Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jaerosci
A compact multistage (cascade) impactor for the
characterization of atmospheric aerosols
Philip Demokritou
C
a
d
a
=
j
p
C
m
j
o
,
d
m
, (3)
where d
a
is aerodynamic diameter, d
m
is the mobility equivalent diameter, C
a
is the slip correction
factor for the aerodynamic diameter, C
m
is the slip correction factor for the mobility equivalent
diameter, , is the dynamic shape factor, j
p
is the density of the particle, and j
0
is the unit density
(1 g}cm
3
). For sodium chloride particles, the dynamic shape factor and particle density were assumed
to be , = 1.08 (that of a cube) and 2.2 g}cm
3
, respectively.
P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299 287
The collection eciency for a given particle size, E(d
a
), for each impaction stage, was calculated
using
E(d
a
) =
C(d
a
)
1(d
a
)
=
1(d
a
) P(d
a
)
1(d
a
)
, (4)
where 1(d
a
), C(d
a
) and P(d
a
) are the total, collected and penetrated particles of aerodynamic
diameter of d
a
, respectively. The collection eciency data were tted using the Boltzmann sigmoidal
algorithm (Origin, MicroCal Software Inc.) using
E(d
a
) =
A
1
A
2
1 + e
(d
a
x
0
)}dx
+ A
2
, (5)
where x
0
is the median aerodynamic diameter; dx is the width of the tting; and A
1
and A
2
, are the
coecients determined by the algorithm. The sharpness (o) of the collection eciency curve was
calculated using
o =
d
84.1
d
15.9
, (6)
where d
84.1
and d
15.9
are the sizes of particles having collection eciencies of 84.1% and 15.9%,
respectively (Hinds, 1999).
2.4. Particle loading capacity experiment
In conventional impactors, a known limitation is the collection eciency change as a function of
the deposited on the impaction substrate particles. This eect may introduce a signicant sampling
artifact and thereby cause an unacceptable reduction in the useful duration of sampling. Previous
investigations of the eect of particle loading on the commonly used at surface impaction substrates
showed that signicant changes occur for both particle bounce and cuto diameter, even for particle
loading of less than 1.0 mg (Kenny, Gussmann, & Meyer, 2000; Misra, Singh, Shen, Sioutas, &
Hall, 2002; Tsai & Cheng, 1995; Turner & Hering, 1987).
Experiments were performed to investigate the eect of substrate particle loading on the collection
eciency curve. Stage no. 4 (50% cutpoint: 2.5 m) was selected to investigate the loading eect on
PUF. As the loading was built up over time on the substrate, consecutive particle number concentra-
tions were measured up- and down-stream of the sampler (see Fig. 2). Particle collection eciency
was calculated based on Eq. (4) as a function of loaded mass on the PUF substrate. Loaded mass,
M, on the substrate was calculated using
M =
m
)
n
i
N
i, )
e
i, )
j
p
d
3
p
i
6
, (7)
where, i is the ith number of n channels in APS, ) is the )th minute, N
i)
is the upstream par-
ticle number, e
i)
is the collection eciency, j
p
is the particle density, and d
p
is the particle
diameter.
288 P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299
TSI 3400A Fludized Bed
Aerosol Generator
SMPS / APS
TEST AEROSOL GENERATOR FOR SIZE
RANGE 1 - 20 m
PUMP Silica
HEPA
35 psi
30.0 LPM
140.0 LPM
30.0 LPM
HEPA
CCI
PUMP
TSI 3062
Diffusion Dryer
TEST AEROSOL GENERATOR FOR SIZE
RANGE 0-1m
NaCl Solution
TSI 3076
Constant Output
Atomizer
Dry & filtered air
35 psi
Mixing Chamber
Dry& filtered air
TSI 3012
Kr-85 Neutralizer
60.0 LPM
Mixing Duct
Supplemental
Filtered Air
SAMPLING SYSTEM
MOI
PUMP
PUMP
Fig. 3. Laboratory intercomparison experimental setup.
