An automated system for producing uniform surface deposits of dry particles

Citation
Jt. Antley et al., An automated system for producing uniform surface deposits of dry particles, AIHAJ, 61(5), 2000, pp. 669-677
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
Environment/Ecology
Journal title
AIHAJ
ISSN journal
15298663 → ACNP
Volume
61
Issue
5
Year of publication
2000
Pages
669 - 677
Database
ISI
SICI code
1529-8663(200009/10)61:5<669:AASFPU>2.0.ZU;2-#
Abstract
A laboratory system has been constructed that uniformly deposits dry partic les onto any type of test surface. Devised as a quality assurance tool for the purpose of evaluating surface sampling methods for lead, it also may be used to generate test surfaces for any contaminant that uses particles or dust as a transport mechanism. Additionally, it may be used to spike surfac es for studies concerning particle transport, resuspension, reentrainment, and exposure. The electromechanical system includes a rugged aluminum chamb er housing deposition equipment, a computer-controlled positioning system, and a 0.61 x 0.61 m target surface area (2 x 2 ft). Media used to evaluate the system have included glass beads of various size fractions (physical di ameters between 30 and 500 mum), and Arizona Test Dust (aerodynamic diamete rs between 1 and 80 mum). Presieved particle size fractions may be used ind ividually to study the effects of monodisperse particles, or may be mixed t o create custom polydisperse size distributions, Using arrays of 16 coupons placed on the surface to collect representative samples from every test, t he uniformity of the particle deposition can be quantified. The system achi eved an average coefficient of variation of less than 20% for the 16 coupon s for the particle types and sizes mentioned above and for a variety of tot al surface loadings (0.3-19 g/m(2)). Calculations of the system's repeatabi lity (as the average coefficient of variation of mass gains for individual coupon locations compared across multiple identically configured runs) yiel ded approximately 10 +/- 5% (one standard deviation). Tests of the system's accuracy, defined as the absolute percentage difference between predicted surface loadings and actual loadings, yielded 3.7 +/- 1.3% (one standard de viation).