4.3 Article

Design and evaluation of four-stage low-pressure cascade impactor using electrical measurement system

Journal

PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 329-351

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02726350500544307

Keywords

low-pressure cascade impactor; ultrafine particles; electrical measurement system; particle collection efficiency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The low-pressure cascade impactor has been used to collect ultrafine particles that cannot be measured by conventional cascade impactors. Low-pressure cascade impactors resemble ordinary impactors, but are operated at reduced pressures of 0.05 similar to 0.4 atm. Many kinds of low-pressure impactors have been developed by different researchers. However, it is still difficult to accurately design and evaluate the low-pressure cascade impactor. In this study, a four-stage low-pressure cascade impactor for measuring the size distribution of submicron aerosol particles was designed and evaluated. To evaluate particle collection efficiency of each stage, an electrical measurement system was used. The cut-point diameters of Stages 1 through 4 were 0.238, 0.173, 0.111, and 0.063 mu m in aerodynamic diameter. Stage 2 showed poor steepness of the collection efficiency curve and larger cut-point Stokes number than theory, which may be attributed to high nozzle velocity. The fluorometric method for particle collection efficiency measurement was shown to be unreliable for ultrafine particles. The solid particle collection efficiency of the designed impactor was examined with different substrate conditioning methods. Porous metal substrate and silicon-coated substrate were tested with NaCl particles. It was shown that silicon coating did not effectively reduce the particle bounce because of high nozzle velocity, whereas the porous metal substrate considerably enhanced the particle collection efficiency.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available