Electrostatic Precipitator Test Report: How to Read One, Field by Field, and What It Does Not Prove

An electrostatic precipitator test report is a laboratory’s record of one unit tested at stated airflows and stated inlet loads, under a named method. Its headline percentage is the field least able to stand alone. Read the fourteen fields below to accept a supplier’s report or return it, with the open fields listed, before shortlisting.

This page helps you decide whether to accept the efficiency evidence a supplier sends with a kitchen ESP quotation, and what to send back when a field is missing. It reads a Chinese laboratory report under HJ/T 62-2001 field by field, then applies the same reading to our own reports. It does not size a unit, compare prices, or say whether your market accepts a Chinese report. For the models and their published results, see the kitchen electrostatic precipitator page. If the quotations themselves are what you need to line up, the inputs are on our electrostatic precipitator quotation page.

What a Chinese kitchen ESP test report is made of

A Chinese kitchen ESP test report records one model tested to one named method, and its CMA approval belongs to the laboratory, not the product. Three things are layered on one document: the laboratory’s CMA approval, the method’s test conditions, and any emission limit the result is compared against. Each layer answers a different question, and a buyer reads them separately.

CMA is China’s mandatory qualification approval for inspection and testing bodies. It is set out in the Measures for the Administration of Qualification Accreditation of Inspection and Testing Bodies, in their 2021 revision. Under Article 2 it is an evaluation and licence for bodies that issue test data the public can rely on as evidence. Under Article 4 the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) administers it nationally, and provincial market regulators administer it locally.

Article 15 defines the mark itself: the CMA pattern, named in English China Inspection Body and Laboratory Mandatory Approval, plus the laboratory’s certificate number. The same article lists what that certificate carries, including the laboratory’s scope of testing. So the number beside the mark identifies the laboratory. It does not identify your report, and it does not show that every item on the report sits inside that scope.

The method our SQEP report cites is HJ/T 62-2001, published in English as Test regulation for cooking fume control equipment. It took effect on 2001-08-01 as a recommended trial standard. Its scope covers cooking-fume control equipment handling 2,000 to 20,000 m³/h (clause 1). Check its status with the laboratory before you cite it in a specification; this guide treats it only as the method a report cites.

The laboratory test runs the unit on a rig. A fume generator feeds a straight duct with a sampling port, then the unit, a second sampling port, a fan and a damper (clause 5.1.1). The generator drips edible vegetable oil and water into a heated vessel to simulate cooking fume, at a base concentration of 10 mg/m³ (clause 5.1.2).

Clause 5.2.8 sets the sequence. The unit first runs for 24 h at rated airflow and 50 mg/m³. It is then measured at 10 ± 2 mg/m³ at rated airflow; that result is corrected by the standard’s time-correction coefficient and reported as the mean of two parallel runs. The airflow is then set to 80% and 120% of the nameplate rating, with the simulated fume concentration adjusted to match, and measured again. Efficiency is the mass removed over the mass entering, from the concentration and airflow at each port (clause 5.2.7).

A report can also compare the outlet against an emission limit. Our SQEP report cites DB31/844-2014, Shanghai’s local emission standard for cooking fume, listed by the Shanghai Bureau of Ecology and Environment. The report records an outlet of 0.4 mg/m³ against the 1.0 mg/m³ limit it cites. That limit is local to Shanghai; the limit at your discharge is set where your kitchen is.

A report’s percentage can be used when the laboratory’s CMA approval, the method and the limit are each named on it. When one is missing, the percentage cannot be checked against anything.

Each layer carries one claim. Whether the report in front of you is complete is the job of the sheet in the next section.

A test report is one of the six documents in our commercial kitchen ESP buying guide. This guide reads that one document in full, whichever supplier issued it.

The 14-Field ESP Test Report Reading Sheet

Fourteen fields on a kitchen ESP test report decide whether its efficiency figure can be used, and the percentage is only one of them. The sheet starts from the report contents listed in Table 3 of HJ/T 62-2001. It adds the test conditions of clause 5.2.8, the CMA rules, and the fields a buyer needs to set a report against an order. For each field it gives what the field tells you, what it does not prove, and what to check or ask. The sheet is our own framework, not an industry standard: HJ/T 62-2001 lists what a report contains, and the questions in the last column are ours.

When an electrostatic precipitator test report arrives, copy the “What to check or ask” column into an email, keeping only the rows the report leaves open. Four rows decide whether the report is about the unit you are buying: row 3 (manufacturer), row 4 (model), row 9 (airflow) and row 10 (inlet concentration). Whether two accepted reports can then be set side by side is covered in our ASTM F2519 guide.

