Author Topic: Fume Extractor advice  (Read 12405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2023, 09:09:14 pm »
Except we are NOT trying to filter dust out here. An 'absolute' micron rating means squat to anything gaseous but it does however matter to 'dust and airborne particles'.

VOC's on the other hand like we get from Soldering or in heavier use cases like chemical production or use environments (Labs, Spray painting etc) then Activated Carbon is what is used and not any 'Hepa' anything as a stand alone solution.

Random Googling but it lays it out without a commercial bias fairly well https://molekule.com/blogs/all/best-air-purifier-for-volatile-organic-compounds-vocs#Can-HEPA-filters-remove-VOCs

Low static pressure fans are fine and even desirable here as more time for the Carbon to do the absorption thing, it only has to get the airflow thing done not suck the room into a wormhole.
the fumes generated while soldering and 3d printing are very small under 10A angstrom for example formaldehyde has under 4A size activated carbon cannot catch gas particles below 10A only potassium-permagnate can convert this particles to larger one also you can use molecular sieves with size 4A to filter formaldehydes with activated carbon you will maybe catch few % of gas fumes with formaldehyde included problem is about all these irritant gas particles are smaller than odours particles thats why filters for soldering and for formaldehyde removal are very expensiff because gas filtration media cost big money to manufacture - not hepa no no the hepa is just almost uselless addon in this filters
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2023, 09:29:19 am »
Except we are NOT trying to filter dust out here. An 'absolute' micron rating means squat to anything gaseous but it does however matter to 'dust and airborne particles'.

VOC's on the other hand like we get from Soldering or in heavier use cases like chemical production or use environments (Labs, Spray painting etc) then Activated Carbon is what is used and not any 'Hepa' anything as a stand alone solution.

Random Googling but it lays it out without a commercial bias fairly well https://molekule.com/blogs/all/best-air-purifier-for-volatile-organic-compounds-vocs#Can-HEPA-filters-remove-VOCs

Low static pressure fans are fine and even desirable here as more time for the Carbon to do the absorption thing, it only has to get the airflow thing done not suck the room into a wormhole.
potassium-permagnate in this filters oxidize all smaller gas particles (angstrom diametres) to larger one when dirt air is reaching this filter after that these particles going tru activated carbon from filter and they all easy absorbed by carbon because they are large after chemicall reaction (large like odours and vocs)
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6333
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2023, 09:38:10 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2023, 08:06:00 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
in air filters there is one rule - if filter bed isnt enough effective to absorb or chemisorb all needed chemicals then it cant and shouldnt be used because it will going contaminate too fast and refilling costs would exceed costs of second proper filter with correct bed

you have 100 grains of activated carbon and 100 grains of alumina - the 100 grains of alumina will have capacity to chemisorb 10 grams of formaldehyde
the 100 grains of activated carbon would have at last capacity to absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde , the alumina 1kg cost around of 10 euro and 1kg of activated carbon cost 5 euro - where is problem ? the problem is about activated carbon is designed to catch mainly largest particles of gas fumes while impregnated alumina is designed to catch most harder to absorb smallest gas particles

now if you pay 50 euro for 10kg of activated carbon and 100 euro for 10kg of alumina to use for chemisorb/absorb soldering fumes you will pay allways for activated alumina cheaper - why ? because activated alumina will LAST longer than activated carbon ! so in one year if you use alumina you could pay 1000 euro with its refilling but for activated carbon you will pay much more - 5000 euro (this is just example) you pay more for activated carbon because it is not designed for smalles gas particles and you allways contaminate it by these particles faster than activated alumina - now you understand such difference and why commerciall soldering filters uses activated alumina/custom impregnated carbons ? so now if you understand lets explain few other important facts:

at last the 1,5kg of filter bed in solder fume extractor should absorb/chemisorb fumes from small soldering workplace these include spare fluxes - they can create no more than few grams of smallest gas particles during soldering and this filter should absorb/chemisorb 90 - 95% of these particles ! the 1,5kg of standard activated carbon would not absorb you more than 10% of these particles unless you load 150kg of this carbon but you will pay 10 or even 20 times more than specialised alumina for this bed ! so this is not unprofitable to implement and use

now i explain more creep details:

i did make alot of experiments with activated alumina potassium permagnate 8% vs bofa v250 and vs chinese solder fume extractor called knokoo 150w fes150 and heres the result:

diy filter loaded with 10kg of activated alumina mixed with 5kg of activated carbon vs bofa v250 vs chinese fume extractor with just 1,5kg of custom commerciall bed (carbon/alumina) and heres the result

the 1,5kg bofa v250 and chinese fume extractor also 1,5kg of custom filter absorb much more smallest gas particles than my custom diy filter !!! - so where is the point ?!

