Oil filter micron rating
- Thread starter mechanicx
- Start date
- Status
As you stated some give a nominal rating (50%) beta ratio 2 for 20 micron. Some give ratings that have no other parameters and it is left to us to guess or assume nominal, 50%, at some micron that may be stated or not. Don't recall what the P1 is, I thought it was 99.x% at 20 micron. It is really, really good on efficiency. Someone will chime in with the real numbers on P1.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
A lot of filters are tested at 20 micron. But I think the micron rating is the micron size that the filter has a 50% efficiency.
Nope ... Purolator for instance specifically says "99.9% @ 20 microns", so your statement isn't true.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What is the micron rating of the P1. I think it's 5 microns. Is that right?
Tons of threads about the PureONE ratings somewhere ... info directly from Purolator.
A lot of filters are tested at 20 micron. But I think the micron rating is the micron size that the filter has a 50% efficiency.
Nope ... Purolator for instance specifically says "99.9% @ 20 microns", so your statement isn't true.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What is the micron rating of the P1. I think it's 5 microns. Is that right?
Tons of threads about the PureONE ratings somewhere ... info directly from Purolator.
I don't think you are understanding my question and why are bringing up the old "do a search" or contact the manufacture spiel? The search function doesn't work good and what is this place for if someone else can't answer a question maybe even from memory?
It is my understanding that a filter's "micron rating" is what micron the filter has a beta 2.
Micron rating
See bolded part.
Quote:
A filter that is marked or rated "10 micron" has some capability to capture
particles as small as 10 micrometers. However, when you see a filter marked "10
micron", you do not know exactly what this means unless you also have a
description of the test methods and standards used to determine the filter rating.
The results from the different test methods may not be comparable as their
methodology varies greatly.
The two most popular reported media ratings are a nominal micron rating (50%)and an absolute micron rating (98.7%). A nominal rating usually means the filter's
media can capture a given percentage of particles of a stated size. For example,
a filter might be said to have a nominal rating of 50% for particles 10 micrometers
in size or larger. An absolute micron rating can be determined by single-pass or
multi-pass testing and is usually obtained by passing a test fluid containing
particles of a known size through a small, flat sheet of filter me
So the question is isn't the P1 50% efficient at 5 microns so giving it a nominal rating of 5 microns? I already know that the P1 has an absolute rating of 99.9% at 20 microns. The reason I ask is say you are asked the "micron rating" of your oil filter on an oil analysis like OAI does, don't they mean the nominal rating?
So is the filter micron rating question on the oil analysis nominal or absolute? Nominal makes a lot more sense and would be more useful to them. And isn't the P1 50% at 5 microns?
It is my understanding that a filter's "micron rating" is what micron the filter has a beta 2.
Micron rating
See bolded part.
Quote:
A filter that is marked or rated "10 micron" has some capability to capture
particles as small as 10 micrometers. However, when you see a filter marked "10
micron", you do not know exactly what this means unless you also have a
description of the test methods and standards used to determine the filter rating.
The results from the different test methods may not be comparable as their
methodology varies greatly.
The two most popular reported media ratings are a nominal micron rating (50%)and an absolute micron rating (98.7%). A nominal rating usually means the filter's
media can capture a given percentage of particles of a stated size. For example,
a filter might be said to have a nominal rating of 50% for particles 10 micrometers
in size or larger. An absolute micron rating can be determined by single-pass or
multi-pass testing and is usually obtained by passing a test fluid containing
particles of a known size through a small, flat sheet of filter me
So the question is isn't the P1 50% efficient at 5 microns so giving it a nominal rating of 5 microns? I already know that the P1 has an absolute rating of 99.9% at 20 microns. The reason I ask is say you are asked the "micron rating" of your oil filter on an oil analysis like OAI does, don't they mean the nominal rating?
So is the filter micron rating question on the oil analysis nominal or absolute? Nominal makes a lot more sense and would be more useful to them. And isn't the P1 50% at 5 microns?
Originally Posted By: EagleFTE
As you stated some give a nominal rating (50%) beta ratio 2 for 20 micron. Some give ratings that have no other parameters and it is left to us to guess or assume nominal, 50%, at some micron that may be stated or not. Don't recall what the P1 is, I thought it was 99.x% at 20 micron. It is really, really good on efficiency. Someone will chime in with the real numbers on P1.
