Elements/Media t Types t Comparison t Which one do I use? t Construction t Testing

Types t Cellulose t Fiberglass t Wire Mesh t Water Removal

Cellulose t Phenolic resins hold pleat shape after curing t Not recommended for HWCF t Difficult to achieve < 5 micron removal due to large fiber size t Old technology, commodity type of element

Cellulose t Denoted by a “C” - (10C) t Phenolic resins hold pleat shape after curing t Not recommended for HWCF t Difficult to achieve < 5 micron removal due to large fiber size t Old technology, commodity type of element

Wire Mesh t Stainless steel t Cleanable media with some % loss of life t Difficult to clean elements rated below 40 micron t Rated as mesh size or micron size pore 200 mesh = 74W (74 micron)

Element Cleaning 1)Remove external build- up with cleaning fluid in separate tank 2)Immerse element for 30 minutes in cleaning fluid 3)Flush opposite direction as oil flow with water & air

Element Cleaning 4)Continue to flush with air only 5)Immerse in ISO-Propyl -Alcohol to remove remaining water particle 6)Air dry element and package for future use

Fiberglass t Latest technology for solid particle removal t High efficiency “absolute” rated t High dirt holding capacity

Fiberglass t Latest technology for solid particle removal t Microglass III is our current version t Denoted by a “Q” - (10Q)

MicroGlass III t Dual Layer construction Upstream Support Mesh Micro-glass Capacity Layer Micro-glass Efficiency Layer Polyester Spun-bonded Support Layer Downstream Support Mesh Support Core

MicroGlass III t Dual Layer construction Capacity Layer  High Loft –Void Volume –Protects Efficiency Layer Typical capacity layer (100x)

MicroGlass III t Dual Layer construction Membrane Efficiency Layer  Ultrathin.007” –Increased Filtration Area  Laminated to Support Scrim –Fixed Pore Size Typical efficiency layer (100x)

MicroGlass III vs. II t Equivalent Efficiency t Equal or Greater Dirt Holding Capacity t Much Lower Clean Pressure Drop  Lower Energy Consumption  Lower stress on filter construction  Less chance of bypass in cold conditions  Opportunity to upgrade to higher efficiency

MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO to 4 bar (60 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL

MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO 3968

MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO to 4 bar (60 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL

MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO 3968

MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO to 4 bar (60 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL

MicroGlass III vs. II Tested Per ISO 3968

MicroGlass III vs. Competition Tested Per ISO to 6.8 bar(100 PSID) 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL January 8, 2001

MicroGlass III vs. Competition Tested Per ISO to 100 psid 114LPM (30 GPM) 10mg/L BUGL January 8, 2001 ß = 75ß = 200ß = 75ß = 200

MicroGlass III vs. Competition Tested Per ISO 3968 January 8, 2001

Comparison

Ecoglass II t Line of non-metallic filter elements meeting ecological demands for longer life and reduced disposal. t Up to 60% less disposal volume. t Par-Fit designs that do not require customer retrofit, or relocation of bypass valves which compromises performance.

ECOGLASS II CONSTRUCTION POLYESTER UPSTREAM SUPPORT MESH MICROGLASS CAPACITY LAYER MICROGLASS EFFICIENCY LAYER POLYESTER SPUNBONDED SUPPORT LAYER POLYESTER DOWNSTREAM SUPPORT MESH POLYESTER SPUNBONDED SUPPORT BANDS PERMANENT SUPPORT CORE

ENDCAPS t FIBER FILLED NYLON 6/12 t HEAT AND CHEMICAL RESISTANT t DIMENSIONALLY STABLE-LOWER COEFICIENT OF EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION THAN ALUMINUM t ORING GLAND IS MACHINED TO EXACT DIMENSIONS TO ENSURE SEAL INTEGRITY

ADHESIVE t ENGINEERED POLYURETHANE - HEAT AND CHEMICAL RESISTANT t LOW HEAT CURE - THE ADHESIVE DOES NOT WICK OUT OF THE ENDCAPS OR THE SEAM

PERMANENT CORE t NICKEL PLATED FOR CORROSION RESISTANCE t PLATING DOES NOT LEACH OUT INTO FLUIDS WITH HIGH WATER CONTENT - THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM WITH OTHER PLATING - I.E. ZINC DICHROMATE

Par-Gel t Small amounts of water t Removes free water only t Low flow density

Par-Gel New pleat before absorption Used pleat swelled from water retention

Par-Fit t Must compare efficiency, dirt capacity, and pressure loss at the same micron size

Price-Per-Gram Element A Price: $20.00 Dirt capacity: 5 grams Price-per-gram: $4.00 Element B $ grams $3.00

Multi-pass Test t To compare tests  Flow Rate  Terminal Pressure  Injection rate  Concentration  Element size  Contaminant type