Independent validation · UL LLC · AHRI 340/360 · ASHRAE 37

Measured performance — with the documents behind it.

A seven-year-old 7.5-ton Trane packaged unit was measured in a certified psychrometric chamber, treated, run for 400+ hours, then measured again the same way. Here is exactly what UL recorded — and how every other claim on this site is sourced.

Controlled laboratory test · UL LLC, Plano TX · 2015

Actual measured results from the controlled test.

These are not estimates or models. They are the averaged readings UL recorded on one specific unit — the same machine, the same chamber, the same standard, before and after treatment.

Before treatment

Baseline · 7 April 2015

Total capacity: 64,796 BTU/h
Power draw: 9.97 kW
EER: 6.50
kW per ton: 1.846

After treatment

Post · 6 May 2015 · 400+ hours runtime

Total capacity: 77,060 BTU/h
Power draw: 9.68 kW
EER: 7.96
kW per ton: 1.510

Total capacity

+18.9%

Before

64,796 BTU/h

After

77,060 BTU/h

Measured net total cooling capacity, 30-minute average.

OEM design: 90,000 BTU/h

EER

+22.5%

Before

6.50

After

7.96

BTU of cooling delivered per watt of electrical input.

OEM design: 10.3

Power draw

−2.9%

Before

9.97 kW

After

9.68 kW

Total measured watts of the test unit, utility-grade meters.

OEM design: 8.74 kW

kW per ton

18.2% better

Before

1.846

After

1.510

Electrical input required per ton of delivered cooling.

OEM design: 1.165

Cooling capacity

+18.9%

Before

5.40 tons

After

6.42 tons

Same capacity expressed in tons of refrigeration.

OEM design: 7.50 tons

Condensate (30 min)

+24.6%

Before

5.45 lbs

After

6.79 lbs

Moisture removed — independent physical confirmation of added latent work.

OEM design: —

Controlled laboratory testing demonstrated measurable improvements in the tested system. Results vary based on equipment condition, design, age, maintenance and operating conditions.

The energy story

More cooling per unit of energy.

The headline in the UL data is not simply that input power went down 2.9%. The important engineering result is the relationship between cooling delivered and electricity consumed: the treated unit produced substantially more cooling while drawing slightly less measured electrical power.

What EER actually means

EER — Energy Efficiency Ratio — is cooling output divided by electrical input. It answers one question: how many BTUs of cooling do you get for each watt you pay for?

EER = cooling delivered (BTU/h) ÷ electrical input (watts)

Before: 64,796 BTU/h ÷ 9,967 W = 6.50 BTU per watt.
After: 77,060 BTU/h ÷ 9,678 W = 7.96 BTU per watt.
Same machine, same chamber, same standard — each watt purchased was doing 22.5% more work.

Read it as work per watt

Before

64,796 BTU/h

9.97 kW

6.50 EER

After

77,060 BTU/h

9.68 kW

7.96 EER

Degraded heat transfer forces a system to run longer to move the same heat, so more energy is consumed to deliver the cooling a building actually needs. Restoring heat transfer reverses that mechanism: the equipment satisfies load sooner and delivers more capacity per kilowatt. Under appropriate operating conditions, that translates into lower energy consumption for the same comfort — how much depends on load, runtime, climate, tariff and equipment condition.

Results vary based on equipment condition, design, age, maintenance and operating conditions.

Two independent confirmations, not one number

Capacity was calculated from airflow and enthalpy, and separately corroborated by physical condensate capture — 5.45 lbs before versus 6.79 lbs in the same 30-minute window after treatment (+24.6%). Two different measurement paths pointed the same direction on the same test unit, which is why the capacity result is the most defensible part of this data set.

Test context

What was tested, and how

Laboratory: UL LLC (Underwriters Laboratories) — 801 Klein Road, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75074 — Testing Laboratory TL-339
Equipment: 2008 Trane 7.5-ton packaged rooftop unit (RTU)
Model: TSC090A3EGAZUB
Age at test: 7 years old at time of test
Refrigerant: R-22 (9.80 lb charge)
Electrical: 208–230 V / 3 Ph / 60 Hz
OEM design capacity: 90,000 BTU/h (7.5 tons) nameplate design
Dates: Baseline 7 April 2015 · Post-treatment 6 May 2015
Project / sample: 4786820856 / 2030380-NW
Test conditions: AHRI 340/360 100% “A” test: 95 °F dry bulb / 75 °F wet bulb outdoor ambient, 80 °F dry bulb / 67 °F wet bulb entering the evaporator coil, 400 CFM per ton at design static pressure, inside an AHRI-certified dual psychrometric environmental chamber.
Standards: ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007 (with Addenda 1 and 2) — Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning & Heat Pump Equipment · ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 — Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment

Methodology

Baseline → treatment → 400+ hours → re-measure

01The unit was delivered to the UL lab, uncrated, and all nameplate, compressor, fan-motor and coil data recorded by UL.
02Heating elements and economizers were removed, refrigerant was recovered and acid-tested, core driers replaced, the system evacuated to 500 microns for 30 minutes, and the reclaimed charge reinstalled to nameplate.
03Ductwork was built to ASHRAE 37-2009, transducers and thermocouples installed for refrigerant pressures and temperatures, and airflow verified within 5% of 400 CFM/ton using a NIST-certified hot-wire anemometer.
04Baseline data was captured as three 10-minute collection segments (30 minutes total) using utility-grade power meters, then averaged.
058 oz of EnviroTemp — matched to the unit's nominal design tonnage — was injected into the evaporator section while the unit ran under load.
06The unit was moved to a holding chamber and run at full load for 400+ hours, the time the manufacturer specifies for the compound to displace lubricant from the heat-exchanger metal and bond to those surfaces.
07The unit was reinstalled in the test chamber and the identical 3 × 10-minute measurement sequence was repeated for the post-treatment data set.

UL's conclusion

UL's baseline showed the seven-year-old unit had lost a considerable amount of capacity and efficiency relative to OEM design specification. After treatment and 400+ hours of runtime, the same unit — measured under the same standard, in the same chamber — showed a significant increase in capacity together with improvements in EER and condensate collected.

Summary results — Trane 7.5 ton (AHRI 340/360 100% “A” test)

Metric	OEM design	Measured before	Measured after	Difference
Total capacity	90,000 BTU/h	64,796 BTU/h	77,060 BTU/h	+18.9%
EER	10.3	6.50	7.96	+22.5%
Power draw	8.74 kW	9.97 kW	9.68 kW	−2.9%
kW per ton	1.165	1.846	1.510	18.2% better
Cooling capacity	7.50 tons	5.40 tons	6.42 tons	+18.9%
Condensate (30 min)	—	5.45 lbs	6.79 lbs	+24.6%

These figures are the measured results of one specific 7.5-ton Trane packaged unit under one standardised test protocol. They are not a guaranteed outcome for any other system.

Evidence library

Six kinds of evidence — not one pile.

Laboratory testing, case studies, engineering standards, research, patents and field results prove different things. Keeping them separate is what makes the whole picture credible.

Laboratory testing

Strongest — controlled, instrumented, repeatable

Controlled testing of actual equipment inside a certified psychrometric chamber, using a published rating standard and utility-grade instrumentation. Before and after are measured the same way, on the same machine.

UL LLC — 2008 Trane 7.5-ton packaged RTU (2015)

Baseline vs. post-treatment measurement under AHRI 340/360-2007 and ASHRAE 37-2009. Measured on the tested unit: total capacity 64,796 → 77,060 BTU/h (+18.9%), EER 6.50 → 7.96 (+22.5%), power 9.97 → 9.68 kW (−2.9%), kW/ton 1.846 → 1.510 (18.2% better), condensate 5.45 → 6.79 lbs (+24.6%).

Source: UL LLC Laboratory Data Package, Project 4786820856, Sample 2030380-NW

Open document

Case studies

Strong — real equipment, documented before/after

Operating equipment in real buildings, measured before treatment and again after treatment. Conditions are not lab-controlled, so each study is reported with its own equipment, refrigerant, condition and measurement notes.

BUPA Aged Care — Mitsubishi PURY-P400YJM-A (R410a)

Coefficient of performance 3.0 → 3.76 (+25.3%) on the tested stage, with compressor discharge temperature down 7.4% and measured payback of 17.0 months at $0.225/kWh.

Source: Envirotemp field case study documentation

View

70+ documented commercial sites

Banks, breweries and beverage distribution, data centers, hotels and resorts, healthcare, government, education, telecom, grocery and retail, manufacturing, cold-chain transport and multi-family portfolios.

