An axial flow cyclone to remove nanoparticles at low pressure conditions

  • Sheng-Chieh Chen
  • Chuen-Jinn Tsai


In this study, the axial flow cyclone used in Tsai et al. (2004) was further tested for the collection efficiency of both solid (NaCl) and liquid (OA, oleic acid) nanoparticles. The results showed that the smallest cutoff aerodynamic diameters achieved for OA and NaCl nanoparticles were 21.7 nm (cyclone inlet pressure: 4.3 Torr, flow rate: 0.351 slpm) and 21.2 nm (5.4 Torr, 0.454 slpm), respectively. The collection efficiencies for NaCl and OA particles were close to each other for the aerodynamic diameter ranging from 25 to 180 nm indicating there was almost no solid particle bounce in the cyclone. The 3-D numerical simulation was conducted to calculate the flow field in the cyclone and the flow was found to be nearly paraboloid. Numerical simulation of the particle collection efficiency based on the paraboloid flow assumption showed that the collection efficiency was in good agreement with the experimental data with less than 15% of error. A semi-empirical equation for predicting the cutoff aerodynamic diameter at different inlet pressures and flow rates was also obtained. The semi-empirical equation is able to predict the cutoff aerodynamic diameter accurately within 9% of error. From the empirical cutoff aerodynamic diameter, a semi-empirical square root of the cutoff Stokes number, √St 50 * , was calculated and found to be a constant value of 0.241. This value is useful to the design of the cyclone operating in vacuum to remove nanoparticles.

Key words

axial flow cyclone nanoparticle control particle loading effect particle control equipment occupational health 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Biswas P. & R.J. Flagan, 1988. Particle trap impactor. Aerosol Sci. 19, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blachman M.W. & M. Lippmann, 1974. Performance characteristics of the multicyclone aerosol sampler. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 35, 311–326.Google Scholar
  3. Boysan F., B.C.R. Ewan, J. Swithenbank & W.H. Ayers, 1983. Experimental and theoretical studies of cyclone aeparator aerodynamics. IChemeE. Symp. Series 69, 305–320.Google Scholar
  4. Harwood R. & M. Slack, 2002. CFD analysis of a cyclone. QNET-CFD Network Newsletter. 1, 25–27.Google Scholar
  5. Hinds W.C., 1999 Aerosol Technology. New York: Wiley 126.Google Scholar
  6. Hoekstra A.J., J.J. Derksen & H.E.A. Van Den Akker, 1999. An experimental and numerical study of turbulent swirling flow in gas cyclones. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 2055–2065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hsu Y.D., H.M. Chein, T.M. Chen & C.J. Tsai, 2005. Axial flow cyclone for segregation and collection of ultrafine particle: Theoretical and experimental study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 1299–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu B.Y.H. & K.L. Rubow, 1984. A new axial flow cascade cyclone for size characterization of airborne particulate matter. In: Liu B.Y.H., Pui D.Y., & Fissan H.J. ed. Aerosols. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 115–118.Google Scholar
  9. Maynard A.D., 2000. A simple model of axial flow cyclone performance under laminar flow conditions. J. Aerosol Sci. 31, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Patankar S.V., 1980 Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  11. Schmidt S. & F. Thiele, 2002. Comparison of numerical methods applied to the flow over wall-mounted cubes. Inter. J. Heat & Fluid Flow. 23, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schmidt S., H.M. Blackburn, M. Rudman & I. Sutalo, 2003. Simulation of turbulent flow in a cyclonic separator. 3rd International conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 10–12 December 2003, p. 365–369.Google Scholar
  13. Tsai C.J., H.G. Shiau, K.C. Lin & T.S. Shih, 1999. Effect of deposited particles and particle charge on the penetration of small sampling cyclones. J. Aerosol Sci. 30, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tsai C.J. & T.I. Lin, 2000. Particle collection efficiency of different impactor designs. Sep. Sci. Technol. 35, 2639–2650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tsai C.J. & Y.H. Cheng, 1995. Solid particle collection characteristics on impaction surfaces of different designs. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 23, 96–106.Google Scholar
  16. Tsai C.J., D.R. Chen, H.M. Chein, S.C. Chen, J.L. Roth, Y.D. Hsu, W. Li & P. Biswas, 2004. Theoretical and experimental study of an axial flow cyclone for fine particle removal in vacuum conditions. J. Aerosol Sci. 35, 1105–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vaughan N.P., 1988. Construction and testing of an axial flow cyclone pre-separator. J. Aerosol Sci. 19, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weiss Z., P. Martinec & J. Vitek, 1987. Vlastnosti Dulnibo Prachu A Zaklady Protiprasne Techniky. Prague: SNTL.Google Scholar
  19. Xiang R.B. & K.W. Lee, 2004. The flow pattern in cyclones with different cone dimensions and its effect on separation efficiency. Abstract, EAC 2004, Budapest, Hungary, Sep. 6–10, p. 289–290.Google Scholar
  20. Zhu Y. & K.W. Lee, 1999. Experimental study on small cyclones operating at high flowrates. J. Aerosol Sci. 30, 1303–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheng-Chieh Chen
    • 1
  • Chuen-Jinn Tsai
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental EngineeringNational Chiao Tung UniversityHsin ChuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations