2006_aerosol-sci.-technol._zervas-e._comparison-of-exhaust-particle-number-measured-by-eeps,-cpc,-and-elpi.pdf...

8/14/2019 2006_Aerosol-Sci.-Technol._Zervas-E._Comparison-of-exhaust-particle-number-measured-by-EEPS,-CPC,-and-ELPI.pdf

http:///reader/full/2006aerosol-sci-technolzervas-ecomparison-of-exhaust-particle-number-measured-by-eeps-cpc-a 1/8

Aerosol Science and Technology, 40:977984, 2006

Copyright cAmerican Association for Aerosol Research

ISSN: 0278-6826 print / 1521-7388 online

DOI: 10.1080/02786820600844093

Comparison of Exhaust Particle Number Measured by EEPS,CPC, and ELPI

Efthimios Zervas and Pascal DorlheneRenault 1, Allee Cornuel, Lardy, France

An Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer (EEPS) Spectrometer, a Con-densation Particle Counter (CPC) and an Electrical Low PressureImpactor (ELPI) were used to determine the exhaust particle num-ber of a Diesel engine on steady speeds and on the New EuropeanDriving Cycle (NEDC), upstream and downstream several DieselParticulate Filters(DPF). In order to obtaindifferentparticle num-bers, five DPFs with different porosity were used. The above three

instruments give quite similar total particle numbers on steadyspeeds and on the NEDC for the tests upstream DPF. DownstreamDPF, EEPS reaches its limit of measurement; however, the totalparticle numbers obtained by this instrument are still close to theparticle numbersobtained by CPCand ELPI. The particle numberversus time of the three instruments are quite close in the case ofthe NEDC measurements upstream DPF. Downstream DPF, CPC,and ELPI give quite similar signals, but EEPS reached its limits ofdetection. Upstream DPF, ELPI, and EEPS determine quite sim-ilar median diameters in the case of steady speeds, despite theirdifferent shape in particle size distribution.

INTRODUCTION

Current European regulations are based on a gravimetric

method for the exhaust PM measurements; however, other tech-

niques will probably be necessary in the future. The measure-

ment of particle number instead of particulate mass is proposed

for future regulations (UNECE 2001).

Many methods can determine the exhaust particle number

and/or size determination. The most common used in the case

of vehicle exhaust gas are the Electrical Low Pressure Impactor

(ELPI, Keskinen et al. 1992; Khalek 2000; Maricq et al. 2000;

Witze et al. 2004; Zervas et al. 2004; Zervas et al. 2005), Scan-

ning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS, Wang and Flagan 1990)

and Particle Counters (Willeke and Baron 1993; Hinds 1999;

Pui and Chen 2001), but many others are also reported in liter-ature. Burtscher (2005) and Mohr et al. (2005) give a detailed

description of several analytical methods.

Received 28 September 2005; accepted 6 December 2005.Address correspondence to E. Zervas, Renault 1, Allee Cornuel,

91510 Lardy, France. E-mail: [email protected]

Each of these methods has some advantages but also some

disadvantages: SMPS has a very good particle size resolution;

however, it has an insufficient resolution time. For this last rea-

son, this technique cannot be used for transient particle mea-

surement on the NEDC. ELPI has a sufficient time resolution

(one second) for NEDC measurements, but its size resolution

is lower than the size resolution of SMPS. Condensation Par-

ticle Counter (CPC) can be used in the case of total particlenumber measurements on steady speeds and on cycles, but this

last method cannot determine the size distribution of exhaust

particles.

