Diffusional deposition of ultrafine aerosols on nuclepore filters

Gentry, James W.; Spurný, K.R.; Schoermann, J.

doi:10.1016/0004-6981(82)90311-0

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zikova et al (2015) reported that the highest penetration was found in the polycarbonate filter. Gentry et al (1982) found that the penetration of Nuclepore filters with 2 and 5 μ m pore size varied from 40% to 76% (~23%–60% collection efficiencies) and 70%–86% (~14%–30% collection efficiencies) at face velocities in range of 0.8–6.6 cm s −1 . Burton et al (2007) also found that the polycarbonate filter showed low collection efficiency for particles <100 nm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air sampling filtration media: Collection efficiency for respirable size-selective sampling

Soo

Monaghan

Lee

et al. 2015

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10–400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a metal testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min−1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). Three different filters of each type with at least three repetitions for each pore size were tested. In general, the collection efficiency varied with airflow, pore size, and sampling duration. In addition, both collection efficiency and pressure drop increased with decreased pore size and increased sampling flow rate, but they differed among filter types and manufacturer. The present study confirmed that the MCE, PTFE, and PVC filters have a relatively high collection efficiency for challenge particles much smaller than their nominal pore size and are considerably more efficient than polycarbonate and silver membrane filters, especially at larger nominal pore sizes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air sampling filtration media: Collection efficiency for respirable size-selective sampling

Soo

Monaghan

Lee

et al. 2015

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Later, Marre and Palmeri (2001) added a new interception term that included the effects of particle slip and also recombined the interception and impaction terms to address the interdependency of these mechanisms that previously led to inaccuracies in Spurny's model (Manton, 1978). A considerable amount of experimental work has been done to determine overall collection efficiency of CPM filters and the factors that affect it (Gentry et al, 1982;John & Reischl, 1978;Liu & Lee, 1976;Montassier, Dupin, & Bouland, 1996;Smith, Phillips, & Melo, 1976;Spurny et al, 1969). However, none have experimentally verified the theoretical deposition model of particles onto the surface of CPM filters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Capillary pore membrane (CPM) filters are optimal for analysis by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) because they have a flat featureless collection surface that is ideally suited for counting particles (Gentry, Spurny, & Schoermann, 1982;Yamamoto, Fujii, Kumagai, & Yanagisawa, 2004). These filters are typically 10 mm thin polycarbonate films with circular pores that run perpendicular to the filter surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoparticle collection efficiency of capillary pore membrane filters

Cyrs

Boysen

Casuccio

et al. 2010

Journal of Aerosol Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To explain the time course shift of the size distribution of penetrated particles, the contributions of each particle collection mechanisms, di usion to the pore walls, interception at the rims of the pores and inertial impaction at the ÿlter face, were roughly estimated using the models described by Spurny et al (1969a,b) and Gentry, Spurny, and Schoermann (1982). First, the constituent penetrations due to di usion alone, Pt D , were calculated using the Gormley-Kennedy formula:…”

Section: Time Dependency Of Penetration Of Standard Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%