Source: Envirotemp AC Flush case-study library

View

Engineering standards

Methodology — defines how performance must be measured

Standards do not endorse any product. They define the test methodology, so results measured under them can be compared and audited. Our lab data was produced under these standards.

ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007 (with Addenda 1 and 2)

Performance rating of commercial and industrial unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment from 65,000 to 300,000 BTU/h. Defines the 100% “A” full-load rating point used for the UL test.

Source: AHRI — Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

Open document

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009

Methods of testing for rating electrically driven unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment — the ductwork, airflow measurement (§7.7, §7.7.4) and capacity calculation procedure used in the UL chamber.

Source: ASHRAE

Open document

ASHRAE Handbook — Refrigeration, oil in refrigerant circuits

Standard engineering reference for lubricant circulation, oil return and the effect of lubricant films on evaporator and condenser heat transfer.

Source: ASHRAE Handbook — Refrigeration

Open document

Research

Principle — explains why the mechanism works

Independent HVAC&R research on oil fouling, refrigerant/lubricant behaviour and heat-transfer degradation. This is what supports the general engineering principle — not any specific percentage.

Oil fouling degrades evaporator and condenser heat transfer

A small fraction of compressor lubricant circulates with the refrigerant and wets the internal tube surfaces. The resulting film adds thermal resistance at the tube wall and alters boiling and condensing behaviour, reducing the heat transfer coefficient and raising the compressor lift required for the same duty.

Source: ASHRAE Handbook — Refrigeration; peer-reviewed HVAC&R lubricant/heat-transfer literature

Open document

Refrigerant-side fouling accumulates over service life

Lubricant retention in the heat exchangers increases with operating hours, which is consistent with the UL baseline: a seven-year-old unit measured well below its 90,000 BTU/h nameplate design capacity before treatment.

Source: UL baseline data (2015) read against OEM design specification

Open document

Oil fouling — the cholesterol connection

Plain-language technical explainer of how the lubricant film restricts heat flow the way arterial plaque restricts blood flow, and why conventional maintenance does not remove it.

Source: Envirotemp technical explainer

View

Patents & IP

Technical description of the treatment itself

Patent and intellectual-property documentation describes the chemistry and mechanism of the treatment. Patents establish novelty and technical description — they are not performance evidence.

EnviroTemp treatment chemistry and application method

Admin review

Underlying intellectual property covering the compound injected into the low side of an operating system, its displacement of lubricant from heat-exchanger surfaces, and the surface bonding that resists re-fouling. Dosing is matched to nominal system tonnage (8 oz for the 7.5-ton UL test unit).

Source: Manufacturer IP documentation — filing references pending publication on this site

Field results

Supporting — contractor measurements in service conditions

Before/after readings taken by contractors on live installations with field instruments. Useful as corroboration and as a range of observed outcomes; not equivalent to chamber testing.

Typical observed air-off improvement

Contractors commonly record a 1–3 °F supply-air temperature improvement within minutes of a correct installation. Reported as an observed field range across contractor installations, not a guaranteed result.

Source: Contractor field reports — Envirotemp AC Flush installations

Featured contractor references

Network Plumbing, Mannix Air & Solar and ComfyFirst are active reference accounts available to speak to their own measured results.

Source: Contractor reference program

View

Laboratory testing

UL LLC Laboratory Data Package

The full data package: preparation of the unit, test procedures under AHRI 340/360-2007 and ASHRAE 37-2009, the recorded baseline and post-treatment runs, and UL's conclusion.

View report Download PDF

Third-party validations

Summary of Third-Party Validations

A consolidated technical bulletin compiling multiple independent third-party validation studies — measured efficiency improvements across system types, ages and operating conditions.

Open technical bulletin Browse case studies

Public claim standard

How we handle every performance number on this site

A number is published with its source

Every percentage on this site is traceable to a document: a lab data package, a case study, a standard, or contractor field reports.

Test results are labelled as test results

The UL figures describe one specific 7.5-ton Trane packaged unit measured under AHRI 340/360-2007. We present them as the measured outcome of that test, never as a guarantee for other equipment.

Principles are separated from percentages

Where multiple independent sources support a broader engineering principle — lubricant films degrade heat transfer — we state the principle and cite the standards and research behind it.

Ranges are presented as observed results

Field and case-study ranges are described as observed outcomes across documented installations, with the conditions that produced them.

Unsupported claims go to admin review, not to the website

If we cannot locate supporting documentation for a claim, it is flagged for review rather than published.