Raising the Bar,

Moving the Graph to the Left

Understanding the Basics of Commercial
Kitchen Exhaust Filtration

Table of Contents
Understanding Cooking Emissions......................................... 2
Understanding the Mechanisms of Filtration .......................... 4
Factors that Effect Filtration Performance.............................. 6
Filter Efficiency ..................................................................... 7
Understanding the Interaction of Cooking and Filtration........ 9
Conclusion ........................................................................... 15
References ........................................................................... 15

By Randy Urness
Mechanical Engineer
Greenheck Fan Corporation
(715) 359-6171
9/6/06
1
Air quality, fire safety, labor cost, and maintenance costs are important issues that hinge around the
emissions from a commercial cooking operation. Cooking emissions have been identified as a
major component of smog particulate. This has led to regulation in major cities requiring the
reduction of emissions from any new cooking operation.

Grease deposits in ductwork act as fuel in the event of a kitchen fire. The reduction of the grease in
exhaust ducts can help prevent a small kitchen fire from becoming a major structural fire. In the
past, the only control of grease buildup in exhaust ducts was to clean the ducts frequently. Duct
cleaning is expensive and disruptive to the operation of the kitchen. It is also dependent on
someone remembering to check the duct frequently and scheduling the cleaning. Grease buildup on
fans, fire nozzles, roofs, and other ventilation equipment can be extremely costly in additional
maintenance and replacement costs.

This paper is written to help understand the emissions that are produced during cooking and how
filtration works, or doesn’t work in many cases, to remove cooking particulate emissions from the
exhaust.

Understanding Cooking Emissions

When food is cooked it releases grease, water, and other materials. Also, cooking gives off
combustion byproducts from the energy source or food products that are burnt or changed in
chemical reactions during cooking. These emissions are in the form of gases, liquids, solids, and
vapors. The liquids, solids and condensed vapors form particulate mater that is exhausted through
the kitchen exhaust system. This particulate matter is what deposits on the ducts, fans, and roofs.
Figure 1: - Total Emissions - Vapor & Particulate
Particulate Vapor
35
Mass of Emissions (lb/1000 lb food)

30

25

20

15

10

0
t

za
er

er

za
er

tti
r

tti
st
s

as
rge
toe
toe

he

he
rea
urg

urg

urg

Piz
Piz
Bre
bu
ota

ag

ag
ota

nB
mb

mb

mb

ge
ge
m

Sp

Sp
en
rP
rP
Ha

Ha
Ha

Ha

sa
sa
ick
ick

ge

ge
rye
rye

au
au
dle

ler
le

ler

Ch
Ch

an

an
ic F

nS
sF

nS
d

roi
roi
rid

rid

sR

ic R
ler
ler
Ga

ve
ic B

ve
sB
ctr
sG

ic G

roi
roi

Ga

ctr
ic O
sO
Ele

Ga

ctr
Ga

ic B
sB
ctr

Ele
Ga
Ele

ctr
Ele

Ga

ctr

Ele
Ele

Grease particulate is liquid or solid particles of grease that have become suspended in the air. An
aerosol is a system of these small particles suspended in the air. Grease particulate can range in
size from .01 to 100 µm (micron).

Grease vapor refers to grease in the gaseous state that is dispersed into the air when the grease is
heated. Vapor is at the molecular scale and is much smaller than grease particulate. Grease vapor
is condensable and may condense into grease particulate or is exhausted into the atmosphere as a

2
vapor. Figure 1 shows the amount of grease particulate and vapor produced when cooking 1000
lbs. of different foods on different pieces of cooking equipment1.

Gas emissions such as CO, CO2, NOX and hydrocarbons are components of kitchen emissions as
well. Gas molecules are less than 0.001 µm in size. These are non-condensable gases, they are not
removable with conventional filtration methods and are not discussed in this paper.

Particulate down to .01 mm can be filtered out of the airstream, however vapor and gases can not be
filtered out of an airstream. In theory this means that most grease particulate could be filtered out
of the exhaust, however this is almost never the actual case. Figure 2 helps to understand how the
size of particles from kitchen exhaust compares to common items we encounter everyday2. Within
the range of grease particulate size (0.01 –100µm), the emissions create different amounts of
particulate at different sizes. Grease particulate that is larger than 18-20 µm is too heavy to remain
airborne and drop out of the airstream. These quantities at different sizes can be measured and
graphed to create a profile of the emissions.

