HEPA Filter Test Standards Comparison: EN 1822 vs DIN 71460-1 vs IEST-RP-CC001.7 vs JEM1467

Efficiency numbers from different test standards are not directly comparable. Here's why, and what it means when brands cite different standards.

Why this matters for buyers

When Dyson (TP09) claims 99.95% to EN 1822, Philips (NanoProtect) claims 99.97% to DIN 71460-1, Dyson HushJet claims 99.97% to IEST-RP-CC001.7, and Sharp (FP-J/FP-F series) claims "H14" to JEM1467, none of these numbers are the same measurement and cannot be ranked against each other.

Sharp's JEM1467 "H14" label is the most likely to mislead: its 99.97% at 0.3 μm performance is equivalent to EN 1822 H13, not H14. Philips's 99.97% is filter-media-only; Dyson HushJet's 99.97% is whole-machine verified.

Standard-by-Standard Comparison

10 dimensions across four filter test standards used by air purifier brands sold in India.

Dimension
EN 1822:2019
European HEPA/ULPA
DIN 71460-1
Automotive cabin filter
IEST-RP-CC001.7
US cleanroom HEPA
JEM1467
Japan residential
Designed forCleanroom, HVAC, pharmaceutical, and operating theatre HEPA/ULPA filters [1]Automotive HVAC cabin air filters, filters inside cars and passenger vehicles [2]Cleanroom supply and contaminated exhaust requiring ≥99.97% efficiency [3]Residential air purifier filters, Japan domestic market [14]
Issuing bodyCEN (European Committee for Standardization). Current edition: EN 1822-1:2019 [1]DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung). Published 2006. International equivalent: ISO/TS 11155-1 [2]IEST (Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology). Recommended practice, not mandatory standard [3]JEMA (Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association) [14]
Test aerosolDEHS (di-ethylhexyl sebacate) liquid oil droplets. DEHS, PAO, or PSL permitted [4]NaCl (sodium chloride) solid salt aerosol [5]DEHS or PAO liquid (same family as EN) [6]Not publicly specified in English-language documentation [14]
Particle size methodologyMPPS-first: the filter's Most Penetrating Particle Size (typically 0.1–0.2 μm) is determined first, then efficiency is tested at that worst-case size [4]Fixed range: 0.3–0.5 μm. No MPPS determination. Tests at a convenient size, not necessarily the hardest size for the filter [5]Fixed at 0.3 μm. MPPS-first requirement for certain filter types [6][7]Fixed at 0.3 μm. No MPPS determination [14]
Leak test requiredYes, full downstream scan of entire filter face. Every H and U-class filter individually scanned [4]No equivalent leak scan requirement. Overall fractional efficiency and pressure drop only [2]Yes for filter types requiring scanning (primarily flat-panel filters) [3]No equivalent leak scan requirement [14]
Leak test instrumentDiscrete particle counters only. Aerosol photometers explicitly prohibited [8]Not specified (no scan test)Discrete particle counter or aerosol photometer permitted depending on type [7]Not applicable
Filter classification systemE10–E12 (EPA), H13–H14 (HEPA), U15–U17 (ULPA). H13 = ≥99.95% at MPPS; H14 = ≥99.995% at MPPS [1]Pass/fail by efficiency band. No H-grade equivalent. Cannot be mapped to H13 or H14 [2]11 performance types, construction grades. Efficiency ≥99.97% at 0.3 μm [3]Uses H13/H14 labels but with different thresholds. JEM1467 "H14" = 99.97% at 0.3 μm = EN 1822 H13 threshold [14]
Scope of efficiency claimWhole-machine (sealed system). Dyson's sealed-to-H13 claim means the full purifier, not just the filter media, meets the standard [9]Filter media only. Philips explicitly qualifies NanoProtect figures as "from the air that passes through the filter", not whole-machine containment [11]Whole-machine. Dyson HushJet tested in ASTM F3150 chamber at IBR US for whole-machine efficiency above 99.97% [12][13]Filter media only. Sharp claims apply to the filter element, not whole-machine sealed performance [14]
India OEM usageDyson (all models except HushJet), tested by SGS Labs, USA [9]Philips NanoProtect, tested by iUTA institute, Germany [11]Dyson HushJet (HJ10), tested by SGS-CSTC Suzhou, China in ASTM F3150 chamber [12][13]Sharp (FP-J/FP-F series), via authorised dealers and Sharp Appliances India [14]
Cross-standard comparabilityResults comparable only within EN 1822 tests. H-grade assignments meaningful and traceableNot comparable to EN 1822 or IEST figures. Different aerosol, different particle size, no MPPS, filter-media-only scopeNot directly comparable to EN 1822 H-grades (fixed 0.3 μm vs MPPS-first). However, HushJet's whole-machine challenge adds rigour absent from DINNot comparable to EN 1822. JEM1467 "H14" ≠ EN 1822 H14. Most likely to mislead buyers

