Calibration of the Pollak Counter with Monodisperse Aerosols

Benjamin Y. H. Liu Particle Technology Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455

Search for other papers by Benjamin Y. H. Liu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
David Y. H. Pui Particle Technology Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455

Search for other papers by David Y. H. Pui in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Austin W. Hogan Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, Scotia, N. Y. 12302

Search for other papers by Austin W. Hogan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Ted A. Rich Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Albany, Scotia, N. Y. 12302

Search for other papers by Ted A. Rich in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The photoelectric condensation nucleus counter of Pollak with convergent light beam has been compared with an electrical aerosol detector using monodisperse aerosols with particle diameters between 0.025 and 0.15 μm, particle concentrations between 127 and 260,800 cm−3, and particles of two different chemical constituencies, e.g., NaCl and material volatilized from a heated nichrome wire. Very good agreement has been obtained. The discrepancy between these two methods was found to be less than 9% at concentration levels below 104 particles cm−2 and 17% at 2.5 × 105 particles cm−3. This discrepancy is well within the combined uncertainties in the two independent aerosol concentration measuring methods.

Abstract

The photoelectric condensation nucleus counter of Pollak with convergent light beam has been compared with an electrical aerosol detector using monodisperse aerosols with particle diameters between 0.025 and 0.15 μm, particle concentrations between 127 and 260,800 cm−3, and particles of two different chemical constituencies, e.g., NaCl and material volatilized from a heated nichrome wire. Very good agreement has been obtained. The discrepancy between these two methods was found to be less than 9% at concentration levels below 104 particles cm−2 and 17% at 2.5 × 105 particles cm−3. This discrepancy is well within the combined uncertainties in the two independent aerosol concentration measuring methods.

Save