Minimum pickup velocity (U pu) of nanoparticles in gas–solid pneumatic conveying
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper is the first systematic study of the pneumatic conveying of nanoparticles. The minimum pickup velocity, U pu, of six nanoparticle species of different materials [i.e., silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and titanium dioxide (TiO2)] and surfaces (i.e., apolar and polar) was determined by the weight loss method. Results show that (1) due to relative lack of hydrogen bonding, apolar nanoparticles had higher mass loss values at the same velocities, mass loss curves with accentuated S-shaped profiles, and lower U pu values, (2) among the three species, SiO2, which has the lowest Hamaker coefficient, exhibited the greatest discrepancy between apolar and polar surfaces with respect to both mass loss curves and U pu values, (3) U mf,polar/U mf,apolar was between 1 and 3.5 times that of U pu,polar/U pu,apolar due to greater extents of hydrogen bonding associated with U mf, (4) U pu values were at least an order-of-magnitude lower than that expected from the well-acknowledged U pu correlation (Kalman et al., Powder Technol 160:103–113, 2005) due to agglomeration, (5) although nanoparticles should be categorized as Zone III (Kalman et al. 2005) (or Geldart group C, Powder Technol 7:285–292, 1973), the nanoparticles, and primary and complex agglomerates agreed more with the Zone I (or Geldart group B) correlation.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Granular flow and fluidized beds · Mineral Processing and Grinding · Cyclone Separators and Fluid Dynamics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. Anantharaman A, Wu X, Hadinoto K, Chew JW (2015) Impact of continuous particle size distribution width and particle sphericity on minimum pickup velocity in gas–solid pneumatic conveying. Chem Eng Sci 130:92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2015.03.02210.1016/j.ces.2015.03.022 ↗
2. Cabrejos FJ, Klinzing GE (1992) Incipient motion of solid particles in horizontal pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol 72:51–61. doi: 10.1016/S0032-5910(92)85021-M10.1016/S0032-5910(92)85021-M ↗
3. Cabrejos FJ, Klinzing GE (1994) Pickup and saltation mechanisms of solid particles in horizontal pneumatic transport. Powder Technol 79:173–186. doi: 10.1016/0032-5910(94)02815-X10.1016/0032-5910(94)02815-X ↗
4. de Martín L, van Ommen JR (2013) A model to estimate the size of nanoparticle agglomerates in gas–solid fluidized beds. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-2055-x
5. de Martín L, Sánchez-Prieto J, Hernández-Jiménez F, van Ommen JR (2013) A settling tube to determine the terminal velocity and size distribution of fluidized nanoparticle agglomerates. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/s11051-013-2183-3
6. de Martin L, Bouwman WG, van Ommen JR (2014) Multidimensional nature of fluidized nanoparticle agglomerates. Langmuir 30:12696–12702. doi: 10.1021/la502987e10.1021/la502987e ↗
7. de Martín L, Fabre A, van Ommen JR (2014) The fractal scaling of fluidized nanoparticle agglomerates. Chem Eng Sci 112:79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2014.03.02410.1016/j.ces.2014.03.024 ↗
8. Erdem B, Hunsicker RA, Simmons GW, Sudol ED, Dimonie VL, El-Aasser MS (2001) XPS and FTIR surface characterization of TiO2 particles used in polymer encapsulation. Langmuir 17:2664–2669. doi: 10.1021/la001521310.1021/la0015213 ↗
9. Gandhimathi C, Venugopal JR, Sundarrajan S, Sridhar R, Tay SSW, Ramakrishna S, Kumar SD (2015) Breathable medicine: pulmonary mode of drug delivery. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 15:2591–2604. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2015.1034110.1166/jnn.2015.10341 ↗
10. Geldart D (1973) Types of gas fluidization. Powder Technol 7:285–292. doi: 10.1016/0032-5910(73)80037-310.1016/0032-5910(73)80037-3 ↗
11. Gomes LM, Mesquita ALA (2013) Effect of particle size and sphericity on the pickup velocity in horizontal pneumatic conveying. Chem Eng Sci 104:780–789. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2013.08.05510.1016/j.ces.2013.08.055 ↗
12. Gomes LM, Mesquita ALA (2014) On the prediction of pickup and saltation velocities in pneumatic conveying. Braz J Chem Eng 31:35–46. doi: 10.1590/S0104-6632201400010000510.1590/S0104-66322014000100005 ↗
13. Goulas A, van Ommen JR (2014) Scalable production of nanostructured particles using atomic layer deposition. KONA Powder Part J 31:234–246. doi: 10.14356/kona.201401310.14356/kona.2014013 ↗
14. Goy SP, Chew JW, Hadinoto K (2011) Effects of binary particle size distribution on minimum pick-up velocity in pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol 208:166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2010.12.01510.1016/j.powtec.2010.12.015 ↗
15. Halow JS (1973) Incipient rolling, sliding and suspension of particles in horizontal and inclined turbulent flow. Chem Eng Sci 28:1–12. doi: 10.1016/0009-2509(73)85080-810.1016/0009-2509(73)85080-8 ↗
16. Hamaker HC (1937) The London—Van Der Waals attraction between spherical particles. Physica 4:1058–1072. doi: 10.1016/S0031-8914(37)80203-710.1016/S0031-8914(37)80203-7 ↗
