The Experts below are selected from a list of 51 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Martin Harper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Martin HarperAbstract:ABSTRACTThe collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10–400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min−1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS)....
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Jhycharm Soo, Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Taekhee Lee, Martin HarperAbstract:The collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10-400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min-1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). Three different filters of each type with at least three repetitions for each pore size were tested. In general, the collection efficiency varied with airflow, pore size, and sampling duration. In addition, both collection efficiency and pressure drop increased with decreased pore size and increased sampling flow rate, but they differed among filter types and manufacturer. The present study confirmed that the MCE, PTFE, and PVC filters have a relatively high collection efficiency for challenge particles much smaller than their nominal pore size and are considerably more efficient than polycarbonate and silver membrane filters, especially at larger nominal pore sizes.
Keenan Monaghan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Martin HarperAbstract:ABSTRACTThe collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10–400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min−1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS)....
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Jhycharm Soo, Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Taekhee Lee, Martin HarperAbstract:The collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10-400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min-1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). Three different filters of each type with at least three repetitions for each pore size were tested. In general, the collection efficiency varied with airflow, pore size, and sampling duration. In addition, both collection efficiency and pressure drop increased with decreased pore size and increased sampling flow rate, but they differed among filter types and manufacturer. The present study confirmed that the MCE, PTFE, and PVC filters have a relatively high collection efficiency for challenge particles much smaller than their nominal pore size and are considerably more efficient than polycarbonate and silver membrane filters, especially at larger nominal pore sizes.
Mike Kashon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Martin HarperAbstract:ABSTRACTThe collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10–400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min−1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS)....
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Jhycharm Soo, Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Taekhee Lee, Martin HarperAbstract:The collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10-400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min-1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). Three different filters of each type with at least three repetitions for each pore size were tested. In general, the collection efficiency varied with airflow, pore size, and sampling duration. In addition, both collection efficiency and pressure drop increased with decreased pore size and increased sampling flow rate, but they differed among filter types and manufacturer. The present study confirmed that the MCE, PTFE, and PVC filters have a relatively high collection efficiency for challenge particles much smaller than their nominal pore size and are considerably more efficient than polycarbonate and silver membrane filters, especially at larger nominal pore sizes.
Jhycharm Soo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
air sampling filtration media collection efficiency for respirable size selective sampling
Aerosol Science and Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Jhycharm Soo, Keenan Monaghan, Mike Kashon, Taekhee Lee, Martin HarperAbstract:The collection efficiencies of commonly used membrane air sampling filters in the ultrafine particle size range were investigated. Mixed cellulose ester (MCE; 0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polycarbonate (0.4, 0.8, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; 0.45, 1, 2, and 5 μm pore sizes), polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 0.8 and 5 μm pore sizes), and silver membrane (0.45, 0.8, 1.2, and 5 μm pore sizes) filters were exposed to polydisperse sodium chloride (NaCl) particles in the size range of 10-400 nm. Test aerosols were nebulized and introduced into a calm air chamber through a diffusion dryer and aerosol neutralizer. The Testing filters (37 mm diameter) were mounted in a conductive polypropylene filter-holder (cassette) within a Metal Testing tube. The experiments were conducted at flow rates between 1.7 and 11.2 l min-1. The particle size distributions of NaCl challenge aerosol were measured upstream and downstream of the test filters by a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). Three different filters of each type with at least three repetitions for each pore size were tested. In general, the collection efficiency varied with airflow, pore size, and sampling duration. In addition, both collection efficiency and pressure drop increased with decreased pore size and increased sampling flow rate, but they differed among filter types and manufacturer. The present study confirmed that the MCE, PTFE, and PVC filters have a relatively high collection efficiency for challenge particles much smaller than their nominal pore size and are considerably more efficient than polycarbonate and silver membrane filters, especially at larger nominal pore sizes.
Peter Tiernan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a review of planar biaxial tensile test systems for sheet Metal
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2008Co-Authors: Alan Hannon, Peter TiernanAbstract:Abstract The focus of this paper is to present a comprehensive review of the main biaxial test systems that have been developed with primary focus on sheet Metal Testing. The paper includes a review of biaxial tensile test devices and specimen design for biaxial Testing. A description of the scientific significance of the work and the industrial implications arising from results of biaxial Testing is also presented. Biaxial Testing of Metal is becoming prevalent in the sheet Metal working industry for establishing the mechanical properties of the sheet material. The primary reason for using the biaxial tensile test, as opposed to the common uniaxial test, is that Metal in sheet form is largely anisotropic, i.e. it has varying mechanical strength in different directions due to the forming process used in its manufacture. As the standard tensile test only determines the mechanical properties in one direction the resulting test data may not be applicable to multi-directional forming processes such as deep drawing. Biaxial Testing is also becoming increasingly important for Testing of Metals used in machine and structural components that may be typically loaded in more than one direction during service. Biaxial loading can cause failure of the material at loads much less than that determined by conventional tensile-Testing methods. The aforementioned reasons have led to research activity in the area of biaxial Testing.