Figure 2: Size Distribution of Common Particles

16' Kitchen
Hood
Basket Ball

Golf Ball

Gravel

Course Sand

Dia. Human Hair

Bacteria

Lung Damaging
Dust
Tobaco Smoke

Smog

Viruses

Cooking
Emmisions
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Diameter ( µ m) (log scale)

Every combination of cooking process, food product, cooking equipment, and cooking temperature
creates a different profile of particles. These profiles change during the cooking process as well.
The initial drop of French fries into a fryer gives off a short blast of large particles. The cooking of
a hamburger gives off a continuous stream of particles and vapors, until it is turned and then a large
surge of particles, vapors and gases are given off. If this is on a broiler the grease that comes off
the hamburger tends to burn and emit very small particles.

Variations in the food product itself will change the emissions of a cooking process. Hamburger
that is 23% fat content produces much more grease than a 20% fat content burger. Chicken breast
may produce a much different curve than chicken legs or thighs. Even cooking chicken with or
without the skin will change the properties of the emissions.

3
 Restaurant chains that never had problems with grease have changed their cooking process to
respond to market demand. After changing to higher fat content hamburger and higher cooking
temperature they discovered they were suddenly faced with the problem of grease on the roof of the
restaurant.

In 1998 the University of Minnesota conducted a study of cooking emissions for ASHRAE. This
report, 745-RP Identification and Characterization of Effluents from Various Cooking Appliances
and Processes as Related to Optimum Design of Kitchen Ventilation Systems, studied the emissions
from gas and electric versions of griddles, deep fat fryers, under-fired broilers, ovens, and ranges.
The food product cooked included hamburger, potatoes, chicken breast, sausage pizza, and
spaghetti sauce with sausage. Figures 3 and 4 show typical particle emission profiles for a gas
griddle and gas charbroiler both cooking hamburgers. Additional profiles will be looked at later
when looking at filters1.

Figure 3 Figure 4
Mass Emissions vs. Particle Size Gas Griddle Mass Emissions vs. Particle Size Gas Charbroiler
160 160

140 140

120 120
Mass (mg/m^3)
Mass (mg/m^3)

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm
Particle Size µm

The amount of emissions and the size of the particles can be thought of similar to calculating the
exhaust CFM for a cooking lineup and is correlated to the temperature of the appliance. A range
that produces a small heat load and has low exhaust CFM requirements is unlikely to produce large
amounts of grease particulate. On the other hand a charbroiler generates a large heat load and
requires a high exhaust CFM and also typically produces a large amount of grease. This will be
shown in more detail later.

Understanding the Mechanisms of Filtration

Filtration is the process of removing particles from a fluid flow. For this discussion the fluid is air.
The particles we want to remove are grease particles and burnt food product.

The primary mechanisms of particle capture in filtration are diffusion, interception, inertial
impaction, gravitational sedimentation, electrostatic attraction, and sieving3. Each mechanism of
filtration has a range of particle sizes that it works best for. The range for each mechanism overlaps
with other mechanisms and the mechanisms often work in combination within the overlap. Most
filters use a combination of all these filtration mechanisms, some exceptions to this are listed under
the individual filtration mechanisms.

4
Sieving
Sieving is primarily used in the removal of large particles. It is the principle of particles being
captured as airflow passes through a mesh with openings smaller than the particles. Sieving is not
usually considered an important process in the filtration of airflow.

Gravitational Sedimentation
Gravitational sedimentation is a major factor in the removal of particles larger than 25 µm. It is
caused by the force of gravity for large particles being greater than the aerodynamic force that
carries the particles in the airflow. Gravitational sedimentation removes very large particles, such
as spatter and droplets, prior to them reaching the filters.

Inertial Impaction
Inertial impaction is mainly effective for the removal of particles larger than 8 µm and has
decreasing effect on particles from 8 to 3 µm respectively. It is the principle of the particle’s
momentum throwing the particle out of the airflow as the airflow changes direction. All filters rely
on inertial impaction as one of the primary mechanism of filtration. Some filters use only inertial
impaction as their mechanism of filtration. Fire baffles, cartridge filters, and water wash hoods are
examples of methods of filtration that use only inertial impaction.

There are variations on inertial impaction, including cyclones. Cyclones are mainly effective for
the removal of particles larger than 5 µm. It is the principal of centrifugal force on the particle
throwing the particle out of the airflow. The velocity of the airflow determines how small of
particle can be removed. This property of cyclones has lead to their use as devices to measure
particle size.