Engine Exhaust Particle Sizer (EEPS) Spectrometer is a quite

new instrument developed for exhaust particle measurements

(TSI2004; Johnson etal. 2004; Liu et al. 2005).It can be usedin

transient cycles and can determine quite well the particle distri-

bution. The EEPS spectrometer permits a given size range to be

scanned in one tenth of a second increments and a response time

of about 1 second. Although the size resolution of the EEPS is

lower than that of the SMPS (16 versus 64 channels per decade),

its high sampling rate allows instantaneous measurement of en-

gine emissions. The EEPS determines particles between 6 nm

and 560 nm, which include the majority of emitted Diesel ex-

haust particles. A detailed description of EEPS operation can

be found in the operation manual (TSI 2004). A brief descrip-

tion is presented here: EEPS classifies particles based on their

differential electrical mobility. Particles pass through a charger

and then join a particle-free sheath air. A particle-laden flow

enters into the column, which contains an axial high-voltage

central rod with 22 electrode rings forming the outer wall. The

charged particles are deflected radially outward, separated by

their differential electrical mobility, and then collected on the

electrically isolated electrode rings. The particle number con-

centration is then determined by the electrical current measured

on each electrode ring.

Two inter-laboratory exercises were conducted in order to

determine the performances of the other two instruments used

in this work: ELPI (Zervas et al. 2005) and CPC (Zervas et al.

2006). In the current work, the performances of EEPS is tested

and compared with the performances of ELPI and CPC. A

Diesel engine, operating on steady speeds and on NEDC, is

used for this study. The measurements were conducted upstream

977



978 E. ZERVAS AND P. DORLHENE

and downstream DPFs. Several particulate filters with different

porosity were used in this study in order to obtain different par-

ticle numbers downstream DPF.

EXPERIMENTAL SECTION

Engine and Experimental Conditions

A 2.2L, direct injection, common rail Diesel engine was used

for this work. The post-treatment line consisted of a Diesel Ox-

idation Catalyst (DOC, 0.5L) and a catalytic Diesel Particulate

Filter (2.5L). This engine is tested on a dynamic engine test

bench at two steady speeds of 50 and 100 km/h (after temper-

ature stabilization), and on the NEDC (cold start, simulating a

vehicle of 1814 kg inertia). In order to obtain different particle

numbers on the exhaust gas, four catalytic (commercial and un-

derdevelopment) DPFs withdifferent porosity were used. These

filters are named B-E as a function of decreasing porosity. To

simulate a filter with even higher porosity, some channels of the

filter E were opened (filter A). Exhaust particle numbers were

measured on raw gas, upstream and downstream DPF. Two fuelswere used in this work: with 300 and 10 ppm of sulfur. The par-

ticle number of the dilution tunnel air (blanks) were measured

during 20 minutes before and after each test. These values were

not subtracted from the particle number of vehicles measure-

ments. The particle numbers of the tunnel background tests are

expressed in 1/km using the same CVS volume and distance as

a NEDC test.

Analytical Methods Used

A Fine Particle Sampler (FPS) from DEKATI was used to

dilute the raw exhaust gas (15, with N2at 150C), followed by

a PALLAS secondary diluter (10, with N2 at 20C). Then the

diluted sample was split into three parts using a TSI flow splitter.

This accessory is especially useful when performing instrument

comparison. Exhaust particle numbers were measured by three

instruments: a DEKATI ELPI (measuring particle cut sizes 7

nm to 10 m, more details about this instrument can be found

in Zervas et al. 2005), a TSI CPC Model 3022A (measuring

particles bigger than 7 nm) and a TSI EEPS (measuring particle

cut sizes from 6 nm to 560 nm). In order to compare the three

instruments, total particle numbers areexpressed in 1/km, taking

into account all stages of the ELPI and EEPS, but also taking

into account only particle diameters greater than 30 nm in the

case of the last two instruments (not taking into account the

stages/channels of ELPI/EEPS measuring particles with lowerdiameters).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Total Particle Number Measured by the Three Instruments

The total particle number upstream DPF is quite similar at 50

and 100 km/h and on the NEDC: 1.5 6.6 1014 1/km, 8.2

1013 5.8 1014 1/km and 1.4 7.5 1014 1/km, respectively

(Table 1). These numbers are quite similar to the numbers al-

ready reported in the literature (Hall et al. 1998; ACEA 2002;

