4.4 Article

Measurement of multi-wall carbon nanotube penetration through a screen filter and single-fiber analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages 4565-4573

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0415-y

Keywords

Emission controls; Filtration; Control technology; Pollution control equipment; Environmental and health implications

Funding

  1. NSF [1056479]
  2. Center for Filtration Research: 3M Corporation
  3. Boeing Company
  4. Cummins Filtration Inc.
  5. Donaldson Company Inc.
  6. Entegris Inc
  7. Hollingsworth Vose Company
  8. Samsung Semiconductor Inc.
  9. Shigematsu Works CO., LTD
  10. TSI Inc.
  11. W. L. Gore Associates
  12. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  13. Directorate For Engineering [1056479] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we carried out experiments to study penetration of airborne carbon nanotubes (CNTs) through a screen filter. An electrospray system was employed to aerosolize suspensions of multi-wall CNTs. The generated airborne CNTs were characterized by electron microscopy, and the length and diameter were measured. In the filtration experiments, the challenging CNTs are classified by a differential mobility analyzer. Monodisperse CNTs with the same electrical mobility were then employed to challenge the screen filter. Penetration was measured for CNTs in the range of 100-400 nm mobility diameters. The results showed that the CNT penetration was less than the penetration for a sphere with the same mobility diameter, which was mainly due to the larger interception length of the CNTs. We compared the modeling results using single-fiber filtration efficiency theories with the experimental data, and found that the effective interception length can be approximated by the CNT aerodynamic diameter multiplying a scaling factor. A hypothesis is proposed to understand the observation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available