    Oil temperature

•    Water Bath Sizes

•    The densities of the specific types of plastic

•    Salt in saline solution

The manipulated variable was the density of liquid bath. 

The responding variable was the percentage of the plastics successfully separated using the “float/sink” density method.  

To measure the responding variable, I simply counted the pieces of plastic recovered and identified successfully, and the ones not effectively separated, then found the percentage. 

                                               MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
1	Glass Water Bath
1x1cm Piece	Polyethylene Terephtalate
1x1cm Piece	High Density Polyethylene
1x1cm Piece	Polyvinyl Chloride
1x1cm Piece	Low Density Polyethylene
1x1cm Piece	Polypropylene
1x1cm Piece	Polystyrene
500 Milliliters	Water for water baths and solutions
1.8 Kg	Sodium Chloride eventually added to water bath
375 Milliliters	Sunflower Oil

PROCEDURES

1.    Set Up The Experiment

            a)    Get polymers 1-6.

          b)    Cut plastic into squares that each are about 1cm x 1cm.

          c)    Get 3 containers for each solution.

          d)    Fill up the first container with 250 ml of pure water.

e)    Fill up one of the other two with 250 ml Sunflower oil and the other with 250 ml of more pure water. Add 10 grams of salt to the water and stir thoroughly. 

 f)    Make sure each different type of plastic is identifiable from others.

2.    Conduct the Experiment

a)    (During the experiment, write down the slightest things that happen and record all of the measurements.) 

b)    Put 2 pieces of each type of plastic into the saline solution, without getting anything into the solution besides the plastic.

c)    After putting the plastic into the saline solution, wait 1 minute and make sure none that are floating will sink and none that are sinking will float.

•    (While removing the floating plastics throughout the experiment, make sure that all of the water is removed from the plastic so it does not affect the density of the other liquid baths.)

 d)    Take the floating plastic out of the solution, leaving the sinking plastic, and put the pieces into the water bath. Stir thoroughly and wait 1 minute.

 e)    Remove the floating plastic from the water and put it into the sunflower oil.

            f)    Then, take the floating plastic out of the sunflower oil.

            g)    Repeat Step #2, three times

3.    Recording Data

   a)    Calculate how much of the percentage of plastic was separated successfully. (Meaning that it was a definite identification.) Write down anything unusual or unexpected that happens throughout the experiment.

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to find a way to separate different types of plastics by their densities.

The results of the experiment were, that 33% of the plastic was successfully separated. So therefore, the hypothesis was rejected. But, the experiment was still a success because now recyclers and plastic corporations will not falsely use the “liquid density separation” method by getting plastics mixed together.

CONCLUSION

My hypothesis was that varying the density of the liquid bath could effectively separate at least 90% of the six major polymers, at the same time.

The results indicate that this hypothesis should be rejected, because the method only separated 33% of the six major polymers. Also, I believe that if a plastic or recycling plant specifically needed to separate 2 or even 3 different types of plastic, (unless they were extremely close densities like Polyethylene Terephtalate and PVC or, HDPE and LDPE) this method would work well. Even better if one plastic was less dense than water and the other more dense than water, then all you would have to do is dump the plastic into water then stir it up and skim out the ones that float, and the remove the ones that sink. That would work successfully.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if there is another liquid that I could have used instead of a salinity solution that is denser than water.

If this project was to be conducted again, there would be many important changes that would need to occur. There would need to be much more researching prior to the experiment. Also, there would need to be more trials with more plastics and more liquids. These would make the project much more successful. 

Researched by ----- Conner O

Read More

Car Design on the Amount of Drag Created

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of front and back designs on the aerodynamic drag of a vehicle.

I became interested in this idea because I loved cars, specifically fast cars.  I knew that certain designs were more aerodynamic than others, and that less drag would allow for more speed.

The information gained from this experiment could help car designers choose what shape to base the design of a vehicle on.  A car with less drag could be faster and also more fuel-efficient.

HYPOTHESIS

My first hypothesis was that a square front and back design would be the least aerodynamic, and would create the most drag.

My second hypothesis was that a hemispherical front and a conical back design would be the most aerodynamic, and would create the least amount of drag.

I based my hypotheses on Landon Arnett’s 7th grade study in 2003.  He concluded, “My first hypothesis was that the hemispherical nose would be the most aerodynamic.  My second hypothesis was that the conical tail would be the most aerodynamic.  The results indicated that both hypotheses should be accepted.”

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

The constants in this study were:

•    The weight of the Styrofoam designs

•    The wind setting (medium)

•    The type and number of blowers

•    The wind tunnel

•    The lightweight spring scale  

•    The car base

The manipulated variable was the design of each of the cars.

The responding variable was the amount of drag created.

To measure the responding variable, I used a lightweight spring scale.

MATERIALS

QUANTITY	ITEM DESCRIPTION
3-5	Styrofoam Blocks
1	Car Base
2	Leaf Blowers
1	Pocket Knife
1	Wind Tunnel
1	Lightweight Spring Scale
1	Set of Earplugs

  

PROCEDURES

 1)    Carve the designs out of Styrofoam

              a)    Design 1:

              b)    Design 2:

              c)    Design 3:

              d)    Design 4:

              e)    Design 5:

2)    Set Up

     a)    Set up the wind tunnel

     b)    Put the blowers in the right positions

     c)    Put the blowers to the right wind setting

3)    Test the Designs

     a)    Place the car base inside the wind tunnel with one of the designs on it

     b)    Attach the lightweight spring scale to the car base, and to the wall of the wind tunnel 

     c)    Put the earplugs on

     d) Start the blowers

     e)    Look at the lightweight spring scale and record the amount of drag created every 5 seconds 20 times per test. (5 tests per car, switch design after every test)

     f)    Stop the blowers

4)    Repeat step 3 five times

5)    Switch the design in the car base with one of the other designs.

6)    Repeat steps 3 and 4 until all 5 designs have been tested 5 times. 

7)    Average the results for each design.

  

RESULTS

The original purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of frontal, back, and windshield designs on the aerodynamic drag of a vehicle.

The results of the experiment were that Car Design 1 produced an average of 0.078 newtons of drag, Car Design 2 produced an average of 0.0515 newtons of drag, Car Design 3 produced an average of 0.0797 newtons of drag, Car Design 4 produced an average of 0.0701 newtons of drag, and Car Design 5 produced an average of 0.0342 newtons of drag.

CONCLUSION

My first hypothesis was that a square front and back design (Design 2) would be the least aerodynamic, and would create the most drag. 

My second hypothesis was that a hemispherical front and a hemispherical (Design 3) back design would be the most aerodynamic, and would create the least amount of drag.

The results indicate that my first hypothesis should be rejected, because Design 3 (hemispherical convex front, with hemispherical concave back) created the most drag.

The results indicate that hypothesis 2 should be rejected, because Design 1 (triangular front, flat back) created the least amount of drag.

After thinking about the results of this experiment, I wonder if I made more designs with more detail, would it affect the results?

If I were to conduct this project again I would use wood for my designs instead of Styrofoam to (hopefully) get better results.

Researched by ---- Brad K

Read More