2.5. Laboratory intercomparison experiments
Laboratory experiments were conducted to compare the size distribution measured by both the
microorice impactor (MOI, MSP Corporation, Minneapolis, MN) and by the CCI, with that obtained
using real time instrument measurements (SMPS, APS). The experimental setup for these experiments
is shown in Fig. 3. In order to simulate the bi-modal size distribution of atmospheric aerosols,
two separate aerosol generators were used in parallel to generate polydisperse aerosols in the 0
20 m size range. Fine Test Dust (FTD, Powder Technology Inc., Burnsville, MN) and NaCl were
used as the test aerosols. FTD was dried over 24 h prior its use in a temperature of 50
C and
aerosolized using a Fluidized Bed Aerosol Generator (TSI Model 3400A). An aqueous solution
of sodium chloride (NaCl) was atomized using a Collision type atomizer (TSI model 3076) as
outlined above, in the impactor characterization experiments. The mixture of aerosolized FTD and
NaCl was then passed through the Kr-85 Neutralizer to reduce the particle charge to close to the
Boltzmann equilibrium distribution. The aerosol was then introduced into a circular aluminum tube
(ID=5.08 cm). Isokinetic probes were placed at a distance of more than 10 times of tube diameter
to sample aerosol for both the cascade impactors and the real time instruments (SMPS/APS).
P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299 289
MOI operates at 30 LPM and was used to classify particles in the following size intervals:
60.175, 0.1750.56, 0.561.0, 1.01.8, 1.83.2, 3.25.6, 5.610 and 10 m, using 37 mm Teon
membrane lters (Cat. No. R2PJ037, Pall Life Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI) as impaction substrates.
Sample duration for both cascade impactors was 90 min. Tests were conducted using both a rela-
tively high particle concentration of about 5.0 mg}m
3
and a relatively low concentration of about
0.4 mg}m
3
. At the end of each run, PUF substrates, the 47 mm Teon after-lter of CCI, and
37 mm Teon lers of MOI were equilibrated over a 48-h period in a temperature and relative
humidity-controlled room (40 5% RH and 21 2.8
m
)
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
Change of d
50
Loaded mass, M (mg)
0 5 10 15 20 25
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
da = 9.7 m
da = 1.7 m
(a)
(b)
l
o
g
(
D
p
)
,
g
/
m
3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Compact Cascade Impactor
MOI
SMPS/APS data
Fig. 7. Laboratory intercomparison of the particulate mass concentration measured with the MOI, the CCI, and the
SMPS/APS at low loading particle concentration.
The ratio of MOI to CCI mean total mass collected was 0.79 and 0.93 for the high and low-
concentration tests, respectively. One possible reason for these results is that multiple nozzles of
the MOI impaction stages are expected to have higher wall losses by diusion than the single slit
nozzles of the CCI stages. It is likely that the presumably higher amount of particle bounce for
the higher concentration test was one reason why there was a smaller ratio of MOI to CCI to-
tal mass for this experiment. Visual observation also indicated that there was signicant particle
deposition on the walls and the multiple nozzles of the MOI. It is also possible that use of an un-
coated substrate (Teon membrane lter) for the MOI contributed to the dierences between the two
samplers. This would be in agreement with the ndings of higher wall and nozzle losses, when un-
coated impaction substrates were used, as reported by Sioutas, Chang, Kim, Koutrakis, and Ferguson
(1999).
3.4. Field study results
PUF is a porous material, and is known to absorb varying amounts of water vapor from the air,
with increasing absorption for increasing relative humidity. In order to investigate the weight change
of the PUF as a function of the relative humidity in the RH- and temperature-controlled balance
room, ve laboratory blank substrates (for each of the three substrate sizes used by the CCI) were
weighed daily for 1 week. It was shown that a mean of 0.17% mass dierence occurred for the
largest (5%) dierence in relative humidity (RH). For a 48-h sampling period, this corresponds to
4.1, 1.8 and 1.0 g}m
3
, for nominal PUF masses of 104, 46, and 25 mg, respectively. To correct
eld test substrates for the eects of relative humidity, laboratory blanks were used. The dierence
in mass for each eld test substrate, before and after sampling, was adjusted to take into account
P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299 295
Table 3
Mean concentration, precision, limit of detection (LOD), and coecient of variation (CV) for CCI
Stage No. of sample (n) Mean conc. (g}m
3
) Precision (g}m
3
) LOD (g}m
3
) CV
1 18 5.72 0.59 1.62 0.10
2 18 5.67 0.60 1.62 0.11
3 18 3.41 0.29 1.10 0.09
4 18 1.92 0.21 1.10 0.11
5 18 1.16 0.18 0.49 0.15
6 18 1.26 0.22 0.49 0.18
7 18 2.54 0.33 0.49 0.13
8 18 2.96 0.71 0.49 0.24
changes in the corresponding blanks. No humidity eects were observed for the Teon lters used
for the impaction stages of the MOI and the back-up lter of the CCI.