Interception
Interception is mainly effective for the removal of particles from 0.5 to 3 µm and has decreasing
effect on particles from 0.5 to 0.3 µm respectively when combined with diffusion. It is the
principle of a portion of a particle coming in contact with the filter media as the airflow travels
through the filter media. Upon contacting the filter media, the particle may be held by mechanical
forces (such as friction), molecular attraction, electrostatic attraction, or surface tension. Surface
tension is the primary force that holds liquids such as grease. The more depth or layers of media in
a filter the greater the interception efficiency.

Diffusion
Diffusion is mainly effective for the removal of particles smaller than 0.1 µm and has decreasing
effect on particles from 0.1 to 0.3 µm respectively when combined with interception. It is the
principle of very small particles dispersing within the airstream through random movement. This
movement is caused when gas molecules strike the particle. Diffusion causes particles to move
within the airstream increasing its chance of contacting and being held by the filter media. Upon
contacting the filter media, the particles are held by molecular attraction. Diffusion is the only
filtration mechanism that improves as the particles become smaller. This is due to the gas
molecules having a greater effect on the particles when they strike the particles.

5
Electrostatic Attraction
Electrostatic attraction has an effect on a wide range of particle sizes, depending how applied. It is
the principal of using electrical charges to attract charged or neutral particles to a filter media or
surface of opposite charge. The use of electrostatic attraction is most commonly used in filtration
in 2 methods. The first is the use of charged media in a filter. The second is to create an electric
field that charges the particles and plates of opposite charge collect the particle. This is the
operating principle of and electrostatic precipitator (ESP).

Factors that Effect Filtration Performance

Particle Physical Characteristics
The particles that are being filtered out are the most important factor that effects filtration. The size
distribution of the particles, phase of the particle, liquid vs. solid, and electrical charge of the
particle all have a large impact on filtration. This impact will change for each type of filter.

Filter Construction
Thickness, fiber/pore diameter, fiber/pore diameter uniformity, solid/volume fraction, loading, and
electrostatic charge are all construction elements that effect a filters performance.

Velocity
The velocity of the airstream passing through a filter can have varying effect on the filter efficiency.
It is dependent on the size of the particles and the mechanism of filtration that is dominant for the
particular filter. For a baffle filter, which is dependent on inertial impaction, the velocity must be
high enough so that the particle has enough momentum to be thrown from the airstream. Other
filters, such as media type filters, may lose efficiency as the velocity is increased.

Temperature/Condensation
The temperature of the airflow through a filter is very important in kitchen filtration. If the
temperature is high, grease vapor will not condense prior to the filter. Condensation is the
conversion of a substance (such as water or grease) from the vapor state to a denser liquid or solid
state as the temperature decreases. As grease condenses from vapor it forms particles.
Condensation does not actually change the filter efficiency, but allows the vapor to form into
particles that can be removed from the airflow by the filter. If it condenses prior to the filter the
filter might remove it. If it condenses after the filter it may be deposited in the duct, on the fan or
discharged into the atmosphere. Condensing the grease prior to filtration is of most value if the
actual filter can remove very small particles. Although it improves all types of systems filtration
efficiency, it is of little value with a poor filter.

Pressure
Pressure does not directly effect the filtration, however higher efficiency filters typically have
higher pressure drops across the filters. The pressure drop across a filter increases as the velocity
through the filter increases. It is actually the increase in velocity that causes the efficiency to
increase.

6
Filter Efficiency
Filters can very seldom be given a single meaningful efficiency number. This is because a filter has
different efficiency for different size particles, different flow rates, and different phase of particles.
An air cleaner filter that is 90% efficient at removing 5 µm particles may only be 75% efficient at
removing 1µ m particles.

A fractional efficiency curve is a graph that gives the efficiency of a filter over a range of particle
sizes. Fractional efficiency curves are created by subjecting a test filter to a controlled distribution
of particles and measuring the quantity of particles at each given size before and after the filter.
The amount of reduction of particles is used to calculate the efficiency at each given size. Figure 5
shows a typical fractional efficiency curve for a media type air filter that would be found in a roof
top unit of a commercial building.
Figure 5: Efficiency vs. Particle Size Media Air Filter

100

90

80

70

60
Efficiency

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Air filters have been rated in the past by a number of different tests. One common test was a dust
spot test 4. The filter in figure 4 would be marketed as 25%-30% dust spot filter. In 1999 ASHRAE
adopted ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Method of Testing General Air-Cleaning Devices for
Removal Efficiency by Particle Size5. The graph in figure 5 was generated from 52.2. Test 52.2
uses potassium chloride as the particles to test filters, these are dry solid particles that do not
duplicate the properties of grease.