Yes this is exactly what I was asking. I would think the nominal rating is 50% efficiency at whatever micron level that would happen to be. I think someone posted that the P1 was 50% efficient at 5 microns giving it a 5 micron nominal rating but I'm not really sure.
As you stated some give a nominal rating (50%) beta ratio 2 for 20 micron. Some give ratings that have no other parameters and it is left to us to guess or assume nominal, 50%, at some micron that may be stated or not. Don't recall what the P1 is, I thought it was 99.x% at 20 micron. It is really, really good on efficiency. Someone will chime in with the real numbers on P1.
Yes this is exactly what I was asking. I would think the nominal rating is 50% efficiency at whatever micron level that would happen to be. I think someone posted that the P1 was 50% efficient at 5 microns giving it a 5 micron nominal rating but I'm not really sure.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
From an older thread:
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
There is info about the PureONE on Purolator's website:
99.9% efficient based on the ISO 4548-12 testing procedure at 20 microns.
In contrast, the Amsoil EaO is 98.7% efficient at 15 microns using the same test procedure.
I could find no 10 or 15 micron data for the Purolator filters.
The 10-Micron Cummins testing done using the procedure mentioned above:
Baldwin Info:
http://www.baldwinfilter.com/lit/form186.pdf
BD7154 105lpm: 78.1 at 10 microns
Hastings Info:
http://www.hastingsfilter.com/lit/f507.pdf
LF498 150lpm: 75.9% at 10 microns
LF499 105lpm: 72.5% at 10 microns
Donaldson (Synteq) Info:
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/support/datalibrary/000831.pdf
150lpm: 85% at 10 microns
105lpm: 89% at 10 microns
The CLEAR winner being Donaldson by a long-shot.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
There is info about the PureONE on Purolator's website:
99.9% efficient based on the ISO 4548-12 testing procedure at 20 microns.
In contrast, the Amsoil EaO is 98.7% efficient at 15 microns using the same test procedure.
I could find no 10 or 15 micron data for the Purolator filters.
The 10-Micron Cummins testing done using the procedure mentioned above:
Baldwin Info:
http://www.baldwinfilter.com/lit/form186.pdf
BD7154 105lpm: 78.1 at 10 microns
Hastings Info:
http://www.hastingsfilter.com/lit/f507.pdf
LF498 150lpm: 75.9% at 10 microns
LF499 105lpm: 72.5% at 10 microns
Donaldson (Synteq) Info:
http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/support/datalibrary/000831.pdf
150lpm: 85% at 10 microns
105lpm: 89% at 10 microns
The CLEAR winner being Donaldson by a long-shot.
See this thread.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1631963&page=1
From Purolator Engineering Dept:
Here are the Beta Ratios for the PureOne that was requested.
Below I put the standard beta ratio chart for comparison.
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard
You would typically see
Beta Ratio Efficiency
2....................50%
10....................90%
20....................95%
75....................98.7%
100....................99%
200....................99.5%
1000....................99.9%
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the standard ratio numbers here is our PureONE.
(> = greater than; µm = microns)
B2 = below 5 µm
B10 = 6.69 µm
B20 = >8 µm
B75 = >11 µm
B100 = 11.42 µm
B200 = >13 µm
B1000 = >15 µm
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1631963&page=1
From Purolator Engineering Dept:
Here are the Beta Ratios for the PureOne that was requested.
Below I put the standard beta ratio chart for comparison.
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard
You would typically see
Beta Ratio Efficiency
2....................50%
10....................90%
20....................95%
75....................98.7%
100....................99%
200....................99.5%
1000....................99.9%
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the standard ratio numbers here is our PureONE.
(> = greater than; µm = microns)
B2 = below 5 µm
B10 = 6.69 µm
B20 = >8 µm
B75 = >11 µm
B100 = 11.42 µm
B200 = >13 µm
B1000 = >15 µm
If indeed there is a standard of 50%, a manufacturer is free to state another rating. If stating a filter is rated 20 microns means it has 50% efficiency at 20 microns, I don't think that is too good. Haven't I seen that most of the wear comes from particles 30 microns or larger? Maybe 20 micron performance isn't important. In fact, oil filters may not be that important.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
See this thread.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1631963&page=1
From Purolator Engineering Dept:
Here are the Beta Ratios for the PureOne that was requested.