The limit of detection (LOD), precision, and coecient of variation (CV) were also calculated for
the PUF substrates of each stage. LOD was calculated based on three times the standard deviation
of mass value for the eld blanks. Precision was obtained as the root mean square (RMS) dierence
for the paired values of CCI, divided by
2. CV was calculated as the precision divided by the
mean concentration. The LOD, precision, CV values of every stage are shown in Table 3. The mean
ambient concentrations of each stage in Boston were all higher than the LOD values.
The particle mass concentration, as a function of the aerodynamic diameter for the CCI, for two
representative sampling periods, were plotted in Fig. 8. The size distributions are both bimodal which
is typical for the Boston area (Long, 2000). Figs. 9(a) and (b) show good agreement between the
PM
2.5
mass measurements for the CCI vs. the HI and the FRM, respectively. PM
2.5
concentrations
for the CCI were calculated using the sum of the mass concentrations for the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
stages, and the backup lter.
4. Summary and conclusion
A 30 LPM compact eight stage-cascade impactor (CCI) was developed and evaluated. This sys-
tem measures particle sizes between 10 and 0.16 m, with a backup lter to collect the remaining
ultrane particles, and has a total pressure drop of about 8.0 kPa. This relatively low-pressure drop
signicantly reduces the potential for volatilization losses of semi-volatile particle components. The
polyurethane foam used for the impaction substrates results in insignicant particle bounce-o and
re-entrainment, without using adhesives such as grease or mineral oil as coatings. Interstage losses
of ultrane and ne particles were less than 10% and were less than 20 for coarse particles. The
system adequately maintained its impaction characteristics for a loading of up to 25 mg, which is
signicantly better than the performance of other cascade impactors that use at, rigid substrates.
The compact cascade impactor was also evaluated in a laboratory and eld study and compared
with the microorice impactor (MOI), Harvard impactor (HI) and the Federal reference method
(FRM) for ne particles. The average CCI collected mass was found to be higher than that of
the MOI. The dierence is most likely due to the particle bounce-o from the uncoated impaction
296 P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299
Aerodynamic Diameter (Dp), m
0.1 1 10
M
a
s
s
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
l
o
g
(
D
p
)
,
g
/
m
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sep. 23 - 25, 2002
Aerodynamic Diameter (Dp), m
0.1 1 10
M
a
s
s
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
l
o
g
(
D
p
)
,
g
/
m
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sep. 25 - 27, 2002
Fig. 8. Mass size distribution measured by CCI in Boston.
substrates and the increased wall and nozzle particle losses for the MOI. The size distribution
obtained by CCI agrees well with that of the real time instrumentation (SMPS/APS). The eld study
results show good agreement between the CCI and the two reference methods (HI and FRM) for
PM
2.5
mass concentration.
P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299 297
HI PM
2.5
Concentration (g/m
3
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
C
C
I
P
M
2
.
5
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
g
/
m
3
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Data
1 : 1
Regression
CCI=1.05*HI-1.48
r
2
=0.92
FRM PM
2.5
Concentration (g/m
3
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
C
C
I
P
M
2
.
5
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
g
/
m
3
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Data
1 : 1
Regression
CCI=1.17*FRM-0.08
r
2
=0.97
(a)
(b)
Harvard Impactor vs. CCI
FRM vs. CCI
Fig. 9. Intercomparison between CCI, HI, and FRM for PM
2.5
mass concentrations during eld study in Boston.
Acknowledgements
The laboratory performance evaluation of the sampler was supported by the EPA/Harvard Particle
Health Eects Center (EPA Grant No. R827 353-01-0) and the NIEHS Harvard Center (NIEHS
Grant No. ES00002).
298 P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299
References
Allen, G. A., Oh, J. A., Koutrakis, P., & Sioutas, C. (1999). Technique for high-quality ambient coarse particle mass
measurements. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 49, 133141.
Demokritou, P., Kavouras, I. G., Ferguson, S. T., & Koutrakis, P. (2002a). Development and experimental evaluation of
a personal environmental monitoring system for simultaneous measurements of particulate matter and criteria gases.
Aerosol Science and Technology, 35, 741752.
Demokritou, P., Kavouras, I. G., Ferguson, S. T., & Koutrakis, P. (2002b). Development of a high volume
cascade impactor for toxicological and chemical characterization studies. Aerosol Science and Technology, 36,
925933.
Hinds, W. C. (1999). Aerosol technology. New York: Wiley.
Huang, C.-H., & Tsai, C.-J. (2003). Mechanism of particle impaction and ltration by the dry porous metal substrates of
an inertial impactor. Aerosol Science and Technology, 37, 486493.
Huang, C.-H., Tsai, C.-J., & Shih, T.-S. (2001). Particle collection eciency of an inertial impactor with porous metal
substrates. Journal of Aerosol Science, 32, 10351044.
Imrich, A., Ning, Y. Y., Koziel, H., Coull, B., & Kobzik, L. (1999). Lipopolysaccharide priming amplies lung
macrophage tumor necrosis factor production in response to air particles. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 159,
117124.
John, W., Fritter, D. N., & Winklmayr, W. (1991). Resuspension induced by impacting particles. Journal of Aerosol
Science, 22, 723736.
John, W., & Sethi, V. (1993). Breakup of latex doublets by impaction. Aerosol Science and Technology, 19, 5768.
Kasper, G. (1982). Dynamics and measurement of smokes Isize characterization of nonspherical particles. Aerosol
Science and Technology, 1, 187199.
Kavouras, I. G., Ferguson, S. T., Wolfson, J. M., & Koutrakis, P. (2000). Development and validation of a high volume
low cut-o inertial impactor (HVLI). Inhalation Toxicology, 12, 3550.
Kavouras, I. G., & Koutrakis, P. (2001). Use of polyurethane foam as the impaction substrate/collection medium in
conventional inertial impactors. Aerosol Science and Technology, 34, 4656.
Kenny, L. C., Gussmann, R., & Meyer, M. (2000). Development of a sharp-cut cyclone for ambient aerosol monitoring
applications. Aerosol Science and Technology, 32, 338358.
Long, C. (2000). An investigation of indoor particle source. Sc.D. thesis, School of Public Health, Harvard University,
Boston.
Marple, V. A., Rubow, K. L., & Behm, S. (1991). A microorice uniform deposit impactor (MOUDI): Description,
calibration and use. Aerosol Science and Technology, 14, 434446.
Marple, V. A., Rubow, K. L., Turner, W., & Spengler, J. D. (1987). Low ow rate sharp cut impactors for indoor air
sampling: Design and calibration. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 37, 13031307.
Misra, C., Singh, M., Shen, S., Sioutas, C., & Hall, P. M. (2002). Development and evaluation of a personal cascade
impactor sampler (PCIS). Journal of Aerosol Science, 33, 10271047.
Pak, S., Liu, H., & Rubow, K. (1992). Eect of coating thickness on particle bounce in inertial impactors. Aerosol Science
and Technology, 16, 141150.
Peters, T. M., Chein, H., & Lundgren, D. A. (1993). Comparison and combination of aerosol size distributions measured
with a low pressure impactor, dierential mobility particle sizer, electrical aerosol analyzer, and aerodynamic particle
sizer. Aerosol Science and Technology, 19, 396405.
Salonen, R. O., Pennanen, A. S., Halinen, A. I., Hirvonen, M.-R., Sillanpaa, M., Hillamo, R., V., K., Koskentalo, T.,
Aarnio, P., Ferguson, S. T., & Koutrakis, P. (2000). A chemical and toxicological comparison of urban air PM
10
collected during winter and spring in Finland. Inhalation Toxicology, 12, 95104.
Sehmel, G. A. (1980). Particle resuspension: A review. Environmental International, 4, 107127.
Sioutas, C., Chang, M.-C., Kim, S., Koutrakis, P., & Ferguson, S. T. (1999). Design and experimental characterization of
a PM
1
and PM
2.5
personal sampler. Journal of Aerosol Science, 30, 693707.
Soukup, J. M., Ghio, A. J., & Becker, S. (2000). Soluble components of Utah valley particulate pollution alter alveolar
macrophage function in vivo and in vitro. Inhalation Toxicology, 12, 401414.
Tsai, C.-J., & Cheng, Y.-H. (1995). Solid particle collection characterization on impaction surface of dierent designs.
Aerosol Science and Technology, 23, 96106.
P. Demokritou et al. / Aerosol Science 35 (2004) 281299 299
Turner, J. R., & Hering, S. V. (1987). Greased and oiled substrates as bounce free impaction surfaces. Journal of Aerosol
Science, 18, 215224.
Wall, S. M., John, W., Wang, H. C., & Coren, S. (1990). Measurement of kinetic energy loss for particles impacting
surfaces. Aerosol Science and Technology, 12, 926946.