Particle size dependent response of aerosol counters

Ankilov, A. N.; Baklanov, A.; Colhoun, M.; Enderle, K. H.; Gras, J. L.; Julanov, Yu.V.; Kaller, D.; Lindner, Andreas; Lushnikov, A.A.; Mavliev, Rashid; McGovern, Fiona; O'Connor, Thomas; Podzimek, Josef; Preining, O.; Reischl, G.; Rudolf, R.; Sem, Gilmore J.; Szymanski, Wladyslaw W.; Vrtala, Aron; Wagner, Paul; Winklmayr, Wolfgang; Zagaynov, V. A.

doi:10.1016/s0169-8095(02)00011-x

Cited by 41 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An electrometer measures the electrical current generated by a flow of charged particles collected on an electrically isolated filter and converts this into a number concentration assuming singly charged aerosol particles. Due to the wide range of commercial particle counting instruments available, intercomparisons between instruments are often performed to highlight differences in the size-dependent particle counting efficiencies or recorded number concentrations (Wiedensohler et al 1997;Ankilov et al 2002aAnkilov et al , 2002bMordas et al 2008). Several studies have reported systematic discrepancies between the number densities measured by different CPCs and a suitably chosen reference count, with the degree of consistent under-or overcounting ranging between +10% and -10% (Ankilov et al 2002a;Mordas et al 2008).…”

Section: Absolute Value Of the Particle Number Density Measured By Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of Error and Uncertainty in the Use of Cavity Ring Down Spectroscopy to Measure Aerosol Optical Properties

Miles

Rudić

Orr-Ewing

et al. 2011

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of cavity ring down spectroscopy to retrieve aerosol complex refractive index from optical property measurements has seen increasing popularity over the past few years. However, few studies have looked at the limit which sources of error and uncertainty inherent in the cavity ring down method place on the accuracy with which the refractive index can be retrieved. In this paper, we consider both experimental sources of error and those which compromise the theoretical models against which measurements are compared, both reviewing previously published work and presenting new data. Our results show that for absolute measurements made using single-cavity instruments, factors such as uncertainty in the length of the ring down cavity occupied by aerosol and the counting efficiency of the CPC can introduce an error of ∼2.5% into the real part of the refractive index retrieved from experiment. This is significantly higher than the typical 1% error quoted in previously published work. We note that due to the dependence of particle extinction efficiency on diameter, the effect of a given error on measurements for different particle sizes is not constant.

show abstract

Section: Absolute Value Of the Particle Number Density Measured By Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of Error and Uncertainty in the Use of Cavity Ring Down Spectroscopy to Measure Aerosol Optical Properties

Miles

Rudić

Orr-Ewing

et al. 2011

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CPC's counting efficiencies strongly depend on aerosol properties, thus the calibration curve is strictly valid for the test aerosol (e.g., Kesten et al 1991;Sem 2002;Ankilov et al 2002). As different CPC manufacturers may use different aerosol materials for calibration (e.g., TSI uses Emery oil and GRIMM uses NaCl), CPCs from different manufacturers may have different counting efficiencies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration of Condensation Particle Counters for Legislated Vehicle Number Emission Measurements

Giechaskiel

Wang

Horn³

et al. 2009

Aerosol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light duty vehicle emissions legislation requires calibration and validation of Condensation Particle Counters (CPCsHowever, tests performed at JRC after the workshop found much lower counting efficiencies for tetracontane particles (almost 0 at 23 nm) and variable results for NaCl (0.6 or lower for 23 nm) indicating the importance of the generation method and the thermal treatment of the generated aerosol. Measurement issues including calibration against an electrometer or a reference CPC, the effect of multiply charged particles on counting efficiencies, stability, repeatability, reproducibility and comparability of CPCs and electrometers of different manufacturers were also investigated.

show abstract

“…It should also be noted that the diffusion coefficient is independent of the density of particle material. And of course, regular tests are performed to compare the performance of our equipment with that of others and electronic microscopy 6) .…”

Section: Experimental Technology and Sample Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We propose to use terahertz laser ablation for the nondestructive transfer of a nanodispersed system into the gas phase, followed by its analysis using conventional aerosol instruments. In the present work, we used an automatic diffusion battery with the condensation particle counter 6) to determine the particle size distribution of ablation products within the size range 3 -250 nm; the source of the terahertz radiation was the free electron laser (FEL) of the Siberian Center for Photochemical Research 3) . Ultrafind diamond-carbon powder and ultrafine silicon dioxide powder were used as the subject of investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%