There is no accepted test for evaluating grease removal efficiency for commercial kitchen
ventilation in the United States. There have been methods in the past such as UL 10466,7 and the
Navy Tests of a Grease Interceptor Similar to Those Used in Galleys8. These tests all failed to
account for the distribution of particle sizes and vapor. In the mid-`90s ASHRAE began work on
developing a universally excepted method of test. No test has been developed from this work,
however an extensive amount of knowledge has been gained from the research. Primary from this
research is the report, ASHRAE RP-745 Identification and Characterization of Effluents from
Various Cooking Appliances and Processes as Related to Optimum Design of Kitchen Ventilation
Systems, mentioned earlier1.

7
Germany has developed a guideline for testing commercial kitchen filters. VDI 2052 Part 1
Ventilation Equipment for Kitchens Determination of Capture Efficiency of Aerosol Separators in
Kitchen Exhaust uses fractional efficiency curves to rate the efficiency of filters9. VDI 2052
suggests using oleic acid, one of the primary components of animal fat, as the test aerosol.
Fractional efficiency curves are generated for specified airflow rates designated by the
manufacturer. The effect of temperature is not accounted for in this testing.

Greenheck has had fractional efficiency curves generated for numerous filters. These curves are
equivalent to the VDI 2052 protocol. Figure 6 shows the particulate efficiency curves for different
20x20 filters at 600 CFM per filter.
Figure 6: Efficiency vs. Particle Size
600 CFM per filter
100

90

80
Particulate Efficiency

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm
Efficiency Baffle Filter Efficiency Grease-X-Tractor Efficiency Grease Grabber
Efficiency Water Wash Hood Efficiency Cartridge Filter

The efficiency curve for the baffle filter and the cartridge filter shows that at 8 µm its ability to
remove particulate is 30%. This reflects the fact that it only uses inertial impaction to remove
particulate matter from the airflow.

The water wash hood is slightly better than the baffle filter. It is 50% efficient at about 6.5 µm.
The point at which a filter is 50% efficient is called its cut point. This shows that the water wash
hood is still dependent on inertial impaction. It’s higher efficiency than the baffle filter is also
reflected by a much higher static pressure.

The Grease-X-TractorTM is 50% efficient at 5 µm. A cut point of 5 µm is typical of a cyclone filter
such as the Grease-X-TractorTM. Its efficiency improves rapidly above 5 µm and drops below 5
µm. The use of cyclone action rather than just impaction has allowed the efficiency to be improved
with out a high penalty in static pressure. The static pressure is between a baffle filter and a water
wash hood.

8
 The Grease Grabber-80TM has a cut point of 2 µm. Its efficiency increases to near 100% at 7 µm
and drops for particles smaller than 2 µm. This reduction in the size of particles that can be
removed indicates that the Grease Grabber-80TM uses a combination of all filtration mechanisms.
The static pressure drop is the highest of the filters evaluated but only slightly higher than water
wash.

The efficiency measurements in Figure 6 are all with airflow of 600 CFM through a 20”x20” filter.
The airflow rate through a filter will change the efficiency of a filter by changing the velocity at
which the air is travelling through a filter. Figures 7 and 8 compare a baffle filter and a Grease
Grabber-80TM filter at 400 and 600 CFM. The baffle filter has lost most of its ability to remove
particulate at 400 CFM. The Grease Grabber-80TM has lost some efficiency but is still very
effective at removing grease.

Figure 7: Efficiency vs. Particle Size Figure 8: Efficiency vs. Particle Size
TM
Baffle Filter Grease Grabber-80 Filter
100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60
Efficiency
Efficiency

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm Particle Size µm
Efficiency Baffle Filter 600 CFM Efficiency Baffle Filter 400 CFM 600 cfm Efficiency Grease Grabber-80 400 cfm Efficiency Grease Grabber-80

Understanding the Interaction of Cooking and Filtration

The interaction of a grease filter and a specific cooking process determines how much grease will
be exhausted into the ductwork, fan, and atmosphere. Each type of filtration device will perform at
a specific level for each type of cooking operation. The cooking temperature, cooking equipment,
food product, and fat content will all determine how the filtration device will perform. In addition
many kitchens have several different cooking applications under one hood.

