4.6 Article

The evolution of soot particles in premixed and diffusion flames by thermophoretic particle densitometry

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 763-770

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.108

关键词

Soot; Thermal emissivity; Carbonization; Raman spectroscopy

资金

  1. MSE-CNR project Miglioramento dell'efficienza energetica dei sistemi di conversione locale di energia
  2. Regione Campania L.R. [5/2002 (2007)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, an improved version of the thermophoretic particle densitometry (TPD) method, introduced by McEnally et al. (1997) has been used for quantitative and qualitative characterization of soot particles generated in both premixed and diffusion flames. To this aim, the dependence of thermocouple temperature response on particle concentration and properties of collected material has been exploited. A variety of values for the thermal emissivity of flame-formed carbonaceous particles are measured, ranging from epsilon = 0.4-0.5 for freshly nucleated particles up to the value of epsilon = 0.95, typical of a mature soot. The data demonstrate that a correct determination of e is necessary to accurately evaluate the particle volume fraction at the early stage of the soot formation, where particle concentration measurement is indeed particularly challenging. Raman spectroscopy analysis of the carbon particles has been conducted with the aim to better understand and to support the observed variation in the thermal emissivity of the carbon particles. In particular, the variation of thermal emissivity is showed to take up with a variation of hydrogen percentage and optical bandgap. Data also evidence that oxidation has a severe role in affecting both the determination by TPD of soot emissivity and soot concentration. In flame regions where soot oxidation occurs, the present formulation of TPD technique severely underestimate soot concentration. (C) 2016 by The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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