Numerical simulation on the effects of flow parameters on the detection performance of a self-developed condensation particle counter
Source abstract
Abstract
A computational fluid dynamics simulation was implemented to investigate the effects of flow parameters on the detection performance of a self-developed experimental-used ultrafine condensation particle counter (EUCPC). The simulation results showed that the flow parameters had significant effect on the detection performance of CPCs. The higher flow ratio (capillary flow to sheath flow) would lead to a smaller diffusion range of particles. Longer sheath flow channel was also conducive to reduce the particle diffusion effect and improve the detection performance of the EUCPC. Within a certain range, the D50 of EUCPC decreased with the increase of flow ratio, and reached a threshold when the flow ratio was about 1:9. Using lower sample flow volume could slightly decrease the D50, but would also increase the measurement uncertainty. Conclusively, the detection performance of EUCPC is the best with D50 of 2.131 nm when the sample flow volume is controlled at 100 mL/min and the flow ratio is about 1:9. The simulation results were further validated by calibration experiments of EUCPC, which satisfied the requirements of Euro 5/6 light-duty vehicle legislation.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Air Quality and Health Impacts · Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting · Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (47)
Show source-provided references
1. Chai FH, Gao J, Chen ZX, Wang SL, Zhang YC, Zhang JQ, Zhang HF, Yun YR, Ren C (2014) Spatial and temporal variation of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants in 26 cities in China. J Environ Sci 26:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60383-610.1016/S1001-0742(13)60383-6 ↗
2. Sandeep P, Saradhi IV, Pandit GG (2013) Seasonal variation of black carbon in fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) at the tropical coastal city of Mumbai, India. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 91:605–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-013-1108-210.1007/s00128-013-1108-2 ↗
3. Chun B, Choi K, Pan Q (2020) The nexus between PM 2.5 and urban characteristics in the Texas triangle region. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 78:102187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.01610.1016/j.trd.2019.11.016 ↗
4. Saleh TA (2021) Protocols for synthesis of nanomaterials, polymers, and green materials as adsorbents for water treatment technologies. Environ Technol Innovation 24:101821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.10182110.1016/j.eti.2021.101821 ↗
5. Wang J, Shi Z, Fan J, Ge T, Hu G (2012) Self-assembly of graphene into three-dimensional structures promoted by natural phenolic acids. J Mater Chem 22(42):22459–22466. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2JM35024F10.1039/C2JM35024F ↗
6. Saleh TA (2022) Nanomaterials and hybrid nanocomposites for CO 2 capture and utilization: environmental and energy sustainability. RSC Adv 12(37):23869–23888. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA03242B10.1039/D2RA03242B ↗
7. Saleh TA (2022) Global trends in technologies and nanomaterials for removal of sulfur organic compounds: clean energy and green environment. J Mol Liq 359:119340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2022.11934010.1016/j.molliq.2022.119340 ↗
8. Maricq MM, Szente JJ, Harwell AL, Loos MJ (2017) Impact of aggressive drive cycles on motor vehicle exhaust PM emissions. J Aerosol Sci 113:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.07.00510.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.07.005 ↗
9. McDonald BC, Gentner DR, Goldstein AH, Harley RA (2013) Long-term trends in motor vehicle emissions in U.S. urban areas. Environ Sci Technol 47:10022–10031. https://doi.org/10.1021/es401034z10.1021/es401034z ↗
10. Pihlava K, Keskinen J, Yli-Ojanperä J (2016) Improving the signal-to-noise ratio of Faraday cup aerosol electrometer based aerosol instrument calibrations. Aerosol Sci Technol 50:373–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.115303510.1080/02786826.2016.1153035 ↗
11. Järvinen A, Keskinen J, Yli-Ojanperä J (2018) Extending the Faraday cup aerosol electrometer based calibration method up to 5 μm. Aerosol Sci Technol 52:828–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.147274210.1080/02786826.2018.1472742 ↗
12. Sipilä M, Lehtipalo K, Kulmala M, Petäjä T, Junninen H, Aalto PP, Manninen HE, Kyrö EM, Asmi E, Riipinen I, Curtius J, Kürten A, Borrmann S, O’Dowd CD (2008) Applicability of condensation particle counters to measure atmospheric clusters. Atmos Chem Phys 8:4049–4060. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-4049-200810.5194/acp-8-4049-2008 ↗
13. Zervas E, Dorlhène P, Forti L, Perrin C, Momique JC, Monier R, Ing H, Lopez B (2006) Interlaboratory study of the exhaust gas particle number measurement using the condensation particle counter (CPC). Energy & Fuels 20:2426–2431. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef060180j10.1021/ef060180j ↗
14. Collings N, Rongchai K, Symonds JPR (2014) A condensation particle counter insensitive to volatile particles. J Aerosol Sci 73:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2014.03.00310.1016/j.jaerosci.2014.03.003 ↗
15. Prokůpek J, Kaufman J, Margarone D, Krůs M, Velyhan A, Krása J, Burris-Mog T, Busold S, Deppert O, Cowan TE, Korn G (2014) Development and first experimental tests of Faraday cup array. Rev Sci Instrum 85. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.485949610.1063/1.4859496 ↗
16. Yang YX, Yu TZ, Zhang JS, Wang WY, Gui HQ, Du P, Liu JG (2018) Design and evaluation of an aerosol electrometer with low noise and a wide dynamic range. Sensors 18:1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/s1805161410.3390/s18051614 ↗
17. J-Fatokun FO, Morawska L, Jamriska M, Jayaratne ER (2008) Application of aerosol electrometer for ambient particle charge measurements. Atmos Environ 42:8827–8830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.02510.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.025 ↗
18. Intra P, Tippayawong N (2015) Development and evaluation of a faraday cup electrometer for measuring and sampling atmospheric ions and charged aerosols. Part Sci Technol 33:257–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/02726351.2014.95239210.1080/02726351.2014.952392 ↗
19. Sakurai H, Ehara K (2011) Evaluation of uncertainties in femtoampere current measurement for the number concentration standard of aerosol nanoparticles. Meas Sci Technol 22. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/22/2/02400910.1088/0957-0233/22/2/024009 ↗
20. Yang YX, Yu TZ, Zhang JS, Wang J, Wang WY, Gui HQ, Liu JG (2018) On the performance of an aerosol electrometer with enhanced detection limit. Sensors 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/s1811388910.3390/s18113889 ↗
21. McMurry PH (2000) The history of condensation nucleus counters. Aerosol Sci Technol 33:297–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278682005012151210.1080/02786820050121512 ↗
22. Kangasluoma J, Attoui M (2019) Review of sub-3 nm condensation particle counters, calibrations, and cluster generation methods. Aerosol Sci Technol 53:1277–1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.165408410.1080/02786826.2019.1654084 ↗
23. Brilke S, Resch J, Leiminger M, Steiner G, Tauber C, Wlasits PJ, Winkler PM (2020) Precision characterization of three ultrafine condensation particle counters using singly charged salt clusters in the 1-4 nm size range generated by a bipolar electrospray source. Aerosol Sci Technol 54:396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.170826010.1080/02786826.2019.1708260 ↗
24. Kangasluoma J, Ahonen L, Attoui M, Vuollekoski H, Kulmala M, Petäjä T (2015) Sub-3 nm particle detection with commercial TSI 3772 and Airmodus A20 fine condensation particle counters. Aerosol Sci Technol 49:674–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2015.105848110.1080/02786826.2015.1058481 ↗
25. Sem GJ (2002) Design and performance characteristics of three continuous-flow condensation particle counters: a summary. Atmos Res 62:267–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8095(02)00014-510.1016/S0169-8095(02)00014-5 ↗
26. Romay FJ, Collins AM, Dick WD, Li L, Fandrey CW, Liu BYH (2016) Water-based single-flow mixing condensation particle counter. Aerosol Sci Technol 50:1320–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.122251010.1080/02786826.2016.1222510 ↗
27. Lee ES, Polidori A, Koch M, Fine PM, Mehadi A, Hammond D, Wright JN, Miguel AH, Ayala A, Zhu Y (2013) Water-based condensation particle counters comparison near a major freeway with significant heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmos Environ 68:151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.12.00110.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.12.001 ↗
28. Rose D, Gunthe SS, Mikhailov E, Frank GP, Dusek U, Andreae MO, Pöschl U (2008) Calibration and measurement uncertainties of a continuous-flow cloud condensation nuclei counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN activation of ammonium sulfate and sodium chloride aerosol particles in theory and experiment. Atmos Chem Phys 8:1153–1179. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-1153-200810.5194/acp-8-1153-2008 ↗
29. Stolzenburg MR, McMurry PH (1991) An ultrafine aerosol condensation nucleus counter. Aerosol Sci Technol 14:48–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278682910895947010.1080/02786829108959470 ↗
30. Wang WY, Zhao X, Zhang JS, Yang YX, Yu TZ, Bian JJ, Gui HQ, Liu JG (2020) Design and evaluation of a condensation particle counter with high performance for single-particle counting. Instrum Sci Technol 48:212–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10739149.2019.168751610.1080/10739149.2019.1687516 ↗
