I will state here and now that the reason I believe the disparity exists is because the M+H filter study is yet another modified ALT, and while it can prove what it set out to prove, the effect it pronounces does NOT manifest into the real world.
Here’s why …
“To achieve statistically reliable efficiency results, a large number of particles must be considered. Filter loading experiments are carried out on at least a few square centimeters of media. Even for those, the statistics of particle counting for large particles usually rely on very few particles. Media scale simulations, on the other hand, consider even smaller surfaces of about a square millimeter. For these smaller surface areas, arrivals of large particles are even less probable than in experiments and the predicted filter efficiency curves would have low statistical relevance. By interspersing filter efficiency simulations with many more particles than would actually arrive at the media during life time simulations, the quality of the filtration statistics of media scale simulations can be improved such that a quantitative comparison with experimental data becomes possible.” (underline my emphasis)
IOW, to get statistically quantifiable data, they had to greatly increase the amount of particulate to a point that would be discernible numerically with high confidence, but that same level of particulate is way above what would be seen in a life-time cycle of the filter! It's an ALT, pure and simple. They cannot get real world data to prove what they want to see, so they manipulate the inputs to greatly magnify the result, far past what would be seen in the normal experience in the field. This is completely akin to the infamous GM filter study, where they doused unworldly amounts of dust into the sump and then never changed the oil once, negating the effects of OCIs.
If we were to accept that this effect they claim proven is in play relative to our daily lives, then we would have to accept a precept of wear occurring at ever greater rates. However, because the bus study (at least it's a real-world test not accelerated by artificial inputs) proves correlation between Fe wear data and particle counts, and we know UOAs show us LOWER wear rates during the maturation of OFCI, this M+H study cannot be true in a sense of real world experiences.
How grossly exaggerated was the particulate loading? Well, looking at Fig. 1, they managed to load up a filter to the point of blinding off in about 75 minutes! That, gentle men and women, is an ALT at it's finest. The study also never goes on to make any attempt to discern how long a real filter would last in use, nor even how long the subject matter media pieces would delineate a "lifetime" expectancy.
And let's not ignore this:
"The efficiency results from the simulation as presented in Fig. 7 are not very meaningful for larger particle diameters, e.g. it is not possible to tell from the data if the filtration efficiency of 15 μm particles is decreasing or not. This is due to the small number of large particles simulated in each batch. The test dust used in experiment and simulation counts 75.06% of the smallest particles (1 μm diameter) and only 0.001115% of the largest particles (50 μm diameter), which means that there are
67318 particles of 1 μm diameter for one particle of 50 μm diameter. To get statistically meaningful results also for the large particles one would need to simulate much larger filter areas (higher numerical costs) or use larger time steps (lower accuracy), which is in general not desirable. To overcome this dilemma, we introduce ghost particles into the simulation. " (underlined emphasis mine)
If you review Fig 8, you'll see they blinded off the media in about 1600 secs (26 minutes). Again - is that realistic???? NO!
This M+H study does NOT do anything to prove how wear is affected by filtration. It exists only to show a phenomenon for the sake of self-existence. They didn't show how this supposed effect causes more or less wear. They only doped up the loading artificially to show how they can overload the media to a point of perceived failure (that being less of what a filter is supposed to achieve).
Here's what I accept; the M+H study can prove that filters become less efficient when they dump a ton of particles into the stream all at once, far exceeding what your engine will ever induce or experience in normal use. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the loading they inflict is akin to abuse to a normal engine; what filter would ever incur loading so horrific as to plug up in 26 minutes? Or even an hour? Most filters can easily go 200 hours without coming close to blinding off. Back when Jim Allen was doing his experiments, he saw no evidence of filters blinding even at far distances; his test measurement equipment in his 5.4L F-150 was showing dP at about 2-4psi BELOW the BP crack-open value, even at the end of longer OCFIs! Now think about that for a minute ... Let it sink in ....
The M+H study is dumping in particulate in a loading factor that is approximately 200x greater (or more) than what your engine will ever see. That in mind, do these lab results seem applicable to your engine in your garage?
Here's what I believe is happening in the real world. We actually experience such light particle loading that the effect seen in all these graphs does not apply. We essentially experience a reasonably flat line capture ratio. I cannot prove this, but what I can do it point to the UOA data we see to show that wear data does NOT agree with the M+H study.
Or, we could agree that both the M+H study and macro wear data could coincide, but then we'd have to be willing to ignore the bus study completely, because it shows a proven correlation between particle counts and Fe wear ppm in a UOA.
Can't have it both ways, guys and gals. You either believe the bus study or the M+H study. I choose to believe the bus study because it agrees with my macro data, and does not contradict common sense. Further, it was a real-world study not accelerated by input manipulation. The only thing I find a bit obtuse about the bus study is the huge disparity of elemental media; but that's OK as it only proves what extremes perform to even though the normal filters we buy don't offer such exaggerated options.
Further, I also believe that the TCB is also in play in terms of controlling wear. In fact, I believe it is the main controller of wear, once "good enough" filtration is established. Finer filtration make may for more interesting lab results, but it never is able to shift UOA data obstensibly to a point where we can statistically discern it. And if you believe the bus study, then you must accept UOA Fe wear data as a direct correlation signal, meaning that small differences in filter choices never makes a hoot of difference in the real world.
So, while it may be true that filters do become less efficient as they mature, it can ONLY be said to be true when the LOADING RATE OF PARTICULATE is so obscene as to cause a total eclipse of the media measured in minutes, not thousands upon thousands of miles as seen in your garage. The M+H study is "true" no more or less than the GM filter study is "true"; neither are relevant in the real world because they grossly exaggerate particle loading to induce an effect large enough to be visible in data collection. And, both of those studies freely admit that they do this for that effect, and you'll never see this effect in the real world.
It's true in the lab, because they greatly exaggerated the occurrence of particles.
It's not true in your driveway, because such extreme particulate loading never happens to your engine.
And the OP said was disappointed in the Ultra particle count results. 