Below I put the standard beta ratio chart for comparison.
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard
You would typically see
Beta Ratio Efficiency
2....................50%
10....................90%
20....................95%
75....................98.7%
100....................99%
200....................99.5%
1000....................99.9%
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the standard ratio numbers here is our PureONE.
(> = greater than; µm = microns)
B2 = below 5 µm
B10 = 6.69 µm
B20 = >8 µm
B75 = >11 µm
B100 = 11.42 µm
B200 = >13 µm
B1000 = >15 µm
OK thanks, this is what I was looking for. So the P1 is at least a "5 micron nominal rated" filter?
See this thread.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1631963&page=1
From Purolator Engineering Dept:
Here are the Beta Ratios for the PureOne that was requested.
Below I put the standard beta ratio chart for comparison.
Micron 5 = B4.8
Micron 10 = B50
Micron 15 = B1000
Micron 20 = B1000
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard
You would typically see
Beta Ratio Efficiency
2....................50%
10....................90%
20....................95%
75....................98.7%
100....................99%
200....................99.5%
1000....................99.9%
----------------------------------------------------------
Using the standard ratio numbers here is our PureONE.
(> = greater than; µm = microns)
B2 = below 5 µm
B10 = 6.69 µm
B20 = >8 µm
B75 = >11 µm
B100 = 11.42 µm
B200 = >13 µm
B1000 = >15 µm
OK thanks, this is what I was looking for. So the P1 is at least a "5 micron nominal rated" filter?
Originally Posted By: labman
If indeed there is a standard of 50%, a manufacturer is free to state another rating. If stating a filter is rated 20 microns means it has 50% efficiency at 20 microns, I don't think that is too good. Haven't I seen that most of the wear comes from particles 30 microns or larger? Maybe 20 micron performance isn't important. In fact, oil filters may not be that important.
Yeah the way I understand it is a filter will usually list a percentage for it's absolute efficiency or absolute micron rating at 20 microns (but not necessarily 20 microns or at a certain test standard). But the micron rating or nominal micron rating is usually the micron size that the filter has 50% efficiency at (but not always I guess).
So if you were being asked a filter's "micron rating", it would stand to reason they would want the micron size that the filter has 50% efficiency, and not the absolute efficiency.
What makes this more confusing is the absolute efficiency is really whatever micron size the filter traps 98.7% or beta 75. I guess since most oil filters reach this absolute efficiency at arounbd 20 microns, the specs for the most part hold the microns at 20 micron and let the efficiency fall where it may.
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
If indeed there is a standard of 50%, a manufacturer is free to state another rating. If stating a filter is rated 20 microns means it has 50% efficiency at 20 microns, I don't think that is too good. Haven't I seen that most of the wear comes from particles 30 microns or larger? Maybe 20 micron performance isn't important. In fact, oil filters may not be that important.
Yeah the way I understand it is a filter will usually list a percentage for it's absolute efficiency or absolute micron rating at 20 microns (but not necessarily 20 microns or at a certain test standard). But the micron rating or nominal micron rating is usually the micron size that the filter has 50% efficiency at (but not always I guess).
So if you were being asked a filter's "micron rating", it would stand to reason they would want the micron size that the filter has 50% efficiency, and not the absolute efficiency.
What makes this more confusing is the absolute efficiency is really whatever micron size the filter traps 98.7% or beta 75. I guess since most oil filters reach this absolute efficiency at arounbd 20 microns, the specs for the most part hold the microns at 20 micron and let the efficiency fall where it may.
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: labman
If indeed there is a standard of 50%, a manufacturer is free to state another rating. If stating a filter is rated 20 microns means it has 50% efficiency at 20 microns, I don't think that is too good. Haven't I seen that most of the wear comes from particles 30 microns or larger? Maybe 20 micron performance isn't important. In fact, oil filters may not be that important.
Nominal, while being 50%, isn't the same as Beta2=x. In all instances that I've seen, "Nominal" has always referred to the single pass test. That's why Wix's "Nominal" rating is not the same as it's Beta 2 rating.
There's studies in diesels that show reductions to under 10um levels reduce wear. One study, iirc, really didn't show the significance of the wear reduction. I think it was to prove (promote) the use of bypass filters. As dnewton3 and I go toe to toe on it, there can and will be wear reduction with finer filtration. The likelihood of seeing that equate to longer engine life is doubtful. Either the chassis or the owner probably won't live long enough to prove the merits of the practice.