the point is in bofa and chinese filters custom very-high effective activated carbon/alumina ! it is enough of 1,5kg load to suck most harmfull gas particles but unfortunatelly 10kg of activated alumina with 8% potassium permagnate from CAMFIL isnt enough - they have also 12% for sale but bofa filter bed alumina+carbon and chinese industrial coconut activated carbon are much more effective ! they have very effective filters

in bofa they dont use exactly activated alumina but speciallised industrial activated carbon impregnated by potassium permagnate this is custom and you cant buy it from carbon shop , the chinese fume extractor dont use impregnation on carbon - they use some kind of high-effective coconut activated carbon - industrial grade

usually the impregnation of carbon is used for chemisorb most harder smaller gas particles

you compare one carbon with another carbon filter ? you cant compare this untill you knows whats exactly is inside this filters

also the bofa v250 and chinese fume extractor knokoo fes150 will be not enough to absorb fumes generated from bga station (much more than few grams of gas) - for this you should try fes350 chinese or larger units from bofa because small filters designed for small workplaces

at last in basic reality whorst irritant and harmfull gas particles need very effective gas filters and this filters include very effective carbons/aluminas to meets this requirements otherwise if not all of this filters must be very large and contain alot of bed kgs - so designing diy custom soldering filters are totall waiste of money
« Last Edit: October 26, 2023, 08:09:31 pm by lfldp »
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2023, 08:08:10 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
there alot of different type smallest gas particles generated during soldering and all of them not completly absorbed by activated carbons these include:

Molecule   Critical
diam. (Å)   Molecule    Critical  diam.(Å)
Helium   2.0   Propylene   5.0
Hydrogen   2.4   Ethyl mercaptan   5.1
Acetylene   2.4   1-Butene   5.1
Oxygen   2.8   trans-2-Butene    5.1
Carbon monoxide   2.8   1,3-Butadiene   5.2
Carbon dioxide   2.8   Chlorodi fluoromethane (Freon 22®)   5.3
Nitrogen   3.0   Thiophene   5.3
Water   3.2   Isobutane to isodocosane    5.6
Ammonia   3.6   Cyclohexane   6.1
Hydrogen sulfide   3.6   Benzene   6.7
Argon   3.8   Toluene   6.7
Methane   4.0   p-Xylene   6.7
Ethylene   4.2   Carbon tetrachloride   6.9
Ethylene oxide   4.2   Chloroform   6.9
Ethane   4.4   Neopentane   6.9
Methanol   4.4   m-Xylene   7.1
Methyl mercaptan   4.5   o-Xylene   7.4
Propane   4.9   Triethylamine    8.4
n-Butane to n-docosane    4.9   

for this particles you need extra filters not just activated carbon filter
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2023, 08:18:38 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
in yours photo diagram you have included comparise activated carbon vs activated alumina (white balls) not impregnated with potassium permagnate ! - white alumina balls have less capacity than alumina impregnated with potassium permagnate - the impregnation of kmn04 on alumina bed doubling its capacity do you understand this ? this is violet alumina called purple pellet (puratex) violet balls and its capacity is declared in % it can have 4 - 8 - 12% of kmn04 and if more have then more capacity you get
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2023, 08:23:32 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
white alumina balls apply only in water filtration from heavy metals because its capacity is enough for this operation , the violet (purple) alumina is used for filtering smaller gas particles in soldering fume extractors in high-quality air purifiers like IQAir GC MultiGas
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2023, 08:35:08 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
in 3d printer filters they use activated alumina with just 4% of potassium permagnated (kmn04) - consider "just" becoz 4% of impregnated bed have enough capacity to filter 3d print fumes and fit in small filter box - you can allways use 200kg of activated carbon for soldering fumes but you must refill yours filter after 2 months of soldering and 200kg of carbon will cost fortune , but bofa v250 with its indsutrial grade carbon (impregnated by potassium permagnate) will last 6 - 12 months and will cost you more cheaper :)
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2023, 08:40:25 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
example of 1kg activated carbon can absorb 100 grams of ammonia and cost 5 euro so if you wanna to filter ammonia the activated carbon choice will be right for you

