1995
DOI: 10.1016/0378-3820(95)00019-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Size-related variations in coal fly ash composition as determined using automated scanning electron microscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Analytical electron microscopy (AEM) is one of the most versatile tools for obtaining information about individual particles. The morphology, size and composition of micrometre and even submicrometre coal fly ash particles have been well characterized by a variety of electron microscopy techniques, including conventional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Quann & Sarofim, 1986; Seames, 2003), computer‐controlled scanning electron microscopy (CCSEM) (Huffman et al ., 1989, 1990; Katrinak & Zygarlicke, 1995; O’Keefe et al ., 2000; Chen et al ., 2004), and conventional transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Azar & Thomas, 1988; Qian et al ., 1988; Hurley & Schobert, 1992; Vassilev & Vassileva, 1996). However, scant information is available on ultrafine (< 100 nm) particles, which are abundant in coal fly ash PM 2.5 samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analytical electron microscopy (AEM) is one of the most versatile tools for obtaining information about individual particles. The morphology, size and composition of micrometre and even submicrometre coal fly ash particles have been well characterized by a variety of electron microscopy techniques, including conventional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Quann & Sarofim, 1986; Seames, 2003), computer‐controlled scanning electron microscopy (CCSEM) (Huffman et al ., 1989, 1990; Katrinak & Zygarlicke, 1995; O’Keefe et al ., 2000; Chen et al ., 2004), and conventional transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Azar & Thomas, 1988; Qian et al ., 1988; Hurley & Schobert, 1992; Vassilev & Vassileva, 1996). However, scant information is available on ultrafine (< 100 nm) particles, which are abundant in coal fly ash PM 2.5 samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the relative contents of the above-listed elements, the inorganic particles were classified into one of 33 user-specified mineral categories, while the particles not matching any of the prescribed categories were considered as "unclassified", which has a complex elemental composition and is difficult to be classified. The mineral categories and their elemental composition criteria were developed by Huggins et al [23] and Zygarlicke et al, [24] and had been adopted by others broadly [15,25,26]. The basic feature data of each particle involving its area, perimeter, circularity, X and Y coordinates, elemental distribution, etc., were stored in files to be offline processed.…”
Section: Ccsem Analysis Term and Criterionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The particle size and elemental composition of individual ash particles were analyzed by CCSEM (SEM, JSM-6510; EDS, EDAX126 GENESIS). Ash mineral species were classified according to the previous research. The details of CCSEM analysis procedures can be found in our previous work …”
Section: Experimental Sectionmentioning
confidence: 99%