31. Enroth J, Kangasluoma J, Korhonen F, Hering S, Picard D, Lewis G, Attoui M, Petäjä T (2018) On the time response determination of condensation particle counters. Aerosol Sci Technol 52:778–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2018.146045810.1080/02786826.2018.1460458 ↗
32. Saghafifar H, Kurten A, Curtius J, Von Der Weiden SL, Hassanzadeh S, Borrmann S (2009) Characterization of a modified expansion condensation particle counter for detection of nanometer-sized particles. Aerosol Sci Technol 43:767–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278682090292289410.1080/02786820902922894 ↗
33. Fu Y, Xue M, Cai R, Kangasluoma J, Jiang J (2019) Theoretical and experimental analysis of the core sampling method: reducing diffusional losses in aerosol sampling line. Aerosol Sci Technol 53(7):793–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.160835410.1080/02786826.2019.1608354 ↗
34. Kuang CA, Chen MD, McMurry PH, Wang J (2012) Modification of laminar flow ultrafine condensation particle counters for the enhanced detection of 1 nm condensation nuclei. Aerosol Sci Technol 46:309–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.62681510.1080/02786826.2011.626815 ↗
35. Chen LF, Ma YG, Guo YJ, Zhang GQ, Liang ZR, Zhang X (2017) Quantifying the effects of operational parameters on the counting efficiency of a condensation particle counter using response surface Design of Experiments (DoE). J Aerosol Sci 106:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.12.00510.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.12.005 ↗
36. Hama N, Funato K, Sakurai H (2014) Accelerated durability test of a condensation particle counter with high particle loading. J Aerosol Sci 75:17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2014.04.00910.1016/j.jaerosci.2014.04.009 ↗
37. Giechaskiel B, Wang X, Gilliland D, Drossinos Y (2011) The effect of particle chemical composition on the activation probability in n-butanol condensation particle counters. J Aerosol Sci 42:20–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2010.10.00610.1016/j.jaerosci.2010.10.006 ↗
38. Fernandez de la Mora J (2020) Effect of the finite width of the temperature transition in diffusive condensation particle counters. Aerosol Sci Technol 54:1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2020.179549010.1080/02786826.2020.1795490 ↗
39. Tuch T, Weinhold K, Merkel M, Nowak A, Klein T, Quincey P, Stolzenburg M, Wiedensohler A (2016) Dependence of CPC cut-off diameter on particle morphology and other factors. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(4):331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.115235110.1080/02786826.2016.1152351 ↗
40. Attoui M (2018) Activation of sub 2 nm singly charged particles with butanol vapors in a boosted 3776 TSI CPC. J Aerosol Sci 126:47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.08.00510.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.08.005 ↗
41. Yoo SJ, Kwon HB, Hong US, Kang DH, Lee SM, Han J, Hwang J, Kim YJ (2019) Microelectromechanical-system-based condensation particle counter for real-time monitoring of airborne ultrafine particles. Atmos Meas Tech 12:5335–5345. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5335-201910.5194/amt-12-5335-2019 ↗
42. Hering SV, Lewis GS, Spielman SR, Eiguren-Fernandez A, Kreisberg NM, Kuang CG, Attoui M (2017) Detection near 1-nm with a laminar-flow, water-based condensation particle counter. Aerosol Sci Technol 51:354–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2016.126253110.1080/02786826.2016.1262531 ↗
43. Hering SV, Stolzenburg MR, Quant FR, O’Berreit DR, Keady PB (2005) A laminar-flow, water-based condensation particle counter (WCPC). Aerosol Sci Technol 39:659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/0278682050018212310.1080/02786820500182123 ↗
44. Baltzer S, Onel S, Weiss M, Seipenbusch M (2014) Counting efficiency measurements for a new condensation particle counter. J Aerosol Sci 70:11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2013.12.01110.1016/j.jaerosci.2013.12.011 ↗
45. Reinisch T, Radl S, Bergmann A, Schriefl M, Kraft M (2019) Effect of model details on the predicted saturation profiles in condensation particle counters. Adv Powder Technol 30:1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2019.05.01110.1016/j.apt.2019.05.011 ↗
46. Barmpounis K, Ranjithkumar A, Schmidt-Ott A, Attoui M, Biskos G (2018) Enhancing the detection efficiency of condensation particle counters for sub-2 nm particles. J Aerosol Sci 117:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.12.00510.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.12.005 ↗
47. Zou L, Lin Y, Lam K (2008) Large-eddy simulation of flow around cylinder arrays at a subcritical reynolds number. J Hydrodyn 20:403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(08)60074-810.1016/S1001-6058(08)60074-8 ↗