4.6 Article

A Simple Method for Measuring Fine-to-Ultrafine Aerosols Using Bipolar Charge Equilibrium

期刊

ACS SENSORS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 447-453

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.9b02143

关键词

air pollution sensor; particulate matter; aerosols; low-cost sensing; bipolar charge distribution; lung-deposited surface area

资金

  1. Alphasense Ltd.
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Rt. Hon. Sir Winston S. Churchill Society of Edmonton
  4. NSERC
  5. Cambridge Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-cost methods for measuring airborne microparticles and nanoparticles (aerosols) have remained elusive despite the increasing concern of health impacts from ambient, urban, and indoor sources. While bipolar ion sources are common in smoke alarms, this work is the first to exploit the mean charge on an aerosol resulting from a bipolar charge equilibrium and establish experimentally its correlation to properties of the aerosol particle size distribution. The net current produced from this mean particle charge is demonstrated to be linearly proportional to the product of the mean particle diameter and total number concentration (i similar to N (d) over bar) for two bipolar ion sources (Kr-85 and Am-241). This conclusion is supported by simple equations derived from well-established bipolar charging theory. The theory predicts that the mean charge on the aerosol particles reaches an equilibrium, which, importantly, is independent of the concentration of charging ions. Furthermore, in situ measurements of a roadside aerosol demonstrate that the sensing method yields results in good agreement (R-2 = 0.979) with existing portable and laboratory-grade aerosol instruments. The simplicity, stability, and cost of the bipolar ion source overcome challenges of other portable sensors, increasing the feasibility of widespread sensor deployment to monitor ultrafine particle characteristics, which are relevant to lung deposition and by extension, human health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据