Zervas et al. 2004; Zervas et al. 2005). On average, CPC gives

slightly higher values than ELPI and EEPS. The higher values

of CPC comparing to ELPI are also observed in ACEA 2002 for

the speed of 120 km/h, whilethe same report shows the opposite

trend at the speed of 50 km/h and Johnson et al. (2004) observed

that EEPS gives higher particle numbers than CPC, but only in

the case of low engine loads. However, the above differences are

not very significant, because there aregenerally found within the

repeatability limits reported in the two inter-laboratory studies

of ELPI and CPC (Zervas et al. 2005; Zervas et al. 2006). The

ELPI>30 nm and EEPS>30 nm give respectively 1557% and

128% lower particle numbers than when all stages/channels

are taken into account.

The downstream DPF particle numbers are 34 orders of

magnitude lower than the corresponding upstream ones. As in

the case of upstream DPF measurements, the total particle num-

ber downstream DPF is similar for the 50 and 100 km/h and on

the NEDC: 1.3 109 9.3 1011 1/km, 4.5 109 9.3

1011 1/km, and 1.9 109 8.7 1011 1/km, respectively

(ACEA 2002; Zervas et al. 2004; Zervas et al. 2005), depending

on DPF porosities. Generally, the particle number increases at

lower DPF porosities. In the case of DPFs with low porosity,

the three instruments determine quite different particle num-

bers, very close to the particle numbers measured for ambient

air background tests (1.9 108 2.0 1011 1/km, quite similar

values are also reported in Zervas et al. (2004) and Zervas et al.

2005). Downstream DPF, ELPI> 30 nm, and EEPS>30 nm

give lower particle numbers than ELPI (096%), and EEPS

(1499%).

Figure 1 compares, for all experiments performed, the total

particle number determined by the three instruments. Left figureshows the particle number determined by ELPI, ELPI >30 nm,

EEPS andEEPS,>30 nm versus theparticle numberdetermined

by CPC, while themiddleand right figuresthe total particle num-

berof allinstrumentsversus thetotal particle numberdetermined

respectively by ELPI and EEPS. The best fit y = ax+ bline is

determined for each couple of instruments and plotted in these

figures. The upper-right block of points corresponds to the ex-

periments upstream DPF. These points are on or very close to

the line y = x, indicating that for the particle numbers higher

than 1 1014 1/km, the results of the three instruments are very

similar. In the case of lower particle numbers, corresponded to

the blanks and downstream DPF experiments, a quite important

data scattering can be observed, indicating that, for downstreamDPF tests, the total particle number is difficult to be determined

and the three instruments cannot be well correlated.

A particular correlation must be noted. In the middle graphic,

the ELPI>30 nm points corresponded to very low particle num-

bers (blank experiments and DPFs with very low porosity) are

not very scattered and very close to the y = x line, indicating

that for the tests downstream DPF the first ELPI stage contains

very low particle numbers.



TABLE1

Particlenumbersat50km

/h,

100km/handontheNEDC,upstr

eam

anddownstream

DPFsandblank

measurementsforthedifferentDPFus

ed.

TheScontentof

thefuelisinbracketsbesidetheDPFname.

TheELPI,CPC,andEEPSLODvaluesare5.3

E+10,

2E+07,and6E+101/km,respectively,whilethe

correspondingLO

Qvaluesare1.5

E+11,

6E+07,and1.8E+111/km

Upstream

DPF

Downstream

DPF

A(300)

B

(300)

C(300)

C(300)

D(300)

D(

300)

E(300)

E(300)

A(300)

B(3

00)

C(300)

C(300)

D

(300)

E(30

0)

E(10)

Blankair

50km/h

ELPI

3.4

E+14

3.2

E+14

5.7

E+14

2.1

E+14

3.5

E+14

2.2E

+14

4.2

E+14

8.6

E+11

3.1

E+11

2E+11

2.6

E+11

2.3

E+

11

1E+09

CPC

6.2

E+14

4.7

E+14

5.1

E+14

4.4

E+14

4E+14

4.1E

+14

4.6

E+14

8.9

E+11

2.6

E+11

6.7

E+10

2E+10

2.8

E+

09

1E+10

EEPS

4.1

E+14

2.4

E+14

3.3

E+14

2.3

E+14

2.2

E+14

1.9E

+14

3.2

E+14

9.3

E+11

5.9

E+11

4.8

E+10

5.5

E+11

6.8

E+

09

3.2

E+10

ELPI>

30

2.6

E+14

2.4

E+14

3.5

E+14

1.5

E+14

2.4

E+14

1.6E

+14

2.6

E+14

6E+11

2.3

E+11

1.1

E+11

6.2

E+10

6.1

E+

10

1.1

E+09

EEPS>

30

3.9

E+14

2.3

E+14

3.2

E+14

2.2

E+14

2.1

E+14

1.9E

+14

3.1

E+14

7E+11

3.1

E+11

1.9

E+09

1.1

E+11

1.3

E+

09

4.8

E+08

100km/h

ELPI

1.5

E+14

2.6

E+14

3.1

E+14

1.6

E+14

3.8

E+14

1.4E

+14

3.5

E+14

3.1

E+14

2.9

E+11

1.4

E+11

2.8

E+09

6.7

E+10

9.7

E+09

4.5

E+

08

9.7

E+08

CPC

8.2

E+13

4.1

E+14

2.5

E+14

2.8

E+14

5.8

E+14

2.5E

+14

5.4

E+14

3.5

E+14

5E+11

1.3

E+11

1.1

E+11

1.6

E+10

1.1

E+10

9.1

E+

09

8.8

E+09

EEPS

1.8

E+14

1.9

E+14

1.8

E+14

1.4

E+14

2.9

E+14

1.2E

+14

3.1

E+14

1.5

E+14

2.5

E+11

3.7

E+11

1.3

E+11

1.6

E+11

2.1

E+11

2E+

10

2.3

E+10

ELPI>

30

1.1

E+14

1.9

E+14

1.6

E+14

9.3

E+13

3.3

E+14

8.8E

+13

2.4

E+14

1.9

E+14

2E+11

9.9

E+11

2.8

E+09

2E+10

4.4

E+09

4.5

E+

08

9.7

E+08

EEPS>30

1.8

E+14

1.9

E+14

1.7

E+14

1.3

E+14

2.9

E+14

1.2E

+14

3.1

E+14

1.5

E+14

2.1

E+11

1E+11

1.9

E+09

9E+10

8.5

E+10

2.8

E+

09

3.6

E+08

NEDC

ELPI

3E+14

5

E+14

3.5

E+14

2E+14

7.5

E+14

5.2

E+14

3.6

E+14

8.2

E+11

1.9

E+11

1.5

E+11

6.2

E+10

2.5

E+

09

1.6

E+11

5.7

E+08

CPC

3.6

E+14

4.5

E+14

4.3

E+14

3.8

E+14

5E+14

3.9

E+14

5E+14

8.2

E+11

1.9

E+11

5.8

E+10

7.6

E+10

1.8

E+

10

3.3

E+09

1.5

E+10

EEPS

3.3

E+14

2.3

E+14

3.2

E+14

1.9

E+14

2.5

E+14

2E+14

2.3

E+14

8.7

E+11

6.8

E+11

4.2

E+11

6.1

E+11

1.9

E+

10

1.5

E+11

2E+11

ELPI>

30

1.8

E+14

3.2

E+14

1.5

E+14

1.4

E+14

4.2

E+14

3.3

E+14

2.3

E+14

4.6

E+11

1.4

E+11

1.5

E+11

6.2

E+10

2.5

E+

09

7E+09

5.7

E+08

EEPS>30

2.8

E+14

2.1

E+14

2.3

E+14

1.7

E+14

2.2

E+14

1.6

E+14

2.1

E+14

7.5

E+11

3.3

E+11

9.3

E+10

1.1

E+11

1.9

E+

09

3.9

E+10

1.9

E+08

979




FIG. 1. Comparison between total particle numbers determined by CPC, ELPI, ELPI> 30 nm, EEPS, and EEPS> 30 nm. (a) CPC basis; (b) ELPI basis;

(c) EEPS basis.