Taking the information generated by the University of Minnesota in 745-RP and combining it with
the fractional efficiency curves shows how a given filter will perform for a specific cooking
process. Unfortunately, as complete as 745-RP is, it can not give details for every cooking
operation at every temperature with every type of food product.

The amount of grease particulate removed and the amount of grease particulate exhausted into the
ductwork can be calculated by multiplying the efficiency at each point along the curve by the mass
emissions. The ratio of particulate matter removed to total particulate matter generated gives
system efficiency for that range of particle sizes for a specific cooking application.

9
Figure 9 shows the particulate emission profile (squares) for an electric fryer cooking potatoes and
the efficiency curve (diamonds) of a baffle filter. The mg of mass emissions per cubic meter of
exhaust is shown on the right axis and the efficiency of the filter is shown on the left axis. Using
the efficiency curve of the baffle filter the amount of particulate matter after the filter can be
estimated (triangles).
Figure 9: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size - Baffle Over Fryer
100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)
60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 33%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100

Particle Size µm

Elec. Fryer Emmisions Fryer after Baffle Efficiency Baffle Filter

The area under each of the emission curves is representative of the total particulate emissions for
the fryer. As can be seen by comparing the graph before and after the baffle filter there is very little
reduction in the amount of grease that is exhausted to the ductwork. The area under the after baffle
filter curve represents the amount of grease particulate that is exhausted into the ductwork. The
actual system efficiency for particulate removal is 33%. 67% of the grease is exhausted into the
ductwork.

Figure 10 shows the same fryer with a Grease-X-TractorTM. The curve showing emissions after the
fryer has dropped sharply from that of the baffle filter. The area under this curve represents the
amount of grease exhausted into the ductwork. The actual system efficiency for particulate removal
is 77%. 23% of the grease is exhausted into the ductwork. For a fryer the majority of the grease
particulate is above the cut point of the filter.

10
 Figure 10: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Grease-X-Tractor over Fryer

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140

Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)
60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 77%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm
Elec. Fryer Emmisions Fryer after GX 600 cfm Efficiency Grease-X-Tractor

Figure 11 shows the same fryer with a Grease Grabber-80TM. The curve showing emissions after
the fryer has dropped to nearly zero. The area under this curve represents the amount of grease
particulate exhausted into the ductwork. The actual system efficiency for particulate removal is
99%. 1% of the grease particulate is exhausted into the ductwork. For a fryer the majority of the
grease is in a size range where the Grease Grabber-80TM is nearly 100% efficient.
Figure 11: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Grease Grabber-80  over Fryer

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

60 120 Mass (mg/m^3)

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 99%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Efficiency Grease Grabber Elec. Fryer Emmisions Fryer after Grease Grabber

Figures 12, 13, & 14 show how the baffle filter, Grease-X-TractorTM, and Grease Grabber-80TM
compare when used over a gas griddle. The scale for mass emisions, right axis, has been held
constant for all of the graphs. The emission levels for the griddle are much higher than those of the
fryer. The griddle also produces a much smaller size of particles. The baffle filter is now allowing
69% of a much larger quantity to pass through the filter. The Grease-X-TractorTM has reduced this
amount to 27%, and the Grease Grabber-80TM still only allows 1% past the filter.

11
 Figure 12: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Baffle Over Griddle with Hamburger

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)
60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 31%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Gas Griddle Hamburger Emissions Griddle after Baffle Efficiency Baffle Filter

The range of particles created by the griddle includes particles sizes that can not be effectively
removed by inertial impaction. The cyclone action of the Grease-X-TractorTM removes a large
portion of the particles, while the Grease Grabber-80TM is using interception to capture particles
down to 1 µm in size.
Figure 13: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Grease-X-Tractor Over Griddle with Hamburger

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)

60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 73%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Gas Griddle Hamburger Emissions Griddle after GX 600 cfm Efficiency Grease-X-Tractor

12
 Figure 14: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Grease Grabber-80  Over Griddle with Hamburger

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)
60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 99%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Gas Griddle Hamburger Emissions Griddle after Grease Grabber Efficiency Grease Grabber

Figures 15, 16, & 17 show how the baffle filter, Grease-X-TractorTM, and Grease Grabber-80TM
compare when used over a gas charbroiler cooking hamburger. The emission levels for the
charbroiler are much higher than those of the fryer and includes particles that are much smaller than
either the griddle or fryer. The baffle filter is now allowing 71% of particulate to pass through the
filter. The Grease-X-TractorTM has reduced this amount to 30%, and the Grease Grabber-80TM still
only allows 4% of particulate to get past the filter.
Figure 15: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Baffle Over Gas Charbroiler with Hamburger