example of 1kg activated carbon can absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde and it cost 5 euro - its price is unprofitable for removing formaldehydes the profitable price is only in specialised activated carbon industrial grade or activated alumina (speciall versions) who can absorb 10 grams of formaldehyde and it cost 10 euro per/ 1kg i hope you understand this complicated requirements otherwises you will pay and waiste alot of money for building uselles diy soldering filters :)
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #59 on: October 26, 2023, 08:53:00 pm »
I would still choose whatever you think is the better product, 10% carbon on a ~4kg filter is 400g which is less than $20 worth of material.

The weller has a remote switch which is nice, although slightly lower claimed flow rate. Noise levels hard to tell as they don't give full spec, just "<50dB". Hakko filters seem to be cheaper.

I was wrong about the Hakko as you can see a tiny bit of carbon foam on the bottom of this one: https://www.tequipment.net/Hakko/A1586/Fume-Extraction/
Again, this is like $2 worth of material (breakdown), it won't be magic.
the kg no really matter the matter is media filtration material it can have just 1,5kg of this media and can be 100 times more effective than 50kg of activated carbon against most irritant fumes generated while soldering - read my other posts

Not sure what your point is. I was comparing two units with activated carbon, the one with more carbon weight will inevitably last longer.
You can't buy cheap commercial activated alumina systems that I am aware of. Yes it might be worth DIYing your own.

But your claim of 100 times more effective needs a citation. It can be better at some chemicals and worse at others. For formaldehyde its not really significant.

https://www.cwejournal.org/vol6no1/adsorption-of-formaldehyde-on-treated-activated-carbon-and-activated-alumina
this are example informations from weller zero smog gas filters:

Wide band gas filter
For cleaning harmful fumes and vapours. The Weller
wide band gas filter consists of 50 % active carbon
and 50 % Puratex. Harmful gases with a high molecular weight are cleaned by the active carbon. Puratex
is suitable for absorbing gases of lower molecular
weight. Because of its composition, Puratex is able
to convert a large number of chemical pollutants by
means of molecular modification into non-polluting
gases.

and this is exactly what i mean
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6333
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #60 on: October 26, 2023, 10:05:16 pm »
you have 100 grains of activated carbon and 100 grains of alumina - the 100 grains of alumina will have capacity to chemisorb 10 grams of formaldehyde
the 100 grains of activated carbon would have at last capacity to absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde

So now its 1,000,000 times more effective than activated carbon? Before you said 100 times. Anyway your claim is incorrect as the number is 16mg/g for carbon.

in yours photo diagram you have included comparise activated carbon vs activated alumina (white balls) not impregnated with potassium permagnate ! - white alumina balls have less capacity than alumina impregnated with potassium permagnate - the impregnation of kmn04 on alumina bed doubling its capacity do you understand this ? this is violet alumina called purple pellet (puratex) violet balls and its capacity is declared in % it can have 4 - 8 - 12% of kmn04 and if more have then more capacity you get

OK potassium permanganate impregnated activated alumina. Indeed it seems relatively cheap, but in my country I only see it available in very large 55lb bags.
I am sure it is effective and for some chemicals better than activated carbon (some not). But, you have not provided proper citations, only wild claims about its performance.

Here is a list of chemicals to get you started: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/38/5/753/165539

Please try to focus your thoughts into a single post.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #61 on: October 27, 2023, 08:13:40 am »
you have 100 grains of activated carbon and 100 grains of alumina - the 100 grains of alumina will have capacity to chemisorb 10 grams of formaldehyde
the 100 grains of activated carbon would have at last capacity to absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde

So now its 1,000,000 times more effective than activated carbon? Before you said 100 times. Anyway your claim is incorrect as the number is 16mg/g for carbon.

in yours photo diagram you have included comparise activated carbon vs activated alumina (white balls) not impregnated with potassium permagnate ! - white alumina balls have less capacity than alumina impregnated with potassium permagnate - the impregnation of kmn04 on alumina bed doubling its capacity do you understand this ? this is violet alumina called purple pellet (puratex) violet balls and its capacity is declared in % it can have 4 - 8 - 12% of kmn04 and if more have then more capacity you get

OK potassium permanganate impregnated activated alumina. Indeed it seems relatively cheap, but in my country I only see it available in very large 55lb bags.
I am sure it is effective and for some chemicals better than activated carbon (some not). But, you have not provided proper citations, only wild claims about its performance.