Particle Number versus Time Measured by the ThreeInstruments on the NEDC

Upstream DPF and on NEDC experiments, the three instru-

ments measure similar particle numbers versus time (Figure 2).

These curves follow quite well the cycle. The order CPC >

ELPI>EEPS is generally observed, with higher difference dur-

ing the extra-urban driving cycle (EUDC). However, these dif-

ferences are generally within the repeatability limits of these

instruments (Zervas et al. 2005; Zervas et al. 2006).

Downstream DPF, only CPC and ELPI can give usable dataversus timeon NEDC. Theparticle numbers versustime of these

two instruments follow quite well the cycle. As in the case of

upstream DPF, the order CPC>ELPI is generally observed,

especially during the EUDC, but this difference is once more

within the repeatability limits. Contrary to the other two instru-

ments, EEPS signal goes down to zero most of the time. The

probable reason is that the particle number downstream DPF

is lower than the detection limits of this device, indicating that



PARTICLE NUMBER MEASURED BY EEPS, CPC, AND ELPI 981

FIG. 2. Particle number versus time measured by CPC, ELPI, and EEPS. Average value for all tests upstream and downstream DPF on NEDC.

a lower dilution ratio must be used for downstream DPF mea-

surements using EEPS. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the

total particle number determined by EEPS is quite similar to the

particle number determined by the other two instruments.

Taking all data obtained on NEDC versus time, there is a

quite good agreement between CPC, ELPI, and EEPS for the

measurements performed upstream DPF (Figure 3).ELPI versus

FIG. 3. ELPI and EEPS particle number versus CPC particle number on NEDC tests. Average value for all tests upstream and downstream DPF.

CPC data are very often on the y = x line, except the very

low numbers corresponding to idle emissions and the very high

particle numbers, where ELPI generally gives lower values than

CPC. EEPS versus CPC data are generally on or slightly below

the y = xline, with slightly higher dispersion than the ELPI

versus CPC data. In the case of downstream DPF experiments,

there is a high data scattering. Even with high dispersion, ELPI




versus CPC data are found around they = xline. This is not the

case of EEPS versus CPC data, which are very often far from

the y = xline. The downstream DPF EEPS/CPC data are more

scattered than the ELPI/CPC ones.

Median Particle Diameter and Particle Size Distributionof ELPI and EEPS

In the case of steady speeds and upstream DPF measure-

ments, EEPS determine slightly higher median diameter than

ELPI (Figure 4). The average median diameter determined by

ELPI is 52 nm and 48 nm, respectively, for the 50 km/h and

100 km/h, while the corresponding EEPS values are 59 nm and

60 nm. ACEA 1999 and 2002 also reports no significant differ-

ence of median diameter between 50 and 100 km/h. Moreover,

the values measured in our study are within the repeatability

limits: the 1.96RSD values of ELPI median diameter are 37%

and 57%, respectively, for the 50 km/h and 100 km/h, while

the corresponding values of EEPS are 19% and 31%. For this

reason, the median diameter determined by the two instruments

can be considered as similar. EEPS has a better repeatabilityfor this type of measurements than ELPI, due to the narrow

cut size of each channel (16 channels per decade). The EEPS

median diameter cannot be determined downstream DPF, be-

cause this instrument reached its lower detection limits in these

measurements.