The 14-Field ESP Test Report Reading Sheet. IF a report names your invoiced manufacturer (row 3), your quoted model (row 4), and its test airflows and inlet load (rows 9 and 10), accept it as evidence for that model. IF any of those is blank or different, return it with the open row numbers before the supplier is shortlisted.

This sheet tests whether a report says what it is being used to say. It does not test the laboratory or the equipment; the laboratory confirms its own report, and the site proves the installation.

Row 14 is where the report stops and the order begins. Insulation, grounding and air-leakage figures are laboratory measurements on the sample. Whether the units built for you match the proforma invoice is a separate check, made before the balance is paid. It is set out in our electrostatic precipitator pre-shipment inspection guide.

One model, three airflows

A report fits your order only at the airflow point nearest your design ratio, read with its laboratory and purpose. The same LK120 reads 97.4%, 96.0% and 95.2% at three airflows in one laboratory. This is our own report on one model of electrostatic precipitator. It shows how far a figure can move with airflow alone.

SQEP tested the LK120 under report 2024I20-35-5322488001, carrying the CMA mark with number 180912110235. The method cited is HJ/T 62-2001, with DB31/844-2014 as the emission limit. The report records an inlet concentration of 10.3 mg/m³ and a body resistance of 292 Pa. At 80% of rated airflow the unit read 97.4%; at rated airflow, 96.0%; at 120%, 95.2%.

That is a spread of 2.2 percentage points on one unit, in one laboratory, in one series of runs. The report does not say why the 80% point reads highest, and clause 5.2.8 adjusts the fume concentration at that point. Read it as this unit’s pattern, not as a rule for every ESP.

When a report gives several airflow points, read the one nearest your design ratio. When another laboratory’s figure for the same model differs, read both full copies before either goes into your file.

One model’s result moves with airflow. How the LK120 performs at your airflow on your menu still takes your design airflow, your cooking process and the site.

Row 9 of the sheet turns this into a check you can run on any report. Divide the design airflow per unit by the rated airflow on the report, and read the airflow point nearest that ratio.

Teaching example only — not Polygee test data, not a product claim, not an acceptance threshold. A unit rated at 10,000 m³/h, specified for a design airflow of 8,000 m³/h, runs at 80% of its rating. The 80% point on its report is the figure to read. Specified for 12,000 m³/h, the same unit runs at 120%, and the 120% point applies. A report with only a rated-airflow figure says nothing about either case.

Chinese CMA report, ASTM F2519, UL 867: what each one measures

A Chinese HJ/T 62-2001 report, an ASTM F2519 report and a UL 867 listing answer three different questions, so none of them substitutes for another. The Chinese report measures fume removal in a duct-mounted test rig. The other two are American documents that buyers in North America may also ask for.

ASTM F2519-05(2025) is shown Active on the ASTM store. Its scope (clause 1.1) covers equipment that captures grease before it enters the exhaust duct, and clause 1.2 limits it to new or clean filters. An in-duct ESP sits after that point. Our LK figure of up to 97.6% was not produced under ASTM F2519, as our ASTM F2519 guide sets out.

UL 867, Edition 5, is listed as Active, with a last revision dated 2026-06-29. Its scope (clause 1.1) covers electrostatic air cleaners rated at 600 V or less. It is an electrical safety standard, not an efficiency test, as our UL 867 guide explains. Our UL 867 listing, File E522667, names the LK and SE 6K, 12K and 18K models at 230 V, 50 Hz. It can be checked on UL Product iQ under that file number.

If a project asks for a UL 867 listing, an efficiency report cannot stand in for it. If it asks for an efficiency figure, compare only figures measured to the same method.

Pick the document by the question the project asks. Which documents your authority or consultant requires is set by the project.

Our own test reports, against the sheet

Each of our reports applies only to the model or component it names. LK figures belong to the LK model tested, HME figures to the hood, and none to a three-stage ecology unit. The nine third-party reports below are the ones we send on request, with the sheet’s fields filled in. Six are electrostatic precipitator test reports on an LK, LK-E or HME unit; one tests a UV stage, and two test the SPP power supply. Each row names the report, the laboratory, the model and condition, the result, and the model or component it tested.

If your quotation names an LK model, start with the three LK reports and apply rows 4 and 5 before carrying a figure to another LK model. If it names an ecology unit, no single report here tests the three-stage train.

This table answers which model or component each of our reports tested. It does not answer how a three-stage ecology unit performs as a whole; each report tests one model or one component.