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)

60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 29%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Gas Charbroiler Hamburger Emissions Charbroiler after Baffle Efficiency Baffle Filter

13
 Figure 16: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size
Grease-X-Tractor Over Gas Charbroiler with Hamburger

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)
60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 70%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Gas Charbroiler Hamburger Emissions Charbroiler after GX 600 cfm Efficiency Grease-X-Tractor

Figure 17: Mass & Efficiency vs. Particle Size

Grease Grabber-80 Over Gas Charbroiler with Hamburger

100 200

90 180

80 160

70 140
Particulate Efficiency

Mass (mg/m^3)
60 120

50 100

40 80
System Efficiency = 96%
30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size µm

Gas Charbroiler Hamburger Emissions Charbroiler after Grease Grabber Efficiency Grease Grabber

Graphs showing the amount of grease particulate captured and allowed into the ductwork can be
generated for any cooking operation where the particulate emissions are known. Additional graphs
are available on request. Unfortunately currently only the processes studied under ASHRAE 745-
RP have accurate data on their emissions. There are currently plans to investigate additional
cooking operations.

It is important to remember that the graphs and efficiencies shown here are only for grease in the
particulate form. There is also a vapor component of the grease that is being exhausted. As stated
earlier, vapor can not be removed by filtration. Some of the vapor condenses and is removed as
particulate prior to the filter. Some of the vapor condenses in the duct and accumulates on the
ductwork and fan.

14
Figure 1 shows the ratio of particulate to vapor for different cooking operations. Using this
information we can determine the total amount of grease removed for the different systems. When
cooking hamburger on a gas griddle the baffle filter has a particulate system efficiency of 33%.
When vapor is included the total system efficiency drops to 19%. The Grease-X-TractorTM drops
from 77% for particulate system efficiency to total system efficiency of 46%. The Grease Grabber-
80TM goes from 99% to 62%.

Conclusion
The commercial kitchen ventilation industry has been struggling with misunderstood test methods
and false claims for decades. Hopefully this paper has helped develop a basic understanding of
filtration and cooking effluent and how they work together.

It is important to understand that a grease extraction system can not be given a single efficiency
number. It is better to understand that a system contains a range of particle sizes and how each
device works within that range to remove particulate.

Upon reviewing the efficiency charts for the better filters it can be seen that higher efficiency at a
specific particle size is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to be able to remove the smallest
particles and the vapor from the airstream. Smaller particles can only be removed by moving the
efficiency curve towards the left. The smaller the particle size the harder it is to remove. A 2 µm
particle may be 10 times harder to remove than a 3 µm particle and a 1 µm particle may be 10 times
harder to remove than a 2 µm particle.

A baffle filter is only partially effective at removing particles larger than 8 µm. The Grease-X-
TractorTM filter, which uses cyclone action, is effective at removing particles down to 4–5 µm. The
Grease Grabber-80TM is effective at removing particles down to the 1–2 µm.

A project is currently underway to develop a method of testing extraction devices that will be
accepted by all of the major manufacturers of grease extraction devices in the United States. This
test method will allow for standardized testing procedures and meaningful ratings of filters
throughout the commercial kitchen ventilation industry.

References
1. Gerstler, W.D., et al. Identification and Characterization of Effluents from Various Cooking Appliances and
Processes as Related to Optimum Design of Kitchen Ventilation Systems, Phase 2, Final Report, ASHRAE 745-RP
1999.
2. Adapted from Lapple, C. E., Stanford Research Institute Journal, Vol. 5, p. 95, Third Quarter, 1961.
3. Hind, W. C., Aerosol Technology: Properties, behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons, United States of America ,1999.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.1 –1992, Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing Air Cleaning Devices
Used in General Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter.
5. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2 –1999, Method of Testing General Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by
Particle Size.
6. Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Saftey UL 1046 – 2000 Grease Filters for Exhaust Ducts, 3rd ed.
7. Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Saftey ULC-S649-93 Grease Filters for Commercial and Institutional
Kitchen Exhaust Systems.
8. National Bureau of Standards NBSIR 74-505, 1974, Tests of a Grease Interceptor Similar to those used in Galleys
9. Verein Deutscher Ingeniere VDI 2052, September, 1999, Ventilation Equipment for Kitchens Determination of
Capture Efficiency of Aerosol Separators in Kitchen Exhaust Part 1

15
16