Figure 5 shows the average particle distribution of ELPI and

EEPS for the steady speeds of 50 and 100 km/h in the case of

upstream DPF measurements. For both instruments, the maxi-

FIG. 4. Median particle diameter determined by ELPI and EEPS in the case

of steady speeds and upstream DPF measurements. M: average value. The three

bars of theM bars correspond to the min, average,and maxvalues.Min andmax

values determined as: min = average value 1.96standard deviation, max =

average value + 1.96standard deviation.

FIG. 5. Particle distribution of ELPI and EEPS in the case of steady speeds.Average distribution of all experiments upstream DPF.

mum number is determined at the same particle size. However,

EEPS has a higher size resolution and gives a more bell-type

distribution than ELPI. It must be noted that the median diameter

cannot be precisely determined by ELPI due to the quite large

cut size of this instrument.

Comparison of ELPI and EEPS Results using AllStages/Channels or only the >30 nm Ones

Thepercentage of ELPI> 30nm and EEPS> 30 nm compar-

ing to ELPI and EEPS is presented in Figure 6 for all experimen-tal points. Upstream DPF, the average ELPI> 30 nm percentage

using all experimental points (steady speeds and NEDC tests) is

65% while the EEPS>30 nm average percentage is 93%. The

upstream points are quite repeatable, as the relative standard de-

viation (RSD) of these points are 14% in the case of ELPI and

7% in the case of EEPS. These percentages indicate that ELPI

measures much more very small particles than EEPS.

Downstream DPF, the average percentage ELPI>30 nm is

the same as in thecaseof upstream DPF (65%). However, a very

important data scattering can be observed: the RSD is 47% in

this last case. No particles are measured in the ELPI stage with

cut diameter 30 nm percentage of 100%. Thispercentage is verylow (reaching only 4% in one case) in the case

of other experimental points, as almost all particles measured are

found in the stage with cut diameter



PARTICLE NUMBER MEASURED BY EEPS, CPC, AND ELPI 983

FIG. 6. Percentage of ELPI>30 nm and EEPS >30 nm comparing to ELPI and EEPS for the steady speeds of 50 and 100 km/h and NEDC tests for the different

DPFs used. Experiments upstream and downstream DPF; BA: blank air experiments.

The average EEPS> 30 nm percentage is much lower down-stream than upstream DPF: only 35% against 92%. However,

the RSD is much higher than upstream DPF: 77% against 7%

upstream DPF. Figure 6 shows that, contrary to ELPI, EEPS

always determine some very fine particles, as the EEPS>30

percentage is never 100%.

Figure 6 shows that, for blank measurements, the percentage

of ELPI>30 nm is always 100%, because the particle number of

the ELPI stage with cut diametr 30 nm, as the EEPS>30 nm

percentage is very low, 01.5%, because almost all particles

measured by this instrument in the case of blank measurements

are found to be less than 30 nm.

CONCLUSIONS

CPC, ELPI, andEEPSwere used forthe exhaust particle num-

berdetermination of a Diesel engine. Upstream and downstream

DPF, there is a quite good agreementfor thetotal particle number

of steadyspeeds andNEDC determined by thethreeinstruments;

however, the order CPC> ELPI> EEPS is generally observed,

but this difference is generally within the repeatability limits.

Downstream DPF, the particle number generally increases withDPF porosity. Nevertheless, an important data scattering down-

stream DPF and blank measurements have been observed due to

the low level of particle numbers obtained. In the case of NEDC

measurements and upstream DPF, the particle numbers versus

time determined by the three instruments are quite close to each

other and follow quite well the cycle. Downstream DPF, CPC,

and ELPI give quite similar results, but EEPS signal is generally

below its limit of detection. Upstream DPF, ELPI, and EEPS

give quite similar median diameters, although their difference

in the shape of the size distribution.

REFERENCESACEA programme on emissions of fine particles from passenger cars. Report,December 1999, www.acea.be.

Burtscher, H. (2005). Physical Characterization of Particulate Emissions from

Diesel Engines: A Review,J. Aerosol Sci. 36:896932.

