Inlet Efficiency Study for the TSI Aerodynamic Particle Sizer

Kinney, Patrick D.; Pui, David Y.H.

doi:10.1002/ppsc.19950120405

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Griffiths et al (1986) found that the APS underestimated the aerodynamic diameters of Di-EthylHexyl-Sebacate (DEHS) droplets by 4, 10, and 16% for 5, 7, and 10 µm droplets, respectively. Kinney and Pui (1995) have shown that for liquid particles there are substantial impaction losses in the inner acceleration nozzle for particles larger than about 5 µm. These losses may be smaller for non-sticky solid particles.…”

Section: Aerodynamic Particle Sizermentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Aerodynamic Particle Sizer and Electrical Low-Pressure Impactor for Unimodal and Bimodal Mass-Weighted Size Distributions

Pagels¹,

Gudmundsson²,

Gustavsson³

et al. 2005

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) and the Electrical Low-Pressure Impactor (ELPI) to study mass weighted particle size distributions. Unimodal and bimodal liquid test aerosols were produced to a small chamber. Simultaneous measurements were performed with an APS 3320, an APS 3321, an ELPI and a Dekati Low-Pressure Impactor (DLPI) analyzed gravimetrically. ELPI current and mass responses were simulated for lognormal size distributions using a parameterization of the impactor kernel functions. In experiments with a single coarse mode, the mass ratio to the DLPI was between 0.75 and 1.15 for both APS models up to 5 µm and for the ELPI up to 3 µm. For larger sizes the ELPI and APS 3320 overestimated and the APS 3321 underestimated the concentration. In experiments with a single fine mode, submicrometer ELPI and DLPI results were in good agreement. However, in contrast to the DLPI all three spectrometers showed a significant mass fraction above 1 µm. In experiments with a bimodal size distribution, the mass ratios were altered compared to single coarse mode experiments. Simulations showed that uncertainties in ELPI measurements of larger particles occur when concentrations of small particles are high. Several mechanisms that may bias ELPI and APS measurements are described. With knowledge of these, ELPI and APS 3321 can, under many circumstances give accurate time-resolved mass size distributions for particles smaller than 3 and 5 µm, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Aerodynamic Particle Sizermentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Aerodynamic Particle Sizer and Electrical Low-Pressure Impactor for Unimodal and Bimodal Mass-Weighted Size Distributions

Pagels¹,

Gudmundsson²,

Gustavsson³

et al. 2005

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The MMAD and GSD calculated from the ACI measurements were compared to those obtained from the APS measurements. For measurement of aerosols larger than about 5 ¹m, a correction may be required to compensate for particle deposition in the APS inlet (Kinney 1990) or for internal wall losses in the ACI (Vaughan 1989). The impact of these losses is relatively small for size distributions (such as those measured in this investigation) that have little particle mass larger than about 5 ¹m.…”

Section: Comparison Of Aps and Cascade Impactor Measurements Of Polydmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Mass-Weighted Size Distribution Measurements with the Model 3320 Aerodynamic Particle Sizer

Stein¹,

Gabrio²,

Oberreit

et al. 2002

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of the Model 3320 aerodynamic particle sizer (APS) to make accurate mass-weighted size distribution measurements was investigated. Signi cant errors were observed in APS size distribution measurements with measured mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMADs) as much as 17 times higher than from cascade impactor measurements. Analysis of APS correlated timeof-ight and light scattering data indicated that the MMAD distortions were due to a few anomalous large particle measurements (» 0.1% of the total measurements) with surprisingly low scattered light. Computational uid dynamics modeling indicated that these anomalous measurements were due to particles that deviated from the intended aerosol pathway and recirculated through the APS measurement volume at low velocities leading to erroneous large particle measurements. A technique for removing erroneous measurements based on correlated aerodynamic diameter and light scattering values is presented. When this technique was used, APS and cascade impactor size distribution measurements agreed well.

show abstract

“…1 for details). Whereas outer inlet aspiration has not been well characterized, Kinney and Pui (1995) found inner inlet aspiration to be affected by super-isokinetic sampling conditions: air velocity is approximately 40 cm/s within the outer inlet and approximately 250 cm/s within the inner inlet (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Generally, sizing accuracy has not been a problem with the APS, except in the case where large droplets having low viscosity and surface tension may deform during acceleration through the sensing zone (Baron, 1986;Bartley, Martinez, Baron, Secker, & Hirst, 2000;Chen, Cheng, & Yeh, 1990). Counting accuracy, however, has been an issue with this instrument (Armendariz & Leith, 2002;Kinney & Pui, 1995;Peters & Leith, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%