The LK-E efficiency tiers are design values, and the per-model pressure drop on a datasheet is a datasheet value. The figures in this table are measured results for the one model each report tested, under its own conditions, and the two are not interchangeable. Rows 3, 5, 6, 7 and 14 are on the full copies, not in this summary; read them there before the figure goes into your file.

Three limits apply to our own list. First, the LK series figures do not transfer to a three-stage kitchen ecology unit, because none of these reports tests the electrostatic, UV and carbon stages together. Second, UV80 was tested downstream of an ESP of at least 90%, so it is not a UV-alone result. Third, the two SPP reports test the power supply as a component, not the installed unit.

Where a field is not recorded in our summary, such as the sampling route or the method of the Beijing reports, the table says so. The full copy answers it. Each full copy names the issuing laboratory; use that name to confirm the report number with the laboratory, as row 1 asks. Request the report itself and check the serial-number link and test conditions before treating any efficiency figure as a performance basis.

Our quotations carry third-party test reports on request, as stated on our supplier profile. The reports are listed on the downloads page and emailed within one business day on request. Certificates are a separate set of documents, with their own model lists, on our ESP certifications page. If you are writing these reports into a tender clause, the efficiency and report clauses are drafted in our ecology unit specification sheet.

Scope and limits

A test report clears the first of three acceptance layers and none of the others.

1. Layer one, equipment evidence: the test reports, certificates and datasheets for the models quoted, read with the fourteen fields above.
2. Layer two, installation and interfaces: capture at the hood, the duct route, the supports, the supply and the access side decide whether the unit goes in as tested.
3. Layer three, whole-system operation: the delivered airflow, your menu, the cleaning kept up and the stages after the ESP decide the result at the discharge.

Passing one layer does not clear the next. A complete set of reports belongs to layer one only.

• A report does not prove odor control. It measures fume removed by mass. Where odor matters, first establish whether the residual odor is carried by particles or by gases, then assess a UV or carbon stage on its own report.
• A report does not prove performance at your airflow. Give the supplier your design airflow per unit, and read the airflow point nearest your ratio on row 9.
• A report does not prove performance after service. The laboratory test starts from a conditioned unit on a rig. Ask for the cleaning basis for your site in writing with the quotation.
• Large airflows need their own acceptance. HJ/T 62-2001 covers 2,000 to 20,000 m³/h, and clause 6.5.2 calls for separate engineering acceptance and routine source monitoring above 20,000 m³/h. On a large project, write a discharge measurement into acceptance.
• Size class limits a result. Under clause 6.5.1, results hold by size class. Check that the model on your quotation falls in the class of the unit tested before you carry a figure across.
• Body resistance is not system pressure. The report gives the loss across the unit body at the tested airflow. The measured spread across our models is set out in our kitchen exhaust filtration guide; the fan is selected on the whole system. For our own models, the quotation states the pressure drop of the model offered at your design airflow, as a complete unit.
• A report is not a compliance opinion. Whether your authority accepts a Chinese CMA report, and against which limit, is the project’s question. Ask the authority or your consultant before the report goes into a submittal.
• The laboratory’s electrical checks stay in the laboratory. Installation and commissioning follow the installation manual, sent on request.

Buyer record and key takeaways

Before you shortlist on a test report, have four inputs ready, ask every supplier for five items, and stop when row 4, 9 or 10 is blank.

• Have ready:
  • The model on each quotation.
  • The design airflow per unit.
  • The cooking process and the fuel.
  • The emission limit where you discharge, if one applies.
• Ask every supplier for:
  • The full report, not an extract or a single page.
  • The laboratory’s name and the number beside its CMA mark.
  • The method and the airflow points tested.
  • The inlet concentration.
  • Whether the sample was drawn from production or submitted for testing.
• Stop and ask when:
  • A percentage arrives without a report number.
  • The model on the report is not the model on the quotation.
  • The report gives one airflow point and your design airflow is far from it.
  • The remarks in the conclusion limit the result.
• Re-check when: the model, the design airflow, the menu or the market changes, or the design has changed since the sample’s production date.

Lining up the quotations as well as the reports? The ten inputs that make two offers comparable are in our electrostatic precipitator quotation guide.

Key takeaways

• Percentage: read with the model, the airflow point and the inlet load (rows 4, 9 and 10), not on its own.
• CMA mark: identifies an approved laboratory and its scope, not a genuine report or a passed product.
• Accepting a report: judged on whether rows 3, 4, 9 and 10 describe the unit you are buying, not on how high the percentage is.
• Document type: an HJ/T 62-2001 report, an ASTM F2519 report and a UL 867 listing answer three questions, not one.
• Our reports: the 14-Field ESP Test Report Reading Sheet applies to ours as it does to anyone’s; ask for the full copies, not the headline figure.