Hall, D. E., Goodfellow, C. L., Heinze, P., Rickeard, D. J., Nancekievill, G.,

Martini, G., Hevesi, J., Rantanen L., Merino, P. M., Morgan, T. B. D., and

Zemroch P. J. (1998). A Study of the Size, Number and Mass Distribution

of the Automotive Particulate Emissions for European Light-Duty Vehicles,

SAE Technical Paper Series 982600.

Hinds, W. C. (1999).Aerosol Technology, J. Wiley & Sons, New York.




Johnson,T., Caldow, R.,Pocher, A.,Mirme, A.,and Kittelson,D. (2004). A New

Electrical Mobility Particle Size Spectrometer for Engine Exhaust Particle

Measurements,SAE Technical Paper Series 2004-01-1341.

Keskinen, J., Pietarinen, K., and Lehtimaki, M. (1992). Electrical Low Pressure

Impactor,J. Aerosol Sci.23:353360.

Khalek, I. A. (2000). Characterization of Particle Size Distribution of a Heavy-

Duty Diesel engine during FTP Transient Cycle Using ELPI, SAE Technical

Paper Series 2000-01-2001.

Liu, Z. G., Thrurow, E. M., Caldow, R., and Johnson, T. R. (2005). Tran-sient Performance of Diesel Particulate Filters as Measured by an Engine

Exhaust Particle Size Spectrometer, SAE Technical Paper Series 2005-01-

0185.

Maricq, M. M., Podsiadlik, D. H., and Chase, R. E., (2000). Size Distributions

of Motor Vehicle Exhaust PM: A Comparison Between ELPI and SMPS

Measurements,Aerosol Sci. Technol. 33:239260.

Mohr, M., Lehman, U., and Rutter, J. (2005). Comparison of Mass-Based and

Non-Mass Based Particle Measurement Systems for Ultra-Low Emissions

From Automotive Sources,Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:22292238.

Pui, D. Y. H., and Chen, D. (2001). Chapter 15. Direct-Reading Instruments for

Analyzing Airborne Particles. InAir Sampling Instruments. ACGIH, Cincin-

nati, OH, pp. 377414.

TSI.(2004).Model 3090EngineExhaustParticleSizer Spectrometer,Operation

and service manual, TSI Incorporated, MN, USA, 2004.

UNECE. GRPE Particle Measurement Programme. Programme overview.

(2001). http: // www.unece. org/ trans/ main/ wp29/ wp29wgs/ wp29grpe/

infpapers 42.html

Wang, S. C., and Flagan, R. C. (1990). Scanning Electrical Mobility Spectrom-

eter,Aerosol Sci. Technol. 13:230240.

Willeke, K., and Baron, P. A. (1993). Aerosol Measurement, Principles, Tech-

niques and Applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Witze, P. O., Chase, R. E., Maricq, M. M., Podsiadlik, D. H., and Xu, N. (2004).

Time-Resolved Merasurementof ExhaustPM forFTP-75:Comparisonof LII,

ELPI and TEOM Techniques,SAE Technical Paper Series 2004-01-0964.

Zervas, E., Dorlhene, P., Daviau, R., and Dionnet, B. (2004). Repeatability

of Fine Particle Measurement on Diesel and Gasoline Exhaust Gas, SAE

Technical Paper Series 2004-01-1983.

Zervas, E., Dorlhene, P., Forti, L., Perrin, C., Momique, J. C., Monier, R., Ing,

H., and Lopez, B. (2005). Inter-Laboratory Test of Exhaust PM Using ELPI,

Aerosol Science and Technology 39:333346.

Zervas, E., Dorlhene, P., Momique, J. C., Monier, R., Forti, L., Pasquereau,

M., Ing, H., and Lopez, B. (2006). Inter-Laboratory Test of Exhaust Particle

Number Measurement Using CPC, Submitted to Energy and Fuels.

2006_aerosol-sci.-technol._zervas-e._comparison-of-exhaust-particle-number-measured-by-eeps,-cpc,-and-elpi.pdf...

Documents