|CAO, ZIHAN - North Carolina State University|
|BUSER, MICHAEL - Oklahoma State University|
|LI, LINGJUAN WANG - North Carolina State University|
|ZHANG, YUANHUI - University Of Illinois|
|PARNELL, CALVIN B. - Texas A&M University|
Submitted to: American Chemical Society National Meeting
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/30/2011
Publication Date: 8/30/2011
Citation: Cao, Z., Buser, M., Whitelock, D.P., Li, L., Zhang, Y., Parnell, C. 2011. Techniques for determining partial size distribution of particulate matter: Laser diffraction versus electrical sensing zone [abstract]. American Chemical Society National Meeting. August 28 - September 1, 2011, Denver, Colorado. CDROM.
Technical Abstract: The study of health impacts, emission estimation of particulate matter (PM), and development of new control technologies require knowledge of PM characteristics. Among these PM characteristics, the particle size distribution (PSD) is perhaps the most important physical parameter governing particle behavior. Various methods and techniques are available for conducting PSD analyses. Advantages and disadvantages associated with each method exist. Unfortunately, there is no single agreed upon method to determine the PSD of PM emitted from difference sources. This paper aims to present full perspectives of PSD measurement techniques through a literature review and a laboratory investigation. In the literature review, different measurement methodologies will be summarized to address their advantages and limitations in application for PSD analysis under different source conditions. The laboratory investigation on PSD measurements was conducted using four PSD analyzers: LS13320 multi-wave length laser diffraction particle size analyzer (Beckman Coulter Inc.), LS230 laser diffraction particle size analyzer (Beckman Coulter Inc.), LA-300 laser scattering particle size analyzer (Horiba Instruments Inc.), and Coulter Counter muiltisizer3 (Beckman Coulter Inc.). PM samples were collected in two egg production barns using low-volume TSP samplers and were analyzed by the four analyzers for PSDs. In addition to measurements of PM extracted from filters, four types of testing aerosol samples (limestone, starch, #3 micro aluminum, and #5 micro aluminum) were also analyzed by these four PSD analyzers. Differences in MMDs and GSDs of PSDs were statistically tested to discover differences; factors that cause the differences will be reported in this paper.