On the Effective Density and Fractal–Like Dimension of Diesel Soot Aggregates as a Function of Mobility Diameter
A new technique is proposed for the assessment of aggregate morphology based on combined information of aerodynamic and mobility size distributions. Instead of formulating a complex inverse problem having aggregate morphology as unknown, the actual problem is separated to two stages. The aerodynamic distribution is determined directly by the electric low pressure impactor (ELPI) data whereas the morphology is independently assessed by matching the distribution arises from ELPI and from scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS). The advantage of this approach is that it can estimate different fractal dimension for different aggregate size. The approach is applied to soot aggregates from three different diesel engines. In all cases, a non-monotonic behavior of fractal dimension versus aggregate size is observed. In particular, the fractal dimension initially decreases and then increases (passing through a minimum) as the mobility diameter increases.
KeywordsSoot aggregate morphology Effective density Fractal dimension Mobility diameter Aerodynamic diameter
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 7.Virtanen, A., Ristimäki, J., Marjamäki, M., Vaaraslahti, K. et al.: Effective density of diesel exhaust particles as a function of size, SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-0056. (2002)Google Scholar
- 8.Van Gulijk, C., Marijnissen, J.C.M., Makkee, M., Moulijn, J.A., Schmidt-Ott, A.: Measuring diesel soot with a scanning mobility particle sizer and an electrical low-pressure impactor: performance assessment with a model for fractal-like agglomerates. J. Aerosol Sci. 35, 633–655 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Gini, M.I., Helmis, C., Melas, A.D., Papanastasiou, D., Orfanopoulos, G., Giannakopoulos, K.P., Drossinos, Y., Eleftheriadis, K.: Characterization of carbon fractal-like aggregates by size distribution measurements and theoretical calculations. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 50(2), 133–147 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar