2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.03.059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0—Emissions from industrial plants—Results from measurement programmes in Germany

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
40
0
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
8
40
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…However, light attenuation only gives the aerosol information (aerosol diameters, surface and volume) for fine particles with diameters smaller than 1 µm. Assuming a PM 1 /PM 10 mass ratio of 50% in urban air (Vallius et al, 2000;Ehrlich et al, 2007;Ariola et al, 2006;Spindler et al, 2004;Labban et al, 2004;Li and Lin, 2002;Gomiscek et al, 2004;Liu et al, 2004), the calculated aerosol mass by light attenuation is in agreement with our measured PM 10 values.…”
Section: Retrieval Methods Of Aerosol Parameterssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…However, light attenuation only gives the aerosol information (aerosol diameters, surface and volume) for fine particles with diameters smaller than 1 µm. Assuming a PM 1 /PM 10 mass ratio of 50% in urban air (Vallius et al, 2000;Ehrlich et al, 2007;Ariola et al, 2006;Spindler et al, 2004;Labban et al, 2004;Li and Lin, 2002;Gomiscek et al, 2004;Liu et al, 2004), the calculated aerosol mass by light attenuation is in agreement with our measured PM 10 values.…”
Section: Retrieval Methods Of Aerosol Parameterssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…This mean value seems to be low compared to in-stack values generally reported in previous studies on wood stove (in which sampling and measuring conditions are the same than in this study):  89 -143 mg.m -3 according to Kosinski and Saade [9];  59 -130 mg.Nm -3 at 11% O 2 according to Ehrlich et al [10]. Nevertheless, as units employed are not exactly the same, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the discrepancies in results (especially concerning Ehrlich et al results).…”
Section: In-stack Measurements: Impact Of Studied Parametersmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Geometric mean and geometric standard deviation were 0.2 μm, 2.4 respectively. This size range corresponds to the most penetrating particle size in the scrubber and in most other precipitators as well (Ehrlich et al, 2007;Peukert et al, 2001;Theodore and Buonicore, 1988). Therefore, it is deemed to be the optimum size range of particles for the spray tower scrubber experiment for this study (Kim et al, 2012).…”
Section: Generation Of Test Particlesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fine particles less than 2.5 μm are emitted from a power plant, an industrial boiler and other industrial facilities (Ehrlich et al, 2007). They are removed by rainout and washout rather than gravity sedimentation due to their physical properties, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%