Frequently asked questions

What is a CMA test report?

A report issued by a Chinese laboratory that holds CMA, China’s mandatory qualification approval for inspection and testing bodies. The CMA mark carries the laboratory’s certificate number, and that certificate lists the scope the laboratory is approved for. The mark identifies the laboratory. It does not by itself prove that a product passed, that the report is genuine, or that every item on the report sits inside that scope.

Should I accept a report that tests a different model from the one quoted?

Not as evidence for your model. A report holds for the model it names and, under HJ/T 62-2001 clause 6.5.1, for the size class of the unit tested. Ask the supplier which report covers the model on your quotation; if none does, record that the figure belongs to another model.

Can a test report prove odor control?

Not an ESP efficiency report. It measures fume removed by mass, and that is a different quantity from odor. Where odor matters, first establish whether the residual odor is carried by particles or by gases, then look at a UV or carbon stage and its own report. Our UV80 report was run downstream of an ESP stage, so it is not a UV-alone result.

How do I check that a test report is genuine?

Ask the laboratory that issued it to confirm the report number and its conclusion. The number beside the CMA mark identifies the laboratory, not the report, so it cannot confirm a report on its own. Check also that the manufacturer on the report matches the legal name on your proforma invoice, and that the model matches your quotation.

Do you send your test reports?

Yes, on request, emailed within one business day. Ask for the report on the model on your quotation, or on the nearest model tested. Ask for the complete document rather than an extract: an extract can drop the airflow points and the conclusion, which decide whether the figure applies.

Holding a test report you need to check?

Send us the report you were given, the model on your quotation and your design airflow per unit. We reply with the third-party report for the electrostatic precipitator model we would offer, or for the nearest model we have tested, named by model and airflow. Where the model offered has not been tested, we say so plainly. You can then read the report you were given against the 14-Field ESP Test Report Reading Sheet and see the same fields filled in on ours. The quotation itself is a proforma invoice with Incoterms and lead time, within 24 hours on business days.

Send the report →

Why we write this. We prepare the documents that go with a kitchen ESP order, and third-party test reports are sent with them on request. This guide settles what a buyer has to answer about a report: whether the CMA mark proves the figure, and whether one model’s report can stand for another. It reads the report field by field and applies the same reading to our own reports. It does not size or configure equipment; sizing and quotation live on the product pages.

References & further reading

1. Test method: HJ/T 62-2001, Test regulation for cooking fume control equipment, published on the website of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China. Effective 2001-08-01, issued as a recommended trial standard. Clauses 1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2, and Table 3 (inspection report contents), are read from the official text. mee.gov.cn (HJ/T 62-2001); issuing notice: mee.gov.cn (2001 notice)
2. Local emission limit: DB31/844-2014, Emission Standard of Cooking Fume, listed among the local standards of the Shanghai Bureau of Ecology and Environment. The English line on that page prints the year as 2013. sthj.sh.gov.cn (local standards)
3. Efficiency test method: ASTM F2519-05(2025), Standard Test Method for Grease Particle Capture Efficiency of Commercial Kitchen Filters and Extractors, ASTM International, shown Active. Clause 1.1 covers capture before the exhaust duct; clause 1.2 covers new or clean filters. store.astm.org (ASTM F2519)
4. Electrical safety standard: UL 867, Electrostatic Air Cleaners, Edition 5, shown Active with a last revision of 2026-06-29. Clause 1.1 covers units rated at 600 V or less. shopulstandards.com (UL 867)
5. Named, not linked: the Measures for the Administration of Qualification Accreditation of Inspection and Testing Bodies (2021 revision). They are administered by the State Administration for Market Regulation, and Articles 2, 4 and 15 are cited above. UL Product iQ, where listing File E522667 is checked. Certificate and report copies are sent on request from the ESP certifications page.

Related reading

• ASTM F2519 explained: what the American method measures, why it measures clean equipment, and when two efficiency figures cannot be compared.
• UL 867 explained: why a UL 867 listing is an electrical safety document, and which of our models it names.
• Commercial kitchen ESP buying guide: the six documents a supplier can hand you for checking, of which the test report is one.
• Electrostatic precipitator pre-shipment inspection: the next step after the report, checking the units built against the proforma invoice before the balance is paid.