..but if we REALLY perceived how much our cars cost us ..REALLY eliminated all the fashion/personality/ego/trends/fads/passe~styling from our mind's eye ..I'd say that we'd REALLY do everything we could to make them last every mile that they possibly could.
If indeed there is a standard of 50%, a manufacturer is free to state another rating. If stating a filter is rated 20 microns means it has 50% efficiency at 20 microns, I don't think that is too good. Haven't I seen that most of the wear comes from particles 30 microns or larger? Maybe 20 micron performance isn't important. In fact, oil filters may not be that important.
Nominal, while being 50%, isn't the same as Beta2=x. In all instances that I've seen, "Nominal" has always referred to the single pass test. That's why Wix's "Nominal" rating is not the same as it's Beta 2 rating.
There's studies in diesels that show reductions to under 10um levels reduce wear. One study, iirc, really didn't show the significance of the wear reduction. I think it was to prove (promote) the use of bypass filters. As dnewton3 and I go toe to toe on it, there can and will be wear reduction with finer filtration. The likelihood of seeing that equate to longer engine life is doubtful. Either the chassis or the owner probably won't live long enough to prove the merits of the practice.
..but if we REALLY perceived how much our cars cost us ..REALLY eliminated all the fashion/personality/ego/trends/fads/passe~styling from our mind's eye ..I'd say that we'd REALLY do everything we could to make them last every mile that they possibly could.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
Email or call them to find out what they are asking for if it's unclear.
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
Email or call them to find out what they are asking for if it's unclear.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
Email or call them to find out what they are asking for if it's unclear.
Yeah but I'm afraid whoever gets my email won't understand the question or will give me the wrong answer. It's not a big deal, I just thought maybe someone here had used OAI and ran across this and already had the answer.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
Email or call them to find out what they are asking for if it's unclear.
Yeah but I'm afraid whoever gets my email won't understand the question or will give me the wrong answer. It's not a big deal, I just thought maybe someone here had used OAI and ran across this and already had the answer.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
Email or call them to find out what they are asking for if it's unclear.
Tried that twice and was not answered twice. I asked for specific data for the filters applicable to my equipment. After following all the P1 threads, and coming across a 40 percent off sale on them at a KMart that was closing, I went ahead and bought some (including one new one I cut apart and posted photos of here). But, unlike you, I was singularly unimpressed with the response for Purolator. But your responses largely covered the bases for me. Would have followed up had I not been satisfied enough to try them. (so I'll just blame you if they turn out to be [censored] ( : < )... just kidding, of course.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
But anyway I think if a form asks for an oil filter's micron rating they probably mean the nominal micron rating and not the absolute.
Email or call them to find out what they are asking for if it's unclear.
Tried that twice and was not answered twice. I asked for specific data for the filters applicable to my equipment. After following all the P1 threads, and coming across a 40 percent off sale on them at a KMart that was closing, I went ahead and bought some (including one new one I cut apart and posted photos of here). But, unlike you, I was singularly unimpressed with the response for Purolator. But your responses largely covered the bases for me. Would have followed up had I not been satisfied enough to try them. (so I'll just blame you if they turn out to be [censored] ( : < )... just kidding, of course.
Well I had been in correspondence with OAI about my UOA, and I dropped the filter micron question in. I was told that with the micron rating question they were lookking for the filters absolute efficiency. So I guess that would mean the micromn level that the filter is 98.7% efficient. That number is hard to come buy but 20 microns usually ballparks it. But using Superbusa P1 number 98.7% absolute efficiency is at >11 micons. I still think 20 microns ballparks it for most filters.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well I had been in correspondence with OAI about my UOA, and I dropped the filter micron question in. I was told that with the micron rating question they were lookking for the filters absolute efficiency. So I guess that would mean the micromn level that the filter is 98.7% efficient. That number is hard to come buy but 20 microns usually ballparks it. But using Superbusa P1 number 98.7% absolute efficiency is at >11 micons. I still think 20 microns ballparks it for most filters.
The Purolator Classic is rated at 97.5% @ 20 microns, so the PureONE is obviously better than 20 microns at 97.5%.