Here is a list of chemicals to get you started: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/38/5/753/165539

Please try to focus your thoughts into a single post.

Quote
So now its 1,000,000 times more effective than activated carbon? Before you said 100 times. Anyway your claim is incorrect as the number is 16mg/g for carbon.
i give you just example as about technician documentations i should have on my pc old archives and when i find them ill upload you

Quote
OK potassium permanganate impregnated activated alumina. Indeed it seems relatively cheap, but in my country I only see it available in very large 55lb bags.
I am sure it is effective and for some chemicals better than activated carbon (some not). But, you have not provided proper citations, only wild claims about its performance.
- problem is if you have 95% of chemicals very poor absorbed by activated carbon and 5% of chemicals good absorbed by activated carbon then impregnated alumina is the only choice

standard activated carbon is designed for this what it is - not for small angstrom diameter molecules , by using standard activated carbon for filter soldering fumes its like you use chinese drill for release rennovations by company - they pay few times more than for one dewalt drill at all , for small rennovation chinese drill is profitable

well try and do yours DIY soldering fume extractor filter and let us know yours results , i did create many of them in last few years and i just tryin to warn there people about this diy filters are not whorst to make them - ill upload photos later , the hepa filter and prefilter you can buy cheap and use and they will be ok but the GAS STAGE filter isnt profitable to make you have no access to specialised activated carbons industrial grade with impregnates and whatever you try to create you will pay much more than for bofa/chinese filters if you want to achieve same gas filtration results or nearest and filter will be very large

later ill upload you photos of what ive created if i find them
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #62 on: October 27, 2023, 08:23:10 am »
you have 100 grains of activated carbon and 100 grains of alumina - the 100 grains of alumina will have capacity to chemisorb 10 grams of formaldehyde
the 100 grains of activated carbon would have at last capacity to absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde

So now its 1,000,000 times more effective than activated carbon? Before you said 100 times. Anyway your claim is incorrect as the number is 16mg/g for carbon.

in yours photo diagram you have included comparise activated carbon vs activated alumina (white balls) not impregnated with potassium permagnate ! - white alumina balls have less capacity than alumina impregnated with potassium permagnate - the impregnation of kmn04 on alumina bed doubling its capacity do you understand this ? this is violet alumina called purple pellet (puratex) violet balls and its capacity is declared in % it can have 4 - 8 - 12% of kmn04 and if more have then more capacity you get

OK potassium permanganate impregnated activated alumina. Indeed it seems relatively cheap, but in my country I only see it available in very large 55lb bags.
I am sure it is effective and for some chemicals better than activated carbon (some not). But, you have not provided proper citations, only wild claims about its performance.

Here is a list of chemicals to get you started: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/38/5/753/165539

Please try to focus your thoughts into a single post.

Quote
Here is a list of chemicals to get you started: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/38/5/753/165539
most of desired soldering gas chemicals have size below 4A (angstroms) - there is also bed called molecular sieve type 3x 4x 13x , by 4x you can filter out most of soldering gas particles but from my experience these molecular sieves are less effective than activated alumina with kmno4

if you want relatively cheap activated alumina with kmn04 in poland one company selling it https://allegro.pl/oferta/aktywowany-tlenek-glinu-3-5mm-1000g-ka01-12850753880 - ask for purple balls 3-5mm but be aware this alumina cost 30% higher than camfil alumina and it have less effectivity but the camfil alumina you cannot buy just 1kg but minimum 20kg

this company have also molecular sieves (warning ! it is very irritant and if you dont mix it with high-quality activated carbon 30% sieve + 70% carbon) you will fell very irritant smell outgoing from yours filter - https://allegro.pl/oferta/sita-molekularne-molecular-sieve-12644223284

from my opinion for small soldering workplace need filter with at last 15 - 20kg of activated alumina 8% from camfil and this filter will cost more money than bofa filters and will be very large so is not profitable again but if you wanna play do it
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #63 on: October 27, 2023, 01:31:54 pm »
you have 100 grains of activated carbon and 100 grains of alumina - the 100 grains of alumina will have capacity to chemisorb 10 grams of formaldehyde
the 100 grains of activated carbon would have at last capacity to absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde

So now its 1,000,000 times more effective than activated carbon? Before you said 100 times. Anyway your claim is incorrect as the number is 16mg/g for carbon.

in yours photo diagram you have included comparise activated carbon vs activated alumina (white balls) not impregnated with potassium permagnate ! - white alumina balls have less capacity than alumina impregnated with potassium permagnate - the impregnation of kmn04 on alumina bed doubling its capacity do you understand this ? this is violet alumina called purple pellet (puratex) violet balls and its capacity is declared in % it can have 4 - 8 - 12% of kmn04 and if more have then more capacity you get

OK potassium permanganate impregnated activated alumina. Indeed it seems relatively cheap, but in my country I only see it available in very large 55lb bags.
I am sure it is effective and for some chemicals better than activated carbon (some not). But, you have not provided proper citations, only wild claims about its performance.

Here is a list of chemicals to get you started: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/38/5/753/165539

Please try to focus your thoughts into a single post.
also seems you still dont understand what is standard activated carbon available in internet shop than high-quality custom made activated carbon or treated activated carbon  - the link you gave me claim about this company activated carbon impregnated with kmn04 works better than activated alumina impregnated with kmn04 for formaldehyde removal - all is depending on activated carbon type quality and impregnation value the problem is activated carbons cant be impregnated with high value of kmn04 the impregnation of bed damage part % of carbon quality the best bed for impregnation is activated alumina also it depend what kind of activated alumina they test vs they activated carbon because every alumina is different in quality activated carbons too

weller zero smog use speciall blend of activated alumina made by purafil it has more better quality and adsorbtion properties than activated alumina from camfil for sure... also purafil company release new activated alumina impregnated with different potassium - with that one one ball of alumina can get even 17% of potassium this is very high activity
 

Offline lfldp

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: pl
Re: Fume Extractor advice
« Reply #64 on: October 27, 2023, 07:36:15 pm »
you have 100 grains of activated carbon and 100 grains of alumina - the 100 grains of alumina will have capacity to chemisorb 10 grams of formaldehyde
the 100 grains of activated carbon would have at last capacity to absorb 0,00001 grams of formaldehyde

So now its 1,000,000 times more effective than activated carbon? Before you said 100 times. Anyway your claim is incorrect as the number is 16mg/g for carbon.

in yours photo diagram you have included comparise activated carbon vs activated alumina (white balls) not impregnated with potassium permagnate ! - white alumina balls have less capacity than alumina impregnated with potassium permagnate - the impregnation of kmn04 on alumina bed doubling its capacity do you understand this ? this is violet alumina called purple pellet (puratex) violet balls and its capacity is declared in % it can have 4 - 8 - 12% of kmn04 and if more have then more capacity you get

OK potassium permanganate impregnated activated alumina. Indeed it seems relatively cheap, but in my country I only see it available in very large 55lb bags.
I am sure it is effective and for some chemicals better than activated carbon (some not). But, you have not provided proper citations, only wild claims about its performance.

Here is a list of chemicals to get you started: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article-abstract/38/5/753/165539

Please try to focus your thoughts into a single post.
ah and i forget again something :) the activated alumina purple with kmn04 you can buy small ammount from alibaba sellers - they have for sale "samples" and btw. you said the activated carbon absorb other chemicals than alumina cant - thats right but in "our case" solder fume extraction most of the smoke contain alot of molecular weight particles so the chemisorb (impregnated carbon or alumina) must be used and offcourse is mixed with standard activated carbon but alumina or threated carbon (purple carbon with kmn04 or other) is main most important part in these filters :( is very hard to filter solder gas particles they are not like odours and in reality someone must create very big filters to remove them but in commerciall solder fume extractors they use very high-activity filters for this is enough to put 1,5kg of this chemical filter thats why they cost alot but from my opinion the chinese filters like knokoo meet all needed requirements and i use them everyday instead of bofa v250
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf