Portable vs. Central Dust Collection Systems: Complete Comparison

Introduction to Dust Collection Systems

Every manufacturing facility, woodworking shop, or industrial setting that generates dust faces a critical decision: how best to capture and contain these potentially harmful particles. The choice between portable vs central dust collection systems represents one of the most significant operational decisions these businesses make, affecting everything from air quality and worker health to operational efficiency and bottom-line costs.

I recently walked through a furniture manufacturing facility that had operated for years with inadequate dust management. The layer of fine wood dust coating every surface told a concerning story about air quality and potential health hazards. The owner had finally reached a breaking point – production was expanding, and the existing ad-hoc collection methods weren’t keeping pace. “We’re at a crossroads,” he explained. “Do we invest in multiple portable units or commit to a centralized system?”

This dilemma reflects the reality faced by countless workshops and industrial facilities. Dust collection isn’t merely about cleanliness; it’s a crucial safety system that prevents respiratory issues, reduces fire hazards, improves product quality, and helps maintain compliance with increasingly strict environmental regulations.

The dust collection market has evolved dramatically in recent years, with both portable and central systems benefiting from technological advancements in filtration efficiency, energy consumption, and smart controls. Today’s systems bear little resemblance to the rudimentary collectors of decades past, offering sophisticated solutions tailored to specific industrial needs.

Before diving into the detailed comparison, it’s worth noting that this isn’t a simple either/or decision. Many facilities actually benefit from a hybrid approach, utilizing central collection for primary operations while deploying PORVOO portable units for specialized applications or remote locations. Understanding the fundamental differences, advantages, and limitations of each approach is essential to making an informed decision that balances immediate needs with long-term operational requirements.

Understanding Portable Dust Collection Systems

Portable dust collection systems represent the flexible, modular approach to dust management. These self-contained units typically include a motor, impeller, filtration system, and dust collection container—all packaged in a mobile unit that can be positioned where needed. The defining characteristic of these systems is mobility; they can be wheeled to different workstations or areas as dust collection needs change.

Modern portable collectors range from small shop-vacuum size units with 1-2 HP motors to industrial-grade portable vs central dust collection systems capable of moving 1,500+ CFM of air. The versatility of these systems has made them increasingly popular across diverse industries.

Looking at the types of portable collectors, we can generally categorize them into three groups:

1. Single-stage collectors – More affordable units where the impeller handles both air movement and dust, suitable for lighter applications
2. Two-stage collectors – Feature a separation stage before the impeller, extending motor life and improving efficiency
3. Cyclonic separators – Use centrifugal force to separate particles before filtration, significantly improving filter longevity

Having assessed several shops that rely exclusively on portable collection, I’ve noticed they excel in environments with infrequent or mobile dust-generating operations. A cabinet maker I consulted with operates in a compact 800 sq. ft. space and uses a mid-sized portable collector that moves between his table saw, planer, and other equipment. “The flexibility is essential in my cramped space,” he explained. “I couldn’t dedicate the room for ducting that a central system would require.”

Portable systems offer distinct advantages for certain applications:

• Small to medium workshops with limited space
• Facilities with widely dispersed dust-generating equipment
• Operations that frequently reconfigure their layout
• Businesses with budget constraints that prevent central system installation
• Temporary or job-site work where permanent installation isn’t feasible

One technical aspect often overlooked is the significantly lower static pressure loss in portable systems compared to central systems with extensive ductwork. This means portable units can sometimes deliver more effective collection at the tool with lower horsepower requirements.

However, these benefits come with tradeoffs. The collection capacity is inherently limited by the unit size, requiring more frequent emptying. Most portable units also produce more ambient noise since they operate directly in the workspace rather than in a separate mechanical room.

Understanding Central Dust Collection Systems

Central dust collection represents a fundamentally different approach to dust management—one built around permanence and capacity. These systems feature a stationary dust collector connected to fixed ductwork that runs throughout a facility, with collection ports positioned at each dust-producing station. Rather than bringing the collector to the dust, central systems bring the dust to the collector.

The heart of any central system is typically located in a dedicated mechanical space or outside the main production area. This centralized location houses the main collection unit, which generally consists of:

• A powerful motor (typically 5+ HP for commercial applications)
• Heavy-duty impeller assembly
• Primary collection container or hopper
• Filtration system (typically with larger surface area than portable units)
• Ducting system with blast gates to control airflow to different zones

When I toured a production millwork facility last year, their 20 HP central system served over 30 machines simultaneously through a network of metal ducting ranging from 4″ to 14″ in diameter. The system maintainer pointed out how blast gates allowed them to optimize performance by closing off branches to unused machines. “It was a significant investment initially,” he admitted, “but it’s essentially invisible to our daily operations now—it just works.”

Central systems traditionally serve these environments best:

• Large production shops with multiple simultaneous dust-producing operations
• Facilities with fixed equipment layouts that rarely change
• Operations requiring continuous dust collection throughout the workday
• Settings where ambient noise reduction is important
• Businesses processing large volumes of material consistently

Modern central systems have evolved considerably from earlier generations. Today’s systems frequently incorporate features like:

• Variable frequency drives (VFDs) that adjust motor speed based on demand
• Automated self-cleaning filter mechanisms
• Smart controllers that monitor system performance
• Explosion venting or suppression systems for combustible dusts
• Return air systems that recirculate filtered air to reduce heating/cooling costs

The complexity of central system design means most installations require professional engineering. Proper sizing of main lines, branch ducts, and transitions is critical to maintaining adequate air velocity throughout the system—typically targeting 4,000-4,500 feet per minute to prevent dust settling in horizontal runs.

This complexity represents both a strength and weakness of central systems. When properly designed, they provide reliable, consistent performance with minimal operator intervention. However, this same complexity makes modifications expensive and future expansion challenging without careful initial planning.

Performance Comparison: Filtration Efficiency and Air Quality

When comparing portable and central dust collection systems, filtration efficiency stands as perhaps the most critical technical consideration. Both approaches can achieve high-efficiency filtration, but they do so through different means and with varying levels of consistency.

Modern dust collectors typically utilize multi-stage filtration, beginning with cyclonic or mechanical separation of larger particles, followed by filtration media that captures progressively smaller particulates. The effectiveness of these systems is measured primarily through MERV (Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value) ratings, with higher numbers indicating better filtration of smaller particles.

In my experience overseeing a manufacturing facility upgrade, we found that central systems generally maintain more consistent performance over extended operation. The larger filter surface area and automated cleaning mechanisms prevent the performance degradation that often occurs with portable units as filters become loaded with dust.

However, industrial-grade filtration with 99.9% efficiency in portable systems has largely closed this gap. During a controlled comparison test at a client’s facility, we measured particulate levels using industrial hygiene equipment and found surprisingly comparable ambient air quality between their new high-end portable system and an existing central system.

Dr. Emma Richardson, an industrial hygienist I consulted with on several facility assessments, notes: “The key difference isn’t necessarily between portable versus central, but rather between properly sized, modern systems versus inadequate or outdated ones. A correctly specified portable system can outperform an aging or poorly designed central system.”

One important consideration is that central systems typically exhaust filtered air outside or to a return air system, while portable units recirculate air directly in the workspace. This means portable unit filtration must be absolutely reliable to prevent continuously recirculating the finest dust particles.

For environments working with hazardous materials or ultra-fine dusts, specification-grade portable units with HEPA filtration have become increasingly popular. These systems, like those from PORVOO, capture 99.97% of particles down to 0.3 microns—performance that rivals or exceeds most central systems at a fraction of the installation cost.

The emergence of smart monitoring technology has also begun to level the playing field. Both portable and central systems now offer options for real-time efficiency monitoring, filter life tracking, and predictive maintenance alerts—features that help maintain optimal filtration regardless of system type.

Space and Installation Considerations

The physical footprint and installation requirements represent one of the most dramatic contrasts between portable and central dust collection approaches. This distinction often becomes a decisive factor for facilities with space constraints or those operating in leased buildings where permanent modifications are limited.

Central systems demand significant dedicated space for the main collector unit, typically in a mechanical room, outside the building, or in a purpose-built enclosure. Additionally, the extensive ductwork network requires careful planning for overhead clearances (typically 12-24 inches for main trunk lines) and branch line routing to each machine.

By contrast, portable collectors occupy floor space near the equipment they serve, but require no permanent installation. This difference creates cascading effects on implementation timeline, building modifications, and operational flexibility.

During a recent manufacturing facility design project, we created this comparative analysis for the client:

I recall a furniture manufacturer who occupied a historical building with strict modification limitations. Despite adequate budget for a central system, building restrictions made compact 1,500 CFM portable system with HEPA filtration units their only viable option. “We actually turned a limitation into an advantage,” the operations manager explained. “When we rearranged our production flow last year, our dust collection moved with the equipment instead of requiring expensive ductwork modifications.”

For operations considering future growth or layout changes, this flexibility represents a significant advantage. However, as facility size increases, the space efficiency equation can shift dramatically in favor of central systems. A single 10 HP central collector can often replace 5-8 portable units, freeing valuable production floor space.

Installation complexity also varies tremendously. While portable systems typically require only appropriate electrical outlets, central systems involve:

• Structural support design for ductwork
• Balancing system airflow across multiple branches
• Electrical service upgrades in many cases
• Possible building modifications for collector placement
• Professional design and installation services

This complexity translates directly to installation timelines—portable systems can be operational within hours, while central systems typically require days or weeks to install, plus additional planning and design time beforehand.

The question of retrofitting versus new construction also weighs heavily. In new construction, incorporating central system ductwork during the building phase significantly reduces installation challenges. For existing facilities, retrofitting ductwork often involves compromises in routing and clearances that can affect system performance.

Cost Analysis: Initial Investment vs. Long-term Value

The financial comparison between portable and central dust collection systems extends far beyond the initial purchase price. A comprehensive cost analysis must consider installation, operational expenses, maintenance requirements, and system longevity to accurately assess total ownership costs.

Initial investment represents the most immediate and visible cost difference. For a typical medium-sized woodworking operation with 8-10 dust-producing machines, I’ve found the initial investment comparison often looks something like this:

These figures reflect my experience consulting on several facility upgrades, though specific prices vary significantly based on region, system capacity, and facility specifics. The substantial difference in upfront costs often steers budget-conscious operations toward portable solutions, especially smaller businesses or those with uncertain future growth.

However, operational costs tell a different story over time. PORVOO’s energy-efficient dust collection solutions highlight an important consideration in the portable vs. central debate. During an energy consumption study at a millwork facility, we monitored both approaches and found:

1. Multiple portable units typically consume 20-40% more total electricity than a properly sized central system handling the same dust load
2. Filter replacement costs run 30-50% higher with distributed portable units versus centralized filtration
3. Labor costs for emptying and maintaining multiple units significantly exceed central system maintenance time

The energy efficiency advantage of central systems stems from several factors: better motor efficiency at larger scales, the ability to use variable frequency drives to match power consumption to demand, and the elimination of redundant components across multiple units.

James Kowalski, a facility manager I interviewed who has overseen both system types, noted: “The labor savings alone tipped the scales for us. We were spending about 90 minutes daily maintaining portable collectors across our shop. The central system needs attention maybe twice a week for 20 minutes.”

System longevity presents another important financial consideration. Well-designed central systems typically remain serviceable for 15-25 years with proper maintenance, while portable units in industrial settings generally require replacement every 5-10 years due to motor wear, housing damage from movement, and other factors.

ROI calculations vary tremendously based on operation size and dust volume. For smaller operations generating moderate dust, portable systems often remain the more economical choice despite higher operational costs. For high-volume operations running multiple shifts, the operational savings of central systems frequently offset higher initial costs within 3-5 years.

One approach I’ve recommended to clients facing budget constraints is phased implementation—beginning with high-quality portable units that can later be redeployed to secondary roles when a central system becomes financially feasible. This strategy provides immediate dust management while preserving the option for future centralization.

Maintenance Requirements and System Longevity

The maintenance demands of dust collection systems significantly impact both operational efficiency and total ownership costs. My experiences overseeing both system types have revealed substantial differences in maintenance frequency, complexity, and labor requirements.

Portable systems distribute maintenance tasks across multiple units, creating more frequent but individually smaller maintenance events. Central systems consolidate maintenance into fewer, more substantial sessions. Both approaches present distinct advantages and challenges for maintenance teams.

Speaking with maintenance personnel across multiple facilities, I’ve found that portable system maintenance tends to become part of daily operational routines, while central system maintenance is typically scheduled as specific maintenance events.

“With our portable units, operators handle their own filter cleaning and bin emptying as part of their closing procedures,” explained a shop supervisor at a custom millwork operation. “It distributes the workload, but ensures nothing gets neglected.”

By contrast, central system maintenance typically follows a more formal schedule. A manufacturing plant engineer I consulted with described their approach: “We perform comprehensive maintenance quarterly—checking filters, inspecting ductwork for accumulation, testing blast gates, and verifying collection efficiency at each drop. It’s less frequent but more thorough.”

System longevity follows a similar pattern of tradeoffs. Central systems typically offer longer overall lifespans, with properly maintained systems commonly operating effectively for 15-25 years. The main components—motor, impeller, and housing—are designed for industrial-grade continuous operation. However, when failures do occur, they typically affect the entire operation.

Portable units generally have shorter service lives of 5-10 years in industrial settings, primarily due to:

• More frequent motor cycling (on/off)
• Physical movement stressing components
• Exposure to shop conditions rather than protected mechanical rooms
• Typically lighter-duty construction than central systems

However, portable system failure affects only a limited area, and replacement units can often be procured and installed quickly with minimal disruption.

One maintenance advantage of modern portable systems that shouldn’t be overlooked is the integration of sophisticated monitoring technology that was once limited to high-end central systems. Features like filter differential pressure monitoring, particle detection, and predictive maintenance alerts have become increasingly available in premium portable units, helping to prevent maintenance issues before they affect performance.

For operations with limited maintenance personnel, the simpler maintenance requirements of portable systems often represent a significant advantage, even if total maintenance time is somewhat higher. Central systems typically require more specialized knowledge, particularly for ductwork maintenance and system balancing.

Environmental Impact and Sustainability Factors

The environmental implications of dust collection system choices extend well beyond their primary function of capturing particulates. Energy consumption, filter disposal, noise pollution, and material recovery all contribute to the overall environmental footprint of these systems.

Energy efficiency presents one of the clearest environmental distinctions between the two approaches. In analyzing power consumption patterns across several installations, I’ve observed that central systems typically demonstrate 15-30% greater electrical efficiency when handling equivalent dust loads. This efficiency advantage stems from:

1. Higher efficiency larger motors versus multiple smaller units
2. Ability to incorporate variable frequency drives that match power draw to actual demand
3. More efficient fan designs possible at larger scales
4. Elimination of redundant components

However, this efficiency advantage assumes proper system design. Oversized central systems or those with excessive static pressure from poorly designed ductwork can actually consume more energy than well-sized portable units.

Noise pollution represents another important environmental consideration, particularly in urban settings or facilities with nearby residential areas. Central systems concentrate noise generation at the main collector location, which can often be sound-insulated or placed in strategic locations to minimize impact. Portable units distribute noise throughout the facility, which can create a more pervasive noise environment but at generally lower peak decibels.

I measured sound levels at several facilities and found typical readings:

Filter disposal presents both systems with similar environmental challenges. Both approaches generate used filters that typically end up in landfills. However, the more recent development of washable and reusable filtration media has begun to address this issue, particularly in portable systems where filter replacement occurs more frequently.

Material recovery capabilities can actually favor portable systems in some applications. Because portable collectors typically generate cleaner, more segregated waste streams (each unit collecting a specific type of material), they sometimes enable better recycling or reuse of collected materials. Central systems, by contrast, mix dust from various operations, potentially limiting reuse options.

An environmental engineer I collaborated with on a manufacturing sustainability project emphasized an often-overlooked factor: “The embodied carbon in system components should be considered alongside operational impacts. Central systems require extensive metal ductwork, which represents significant embodied carbon, while portable systems generally use less material overall.”

The ability to recirculate filtered air also impacts overall environmental footprint through heating and cooling costs. High-efficiency portable units that return clean air to the workspace can reduce HVAC loads in climate-controlled environments. Central systems that exhaust outside require replacement air that must be conditioned, potentially increasing energy consumption significantly in extreme climates.

Sustainability-focused businesses might also consider the adaptability factor—portable systems can be easily relocated or resold if operations change, potentially extending their useful life across multiple owners. Central systems, being largely customized to specific spaces, have more limited reuse potential.

The environmental calculus ultimately depends heavily on specific operational factors, facility design, and local conditions. Neither approach can claim universal environmental superiority, but understanding these factors allows operations to choose the system that best aligns with their particular sustainability priorities.

Case Studies: Real-World Applications

The theoretical comparisons between portable and central dust collection systems take on practical significance when examined through real-world implementations. Having helped numerous operations evaluate and implement dust collection solutions, I’ve observed how different business contexts shape these decisions and their outcomes.

Small Woodworking Shop: Flexibility Within Constraints

A custom furniture maker operating in a 2,000 square foot leased space faced significant limitations—no permission for permanent modifications, limited electrical capacity, and a frequently changing layout as the business evolved.

After analyzing their needs, they implemented three portable collectors: a 1.5 HP unit for their primary sawing station, a 2 HP dust collector for the planer and jointer, and a smaller 1 HP unit that could move between various secondary tools. The total investment came to approximately $4,500 including accessories.

“The ability to reconfigure as needed has been invaluable,” the owner explained during a follow-up assessment. “When we got the CNC router, we simply rearranged the collectors rather than having to extend fixed ductwork.” The primary drawback they reported was the cumulative noise from multiple units running simultaneously, which they partially mitigated by building simple sound-dampening enclosures.

The maintenance requirements fit well with their small team—emptying collection bins became part of the daily closing routine, taking approximately 15 minutes. While a central system might have provided somewhat better overall collection efficiency, the constraints of their situation made portable collection the only practical solution.

Medium Manufacturing Facility: The Hybrid Approach

A production millwork operation with 15,000 square feet and 22 employees took a different approach. Their facility handled a high volume of panel processing with multiple saws, edgebanders, and CNC machinery generating consistent, heavy dust loads.

After conducting a detailed cost analysis, they installed a 15 HP central system servicing their primary production equipment—panel saw, wide-belt sander, and CNC processing centers. However, they supplemented this with three high-efficiency portable units for more isolated operations and their prototype shop where flexibility remained important.

“The hybrid approach gave us the best of both worlds,” their operations manager told me during a system review. “The central system handles about 80% of our dust load consistently and efficiently, while the portable units address our secondary needs without the expense of extending ductwork to less frequently used stations.”

Their financial analysis proved prescient—the central system paid for its higher initial cost through energy savings and reduced maintenance time within approximately four years. The portable units proved to be the right choice for peripheral operations where running ductwork would have been prohibitively expensive relative to dust volume.

The facility was particularly pleased with one of their portable units—a PORVOO industrial-grade collector that delivered comparable filtration efficiency to their central system but could be repositioned as production needs changed. “It’s not your typical shop vacuum,” the manager noted. “The filtration is exceptional, and it handles continuous operation without any issues.”

Large Industrial Application: Scalability Challenges

A large wood products manufacturer with over 100,000 square feet of production space provided an instructive case study in scaling challenges. They initially attempted to manage their dust collection through multiple portable units due to budget constraints during a facility expansion.

“We quickly hit a wall with the portable approach,” their facility engineer explained. “Managing 20+ separate collectors became a full-time job for one person, and the cumulative energy costs were substantially higher than a properly designed central system would have been.”

After eighteen months, they began transitioning to a zoned central system with three 25 HP collectors each servicing different production areas. The transition reduced their overall energy consumption by approximately 27% while reducing maintenance hours by nearly 60%.

However, they retained several high-capacity portable units for specialized applications where unique materials required separate collection to prevent cross-contamination. “For our specialty finishing area, separate collection still makes more sense,” the engineer noted. “The dust has specific chemical components we don’t want mixing with our general wood waste.”

This case highlights the scaling limitations of portable systems—while excellent for small to medium operations, they can become unwieldy to manage at large industrial scales where centralized approaches demonstrate significant operational advantages.

These varied experiences underscore that the portable versus central decision isn’t binary but exists on a spectrum. Many successful operations leverage both approaches strategically, matching the system characteristics to specific operational needs rather than pursuing a one-size-fits-all solution.

Conclusion: Making the Right Choice for Your Needs

The comparison between portable and central dust collection systems reveals not a clear winner, but rather a spectrum of solutions suited to different operational contexts. The “right” choice emerges not from universal principles but from careful analysis of specific needs, constraints, and priorities.

Throughout my years advising facilities on dust management, I’ve found that the most successful implementations begin with a comprehensive needs assessment rather than preconceptions about system type. This assessment should consider:

• Current and projected dust volume and characteristics
• Spatial distribution of dust-generating equipment
• Facility constraints (electrical capacity, building modifications)
• Budget realities (both initial and operating)
• Flexibility requirements for future changes
• Maintenance capabilities and preferences
• Environmental and efficiency priorities

For smaller operations, portable systems typically offer compelling advantages in flexibility, minimal infrastructure requirements, and lower initial investment. The ability to start small and scale incrementally aligns well with growing businesses managing cash flow carefully.

Medium-sized operations often benefit from hybrid approaches—using central collection for primary production areas with consistent, heavy dust loads while deploying portable units for peripheral or specialized applications. This balanced approach frequently delivers the best overall value when accounting for both initial and operating costs.

Larger industrial facilities generally realize significant operational advantages from central systems—lower per-CFM energy costs, reduced maintenance time, better noise control, and more consistent performance. The higher initial investment typically pays dividends through operational savings and production efficiency.

Looking ahead, both system types continue to benefit from technological advancements. Portable systems have seen dramatic improvements in filtration efficiency, noise reduction, and smart controls—narrowing some of the historical performance gaps with central systems. Simultaneously, central systems have become more adaptable with modular designs and better zoning capabilities that address traditional flexibility limitations.

For facilities facing difficult budget constraints but unwilling to compromise on collection effectiveness, high-performance portable units offer a compelling middle path. The newest generation of industrial portable collectors delivers filtration performance approaching central systems while maintaining the flexibility advantages inherent to portable designs.

Ultimately, dust collection system selection should align with broader operational strategy rather than technical specifications alone. The best system is one that effectively manages dust while supporting—rather than hindering—your core production activities, growth plans, and budgetary realities.

Whether you choose portable units

Frequently Asked Questions of Portable vs Central Dust Collection

Q: What are the key differences between portable and central dust collection systems?
A: The primary differences between portable and central dust collection systems involve flexibility, efficiency, and scale. Portable systems are compact, easily moved between tools, and ideal for smaller spaces or handheld tools. Central systems, on the other hand, are more powerful, suitable for larger workshops with multiple stationary tools, and often provide better efficiency and quieter operation.

Q: Is a portable dust collection system sufficient for small woodworking shops?
A: Yes, portable systems are often sufficient for small woodworking shops, especially when space is limited or tools are frequently moved. They offer flexibility and portability, making them ideal for smaller-scale operations where ease of use is prioritized.

Q: What are the advantages of using a central dust collection system over portable units?
A: Central dust collection systems are generally more efficient, quieter, and provide better performance over large areas. They can handle multiple tools simultaneously, reduce noise levels within the shop, and often require less maintenance than multiple portable units.

Q: How do I decide whether to use a portable or central dust collection system for my CNC router?
A: The choice between a portable and central dust collection system for a CNC router depends on shop size and configuration. If your CNC router is part of a larger setup with multiple stationary tools, a central system is more effective. However, if it’s used independently or in a smaller area, a portable system may suffice.

Q: Are central dust collection systems more expensive to set up and maintain than portable ones?
A: Central dust collection systems typically require more initial investment due to ductwork and equipment costs. However, they often provide long-term savings through efficiency and reduced maintenance needs compared to managing multiple portable units.

Q: Can I use a central dust collection system for both stationary and handheld tools?
A: While central systems are ideal for stationary tools, they can be less practical for handheld tools due to the need for fixed ductwork. For handheld tools, a portable dust extractor may be more effective, as it provides direct suction and is easy to move around the workspace.

External Resources

1. Individual Dust Collectors Versus a Centralized System – Discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using individual versus centralized dust collection systems in woodworking environments.
2. Individual Dust Collector Units Vs. Centralized System – Although not specifically about woodworking, it provides insights on the benefits and drawbacks of centralized versus individual dust collection systems.
3. Stationary vs Portable Cyclone Dust Collector for Woodworking – This video compares stationary and portable cyclone dust collectors, highlighting their features and suitability for different woodworking scenarios.
4. Dust Collection: Ideal vs Adequate, Stationary vs Portable – A discussion on choosing between portable and stationary dust collection systems, focusing on practicality and adequacy for woodworking needs.
5. Shop Dust Collection – Although it doesn’t directly compare portable and central systems using the exact keywords, it discusses shop-wide dust collection systems and considerations for upgrade.
6. Dust Collection System Design – This resource provides information on designing dust collection systems, which can be useful in understanding central and decentralized (portable) configurations, although it doesn’t directly use the “portable vs central” comparison.