References

  1. [1]
    BS EN 1822-1:2019, High efficiency air filters (EPA, HEPA and ULPA). European Committee for Standardization (CEN).
    Standard
  2. [2]
    DIN 71460-1:2006, Road vehicles, Air filters for motor passenger compartments. Deutsches Institut für Normung.
    Standard
  3. [3]
    IEST-RP-CC001.7, HEPA and ULPA Filters. Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology.
    Standard
  4. [4]
    MANN+HUMMEL, DIN EN1822: The test method for high efficiency air filters. Covers DEHS aerosol methodology, MPPS determination, and particle counter requirements.
    Technical
  5. [5]
    Mitsakou C. et al. (2022), HEPA filters to improve vehicle cabin air quality, advantages and limitations. Cites DIN 71460-1 NaCl aerosol test conditions.
    Scientific
  6. [6]
    Camfil, HEPA filter efficiency test: EN1822 and ISO 29463. Covers DEHS aerosol methodology and classification thresholds.
    Technical
  7. [7]
    Vijayakumar, S. (2006), IEST-RP-CC001.4: HEPA and ULPA filters. Semiconductor Digest. Documents photometer/counter choice and fixed 0.3 μm test particle.
    Technical
  8. [8]
    Freudenberg Filtration, Standards series DIN EN1822 for HEPA filters. Discusses leak testing requirements and particle counter mandate for H/U class.
    Technical
  9. [9]
    Dyson India, Elevating Air Quality With Advanced Purifier Testing Standards. Filtration tested to EN1822 and ISO29463 by SGS Laboratories Inc., USA.
    OEM
  10. [10]
    IQAir, IQAir passes the World's Most Stringent HEPA-Filter Test. HyperHEPA type-tested to EN 1822 by Filtech Laboratories, Switzerland.
    OEM
  11. [11]
    Philips India, NanoProtect HEPA FY2422/10. Efficiency tested with NaCl aerosol by iUTA institute according to DIN71460-1.
    OEM
  12. [12]
    Dyson India, HushJet Purifier Compact HJ10 product page. Filtration efficiency to IEST-RP-CC001.7, tested at IBR US.
    OEM
  13. [13]
    ASTM F3150-18, Standard Specification for HEPA Filtration System Performance of Residential and Commercial Vacuum Cleaners. ASTM International.
    Standard
  14. [14]
    Sharp India, JEM1467 H14 filter specification. Sharp states "H14 Class (in EN1822 type) True HEPA filters, based on the JEM1467 standard." Note: 99.97% at 0.3 μm = EN 1822 H13 threshold, not H14.
    OEM

Standards cited are current as of the versions referenced above. EN 1822-1:2019 is the current edition. DIN 71460-1 was published in 2006; its international equivalent is ISO/TS 11155-1. IEST-RP-CC001.7 is the current revision of the IEST recommended practice. JEM1467 is the Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association standard. H14 under JEM1467 (99.97% at 0.3 μm) is not equivalent to H14 under EN 1822 (≥99.995% at MPPS). Last verified April 2026.

All references collated on the Reference Papers page.

Use our tools to compare purifiers

Now that you understand the standards, put them to use.

Questions? Reach us at indoorairguide@outlook.com