1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0032-5910(98)00052-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of particle shape on the particle size distribution measured with commercial equipment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
52
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
4
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They preliminarily reported mono-modal and bi-modal volume-size distribution of water-insoluble particles, using a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution analyzer. However, the use of that method for sizing irregular and colored mineral dust particles might engender large uncertainty (Konert and Vandenberghe 1997;Naito et al 1998). In this study, an image analysis using optical microscopy with a digital camera was applied, similar to that for the analysis by Yamamoto et al (2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They preliminarily reported mono-modal and bi-modal volume-size distribution of water-insoluble particles, using a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution analyzer. However, the use of that method for sizing irregular and colored mineral dust particles might engender large uncertainty (Konert and Vandenberghe 1997;Naito et al 1998). In this study, an image analysis using optical microscopy with a digital camera was applied, similar to that for the analysis by Yamamoto et al (2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8,11,12,[14][15][16][17][18]20,21 Most often, the size descriptor chosen has been some variation of the equivalent circular area diameter or the equivalent spherical volume diameter.…”
Section: Implications For the Correlation Of Ld Psa Results To The Rementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The weaknesses of the present and past manifestations of LD psa systems include (1) intermanufacturer and system-generational result dependence [3][4][5] (differences in both the proprietary analysis algorithms and the detector configurations employed in different systems have resulted in significant differences in test results from measurements made on the same evaluation samples); (2) limit of detection 6 (subpopulations of large particles constituting up to 3% by volume of a sample can go undetected); (3) concentration dependence of results (measurements are restricted to relatively dilute samples); (4) shape dependence of results [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (current algorithms assume spherical particle symmetry and provide inaccurate results when particle systems characterized by average aspect ratios even marginally greater than 1 are measured).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instruments that use a flow through cell for light scattering measurements, such as the Coulter® and Micromeritics®, preferential alignment of rod-shaped and platy particles in the direction of flow was noted and caused a tendency to measure only one dimension of the particle rather than a random orientation (usually the end-on dimension, based on instrument geometry) [63].…”
Section: Psd Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%