1957
DOI: 10.1021/ie50571a039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deposition of Suspended Particles from Turbulent Gas Streams

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
203
0
7

Year Published

1969
1969
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 561 publications
(220 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
10
203
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Particle throughput in a flow tube due to diffusion to the walls is taken into account by the penetration term, P = n out /n in , which is defined as the ratio of the particle concentration coming out of the cylindrical tube at a distance L (n out ) to that at distance L = 0 (n in ). Calculations of P for this system for either laminar (Hinds 1999) or turbulent flow regimes (Friedlander and Johnstone 1957;Wells and Chamberlain 1967;Lee and Gieseke 1994) show that even for the smallest particles sampled by SMPS (21 nm), particle loss by diffusion to the walls is ≤2% and represents a negligible loss for particles larger than 50 nm. Additionally, wall loss due to electrostatic effects which results in substantial particle deposition in Teflon chambers is not a problem in a metallic flow system (McMurry and Rader 1985).…”
Section: Flow Parametersmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Particle throughput in a flow tube due to diffusion to the walls is taken into account by the penetration term, P = n out /n in , which is defined as the ratio of the particle concentration coming out of the cylindrical tube at a distance L (n out ) to that at distance L = 0 (n in ). Calculations of P for this system for either laminar (Hinds 1999) or turbulent flow regimes (Friedlander and Johnstone 1957;Wells and Chamberlain 1967;Lee and Gieseke 1994) show that even for the smallest particles sampled by SMPS (21 nm), particle loss by diffusion to the walls is ≤2% and represents a negligible loss for particles larger than 50 nm. Additionally, wall loss due to electrostatic effects which results in substantial particle deposition in Teflon chambers is not a problem in a metallic flow system (McMurry and Rader 1985).…”
Section: Flow Parametersmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The disagreement seen near the bottom of the dip may be attributed to the adoption of the turbulentdiffusion coefficient for gas to what are in actuality suspended particles, and also to insufficiency of the model assumed to represent the mechanism of deposition from turbulent flow. However, even in the case of a rather rough pipe, the deposition fraction in the turbulent region can still be estimated by either of the two methods of calculation (Yoshioka et to" ro 5 Reynolds number (-l Experimental and calculated deposition fractions of particles with different diameters vs. flow velocity and Reynolds number…”
Section: L-f(l1)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the contrary, heavy particles are not so well correlated with turbulent structures and their motion is less influenced by them in the near-wall region. Therefore, heavy particles deposit with large wall-normal velocities and small near-wall residence time, that is by the so-called free-flight mechanism 10,13 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%