17. Hayden KS, Park K, Curtis JS (2003) Effect of particle characteristics on particle pickup velocity. Powder Technol 131:7–14. doi: 10.1016/s0032-5910(02)00135-310.1016/S0032-5910(02)00135-3 ↗
18. Kalman H, Satran A, Meir D, Rabinovich E (2005) Pickup (critical) velocity of particles. Powder Technol 160:103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2005.08.00910.1016/j.powtec.2005.08.009 ↗
19. King DM, Liang XH, Weimer AW (2012) Functionalization of fine particles using atomic and molecular layer deposition. Powder Technol 221:13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2011.12.02010.1016/j.powtec.2011.12.020 ↗
20. Kuhlbusch TAJ, Asbach C, Fissan H, Gohler D, Stintz M (2011) Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: a review. Part Fibre Toxicol. doi: 10.1186/1743-8977-8-22
21. Kumar P, Ketzel M, Vardoulakis S, Pirjola L, Britter R (2011) Dynamics and dispersion modelling of nanoparticles from road traffic in the urban atmospheric environment—a review. J Aerosol Sci 42:580–603. doi: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2011.06.00110.1016/j.jaerosci.2011.06.001 ↗
22. Nakamura H, Watano S (2008) Fundamental particle fluidization behavior and handling of nano-particles in a rotating fluidized bed. Powder Technol 183:324–332. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2008.01.00710.1016/j.powtec.2008.01.007 ↗
23. Nam CH, Pfeffer R, Dave RN, Sundaresan S (2004) Aerated vibrofluidization of silica nanoparticles. AIChE J 50:1776–1785. doi: 10.1002/aic.1023710.1002/aic.10237 ↗
24. Niu J, Rasmussen PE, Hassan NM, Vincent R (2010) Concentration distribution and bioaccessibility of trace elements in nano and fine urban airborne particulate matter: influence of particle size. Water Air Soil Pollut 213:211–225. doi: 10.1007/s11270-010-0379-z10.1007/s11270-010-0379-z ↗
25. Quintanilla MAS, Valverde JM, Espin MJ, Castellanos A (2012) Electrofluidization of silica nanoparticle agglomerates. Ind Eng Chem Res 51:531–538. doi: 10.1021/ie200538v10.1021/ie200538v ↗
26. Rabinovich E, Kalman H (2008) Generalized master curve for threshold superficial velocities in particle–fluid systems. Powder Technol 183:304–313. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2007.07.03010.1016/j.powtec.2007.07.030 ↗
27. Schilde C, Nolte H, Arlt C, Kwade A (2010) Effect of fluid–particle-interactions on dispersing nano-particles in epoxy resins using stirred-media-mills and three-roll-mills. Compos Sci Technol 70:657–663. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.12.02110.1016/j.compscitech.2009.12.021 ↗
28. Shabeer A, Chandrashekhara K, Schuman T (2007) Synthesis and characterization of soy-based nanocomposites. J Compos Mater 41:1825–1849. doi: 10.1177/002199830706989610.1177/0021998307069896 ↗
29. Sham JOH, Zhang Y, Finlay WH, Roa WH, Löbenberg R (2004) Formulation and characterization of spray-dried powders containing nanoparticles for aerosol delivery to the lung. Int J Pharm 269:457–467. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2003.09.04110.1016/j.ijpharm.2003.09.041 ↗
30. Stahlmecke B, Wagener S, Asbach C, Kaminski H, Fissan H, Kuhlbusch TAJ (2009) Investigation of airborne nanopowder agglomerate stability in an orifice under various differential pressure conditions. J Nanopart Res 11:1625–1635. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9731-x10.1007/s11051-009-9731-x ↗
31. Tahmasebpoor M, de Martin L, Talebi M, Mostoufi N, van Ommen JR (2013) The role of the hydrogen bond in dense nanoparticle–gas suspensions. Phys Chem Chem Phys 15:5788–5793. doi: 10.1039/c3cp43687j10.1039/c3cp43687j ↗
32. Tay JYT, Chew JW, Hadinoto K (2012) Analyzing the minimum entrainment velocity of ternary particle mixtures in horizontal pneumatic transport. Ind Eng Chem Res 51:5626–5632. doi: 10.1021/ie300038710.1021/ie3000387 ↗
33. Valverde JM, Castellanos A (2007) Fluidization, bubbling and jamming of nanoparticle agglomerates. Chem Eng Sci 62:6947–6956. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2007.08.05010.1016/j.ces.2007.08.050 ↗
34. Valverde JM, Castellanos A (2008) Fluidization of nanoparticles: a simple equation for estimating the size of agglomerates. Chem Eng J 140:296–304. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2007.09.03210.1016/j.cej.2007.09.032 ↗
35. Valverde JM, Quintanilla MAS, Espin MJ, Castellanos A (2008) Nanofluidization electrostatics. Phys Rev E. doi: 10.1103/Physreve.77.031301
36. van Ommen JR, Valverde JM, Pfeffer R (2012) Fluidization of nanopowders: a review. J Nanopart Res. doi: 10.1007/S11051-012-0737-4
37. van Ommen JR, Kooijman D, de Niet M, Talebi M, Goulas A (2015) Continuous production of nanostructured particles using spatial atomic layer deposition. J Vac Sci Technol A 33:021513. doi: 10.1116/1.490572510.1116/1.4905725 ↗
38. Yao W, Guangsheng G, Fei W, Jun W (2002) Fluidization and agglomerate structure of SiO2 nanoparticles. Powder Technol 124:152–159. doi: 10.1016/S0032-5910(01)00491-010.1016/S0032-5910(01)00491-0 ↗
39. Zenz FA (1964) Conveyability of particles of mixed particle size. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 3:65–75. doi: 10.1021/i160009a01210.1021/i160009a012 ↗