Where is it defined that the "absolute efficiency" is what micron size the filter is 97.5% efficient? - is there some kind of "standard" that defines "absolute efficiency"?
Well I had been in correspondence with OAI about my UOA, and I dropped the filter micron question in. I was told that with the micron rating question they were lookking for the filters absolute efficiency. So I guess that would mean the micromn level that the filter is 98.7% efficient. That number is hard to come buy but 20 microns usually ballparks it. But using Superbusa P1 number 98.7% absolute efficiency is at >11 micons. I still think 20 microns ballparks it for most filters.
The Purolator Classic is rated at 97.5% @ 20 microns, so the PureONE is obviously better than 20 microns at 97.5%.
Where is it defined that the "absolute efficiency" is what micron size the filter is 97.5% efficient? - is there some kind of "standard" that defines "absolute efficiency"?
You are just restating what I said. I said the P1 is a little better than 20 microns, maybe 11 microns or so but 20 is a close ball park for many filters since it's hard to get an exact rating. I linked you to the filter council's tech page where it stated that absolute efficiency is generally considered to be at 98.7 efficiency.
What do you think the question of what's a filters micron rating means and what does absolute and mean rating if you are not happy with my conclusions?
What do you think the question of what's a filters micron rating means and what does absolute and mean rating if you are not happy with my conclusions?
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
You are just restating what I said. I said the P1 is a little better than 20 microns, maybe 11 microns or so but 20 is a close ball park for many filters since it's hard to get an exact rating. I linked you to the filter council's tech page where it stated that absolute efficiency is generally considered to be at 98.7 efficiency.
Why not just use 11 microns like Purolator stated for Beta = 75 (98.7%)? Why use 20 microns, when they indicated 11 microns?
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What do you think the question of what's a filters micron rating means and what does absolute and mean rating if you are not happy with my conclusions?
Just wanted to know where these supposed "standards" are coming from.
You are just restating what I said. I said the P1 is a little better than 20 microns, maybe 11 microns or so but 20 is a close ball park for many filters since it's hard to get an exact rating. I linked you to the filter council's tech page where it stated that absolute efficiency is generally considered to be at 98.7 efficiency.
Why not just use 11 microns like Purolator stated for Beta = 75 (98.7%)? Why use 20 microns, when they indicated 11 microns?
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What do you think the question of what's a filters micron rating means and what does absolute and mean rating if you are not happy with my conclusions?
Just wanted to know where these supposed "standards" are coming from.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
You are just restating what I said. I said the P1 is a little better than 20 microns, maybe 11 microns or so but 20 is a close ball park for many filters since it's hard to get an exact rating. I linked you to the filter council's tech page where it stated that absolute efficiency is generally considered to be at 98.7 efficiency.
Why not just use 11 microns like Purolator stated for Beta = 75 (98.7%)? Why use 20 microns, when they indicated 11 microns?
Well assuming the numbers Purolator provided are accurate about the P1 and you are using a P1 that is perfectly valid. But with a lot of other filters you are going to have to guess and 20 micons is a good guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What do you think the question of what's a filters micron rating means and what does absolute and mean rating if you are not happy with my conclusions?
Just wanted to know where these supposed "standards" are coming from.
All right, that's the only source I found and it would be a reliable source. So I'd assume this is what is generally meant by the terms when they are used. I agree it doesn't sound like a hard,real standard though.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
You are just restating what I said. I said the P1 is a little better than 20 microns, maybe 11 microns or so but 20 is a close ball park for many filters since it's hard to get an exact rating. I linked you to the filter council's tech page where it stated that absolute efficiency is generally considered to be at 98.7 efficiency.
Why not just use 11 microns like Purolator stated for Beta = 75 (98.7%)? Why use 20 microns, when they indicated 11 microns?
Well assuming the numbers Purolator provided are accurate about the P1 and you are using a P1 that is perfectly valid. But with a lot of other filters you are going to have to guess and 20 micons is a good guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What do you think the question of what's a filters micron rating means and what does absolute and mean rating if you are not happy with my conclusions?
Just wanted to know where these supposed "standards" are coming from.
All right, that's the only source I found and it would be a reliable source. So I'd assume this is what is generally meant by the terms when they are used. I agree it doesn't sound like a hard,real standard though.
- Status
Similar threads
